Well sure, if you're blindly optimistic, you'll have problems.
The thing about optimism is that if you believe there is a solution, you'll keep working until you find it. If you're pessimistic, you're more likely to give up if there solution isn't obvious. Successful people are often optimistic because it's useful.
Don't assume that everything will work out, assume that there are solutions to every problem you face. Even when there aren't solutions, searching gives far more meaning to life than complacency.
There's certainly value in stoicism, but I think optimism results in the best quality of life. Which you choose should be based on your personality and what brings you satisfaction (contentedness vs achievement).
The thing about optimism is that if you believe there is a solution, you'll keep working until you find it. If you're pessimistic, you're more likely to give up if there solution isn't obvious. Successful people are often optimistic because it's useful.
By now many in the HN crowd have likely spotted the survivorship bias here. Sometimes optimistic people will keep working toward a solution to a problem until they find it, even if no actual solution can ever exist. Those are the optimistic failures you never hear about.
Likewise, sometimes pessimists are rightfully pessimistic about something that has no solution, and end up moving on much sooner to something better. You rarely hear about that either.
It doesn’t matter whether you are optimistic or pessimistic, what’s important is to be optimistic or pessimistic for the correct reasons.
Those are the optimistic failures you never hear about.
To be fair, you hear about that exact scenario constantly on HN. It's a common topic here. I've been reading stories about it here for the better part of a decade now. Pretty much every thread that touches on success, failure and survivor bias end up with discussions covering the issue of entrepreneurial blindness due to eg over-confidence or over-optimism.
You also frequently see entire threads dedicated to the subject, spawned from articles posted by entrepreneurs that put themselves through blind optimism scenarios and then go on to warn against it. Knowing when to throw in the towel, when to stop trying to pivot, and so on, are common themes with founders. You'll run across some really good discussions on the subject here over time.
How many stories have we seen of failed startups after years of optimism? Sometimes the cost of that optimism for the founder was disturbingly high.
I have wasted multiple years trying to find solutions to software problems (e.g. when working with third party systems like browsers) that either were not solvable or that I lacked the skills to solve. I have had some wins too, but often I should have given up far earlier...
Giving up is better than people give it credit for. You can waste a lot of time on hopeless solutions. Knowing when to give up and try something else, something that's a better use of your time, is valuable. There's nothing wrong with giving up when something's hard so long as you don't stop working entirely. There's a healthy way to be pessimistic and an unhealthy way to be optimistic.
To the best of your available ability, rip every idea to shreds, but fairly; and know that there's something productive you could be doing, and be optimistic that you'll find it.
That's the signature blend I try to go for; works out OK for me.
Yep. Some call the affliction "being a fool," but there is nuance in whether the cognitive dissonance is dishonest about things one can reasonably attempt to change or not seeing things far beyond anyone's power.
Comments
Well sure, if you're blindly optimistic, you'll have problems.
The thing about optimism is that if you believe there is a solution, you'll keep working until you find it. If you're pessimistic, you're more likely to give up if there solution isn't obvious. Successful people are often optimistic because it's useful.
Don't assume that everything will work out, assume that there are solutions to every problem you face. Even when there aren't solutions, searching gives far more meaning to life than complacency.
There's certainly value in stoicism, but I think optimism results in the best quality of life. Which you choose should be based on your personality and what brings you satisfaction (contentedness vs achievement).
By now many in the HN crowd have likely spotted the survivorship bias here. Sometimes optimistic people will keep working toward a solution to a problem until they find it, even if no actual solution can ever exist. Those are the optimistic failures you never hear about.
Likewise, sometimes pessimists are rightfully pessimistic about something that has no solution, and end up moving on much sooner to something better. You rarely hear about that either.
It doesn’t matter whether you are optimistic or pessimistic, what’s important is to be optimistic or pessimistic for the correct reasons.
To be fair, you hear about that exact scenario constantly on HN. It's a common topic here. I've been reading stories about it here for the better part of a decade now. Pretty much every thread that touches on success, failure and survivor bias end up with discussions covering the issue of entrepreneurial blindness due to eg over-confidence or over-optimism.
You also frequently see entire threads dedicated to the subject, spawned from articles posted by entrepreneurs that put themselves through blind optimism scenarios and then go on to warn against it. Knowing when to throw in the towel, when to stop trying to pivot, and so on, are common themes with founders. You'll run across some really good discussions on the subject here over time.
It's a balance.
How many stories have we seen of failed startups after years of optimism? Sometimes the cost of that optimism for the founder was disturbingly high.
I have wasted multiple years trying to find solutions to software problems (e.g. when working with third party systems like browsers) that either were not solvable or that I lacked the skills to solve. I have had some wins too, but often I should have given up far earlier...
Giving up is better than people give it credit for. You can waste a lot of time on hopeless solutions. Knowing when to give up and try something else, something that's a better use of your time, is valuable. There's nothing wrong with giving up when something's hard so long as you don't stop working entirely. There's a healthy way to be pessimistic and an unhealthy way to be optimistic.
I don’t think being realistic is incompatible with being optimistic.
To the best of your available ability, rip every idea to shreds, but fairly; and know that there's something productive you could be doing, and be optimistic that you'll find it.
That's the signature blend I try to go for; works out OK for me.
Yep. Some call the affliction "being a fool," but there is nuance in whether the cognitive dissonance is dishonest about things one can reasonably attempt to change or not seeing things far beyond anyone's power.