4 ms·

Currently reading "Learned Optimism", and some thoughts on that book: A causal explanation for failure like "I am stupid" is pessimistic and hopeless, because

by 6ren 15y ago

Currently reading "Learned Optimism", and some thoughts on that book: A causal explanation for failure like "I am stupid" is pessimistic and hopeless, because it is both permanent (stupidity doesn't change) and universal (it affects everything you do, and is not confined to the specific thing you failed at nor even to the type of that task). A belief in this causal explanation leads you to believe that next time you attempt this task, you will also fail (because the reason for failure - stupidity - is still there); and that if you attempt any other task requiring intelligence you will will also fail (because stupidity undermines all of them). In contrast, a causal explanation like "I wasn't trying hard" is optimistic and hopeful, because it is not permanent (you can try harder) and it's confined to that particular attempt (it's not about an unchangeable trait, but a one-off). It seems to me that hope and optimism, when personal (about yourself), really put the responsibility on you. They blame you - but because it's in a way you can do something about, they are energizing. Note: the book also says that blaming external circumstances and other people, instead of yourself, is an "optimistic" causal explanation - but "hopeful" is only the other two, non-permanence and non-universal. It also expresses misgivings about the irresponsibility of blaming external factors. singlepage: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/magazine/what-if-the-secret-to-success-is-failure.html?hp=&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/magazine/what-if-the-secre...

noonespecial 15y ago
I prefer "I didn'd know enough". I 'm not a slacker who doesn't try or a simpleton who can't learn, I just didn't have all the facts this time around. I will next time.
- jQueryIsAwesome 15y ago
  In that order of ideas your nickname should be: "currentlynoonespecial"
  - cypherpunks01 15y ago
    jQueryIsAwesomeForNow
    - saraid216 15y ago
      But only for now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8uaAJFnnDU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8uaAJFnnDU
- epo 15y ago
  Is this something you have said to yourself repeatedly or a pre-prepared cop-out for the next time you fail?
  - noonespecial 15y ago
    I say it to myself precisely to avoid "copping out" or being discouraged. A reminder that there are things to learn from each failure. Kind of like fear.. the mind-killer.. little death, yadda yadda.
- 6ren 15y ago
  They're just examples. "Not having all the facts that time" is also a hopeful and optimistic one, because it is non-permanent (you can get more facts) and specific to the situation (implicitly, it only comments on facts for that specific task, on that specific occasion). Note that restating "I wasn't trying hard" as "I'm a slacker" makes it permanent (being a slacker isn't a one-off thing) and universal (being a slacker is an abiding trait, someone who doesn't try at anything; it's not specific to a particular task). One could claim this is just arguing semantics; but these different words do express different causal explanations. People tend to see patterns (perhaps especially programmers); so that if a person claimed they "weren't trying" a few times, we would tend to generalize that into an abiding trait, or even an identity, such as being "a slacker". I think this is interesting, because it illustrates a switching point between optimism and pessimism: you could interpret those few times as isolated incidents due to circumstances ("confining them to their facts"); or you could infer a regularity. Of course, the problem of pessimism is clearer when more extreme, e.g. generalizing a single instance into a universal rule. BTW: according to the book it's not as simple as optimists being cognitively deficient at seeing patterns: for good events, an optimistic and hopeful approach is to see the pattern. While this is certainly convenient and self-serving, it's worth noting that doing it the other way (i.e. minimizing good event as one-offs and seeing a pattern in bad events) is also self-serving - just in a self-defeating way. The book makes a compelling and nuanced argument that it's better to err on the side of optimism (unless there are serious risks involved in failure).

by 6ren 15y ago

noonespecial 15y ago

I prefer "I didn'd know enough". I 'm not a slacker who doesn't try or a simpleton who can't learn, I just didn't have all the facts this time around. I will next time.

jQueryIsAwesome 15y ago
In that order of ideas your nickname should be: "currentlynoonespecial"
- cypherpunks01 15y ago
  jQueryIsAwesomeForNow
  - saraid216 15y ago
    But only for now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8uaAJFnnDU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8uaAJFnnDU
epo 15y ago
Is this something you have said to yourself repeatedly or a pre-prepared cop-out for the next time you fail?
- noonespecial 15y ago
  I say it to myself precisely to avoid "copping out" or being discouraged. A reminder that there are things to learn from each failure. Kind of like fear.. the mind-killer.. little death, yadda yadda.
6ren 15y ago
They're just examples. "Not having all the facts that time" is also a hopeful and optimistic one, because it is non-permanent (you can get more facts) and specific to the situation (implicitly, it only comments on facts for that specific task, on that specific occasion). Note that restating "I wasn't trying hard" as "I'm a slacker" makes it permanent (being a slacker isn't a one-off thing) and universal (being a slacker is an abiding trait, someone who doesn't try at anything; it's not specific to a particular task). One could claim this is just arguing semantics; but these different words do express different causal explanations. People tend to see patterns (perhaps especially programmers); so that if a person claimed they "weren't trying" a few times, we would tend to generalize that into an abiding trait, or even an identity, such as being "a slacker". I think this is interesting, because it illustrates a switching point between optimism and pessimism: you could interpret those few times as isolated incidents due to circumstances ("confining them to their facts"); or you could infer a regularity. Of course, the problem of pessimism is clearer when more extreme, e.g. generalizing a single instance into a universal rule. BTW: according to the book it's not as simple as optimists being cognitively deficient at seeing patterns: for good events, an optimistic and hopeful approach is to see the pattern. While this is certainly convenient and self-serving, it's worth noting that doing it the other way (i.e. minimizing good event as one-offs and seeing a pattern in bad events) is also self-serving - just in a self-defeating way. The book makes a compelling and nuanced argument that it's better to err on the side of optimism (unless there are serious risks involved in failure).