3 ms·

>Pessimists sound smart. Optimists make money. The entire piece is reiterating stereotypical VC twitter content but the most obvious point is that very few opt

>Pessimists sound smart. Optimists make money. The entire piece is reiterating stereotypical VC twitter content but the most obvious point is that very few optimists make money. Most optimists will lose money. The reason that this doesn't matter in technology circles is because the overwhelming majority of tech folks hail from upper middle class households so the people who risk a lot can afford it and it's not that big of a deal if they crash. Even if you believe the premise of the article about the future of technology, which is itself kind of a bad Whig history but that aside for a second, most people in general have no good reason to think that they're the ones to be able to capitalize on it. Pessimism really isn't the right word here, Conservatism is more apt. And many people are conservative in particular at the individual level for very good reasons, because they cannot afford to play high risk games.

woojoo666 5y ago
I do think their point reflects well in social media though. You'll see somebody propose an idea in a comment or post, and seemingly everybody will try to take it down with some counterargument. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, all ideas need temperment, but I also think to a certain degree people are just doing it to sound smart. In fact often the better the idea, the more people try to take it down. Though this perhaps falls more under contrarianism than pessimism
gumby 5y ago
> very few optimists make money I think the point is: 1. only optimists make money 2. though most optimists lose it 3. pessimists manage loss, but in exchange forego gain I am dubious about broad statements (like the one I just made above) but perhaps it is broadly true.
bsuvc 5y ago
> but the most obvious point is that very few optimists make money. Most optimists will lose money. That sounds like something a pessimist would say ;)
tablespoon 5y ago
> The entire piece is reiterating stereotypical VC twitter content but the most obvious point is that very few optimists make money. Most optimists will lose money. That raises interesting question: how many of these condemnations of "pessimism" are by salesmen (like VCs) who want their jobs to be easier (or their lackeys)? It's easier to sell to an optimist than a pessimist, because an optimist literally buys your pitch. For instance, the VCs don't want "pessimists" criticizing "web3" and undermining their pitch, they want optimists to pour their money and effort into it (and their pockets).
indymike 5y ago
> And many people are conservative in particular at the individual level for very good reasons, because they cannot afford to play high risk games. I became wealthy (I don't consider myself rich, but just doin' okay) when I realized that I was so poor that I had nothing to lose, and everything to gain. I don't think the attitude of pessimism or optimism has anything to do with success... You have to be somewhat good at being optimistic about the right things and pessimistic about the right things... all at the right time. You have to see opportunity, navigate risk and most importantly... actually go for it. The go for it part is super hard because there is great uncertainty on the journey.
- civilized 5y ago
  It seems like "be intelligent and lucky" is the life advice that really works the best. Too bad it's not under your control.
- gverrilla 5y ago
  Non-native-speaker: I always thought 'rich' and 'wealthy' had the same meaning - was I mistaken?
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Rich and wealthy have slightly different meanings. One common usage is the level of money. Chris Rock had a joke that "[Professional Athlete] is rich. The guy who signs his checks [and thus owns the team] is wealthy." Sorry to ruin the joke with additional text, but I'm erroring on the side of clarity. The other main usage would be that "rich" describes how you can spend your money on possessions. "Wealthy" describes the degree to which your assets are generating income. So someone who makes a large sum of money a year might be rich (they own a Lamborghini and a house, and take fancy vacations) or wealthy (they have all that money in stocks and can retire tomorrow.) With this usage, wealthy people are often also rich.
whiddershins 5y ago
I don’t understand this ‘wealthy people can take the risk’ meme. It applies to fine artists, but startups often have some sort of funding. If you have funding, your personal risk is mitigated quite a bit. I don’t see why you would have to be independently wealthy to do a startup. If you do a side project or consulting work, you can generally get started in your free time and migrate to it full time when it is already profitable. Still don’t see how this is an unacceptable level of risk. If you don’t have the ability to code or raise money, then you wouldn’t be even in the discussion about Silicon Valley optimism. So … Where does this idea come from?
civilized 5y ago
VCs are also sort of pessimists aren't they? They invest in so many companies because they expect almost none of them to pay off.
whatever1 5y ago
Optimists are natural gamblers. Some times gambles pay off, but most often they don't.

woojoo666 5y ago

I do think their point reflects well in social media though. You'll see somebody propose an idea in a comment or post, and seemingly everybody will try to take it down with some counterargument. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, all ideas need temperment, but I also think to a certain degree people are just doing it to sound smart. In fact often the better the idea, the more people try to take it down. Though this perhaps falls more under contrarianism than pessimism

gumby 5y ago

> very few optimists make money I think the point is: 1. only optimists make money 2. though most optimists lose it 3. pessimists manage loss, but in exchange forego gain I am dubious about broad statements (like the one I just made above) but perhaps it is broadly true.

bsuvc 5y ago

> but the most obvious point is that very few optimists make money. Most optimists will lose money. That sounds like something a pessimist would say ;)

tablespoon 5y ago

> The entire piece is reiterating stereotypical VC twitter content but the most obvious point is that very few optimists make money. Most optimists will lose money. That raises interesting question: how many of these condemnations of "pessimism" are by salesmen (like VCs) who want their jobs to be easier (or their lackeys)? It's easier to sell to an optimist than a pessimist, because an optimist literally buys your pitch. For instance, the VCs don't want "pessimists" criticizing "web3" and undermining their pitch, they want optimists to pour their money and effort into it (and their pockets).

indymike 5y ago

> And many people are conservative in particular at the individual level for very good reasons, because they cannot afford to play high risk games. I became wealthy (I don't consider myself rich, but just doin' okay) when I realized that I was so poor that I had nothing to lose, and everything to gain. I don't think the attitude of pessimism or optimism has anything to do with success... You have to be somewhat good at being optimistic about the right things and pessimistic about the right things... all at the right time. You have to see opportunity, navigate risk and most importantly... actually go for it. The go for it part is super hard because there is great uncertainty on the journey.

civilized 5y ago
It seems like "be intelligent and lucky" is the life advice that really works the best. Too bad it's not under your control.
gverrilla 5y ago
Non-native-speaker: I always thought 'rich' and 'wealthy' had the same meaning - was I mistaken?
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Rich and wealthy have slightly different meanings. One common usage is the level of money. Chris Rock had a joke that "[Professional Athlete] is rich. The guy who signs his checks [and thus owns the team] is wealthy." Sorry to ruin the joke with additional text, but I'm erroring on the side of clarity. The other main usage would be that "rich" describes how you can spend your money on possessions. "Wealthy" describes the degree to which your assets are generating income. So someone who makes a large sum of money a year might be rich (they own a Lamborghini and a house, and take fancy vacations) or wealthy (they have all that money in stocks and can retire tomorrow.) With this usage, wealthy people are often also rich.

whiddershins 5y ago

I don’t understand this ‘wealthy people can take the risk’ meme. It applies to fine artists, but startups often have some sort of funding. If you have funding, your personal risk is mitigated quite a bit. I don’t see why you would have to be independently wealthy to do a startup. If you do a side project or consulting work, you can generally get started in your free time and migrate to it full time when it is already profitable. Still don’t see how this is an unacceptable level of risk. If you don’t have the ability to code or raise money, then you wouldn’t be even in the discussion about Silicon Valley optimism. So … Where does this idea come from?

civilized 5y ago

VCs are also sort of pessimists aren't they? They invest in so many companies because they expect almost none of them to pay off.

whatever1 5y ago

Optimists are natural gamblers. Some times gambles pay off, but most often they don't.