The easiest distinction is being publicly optimistic and privately pessimistic. It seems "two faced" but it's not let me explain. Being privately pessimistic h

The easiest distinction is being publicly optimistic and privately pessimistic. It seems "two faced" but it's not let me explain. Being privately pessimistic has huge benefits, listed in the article and on other comments. Your planning becomes more effective, you're less starry-eyed with what actions you are actually taking. You become a foundation for those around you. But being publicly pessimistic does not have the same benefits. While it's true you can gain a lot of fame/money by being pessimistic on social media, it's also internally destructive. You stop believing in yourself and those around you. It's the very reason why so many "critics" (I put this in quotations because 99.9% don't have any sort of standards) fail to be able to produce anything noteworthy in the fields they obsess over. They just become this sort of endless monotony of could've would've should've but projected onto others. Everyone knows a bunch of people like this, talented but they spend most of their time being so publicly pessimistic about whatever the subject is. Some workplaces are so toxic because the "decision maker" is nothing but a public pessimist. It's so important to recognize what you are putting out into the world through your voice/words, and what is really happening when you are being publicly pessimistic. Are you actually criticizing for improvement, or are you creating a rift in a community? Sounds dramatic but this is what happens in a lot of open source communities, public pessimism becomes the norm because it's easier than criticism you are a part of fixing.