This feels like a "terrorist/freedom-fighter" thing and so is effectively saying nothing.
Like, Bill Gates accepts climate change is happening, that we should do something to avert the problems, and thinks that we can do that as a species. He thinks that renewables and EVs etc. will all help, but aren't enough and we should look for newer solutions. He has invested in multiple different solutions, presumably because he thinks some will be needed but not all will work.
So he's a pessimist, pessimist, optimist, optimist, pessimist, optimist, optimist/pessimist. And that's one person on one idea.
I agree with some of his opinions and methods, but disagree with others. I don't mind him investing in nuclear things, I just wish he'd tone down his 'pessimism' about renewables when pitching them because overall I think that is unhelpful, untrue and unnecessary.
He gets many of his downer talking points from Vaclav Smil, who is a grumpy pessimist about both the science and politics of climate change and I think personifies the "Pessimism sounds smart. Optimism sounds dumb" idea.
But does that mean "pessimism" is bad in the abstract? I don't think so.
Believing climate change is happening isn’t pessimism though, neither are almost any of the other things you mentioned. Thinking a particular solution won’t work isn’t pessimism. Thinking all solutions won’t work or humans just aren’t capable of coming up with a solution therefore we shouldn’t bother trying is. What you seem to describing is what the author is railing against that is blind optimism.
> Bill Gates accepts climate change is happening, that we should do something to avert the problems, and thinks that we can do that as a species. He thinks that renewables and EVs etc. will all help, but aren't enough and we should look for newer solutions. He has invested in multiple different solutions, presumably because he thinks some will be needed but not all will work.
>
> So he's a pessimist, pessimist, optimist, optimist, pessimist, optimist, optimist/pessimist. And that's one person on one idea.
That's a really interesting way to slice and dice it. When I read your first few sentences that's not how I interpreted it at all.
I got fact, fact, optimist. Optimist, fact. Fact, optimist, optimist.
But I'm not convinced that's a better way to go about it. What is likely needed is each of those chunks to be taken into context and when I look it at that, it's really "here is a problem and a solution to move things forward." To me that's optimistic. If it were pessimistic, I'd expect it to be "here is a problem and there's nothing we can do about it."
I think that the difference in perspectives is seeing pessimism/optimism as just a mood valance. In a sense, it takes some pessimism to even perceive that problems exist. Purified optimism would see every kind of evidence as good and interesting and every possible outcome as rosy.
These are spectra, and neither extreme is "correct" and rooted in objective reality. Pessimism/optimism can be decoupled from other axes like ignorance/knowledge, acceptance/denial, awareness/delusion, etc. Assuming "climate change is happening" as fact, someone might exhibit climate change denial for any number of reasons. These are just illustrative sketches, not an effort to build some taxonomy of beliefs:
Ignorance: someone may be unable to comprehend the complicated climate system concepts, statistical concepts, nor noisy data.
Cynical pessimism: someone may believe it is happening and unavoidable, but they want to minimize their own inconvenience or discomfort prior to the end game.
Blind optimism: someone may just harbor a profound faith that things will work out in the end; to them, the people trying to address climate change seem like toxic pessimists who harbor delusions of grandeur!
> This feels like a "terrorist/freedom-fighter" thing
Exactly. The author is stapling all the good qualities onto optimism and all the bad ones onto pessimism so that he can declare one good and the other bad.
I'm optimistic we can have a more meaningful conversation about optimism and pessimism if we forget this article.
Optimism usually sounds dumb because most people don't justify it well. It winds up sounding like marketing. All promise, no substance. A pessimist will generally provide right/wrong but specific reasons why it won't work out.
So, I still don't like Gates for various historical reasons.
Even some of his climate stuff annoys me.
But, it's highly likely that if you ranked the whole human race on how much they'd done to reduce climate change, he may well be at the top.
So if it's about "doing his share" then he's probably doing okay.
But regardless, I don't want people to stop flying, I want them to stop releasing fossil C02 in the air because it's inefficient. Inefficiencies on an individual scale don't matter, inefficiencies on a civilization wide scale add up quickly.
I don't see how flying, or doing any other rich person thing, reduces his credibility. Unless you believe dealing with climate change is going to make us all poorer, which it isn't.
If you're really all about hating rich people, then there's lots of "climate justice" projects aiming to help poor people and carbon taxes that replace regressive taxes would be a good thing to champion.
Do as you preach, and others will follow. Flying your private jet to a conference, and tell Johnny Average that he shouldn't use his car to drive to his workplace is a shitty thing to do.
What you or I, or even Gates do in our personal lives has absolutely no effect on climate change.
Solutions or failures happen in other contexts. Gates does some real work in those.
The whole "I must recycle all my plastic bags or the planet will die" mentality is, to me, a weird form of delusion of grandeur. Seeing past that can be both freeing and depressing :)
This is amazing and really goes to show the dude, no matter how good his intentions may be, is a hypocrite. One rule for him, different rules for everyone else.
This is the dumbest take on Climate Change and I can't believe the HN crowd falls for it.
Thought Experiment:
Say, Bill Gates (and other VIPs) is respected enough that he can convert 5 Skeptics out a 100 Climate Deniers. So, In order for the successful climate actions Bill Gates has to change the minds of say 10,000 leaders in various positions across the world. That means he effectively has to meet 200,000 people across the globe.
If Climate Change is important, and you want quick action, do you want Bill Gates (and others) to
a) jet around the globe and try to convince 200,000 people in 5 years
or
b) Bicycle around the globe and try to convince 200,000 people in 50 years
Only a moron would suggest (b). I expect TikTokers and Redditors to pick option (b) as they are easily swayed by "Hurr Durr, Bill Gates Jets" arguments.
That and he only tried to join in on climate change way after it was politically convenient and he was trying to build his image. As well he has said some poor ideas about climate change solutions when he was first stepping his toes in the water. Which is fine if people don't hold onto your words - as someone with a fair bit of power its detrimental to other initiatives.
Since then I still don't know which of his initiatives have shown a high probability of success.
I agree that it seems empty, since it's more about a person than the methods.
I think that pessimism and optimism are human traits, and have more to do with our own fallible irrational view of the world, which can easily be changed depending on the current cultural perception of our future. It's so easy to bias.
When it comes to predictions, it should revolve around the scientific method. Statistics derived from data, and that probability which itself does not know the concept of optimism or pessimism, is what should be a guide for further research or decisions.
The problem is that we ourselves also decide what to investigate to begin with. Thus our tools will only ever be as good as we are ourselves. Willingness to learn, change opinions, let go of ego and prejudice, the path forward really starts with giving everyone, children and adults, time to learn. But we are in such a society where our values are often placed differently and we are in such a rush.
So I think it really starts with, how do we cultivate a good environment now? And not whether the future is pessimistic or optimistic.
Optimism and Pessimism are viewed very differently in different Countries (Germany vs USA) and even Regions (Silicon Valley vs idk Utah).
Apart from that I think the article is mostly wrong. To make progress you need agency and self-confidence. The effects of Optimism and Pessimism are very context-dependent.
Just one example: A very driven and confident pessimist might be much more motivated to find a solution for Climate Change, because he knows for sure otherwise Earth is Doomed.
While a very driven and confident optimist in Politics might reduce Carbon Tax, because he knows for sure that Technology Companies will find solutions for Climate Change and they'll find it faster if they have more money.
The article talks not about "personal" optimism/pessimism, but about a social one. It compares an optimistic society with a pessimistic one. What this choice brings to a society?
> A very driven and confident pessimist might be much more motivated to find a solution for Climate Change, because he knows for sure otherwise Earth is Doomed.
Not so driven pessimists might tell that it is a waste of time, because Earth is Doomed.
Yes. There is a but we must try anyway and try as hard as we can type of pessimist that refuses to give into nihilism. I used to be this type of pessimist about the future of technologic warfare before I found reasons for hope.
My own personal experience is that every single time I try to be positive about changing anything for the better in any way, the vast majority of humans I voice any "optimism" to are hell-bent on beating that "naïvety" out of me. The problem I see is that humanity as a whole has much of what we need to build a Utopia for all, but almost nobody actually wants a better world for anyone let alone for everyone. All the technology in the world does only harm if the only thing people want to do with it is "weaponize" it in the service of greed and power-lust. There's nothing "amazing" or "transformative" about repeating the same old mistakes humanity's been guilty of since pretty much the dawn of "civilization".
Perhaps instead of actively trying to find excuses to dissuade "optimists" from even trying, society might be better off trying to teach that supporting good ideas that benefit everyone is a good thing, not bad…
I am low energy person (at least for now - its a medical thing that perhaps will be fixed some day). When I hear "positive" people that force a change for the sake of change I know that this will probably mean that I will have to spend the last of my depleted energy resources on this naive persons dummy ideas that are not backed up by experience and insight. And this instantly changes me into pesimist that tries to test the other person if he thought it out, did due dilligence and spend his own energy first before he tries to use my. This is simply a defense mechanism that protects me from people that have aboundance of energy and do no understands that other are not like them. And most good ideas is shit - in real world only execution and timing matters.
> My own personal experience is that every single time I try to be positive about changing anything for the better in any way, the vast majority of humans I voice any "optimism" to are hell-bent on beating that "naïvety" out of me.
An optimist who insists on driving ahead without understanding the challenge he's taking on will almost always end up being a big problem for everyone.
> The problem I see is that humanity as a whole has much of what we need to build a Utopia for all...
> Perhaps instead of actively trying to find excuses to dissuade "optimists" from even trying, society might be better off trying to teach that supporting good ideas that benefit everyone is a good thing, not bad…
Lenin was an optimist who thought he and his comrades could build a "Utopia for all."
> ...but almost nobody actually wants a better world for anyone let alone for everyone....
> Perhaps instead of actively trying to find excuses to dissuade "optimists" from even trying, society might be better off trying to teach that supporting good ideas that benefit everyone is a good thing, not bad…
Come on. Pretty much everyone wants a better world for everyone, they just want different ones, and that's a difficult problem.
>The problem I see is that humanity as a whole has much of what we need to build a Utopia for all, but almost nobody actually wants a better world for anyone let alone for everyone
Care to expand about what this Utopia would look like and how it would work? Where does the resources come from to bring everyone to a first world standard of living?
My experience has definitely been the other way. Being optimistic about the future is definitely an Unpopular Opinion in my experience. To the point where I've been called a "denier" for expressing any hope at all that we can solve the problems we're facing.
My experience (possibly biased by my model) has been that it's a generational difference. Based on the fourth turning model Boomers are 'Prophets' while Millennials are 'Heroes'. No one cares if a prophet correctly predicts seven weeks of great weather if they miss the one hurricane that wipes everything out. And no one wants to hear a hero (which, let's face it, is a polite synonym for 'cannon fodder') give a realistic assessment of the odds. So this model would predict Boomers are culturally pessimistic while Millennials are culturally optimistic (both to an irrational degree at times).
Which has been my actual observation - has anyone here had corroborating or counterfactual experiences?
It's like the caricature roles in a football team.
Offense is optimists, they run to good shooting positions in case the ball comes there. Most of their running is in vain, yet they have to do it every time. They get praise if they make a goal, and if the opponent scores, it doesn't make a difference to them personally or affect their career.
Defense is pessimists, they try to prevent the opponent from scoring. They for example have to sometimes commit a tactical fault in order to prevent the opponent from getting to a dangerous position where they could score a goal. They have to guard opponent offense players, even if the ball never comes near. They are criticized if the opponent makes a goal and they don't get credit for their team's offense scoring goals.
So, one thinks a good thing might happen and tries to seize the opportunity. The other one thinks a bad thing might happen and tries to make sure it is prevented. Both are estimating an uncertain future and a lot of their work goes to waste - but only in hindsight.
Both are needed for a team to win the championships.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." -- Roosevelt
I am suprised the author has such a low opinion of optimism. After internalising Roosevelt I have actively tried to temper cynical thought when interacting with others. It's easy to throw stones and find fault but its much more powerful to be in the driving seat of change (which innately requires optimism)
(Verbatim re-posting a past comment[+] of mine that seemed to have resonated with HN folks.)
Hans Rosling[1] used to call himself a "very serious possibilist":
People often call me an optimist, because I show them the enormous progress they didn't know about. That makes me angry. I'm not an optimist. That makes me sound naive. I'm a very serious “possibilist”. That's something I made up. It means someone who neither hopes without reason, nor fears without reason, someone who constantly resists the overdramatic worldview. As a possibilist, I see all this progress, and it fills me with conviction and hope that further progress is possible. This is not optimistic. It is having a clear and reasonable idea about how things are. It is having a worldview that is constructive and useful.
• • •
In his book 'Factfulness' (definitely read it), he talks about "bad and better":
Think of the world as a premature baby in an incubator. The baby’s health status is extremely bad and her breathing, heart rate, and other important signs are tracked constantly so that changes for better or worse can quickly be seen. After a week, she is getting a lot better. On all the main measures, she is improving, but she still has to stay in the incubator because her health is still critical.
Does it make sense to say that the infant’s situation is improving? Yes. Absolutely. Does it make sense to say it is bad? Yes, absolutely. Does saying “things are improving” imply that everything is fine, and we should all relax and not worry? No, not at all. Is it helpful to have to choose between bad and improving? Definitely not. It’s both. It’s both bad and better. Better, and bad, at the same time. That is how we must think about the current state of the world.
I've considered myself an optimist for most of my life. But, starting in about 2014 I started to find myself being more of a pessimist more of the time. It got to the point in 2020 where I found myself pessimistic about pretty much everything.
You know what I noticed? It takes a lot of energy to be pessimistic and pissed off all the time.
So, instead, I'm trying to remain focused and motivated by the wrongs I would like to see made right. I'm picking problems which I think I can positively impact. And while I'm not optimistic about much of it, neither am I succumbing to a pessimistic view which leads to not taking action.
"People mistakenly see optimism as an excuse for inaction. They think that it’s pessimism that drives change, and optimism that keeps us where we are. The opposite is true. Optimists are the ones that move us forward"
Exactly, it's not binary. Some pessimism is healthy, "the ones that speak truth to power". However, complaining without offering solutions is pointless. Good on you for following up, and trying to be optimistic about some of your solutions.
Can I ask you how old you were when that happened. I think a lot of that happen organically for everyone, it just happened to you in 2014. I'd guess 25-30y old ?
Yeah, I was in the 30 -35 range in 2014. I think age had something to do with it.
But I think 2014 was when it started to become apparent that the idealist global mixing and digital revolution it was tied to, something I had pinned my optimism on, might be going in a more evil direction.
Paul Graham wrote about this, that we need to understand our current period in the context of a much longer historical timeline http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html
I've turned to optimism this year as well, after being a lifelong pessimist. I realised the same - it takes up way too much energy and I end up doing nothing.
Either not stressing all the time will make me do more, or at least I'll feel better. That's still a win for my mental health if nothing else. I'm still well aware of all the problems around me, and try to help where I can, but beyond that point I maintain some personal distance.
Just the opposite, I see empathetic, gushing, ridiculous cotton candy optimisim all over places like LinkedIn and the corporate world. Everybody Smile!
There isn't nearly enough contention, questioning, satire (notice how SNL never really goes for that) etc..
Marc Benioff spends the entirety of his time virtue signalling about how he is saving LGBT refugees from this or that, while superficially that's nice, it's ultra narcissistic PR and self aggrandization to use those people as tools for corporate branding. Nobody calls him out.
On the contrary, I see a lot of dour young people, with kind of a 'lack of faith' in the general sense, which is really odd, and I suggest maybe a new concept in the west.
When I was very young we had the 'Cold War' with nukes starring right at us and we were full of ... gumption, positivity, pride, goodwill, hope etc..
Finally - I don't think positivity/pessimism matters that that much - you have to be a 'strong believer' in some capacity to innovate, the rest is head games.
>Marc Benioff spends the entirety of his time virtue signalling about how he is saving LGBT refugees from this or that, while superficially that's nice, it's ultra narcissistic PR and self aggrandization to use those people as tools for corporate branding. Nobody calls him out.
I don't think this sort of cynicism about LGBT rights activism is helpful. If we want to make progress in this area, we need support from all sectors of society. That definitely includes people who aren't saints and who don't act from wholly disinterested and pure motives. Whatever his motives (and I can't read his mind – can you?), Marc Benioff did something substantial to support LGBT rights when many other CEOs did not.
There's no objective content to the accusation of "virtue signalling". It's a zero-effort means of objecting to whatever kind of activism someone doesn't like. Instead of making a substantive criticism of the activism itself, just jump to uncharitable conclusions about the person's inner motivations.
Hollow and performative support for an issues that services only to engender the supporter with social points.
Supporting Ukraine doesn't bring anyone brownie points because it's not so much a moral position.
Corporations 'supporting' BLM, especially with donations, which is a totally corrupt charity - this is a problem. Corporations even throwing up the word 'equity' is a bit of a start, but not really there. Corporations making money off of it (Nike) is evil. Corporations doing something thoughtful and material about it, now that's not 'virtue signalling'. If they want to humble-brag about it in some non aggrandising way, then that's fine but it should not be part of company branding.
Readit News
Like, Bill Gates accepts climate change is happening, that we should do something to avert the problems, and thinks that we can do that as a species. He thinks that renewables and EVs etc. will all help, but aren't enough and we should look for newer solutions. He has invested in multiple different solutions, presumably because he thinks some will be needed but not all will work.
So he's a pessimist, pessimist, optimist, optimist, pessimist, optimist, optimist/pessimist. And that's one person on one idea.
I agree with some of his opinions and methods, but disagree with others. I don't mind him investing in nuclear things, I just wish he'd tone down his 'pessimism' about renewables when pitching them because overall I think that is unhelpful, untrue and unnecessary.
He gets many of his downer talking points from Vaclav Smil, who is a grumpy pessimist about both the science and politics of climate change and I think personifies the "Pessimism sounds smart. Optimism sounds dumb" idea.
But does that mean "pessimism" is bad in the abstract? I don't think so.
A very important part of solving problems is choosing the right problems. It doesn't help to be optimistic about something that's not going to work.
Thinking a priori that it’s not going to work, here we have the true definition of a pessimist.
That's a really interesting way to slice and dice it. When I read your first few sentences that's not how I interpreted it at all.
I got fact, fact, optimist. Optimist, fact. Fact, optimist, optimist.
But I'm not convinced that's a better way to go about it. What is likely needed is each of those chunks to be taken into context and when I look it at that, it's really "here is a problem and a solution to move things forward." To me that's optimistic. If it were pessimistic, I'd expect it to be "here is a problem and there's nothing we can do about it."
These are spectra, and neither extreme is "correct" and rooted in objective reality. Pessimism/optimism can be decoupled from other axes like ignorance/knowledge, acceptance/denial, awareness/delusion, etc. Assuming "climate change is happening" as fact, someone might exhibit climate change denial for any number of reasons. These are just illustrative sketches, not an effort to build some taxonomy of beliefs:
Ignorance: someone may be unable to comprehend the complicated climate system concepts, statistical concepts, nor noisy data.
Cynical pessimism: someone may believe it is happening and unavoidable, but they want to minimize their own inconvenience or discomfort prior to the end game.
Blind optimism: someone may just harbor a profound faith that things will work out in the end; to them, the people trying to address climate change seem like toxic pessimists who harbor delusions of grandeur!
Exactly. The author is stapling all the good qualities onto optimism and all the bad ones onto pessimism so that he can declare one good and the other bad.
I'm optimistic we can have a more meaningful conversation about optimism and pessimism if we forget this article.
Hard to take Gates seriously on climate change. Imagine everyone was living like this.
Even some of his climate stuff annoys me.
But, it's highly likely that if you ranked the whole human race on how much they'd done to reduce climate change, he may well be at the top.
So if it's about "doing his share" then he's probably doing okay.
But regardless, I don't want people to stop flying, I want them to stop releasing fossil C02 in the air because it's inefficient. Inefficiencies on an individual scale don't matter, inefficiencies on a civilization wide scale add up quickly.
I don't see how flying, or doing any other rich person thing, reduces his credibility. Unless you believe dealing with climate change is going to make us all poorer, which it isn't.
If you're really all about hating rich people, then there's lots of "climate justice" projects aiming to help poor people and carbon taxes that replace regressive taxes would be a good thing to champion.
Do as you preach, and others will follow. Flying your private jet to a conference, and tell Johnny Average that he shouldn't use his car to drive to his workplace is a shitty thing to do.
And he's far from being the only one doing that.
Solutions or failures happen in other contexts. Gates does some real work in those.
The whole "I must recycle all my plastic bags or the planet will die" mentality is, to me, a weird form of delusion of grandeur. Seeing past that can be both freeing and depressing :)
Thought Experiment:
Say, Bill Gates (and other VIPs) is respected enough that he can convert 5 Skeptics out a 100 Climate Deniers. So, In order for the successful climate actions Bill Gates has to change the minds of say 10,000 leaders in various positions across the world. That means he effectively has to meet 200,000 people across the globe.
If Climate Change is important, and you want quick action, do you want Bill Gates (and others) to
a) jet around the globe and try to convince 200,000 people in 5 years
or
b) Bicycle around the globe and try to convince 200,000 people in 50 years
Only a moron would suggest (b). I expect TikTokers and Redditors to pick option (b) as they are easily swayed by "Hurr Durr, Bill Gates Jets" arguments.
Since then I still don't know which of his initiatives have shown a high probability of success.
I think that pessimism and optimism are human traits, and have more to do with our own fallible irrational view of the world, which can easily be changed depending on the current cultural perception of our future. It's so easy to bias.
When it comes to predictions, it should revolve around the scientific method. Statistics derived from data, and that probability which itself does not know the concept of optimism or pessimism, is what should be a guide for further research or decisions.
The problem is that we ourselves also decide what to investigate to begin with. Thus our tools will only ever be as good as we are ourselves. Willingness to learn, change opinions, let go of ego and prejudice, the path forward really starts with giving everyone, children and adults, time to learn. But we are in such a society where our values are often placed differently and we are in such a rush.
So I think it really starts with, how do we cultivate a good environment now? And not whether the future is pessimistic or optimistic.
I don't see any of your example indicating a pessimism.
Pessimism != < the most optimistic
Apart from that I think the article is mostly wrong. To make progress you need agency and self-confidence. The effects of Optimism and Pessimism are very context-dependent.
Just one example: A very driven and confident pessimist might be much more motivated to find a solution for Climate Change, because he knows for sure otherwise Earth is Doomed.
While a very driven and confident optimist in Politics might reduce Carbon Tax, because he knows for sure that Technology Companies will find solutions for Climate Change and they'll find it faster if they have more money.
> A very driven and confident pessimist might be much more motivated to find a solution for Climate Change, because he knows for sure otherwise Earth is Doomed.
Not so driven pessimists might tell that it is a waste of time, because Earth is Doomed.
or kill himself because Earth is Doomed and effectively be part of the solution.
The reason why people do things it's mostly irrelevant, it's what they do that counts.
Deleted Comment
Funny, I'd say it's quite the opposite, you aren't allowed to say anything negative or you'd be labeled as a "downer".
Everything nowadays is "amazing" and "transformative".
Perhaps instead of actively trying to find excuses to dissuade "optimists" from even trying, society might be better off trying to teach that supporting good ideas that benefit everyone is a good thing, not bad…
An optimist who insists on driving ahead without understanding the challenge he's taking on will almost always end up being a big problem for everyone.
> The problem I see is that humanity as a whole has much of what we need to build a Utopia for all...
> Perhaps instead of actively trying to find excuses to dissuade "optimists" from even trying, society might be better off trying to teach that supporting good ideas that benefit everyone is a good thing, not bad…
Lenin was an optimist who thought he and his comrades could build a "Utopia for all."
> ...but almost nobody actually wants a better world for anyone let alone for everyone....
> Perhaps instead of actively trying to find excuses to dissuade "optimists" from even trying, society might be better off trying to teach that supporting good ideas that benefit everyone is a good thing, not bad…
Come on. Pretty much everyone wants a better world for everyone, they just want different ones, and that's a difficult problem.
Care to expand about what this Utopia would look like and how it would work? Where does the resources come from to bring everyone to a first world standard of living?
It's pure speculation, but it feels much more plausible than a society wide bias towards one or the other.
Deleted Comment
Which has been my actual observation - has anyone here had corroborating or counterfactual experiences?
Offense is optimists, they run to good shooting positions in case the ball comes there. Most of their running is in vain, yet they have to do it every time. They get praise if they make a goal, and if the opponent scores, it doesn't make a difference to them personally or affect their career.
Defense is pessimists, they try to prevent the opponent from scoring. They for example have to sometimes commit a tactical fault in order to prevent the opponent from getting to a dangerous position where they could score a goal. They have to guard opponent offense players, even if the ball never comes near. They are criticized if the opponent makes a goal and they don't get credit for their team's offense scoring goals.
So, one thinks a good thing might happen and tries to seize the opportunity. The other one thinks a bad thing might happen and tries to make sure it is prevented. Both are estimating an uncertain future and a lot of their work goes to waste - but only in hindsight.
Both are needed for a team to win the championships.
I am suprised the author has such a low opinion of optimism. After internalising Roosevelt I have actively tried to temper cynical thought when interacting with others. It's easy to throw stones and find fault but its much more powerful to be in the driving seat of change (which innately requires optimism)
Hans Rosling[1] used to call himself a "very serious possibilist":
People often call me an optimist, because I show them the enormous progress they didn't know about. That makes me angry. I'm not an optimist. That makes me sound naive. I'm a very serious “possibilist”. That's something I made up. It means someone who neither hopes without reason, nor fears without reason, someone who constantly resists the overdramatic worldview. As a possibilist, I see all this progress, and it fills me with conviction and hope that further progress is possible. This is not optimistic. It is having a clear and reasonable idea about how things are. It is having a worldview that is constructive and useful.
In his book 'Factfulness' (definitely read it), he talks about "bad and better":Think of the world as a premature baby in an incubator. The baby’s health status is extremely bad and her breathing, heart rate, and other important signs are tracked constantly so that changes for better or worse can quickly be seen. After a week, she is getting a lot better. On all the main measures, she is improving, but she still has to stay in the incubator because her health is still critical.
Does it make sense to say that the infant’s situation is improving? Yes. Absolutely. Does it make sense to say it is bad? Yes, absolutely. Does saying “things are improving” imply that everything is fine, and we should all relax and not worry? No, not at all. Is it helpful to have to choose between bad and improving? Definitely not. It’s both. It’s both bad and better. Better, and bad, at the same time. That is how we must think about the current state of the world.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Rosling
[+] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29550178
The irony is I learned about it from Bill Gates’s book list recommendations years ago.
You know what I noticed? It takes a lot of energy to be pessimistic and pissed off all the time.
So, instead, I'm trying to remain focused and motivated by the wrongs I would like to see made right. I'm picking problems which I think I can positively impact. And while I'm not optimistic about much of it, neither am I succumbing to a pessimistic view which leads to not taking action.
It's not binary.
Exactly, it's not binary. Some pessimism is healthy, "the ones that speak truth to power". However, complaining without offering solutions is pointless. Good on you for following up, and trying to be optimistic about some of your solutions.
But I think 2014 was when it started to become apparent that the idealist global mixing and digital revolution it was tied to, something I had pinned my optimism on, might be going in a more evil direction.
Paul Graham wrote about this, that we need to understand our current period in the context of a much longer historical timeline http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html
Either not stressing all the time will make me do more, or at least I'll feel better. That's still a win for my mental health if nothing else. I'm still well aware of all the problems around me, and try to help where I can, but beyond that point I maintain some personal distance.
Posted my initial thoughts above
There isn't nearly enough contention, questioning, satire (notice how SNL never really goes for that) etc..
Marc Benioff spends the entirety of his time virtue signalling about how he is saving LGBT refugees from this or that, while superficially that's nice, it's ultra narcissistic PR and self aggrandization to use those people as tools for corporate branding. Nobody calls him out.
On the contrary, I see a lot of dour young people, with kind of a 'lack of faith' in the general sense, which is really odd, and I suggest maybe a new concept in the west.
When I was very young we had the 'Cold War' with nukes starring right at us and we were full of ... gumption, positivity, pride, goodwill, hope etc..
Finally - I don't think positivity/pessimism matters that that much - you have to be a 'strong believer' in some capacity to innovate, the rest is head games.
I don't think this sort of cynicism about LGBT rights activism is helpful. If we want to make progress in this area, we need support from all sectors of society. That definitely includes people who aren't saints and who don't act from wholly disinterested and pure motives. Whatever his motives (and I can't read his mind – can you?), Marc Benioff did something substantial to support LGBT rights when many other CEOs did not.
There's no objective content to the accusation of "virtue signalling". It's a zero-effort means of objecting to whatever kind of activism someone doesn't like. Instead of making a substantive criticism of the activism itself, just jump to uncharitable conclusions about the person's inner motivations.
Hollow and performative support for an issues that services only to engender the supporter with social points.
Supporting Ukraine doesn't bring anyone brownie points because it's not so much a moral position.
Corporations 'supporting' BLM, especially with donations, which is a totally corrupt charity - this is a problem. Corporations even throwing up the word 'equity' is a bit of a start, but not really there. Corporations making money off of it (Nike) is evil. Corporations doing something thoughtful and material about it, now that's not 'virtue signalling'. If they want to humble-brag about it in some non aggrandising way, then that's fine but it should not be part of company branding.