[jdsalaro]

I agree, partially, I'm adamant about the fact that it's even more important to talk about successes, than failures.

"Vicarious learning from the experiences of others saves making errors yourself, but I regard the study of successes as being basically more important than the studyof failures. As I will several times say, there are so many ways of being wrong and so few of being right, studying successes is more efficient, and furthermore when your turn comes you will know how to succeed rather than how to fail!"

~ The art of doing science and engineering

[mkr-hn]

I've gotten a lot more out of studying failures. Especially other people's failures. People who are honest with themselves can warn you around the mistakes they made, but people who succeed rarely have much luck identifying which selection of choices got them there.

I think the reason is that success is usually cumulative: each little win builds on the last until it's obvious you're going in the right direction. Those wins often depend on random or temporary things you have little control over. For example: CED was the perfect format for the decade RCA started developing it in, but it took until VHS redefined the market to finish it.[0]

Meanwhile one mistake can send everything tumbling down. Study enough mistakes and you might know enough of what to avoid to stay afloat long enough to find the right chain of wins.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnpX8d8zRIA

[jdsalaro]

I'm torn about your comment.

In principle, I agree with the fact that studying failures teaches one more, whether more is better when it comes to learning stands to be discussed, however.

What I mean by this is that, although you may profit from your parents sharing a plethora of don't-dos such as avoiding drugs, staying away from toxic relationships, not dwelling on your insecurities, et cetera, having regular abstract conversations about how "thinking deeply about my predicament, my objectives and how to reach them despite the former" might be much more useful to you.

In short, the first approach teaches you, potentially, numerous, isolated lessons about specific circumstances you will likely never face. Yes, you certainly learned more things, but whether those things will be useful to you, particularly, is unclear and only time can tell.

If you and your parents, however, have a thorough discussion about what allowed them to lead a happy life, as in the second scenario, both pushing and pulling, trying to discover what it really was and looking to find consensus regarding attitudes, processes, ideas, roadblocks, etc, you might learn a framework what will be useful forever, regardless of the concrete circumstances you are faced with.

Nevertheless, this comment of yours is spot on:

> people who succeed rarely have much luck identifying which selection of choices got them there.

Therefore, I really emphasize that not only the mentor should share the reasons and methods behind their success, the listener must be able to understand why and whether they were as useful as the mentor portrays them.

[zappo2938]

Maybe. Trying to emulate other people's success always ended in failure for me whether in life or opinionated coding frameworks. Americas Test Kitchen approach to recipes when they first explain all the ways they failed is infinitely more valuable to me than just the one successful recipe.