[theIntuitionist]

If you view life as a series of problems to be solved, then life will become a bleak series of problems needing to be solved. The approach outlined in the parent comment here would fail to solve any essential human needs beyond a few of the most basic ones. Finding purpose, not burning out, nurturing family, communicating with others- even in professional settings- and so many other parts of being human require us to engage emotionally.

[cartoonworld]

>If you view life as a series of problems to be solved, then life will become a bleak series of problems needing to be solved.

I disagree with this, conditionally.

It depends on how you perceive "Problems" and "Solve", as pedantic and Clinton-esque as that comes across.

Perceiving your "problems" not as barriers that hinder your progress, but identifying winnable opportunities in your own capabilities is a hallmark of the Growth Mindset[0] This is such a good quality, one that everyone can cultivate given the motivation and effort.

[0] - https://fs.blog/2015/03/carol-dweck-mindset/

[theIntuitionist]

Any choice we make that is grounded in subjective decision making suffers from this reframing. And, i'd posit that the vast majority of choices are fundamentally subjective. Just take a moment when engaged in "problem solving" and ask yourself "why?", then question that answer again. You get to motivation, identity , "needs" (and not just the basic food and shelter needs) or some other emotion very quickly this way.

Is choosing a life partner a "problem"? What about something as simple as choosing what to wear in the morning or what beer you want from the bar? Even within traditional engineering problems so much of our decision making process can only be evaluated subjectively. Some examples are: naming variables (your compiler doesn't care what you name them), making choices around encapsulation (there are very often many possible ways to do this. we frequently chose the "simplest"- a subjective assessment), choosing a framework or language (a decision which is one part right tool for the job one part joining a likeminded community), etc.

At the root of it, we're emotional beings, not logical ones. Outsource the logical problems to computers, machines, institutions and focus on what makes you human. Otherwise somebody else will make the important choices for you in ways you certainly wouldn't chose for yourself.

[cartoonworld]

The growth mindset can be summed up in one sentence: "I can become good at anything."

[theIntuitionist]

Yes, and emotions help you choose good “anything”s. There’s always an emotional superstructure- yours, or somebody else can choose for you, based on their own motivations.

[cartoonworld]

Ok that is a valid truth, however the growth mindset embedded in the sentence "I can become good at anything." is not that.

Its that maybe you can't become the fastest man on earth. That guy exists, his name is Usain Bolt. However, you can for sure get good at sprinting, even if you are missing parts of your legs. That guy is Oscar Pistorious. Maybe you have COPD and you can't? Well, you might need to adjust "good" to be a winnable opportunity in your capabilities. Maybe this is walking to the mailbox. If you couldn't walk to the mailbox last week, I'd call that "good".

Here is the opportunity for the emotional part you mentioned to arise, so yeah, I agree.

Emotions, sure. You can become good at managing your emotions. You can become good at navigating and integrating the superstructure of society into positive outcomes in your own life. You can become good at public speaking and swimming and programming.

You likely will not be able to become the best in the world at anything at all, but you can become good at anything.

[qq4]

What is the rational behind your first sentence? Solving problems is progress, and that is anything but bleak.

> Don’t waste cycles on the emotions of having problems.

I don't think you're reading what the parent comment is actually saying. Finding purpose, not burning out, etc are all categorically problems and the common goal is to solve them. Don't get buried in emotion due to _having_ the problems.

[theIntuitionist]

How much satisfaction do you really get from checking something off the list? There was some motivation that put the item on the list in the first place, and 9 time out of 10, that motivation goes back to an emotional drive of some sort. Ignoring that motivation during the process of satisfying it is fundamentally missing the point.

[qq4]

A lot. I love seeing that check and looking back on other ones along with the work that I did.

[MauranKilom]

I don't think anybody is arguing against querying your emotions as part of choosing how to solve a problem. What OP specifically advised against was "wast[ing] cycles on the emotions of having problems". You will always have problems. Some worse, some nicer. Sometimes more, sometimes fewer. But your feelings about that fact won't help you move forward.

That's why approaching problems with an unemotional mindset is very effective. I can be mad that the bus was too early, or that my shipment wasn't delivered, or that I received a rejection. It's fine and healthy to feel those emotions. But they just tell you that something is wrong, without putting you any closer to fixing what's wrong.

> Finding purpose

Finding purpose comes from choosing which series of problems you are going to solve. Happiness isn't some final resting state you reach, it's more or less directly tied to solving problems. So framing is really important for making sure you actually face problems that can be solved.

[theIntuitionist]

In a post scarcity world, framing everything as a problem puts you in a needless optimization loop. Emotions tell you why, logic can only answer how, which won’t get you out of the loop.

I’m not making a point for or against employing emotions in problem solving, I’m advocating for an awareness that all “logical” thought fits into a larger emotional context- just the opposite of op who structures their process as a pure logical process. Ironically, I’d call the notion of a purely logical process devoid of emotions a fantasy.