| >Optimism is (almost) always required in order to accomplish anything of significance. Those who lose it, aren't living up to their potential. I argue that realism trumps optimism. It's perfectly normal in a realist farming to see something difficult, acknowledge the high risk and failure potential, and still pursue something with intent to succeed. I've personally grown tired of over optimism everywhere because it creates unrealistic situations and passes consequences of failure in an inequitable way. The "visionary" is rewarded when the rare successes occur, while everyone else suffers the consequences for most failures. No contingency plans for failure, no discussion of failure, and so on. Optimism just takes any idea, pursues it and consequences be someone else's problem and be damned. Pessimism isn't much better, you essentially think everything is too risky or unlikely to succeed so you never do anything. You live in a state of inaction because any level of risk or uncertainty is too much. To me, realism is much better. You acknowledge the challenge. You acknowledge the risk. You make sure everyone involved understands it, but you still charge forward knowing you might succeed. Some think if you're not naively optimistic (what most people in my experience refer to as "optimism") you don't create enough pressure. I think that's non-sense. |
In this context, I tend to read the parent claim as something like, "great success requires willingness to sometimes take worse-than-even odds or pursue modestly-negative-EV opportunities". I'm not sure I agree with the strongest version of that, but I think it's likely that the space of risky paths to great achievement is richer than that of cautious ones.