[Swizec]

> I've tried the ultra-cynical view at workplaces, and would have had better results with some "idealism", which he rightly notes in his form is just a more effectively action atop a base of clear-eyed cynicism.

Cynics feel smart but optimists win.

You have to be at least a little optimistic, sometimes even naive, to achieve unlikely outcomes. Otherwise you’ll never put in enough oomph to get lucky.

[kelnos]

> Cynics feel smart but optimists win.

That's not been my experience. Optimists also tend to assume the best motivations behind the actions of others, and that will nearly always bite you in the ass in any sizeable organization.

I've been the ultra-cynic before, and agree that doesn't work either. People don't like working with you, and don't trust you.

I think we need to be realistic on order to be successful, and neither ultra-cynicism nor optimism fits the bill.

I would suggest that a healthy, reasonable amount of cynicism is a part of being realistic about how the world works.

[SkyBelow]

>I've been the ultra-cynic before, and agree that doesn't work either. People don't like working with you, and don't trust you.

Is the issue being that one isn't being cynical enough? If you are very cynical about how things will turn out, and share that with others who don't appreciate it (even if you are right), then you are being optimistic in thinking it will change things. Controlling one's displays to others to appear as whatever gets one their best outcome is being even more cynical, to the point of abandoning any attempts at open honest relationships, but it likely works the best if one can pull it off.

Though that might be a very big if, and getting caught faking this likely is worse. Then again, is forcing oneself to adopt optimism just an attempt to do this indirectly, a sort of 'fool yourself so you can better fool others' approach when more direct manipulation doesn't work, given that drive for the optimism is to get better outcomes?

[Swizec]

Blind optimism is silly. But time and again we’ve shown that tit-for-tat is the best strategy in repeated games.

Start optimistic. Stop if it doesn’t work. In the long-term you don’t need to win every iteration, just enough for a positive expected value. And make sure you don’t get wiped out in any single iteration.

The weeks are short but the decades are long and the industry is smaller than you’d think :)

[wombatpm]

Optimists proclaim we live in the best of all possible worlds. Pessimists fear that is true.

[ravenstine]

Is that really how most people would define optimism these days? I know that's what it meant in Voltaire's time, but something tells me that if you asked modern optimist whether they thought we lived in the best of all possible worlds, a majority of them would either say no or that they don't know.

[wombatpm]

It would seem if we think Voltaire was wrong, then the difference between pessimists and “modern” optimists is not fundamental but merely a matter of degree.

[gjvc]

100% agree. Cynics can be always be right about the past, but optimists are often right about the future, because they are the ones actually building it.

The negative replies to this comment are ironic.

[neal_jones]

Yea, agree with the cynics/optimists point.

Feels like cynics are right and optimists get rich.

I definitely lean more to cynic, my very good friend is def more optimist. He’s worth more than 10x me.

[bostik]

Are you certain about which way the arrow of causality points there? Your friend might have more reason to be optimistic because he is financially secure.

[michaelt]

It's pretty obvious how an insufficiently cynical person could end up badly off - they could send all that money to that deposed prince in Nigeria, or whatever.

But the right optimism in the right situation can really pay off. Imagine you're pitching your non-technical carmaker CEO on a proposal to make a new pickup truck, and the CEO asks if you can make the entire thing with 0.1mm accuracy.

If you say "Yes sir, in fact many parts will be even more accurate than that" your project gets funded.

If you say "No, thermal expansion alone makes that impossible, it's also unnecessary" you're gambling on him respecting your straight-talking and technical chops.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Cynical take - if you know you're lying, that's not optimism, that's cynical manipulation.

A lot of people missing that cynicism isn't the same as sneering grumpiness.

You can be perfectly pleasant and charming while being utterly cynical about how you approach professional relationships.

This is a problem with at least two axes. The cynicism part relies on accurately calibrating the distance between official narratives and reality.

If you're a pessimist, you overshoot. An optimist undershoots. A realist gets it more or less right.

But if the distance is huge, that automatically makes the realist a cynic, because the reality is a lie, and in most orgs failing to take false narratives at face value is considered dissidence.

The strategic part depends on how you handle that. You can be sneering and negative, you can play the game with a fake smile and an eye for opportunity, or you can aim for neutrality and a certain amount of distance.

Sneering negativity is usually the least effective option, even when it's the most honest.

A realist in a functional organisation won't be cynical at all.

[michaelt]

> Cynical take - if you know you're lying, that's not optimism, that's cynical manipulation.

Cynicaler take: That's how some companies fill their management with people who don't know when they're lying.

A person who knows how much 5m of steel expands with a 30°C temperature swing has to say "No" to the boss. A person who doesn't know that, but does know the production line uses a $250,000 Leica laser tracker thingummy that's real accurate can say "Yes Sir" and find themselves in charge of a funded project.

[danieltanfh95]

> Cynics feel smart but optimists win.

survivorship bias.

[themafia]

> but optimists win.

Win.. what?

> enough oomph to get lucky.

The underpaid cargo cult mentality is alive in well in corporate America.

[bayarearefugee]

Have you logged into LinkedIn lately?

Nothing but pseudo "grindset" cargo cultists as far as the eye can see writing worthless technical platitude posts.

It feels like a parody site of itself these days.

[tormeh]

That's all fake. LinkedIn is for sales and recruiting. If you see something there - a post, anything - it's meant to sell something. It's all as fake as the contents of an ad break.

[ludicity]

It's important to note that many of those people aren't winning. What you're witnessing is the marketing equivalent of what random government software engineers produce. A good number of the people on HN would be trivially outearning those nerds

[gjvc]

>Nothing but pseudo "grindset" cargo cultists as far as the eye can see writing worthless technical platitude posts.

stealing this. ;-)

[Swizec]

> > but optimists win. > Win.. what?

Depends what you want to win?

You won’t have happy kids and a good family life, if you don’t think it’s possible. Same as you won’t make a cool open-source library, if you aren’t optimistic (or naive) enough to go work on that.

And if you keep saying everything is impossible a huge drag extremely worthless and why even bother trying, you won’t get the fun projects at work.

[Muromec]

Underpaid as in 200k p/a undrrpaid?

[themafia]

I'd have to know what your work is worth; however, the past half a decade has brought enormous inflation that people still haven't factored into their expectations. Wait until commodities prices rise soon and then we'll see a shift in workplace attitudes towards salaries. The 401k ponzi scheme has to end sometime.