| Interesting take, I'll provide a bit of extra clarification. All good points to raise though. "The way that your article reads comes off as having a point to prove because you were rejected." In order to prove a point, my understanding is that I would have to have been rejected or given negative feedback. If it was a positive response, everyone would be in alignment and I wouldn't have a point to prove. "Your problem solving and decision making will now gravitate towards whatever bias that "chip on your shoulder" created." The chip on my shoulder/bias is a pure desire to succeed. The rejection was an implicit statement that all the other companies appear to have a higher chance of success. I see this desire to succeed as a very good context to make decisions from. "1) "... Investors look for it since it’s an indicator of persistance. When you’ve got something to prove, you’re more likely to blast your way to success. But how do you actually get this fire?" Do investors really look for this? These statements come off like a confirmation bias." Mark Suster wrote a whole article on it. http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2012/05/17/what-to-do-abo... "2) "And with a chip on my shoulder, I find myself more focused, thinking more clearly and getting stuff done."
Can you quantify why?" I don't track my time so I don't have any quantitative numbers. With that said, I find I'm able to fight distractions more effectively with an "I've got something to prove" mindset. |