Your Response to Mistakes Defines You (2014)
fs.blog
fs.blog
It's hard to admit you did something wrong because of what it implies.
Am I stupid? Am I not as skilled as I think I am? Did I miss something? Perhaps all of the above?
I think this is hard for smart/perfectionist people because we think we should get things right, and this is likely to be tied to our ego/identity.
But I've come to the conclusion that humans are just fundamentally stupid, because even extremely intelligent people fuck things up all the time.
Not sure if it's the right thing to conclude from my observations, but it does make failure easier to deal with since I can remind myself that yep, I'm still just a dumb ape.
I stopped having a problem with admitting my mistakes when I realized the power of it. It also had the effect of humanizing me to people who thought I was a robot because I could do something well.
It can be powerful, but it can also be tiring. Especially if you keep making the same mistake(s) or you're under pressure.
I prefer eventually consistent but ok ;-).
This was my takeaway for a bit but I massaged it into “humans can make better decisions after mistakes”. The differentiator was the focus on getting better, because for me I think I have a proclivity to stew in the “we are all stupid; why try”. If you don’t have that problem then “we are all stupid” works too, and is true :-).
I think of the default condition being entropy and chaos and the exception to be whatever desirable order I was seeking. (It’s also the case that almost nothing I do except for relating to my family will really matter in 20 years’ time which helps [only slightly] me to rein in my perfectionism.)
This doesn't mean we're stupid, it just means we're doing complicated things.
With every action or decision we take there's a non-zero probability it is a mistake. Over the course of our life we make a ton of decisions. The only thing you can do is reduce the error rate.
"Resilience in the face of adversity is important!" No shit, sherlock. For people struggling with that kind of resiliency, this is pretty obvious.
That was an important but mostly-overlooked aspect of that event; the title wasn't machine generated, and for many or even most of the commenters, the title was evidently all they read.
Seems like a good reason to keep such posts of HN.
But of course it doesn't matter if many of the the people commenting aren't reading the article anyway.
Outcome = Events + Response
So basically he is saying that you can’t control events but your response to them. And, that’s the crucial part related to mistakes: Under pressure, we do not rise to the occasion. We rise or fall to the level of our training. So making mistakes and learning from them will continuously improve your Response.
[1] It’s from the book “Above the Line” by Urban Meyer. Worth a read!
Success is also easy to handle: You've solved the wrong problem. Work hard to improve."
Completely unrelated:
> 113. The only constructive theory connecting neuroscience and psychology will arise from the study of software.
This is really interesting. I haven't ventured into neuroscience (yet) but I've been "practicing" psychology (I'm not an SME; I'm just observing, introspecting and thinking about the thing) and I've found the two (software + psychology) to be well connected. For instance, when it comes to designing the UI/UX, you _need_ to have an (intuitive) understanding of the psychology underlaying the design.
This also offers comfort because things are already figured out in most cases, it could be just a matter of finding them and locally applying them to suitable measures.
The deal is to introspect and figure out a proper response to mistakes, situations, and in general, life.
What are some alternatives to these that might be applicable to everyone?
Just anything that makes one unhappy?
Facing Consequences doesn't seem a likely definition as whistleblowers are routinely punished for reporting corruption.
This article needs to be a little more rigorous in laying out the foundation of its premise.
We have a new hire at my work. He's been on board 10 to 12 weeks now. His skill set is the least of our bunch. Fair enough, we all have to start somewhere.
The problem is, he refuses to change. He's some form of Bartleby the Scrivener. Speaks 5x more than he listens. He has been asked to not do certain things certain ways, he's acknowledged those requests, and then has gone and done otherwise. He's been hand-held by people with experience very much his senior and yet he seems completely unwilling - we believe he's able - to "update his software." We've missed client deadlines because of him and he's yet to own a single misstep. The point is, it's not only himself who is compromised by his "learning disabilities."
He's not young. Fifties-ish I guess. I also haven't seen his CV so I'm not sure how he sold himself. That said, if he's typical of people in that age range I now understand why many employers are reluctant to hire the "over-experienced." It's not that they fear paying more, it's that they're not going to get current and contemporary value.
Note: Before you accuse me of age stereotyping I'm actually older than he is. I'm also skill for skill one of the least robust members on our team. But I listen. I openly ask for feedback. I'm still wanting to learn and grow. Perhaps I'm some sort of freak?
You're clearly not. It's sort of astounding to think that someone could get to that age and not have learned the lessons in life that teaches one to listen and own up to mistakes.
Some sort of nepotism perhaps?
It's not age-ist to point out that you would have expected someone of that age to be more self-aware.
People that cannot own their own mistakes are downright dangerous. The older, the worse.
It's sort of odd, because some people can just 'slip through', all the way to the top (failing upwards, I believe it is called), because if you perfect the art of not admitting mistakes, some people mistake that for confidence / skill (and often, the more money you have, the easier it becomes to do this).
He definitely has a pattern. Something I presume he's perfected over the years? Intentionally? Unintentionlly? Probably both.
He drinks so much of his own Kool Aid that his disconnect is close to delusional. It's disheartening. The only redemption for me is being wired to solve problems. I'm not so sure I'll crack this one. Human behavior is difficult enough. This is a tough one.
FWIW, I doubt the problems you describe are age or age-group related.
The point being, experience is a double edge sword. An employer might not be age discriminating per se, as much as they need - and rightfully so - ppl who are able and willing to learn new tricks. Often that profile is not old dogs.