That's survivorship bias right there. We mostly hear of successful stories, where grinding, blood and tears paid off and have an amazing story to tell. For each one of those there are countless others that didn't work out because the conditions were not there and there is no pride/gain in sharing that to the same extent.

Reminds me of a version Pandora's Box story. Pandora opens a box of furies on the world, closes it too late in a panic, then hears a little voice in the box, pleading to be let out. In one version, Pandora lets out Hope, who acts as a balm to the pain and trouble caused by the furies. In another version, false Hope is the worst fury of all - a niggling voice that drives you on when there is no possibility of success.

Traversing nuance can be debilitating for many people. I think over-optimism and going gung-ho can be a good strategy. Not a strategy that comes naturally to me of course, I've wasted many hours/days/weeks trying to figure out the optimal way to do something taking into consideration all of the nuances at play.

This doesn't negate the value of optimism though, which is what this article is about.

Yes, there's a price to pay for optimism, but the alternative is much more costlier - I think this is the premise of this article.

> Reality is way more nuanced than single perspectives.

That's a truism, I believe.

Maybe it's both? Say, for some potential project, you rate it X on the pessimism/optimism scale. If you're too pessimistic, you won't attempt it, even though it would have worked out nicely! But if you're too optimistic, you'll waste time attempting it even though it has no chance of success. Perhaps the ideal is to be able to correctly assess the chance of success of projects, and then you can make an accurate allocation of effort :)