Optimism • Hacker News Board

Re: Optimism

#161

Post by mercer » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 10:19 AM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #113

dahart wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, I'm sure there's a good survey paper and some decent places to start for interested non-experts. Googling for surveys, this was the top result: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584580/ (Conclusion: "In general, the evidence-base of CBT is very strong. However, additional research is needed to examine the efficacy of CBT for randomized-controlled studies.") And as much as I want to resist lin…

See also "Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy". (I am sorta-kinda a CBT skeptic, at least personally. But I know a lot of people for whom they claim it's been life-changing, and this is what they recommend.)

I've recently become a bit of a 'fan' of CBT, so I'd really like to hear some counter arguments!

Re: Optimism

#162

Post by rthomas6 » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #9

Author here. Ask Me Anything.

Why are optimistic asymmetry and pessimistic asymmetry presented as the only two choices? Why not a third, symmetric choice where everything is viewed as specific, impersonal, and impermanent? I think this world view is the closest to reality, and I also think seeing the world this way promotes good mental health. I don't have any research to back this up, though. Do you happen to know anything about this?

Re: Optimism

#163

Post by gertef » Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 6:16 PM UTC

tedmiston wrote: post #156

aninhumer wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would much rather get a code review of "Missing tests for negative numbers, empty string, null" than a longwinded and "nice" version. Could you give an example of what you're imagining a longwinded nice version would be like? Because this seems mostly fine, just a bit clipped. All I'd really expect to improve it is something like: "This is mostly fine. It just needs tests for negative numbers, empty strings and nu…

The structure of what I had in mind was going through a laundry list of aspects of code (functionality, style, structure, functional decomposition, algorithmic efficiency, test coverage, use of libraries, blah blah blah), and making specific positive comments about the things that are already good. Personally I don't glean much value from that i.e., the compliments aren't something I'm concerned with and the feedback…

OTOH, by going through that laundry list, it shows that you actually performed a full review. You can optimize that (for example, by having a checklist where you mark off all areas with either constructive criticisms or a checkmark.

Re: Optimism

#164

Post by gertef » Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 6:26 PM UTC

ItsMattyG wrote: post #124

gridspy wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, assess others in an optimistic way also. I.e. praise: personal, general, and permanent criticism: impersonal, specific and temporal

This seems to fly in direct opposition to research on growth vs. fixed mindset, which claims that praise should be impersonal, specific, and temporal in order to help people realize that they can do better based on the choices they make.

"You are a hard-working person, and it will take you far in life" -- personal, general, permanent feedback that promotes a growth mindset.

Re: Optimism

#165

Post by gertef » Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

smallnamespace wrote: post #28

braythwayt wrote: post #9

Author here. Ask Me Anything.

> Optimists explain good things as being personal, general, and permanent, and explain away bad things as being impersonal, specific, and temporary. Can't this be taken to unhealthy extremes? Sounds exactly like how narcissists think. Just look at Trump. He claims personal responsibility for his successes, but his failures are always one-time events that were other people's fault. Where should one draw the line?

postmortem culture -- when something goes wrong, it isn't your fault, and it isn't anyone else's fault, but it's an opportunity to build a better system.