> Probably need both optimist and pessimist. Optimist are perhaps
> better cheerleaders for change, better salesman, better at not giving
> up.
>
> Seligman said that an optimist makes a bad quality assurance person.
> Pessimist are better when you need to seek out errors and pitfalls to
> avoid failure.
I agree with that, and that is why in a world of optimists I feel I
should retain my pessimism, despite the fact that it is not the best
strategy for me personally.
I am not sure if Seligman explained that it is not just the success
rate, but success itself which affected by optimism. Taking your
example of picking up a woman in a bar, the pessimist will not even
approach her and so has a 0% success rate. He achieves nothing. If you
do not buy a lottery ticket then you will NEVER win. (The optimist,
of course loses $10 a week, because when he does win $100 he
immediately "reinvests" it.)
So I will remain optimistic that I can get my pessimistic views
across, and save the world :-)
Cheers, Alastair.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
