WelcomeHi, my name is Lee.
I'm a developer from the UK who loves technology and business. Here you'll find articles and tutorials about things that interest me. If you want to hire me or know more about me head over to my about me page
Maybe. But, I wonder if there could be more to it than that.
Interestingly, up until lately people believed similar things about extroverts. It was thought that because team work and effective communication is so essential to modern business, having an extroverted personally type would be a natural advantage. Over the last few years however, that belief seems to be shifting. Now a number of people are speaking out about the overlooked strengths of introverts, explaining that introverts are "thinkers", making them well suited for roles requiring a lot of individual thought. The current popular opinion, and possibly scientific opinion, is that neither extroverts or introverts are better, instead suggesting the lesser known "ambivert" personality type is the most successful of them all.
So what is an ambivert?
If you haven't already guessed it, ambiverts are people who have characteristics seen in both extroverts and introverts. Unlike introverts and extroverts, ambiverts are able to choose between introversion and extroversion depending on the situation they're in. Put simply, they can be social and influential when they need to be, but they're also comfortable with working independently. It's this plasticity that allows ambiverts to have the best of both worlds, and as a result, are likely to be more successful on average.
So what does any of this have to do with pessimists?
Maybe nothing, but I wonder if we're making the same mistake labeling optimists as more successful as we did previous with extroverts. Could there be a happy medium between an optimist and a pessimist? Personally, I think so.
But first off, lets look at some reasons why optimists are thought to be more successful than pessimists.
Optimists tend to be happier, and happy people are often more productive. They're also more influential, often making better salesman, this is probably because people prefer interactions with individuals who are happy and upbeat. Optimists also take more risks. This can be attributed to their instinctual belief in positive outcomes. Most people who are considered successful have probably taken a risk to get where they are. Whether it's remortgaging their house to start a business, or following a risky career path such as becoming a professional sportsman, these risks come easier to optimists.
So what's the catch?
Although some degree of optimism is clearly advantageous, too much optimism can become problematic. The consequence of too much optimism is an unrealistic view of the world, resulting in poor decision making. This over optimistic thinking might cause someone to believe that they don't need to attend college to get the job they want, or that they don't need to try because everything will just fall in place. Clearly, this type of optimism isn't rational and is very likely to be a disadvantage.
Interestingly, this "easy-going" attitude which occurs in extreme optimists is the exact opposite as what's seen in people with some level pessimism. Instead of ignoring them, pessimists naturally obsess over potential challenges, and their negative view on the possible outcome of these challenges may make them more likely to create an action plan.
Take the example of two people studying for an exam. The optimist might study for a few hours the day before and feel completely confident they'll pass. Yet the pessimist could study for days, and still truly believe the exam will go badly. Despite what these two may believe, in reality the pessimist is much more likely to pass the exam.
There is a limit however. Extreme pessimism, just like extreme optimism, isn't ideal. Being too pessimistic can result in a defeatist worldview, making it easy to reason that trying is pointless when success seems like an impossible outcome.
And now we're back to the same place we were with introverts and extroverts. Too little of either is bad, yet too much of either is also just as problematic. Perhaps the real advantage isn't simply being "this" or "that" type of person, but being able to balance and recognize the advantages of both. In some situations it may be best to be optimistic. For example, when making a sale, optimism that the customer will want what you're offering can help, but in other situations it could be helpful to have a more pessimistic, critical, attitude.
Being someone who would describe themselves as naturally more on the pessimistic side, I've never felt like it was a disadvantage to me. I've always believed my pessimism made me more critical of my choices, and that doubt gives me an opportunity to prepare for what I fear may go wrong.
As someone who believes that pessimists have a lot to offer the world, I think it's really unfortunate how negatively the word pessimist seems to be used. Maybe more unfortunate however, is how this view seems to be largely perpetuated by what feels like an optimistic majority who simply doesn't understand how pessimists think - often confusing pessimism with defeatism.
Perhaps, instead of focusing on being a certain type of person, it's more beneficial to simply play up to our own unique strengths. If there's something history has shown us, it's that it's the people who are able to see the world in a different light that are often the ones who make greatest discoveries.
It's clear that freedom of speech is essential to any successful free democracy, and subsequently, it's almost always missing under any totalitarian rule. Could it be that if government surveillance continues to increase people may no longer feel free to openly discuss controversial topics or opposing political views in fear of being put on the "watch list"?
Over the last decade we have begun to understand the dangers of over sharing online - especially through social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Individuals now regularly come under fire for controversial posts or activity made sometimes years previously. This mainly affects those who are in the public eye, but more and more often employers and colleges have been looking at individuals' online activities to make decisions about their potential employees or prospective students. In fact, this has become such as issue over the last few years the EU has introduced a "right to be forgotten" to protect individuals from being stigmatized by their history and past activities online.
This worry that our internet history activity could affect our job security or personal reputation has caused many people to privatise their accounts online. Some have taken it a step further and have opted not to share content that could reflect negatively on them all together.
But what if you can't privatise who sees your activity? What if you can't decide what information you share and what you keep private?
This is the difference between sharing information publicly through websites such as Facebook, and the mass surveillance done by our governments. One is avoidable, the other isn't. It's because of this my concern is less with people sharing sensitive information online and more with the private, and sometimes secret, data collection by our governments and service providers.
When the Draft Communications Data Bill was originally proposed in 2012 by the UK government it was looking to force ISPs and phone providers to store all internet and phone history of their customers for at least two years. After this bill was proposed, a survey was conducted to gather the public's' opinion. This survey found that 71% of Brits didn't trust the government with the information, stating they were worried it wouldn't be kept secure. Thankfully, the Draft Communications Data Bill never passed, but if it did, it leaves us wondering if any of those 71% of people would change their phone or internet activities to protect themselves in the event of a data leak, or unlawful access of their information. What we do know is that when surveyed 41% of respondents said they would be less like to use websites and online services if the legislation passed. With online services being so critical to modern economic growth, if true, this would be a very undesirable outcome.
Maybe you are someone who believes that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear - that increase surveillance is only a problem for criminals and terrorists. But the problem is we all have something to hide. Who can honestly say there is nothing they wouldn't want their employer or colleagues knowing? Of course, that could be because it's illegal. But sometimes it might not be as clear cut, and other times it might be simply that the information is sensitive to us. Who wants the details of their messy divorce or sex life available to the public? We've all done bad things in the past, and even if what we've done isn't illegal, it's likely we still wouldn't want everyone to know.
So how likely would it be for this data to get out? Well, if you're someone in the public eye or an outspoken political opponent, would it be impossible that your data could be unlawfully accessed if you upset the wrong people? And what if the information is stolen or hacked? If it did happen it wouldn't be the first time, in 2007 the UK government lost two CDs containing 25 million child benefit records. So even if it's unlikely to happen, would you want to risk it?
Now what if we take it a step further? We know in the USA the NSA seems to have very vague requirements when it comes to adding people to their watch list. Since Edward Snowden's leak of NSA documents in 2013, reports have come out suggesting that individuals may be added to the NSA's watch list for simply researching services like TOR, which ironically help keep users internet use anonymous. But perhaps more worrying still is that they may also consider activity on Facebook and Twitter when adding people to their watch list. If that's happening would it be unthinkable that in the future Google searches or visiting certain websites could get you added to their watch list also?
Although I understand we are a long way off yet, I worry if governments keep pushing for more and more surveillance people may think twice before posting, or even viewing anything critical of their government. I accept some surveillance can be critical to prevent crime and terrorism, but surely we need to find a balance we can all be comfortable with? Criminal investigations are supposed to be difficult for a reason, and privacy intrusions should never happen lightly. At the end of the day, requiring everyone to carry a personal surveillance camera with them 24 hours a day would help reduce crime, but at what cost? With surveillance cameras and the monitoring of our internet and phone activities, technology can allow governments to come very close to doing just that.
Do you worry about who's reading your Facebook posts? And do you think we should ever expect privacy online?
If you want to read more on government surveillance feel free to take a look at the links below.
An ideal way to explore the potential of genetic algorithms is by applying them to real world data. Perhaps one of the easiest ways to do this is by using the Google Maps API to implement a solution to the traveling salesman problem.
In this tutorial we will begin to find out how artificial neural networks can learn, why learning is so useful and what the different types of learning are. We will specifically be looking at training single-layer perceptrons with the perceptron learning rule.