Article
I often talk about my mistakes, wrong approaches, and lessons learned in my blog posts. Whether it is making purely result-oriented decisions, juggling too many tasks at once, misunderstanding AI, or delaying investments, I have made plenty of errors. I have also stumbled in more profound areas, like my worldview and understanding of our ability to know things. And let us not forget my social skills and communication blunders. As you can see, the list is long.
Perfectionism and Self-Criticism: Two Ways of Dealing With Mistakes
When it comes to dealing with mistakes publicly, I see people generally fall into two camps, with some in between but tending towards one side or the other.
One extreme is the person who tries to appear flawless. When they make a mistake, they look for blame everywhere but themselves and only admit fault when they have no other choice. I know several people like this, both professionally and personally. Honestly, during my teenage years, I was closer to this type. I wrote about this a few years ago.
On the other end is the person who, when faced with a mistake, first asks what they could have done better. They look inward. For example, if a new team member does not meet expectations, the department head might reflect on whether they could have provided better guidance, improved onboarding, or made a better hiring choice. The point of this post could be that now i tend to think more like this.
A Growth Mindset: Redefining What a Mistake Is
But there is a third way that resonates with me the most: redefining what we consider a mistake. Martin Kabrhel, a top poker player turned businessman who uses applied mathematics, inspired this perspective. It is also close to what the psychologist Carol Dweck calls a growth mindset: the belief that ability grows through effort and an honest confrontation with failure.
In short, I see every non-optimal decision as a mistake, regardless of the outcome (Read more about my view on optimal decision-making at: Decision-making, uncertainty and probability). By this standard, most of my decisions are wrong. Because even a decision close to the optimum, with a good result, is a mistake from this point of view. Simply put, I make mistake after mistake.
A simple answer to why this is so: Because the vast majority of my decisions could have been at least a little better. Regardless of their outcome, it is crucial to repeat again. This is the difference from the first two types I wrote about above.
How does this perspective help me? It is not just about having more topics for my blog. Mistakes are a crucial part of our learning process; they accelerate personal growth. I do not think I am super talented, I know more talented people, but I tackle things with great energy, perseverance, and a critical eye on myself. And that keeps me moving forward.
My logical and overthinking nature contributes to this mindset. I understand this is not for everyone, but I found it interesting to show the contrast of someone who openly admits to constant mistakes without fearing it will harm their perceived competence with someone who strives to appear infallible. If you are looking for someone infallible, good luck, I am not it.
Summary
Common questions on this article's topic
Why treat every non-optimal decision as a mistake?
What is the difference between judging decisions by outcomes versus by process?
Who is Martin Kabrhel and why is his thinking relevant?
How does treating mistakes this way accelerate personal growth?
Is this approach consistent with Carol Dweck's growth mindset research?
Is this mindset realistic or does it lead to excessive self-criticism?
What is a growth mindset?
What is perfectionism?
What is the difference between a fixed and a growth mindset?
What is self-compassion?
How do you learn from mistakes?
What is self-reflection?
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
LinkedIn
More articles
Are you a content creator playing by the rules of YouTube, Instagram or Google? Are you a small business owner whose business model depends on how often Amazon recommends you, how expensive Facebook ad impressions will be or how expensive Google Ads clicks will be? If all or most of your contact with your audience or customers depends on a big platform showing you to them, you are not in a strong position.
The development of artificial intelligence changes how we look at which paths in life make sense. Which studies and which profession to choose.
It was Thursday, 31 March 2022, when I handed over the last of my responsibilities to my colleagues, closed my laptop and went to the library. I left my job for several months and immersed myself in philosophy. And I am immensely grateful for it. Today I am, like most people, on a merry-go-round, and it is hard for me to stop and think about the fundamental questions of my own life.
It was September 2023. My life, my work, everything was completely different from now. It was simpler. I owned almost nothing. I needed to film an advert, I went up to a floor inside the company where the product I needed for that advert was, and there I noticed her for the first time. She laughs at me when I describe it like this, but at that moment the universe told me, that is her.
How and why I am gradually leaving social media and the big platforms. When I read that Meta is testing a new way to charge for organic posts that link outside its platform, it confirms how right I was to become steadily less dependent on the big platforms and on social media. It does not mean I have left them completely. It means that whether or not I stay in touch with my readers depends on them less and less, and today almost not at all.
One of my family members described a firm that has its data in several different tools, and its employees still join it by hand, in spreadsheets. That is the ordinary state of firms. When somebody tells such people not to do it by hand and to use AI, they will not understand. Most firms do not even have the basic connectors between the tools they use. These firms need help with AI transformation.
The same task, two models. Fable 5 against Opus 4.8. On paper Fable is the better model, with a larger context and stronger specs. And still it lost. Opus handled the task with a single round of checking for 721,000 tokens, while Fable needed nine rounds and burnt through 2.78 million tokens. The difference was not in the model, but in how I set the task. And I know it, because I measured it.
A few weeks ago I installed a small local AI model on my laptop that watches a live camera feed. I turned the webcam on in the dark, and in near total darkness it recognised me and the objects in the room. That such things exist, I have known for a long time. What opened my eyes was the accessibility. I installed it in one prompt, free, and it runs entirely on my machine, sending data nowhere.
I once wrote about building my own privacy-friendly analytics tool. It had bot detection from the first version, yet it was not enough. Direct visits took a strangely high share of my traffic. When someone claims that 20% of their visits are bots and 80% are humans, I used to think the same. Today I would say the opposite ratio is closer to the truth. This is how I got there.
I have Heidegger and my notebook beside me. I am asking where all of this is heading, where artificial intelligence is taking us.
Four days in Catalonia. No computer, no AI, almost no social media. I bought this notebook so that I could write down what I would think about, and what I would come across and learn on the trip.