The point still stands. Maybe some people who assume they can get past a roadblock are wrong. But the people who don't think they can get past it definitely won't
I'm not sure what 'stands' means in this context. It may or may not be a true statement (I don't care because I'm radically uninterested in the dubious concept of 'success'), but in any case it's not a response to the comment you're replying to.
No, I was focusing (or fixating if you prefer the derogatory) on the specific claim that fearlessness inevitably dissolves roadblocks. That's all. I have no opinion whatsoever on (nor interest in) general routes to 'success' (however scanned), as I thought I had made plain. Would repetition help - should I type it a few times more?
That doesn't follow; part of the point of planning ahead instead of diving in, is to foresee roadblocks down one path and choose a different path, avoiding the roadblock and the need to get past it.
If you need investor money for a fast growth company, are not sure whether you can get it, but dive in, you might fail when nobody invests. If you realise that finding and convincing investors is a roadblock for you, you can choose to save more before starting, pick a slower growth approach or different goal or different funding model which doesn't require investor money at all and sidestep the problem.
Diving in doesn’t mean diving in blind. I feel like I’m in this camp on many things. I build a plan, anticipate and adjust the plan when needed, and I also have an internal barometer for how difficult that roadblock is going to be to overcome and whether it’s feasible (time/money/skill). I think the difference is; I generally do this in scale of minutes on a post it, sheet of paper, whiteboard; and I get to work. The other camp, from my observation, wants to build process maps and workflows and then start breaking the project down into a million sub tasks, probably seek external feedback on their plan, etc. I’ll have functional progress before they even roll up their sleeves.
There’s certainly a time and place for both approaches and people have their work ‘style’ preferences. This is also a big part of why most productivity software, todos, checklists is generally not for me. I lose too much productivity just by using the tool.
Edit. I should add context. I don’t work as a dev. I’m in Corp finance. This worked for me as individual contributor, mid manager and now in a leadership role. As IC it was how I worked as manager it’s how I delegate as leader it’s how I motivate my team. Again, I’ve had to take the other style at times. It’s not natural for me. Feels like a waste of time in effort not to waste time. I see the benefit of it at times. And I’ve been impressed by some people’s experience in doing it that way. (Eg. a relatively quick successful ERP implementation at a large company is a marvelous thing to witness).
To me it does; diving into water is the alternative to going in slowly and cautiously; your talk is more like "look before you dive" - and discussing by mixing metaphors won't clear anything up. You plan, anticipate roadblocks and judge how much you can overcome them in advance, and adjust the plan. To me, that's not diving in, even if you do it quickly; "Diving in" would suggest that you first learn about the roadblock when you get to it and then your progress stops until you overcome it or can't.
