TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- On Optimism
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie No, I disagree. The only thing that matters in this case is how your choices AFFECT other people, which is different than being concerned with what they're going to think. Why should what someone ELSE thinks have an effect on YOUR life?? Who's driving the ship here?? The idea is ludicrous to me. That might matter to some people, but not to me. I think worrying about what other people think is just another excuse not to be fully accountable.

I think that staying truthful to yourself involves following your instincts and acting how you best feel is right. The bitch of this entire thing is that it is easy to be tricked.

If you value the lives of the other people around you, then chances are what feels right to you is to act in accordance with what will be beneficial to them.

But, if you value superficial beauty, and whether others think you are beautiful or not you may find yourself conforming to their opinions. That may feel just as "right" as the person who values their family members and wants the best for them.

Then it becomes a dispute about which parts of life are better or more important than others, for example, the well being of a family member, versus the way a certain social group views you. It would be easy to imagine a situation where if you did value both those things, you would be divided about what to do because one action could be beneficial on one side and detrimental on the other.

So even if you want to act "truthfully to yourself", throughout your life it is easy to see how just doing that could result with very different actions.

Part of what I was trying to say with my optimism theory is that it is impossible to ever get your own life philosophy completely correct. There are too many unknowns, and too many things that at a given time you may not have the capability of understanding, which could result in you making the wrong decision even when you think you are making the right one, only to look back later and regret it.

But it is possible to be aware of what you are trying to do your entire life and continually evaluate why it is you are doing the things that you are doing. Treat your entire life as a process where you are trying to get your actions to be the best they can be.

quote:

Originally posted by shanny But it is possible to be aware of what you are trying to do your entire life and continually evaluate why it is you are doing the things that you are doing. Treat your entire life as a process where you are trying to get your actions to be the best they can be.

This last bit sounds a little too platonic for my liking. As a realist, I can't really accept the forms.

And now that I reread the first bit, I am wondering if the

quote:

Originally posted by shanny what you are trying to do your entire life

Is there freewill in these actions that we are not particularily aware of? Sort of a Liebnitzian predicate-in-notion thing going on?

I wanted to post another thought that I had that I think will clarify even further what my original argument was, and it is in reference to Jenny and Andrew's discussion about accountability.

I agree with you completely that being accountable for your actions is something that is important and should be strived for at all times.
I don't see how that conflicts with optimism at all though.

In my marathon attempt of a description of how I live my life I described a number of different sections to my philosophy that I thought was important. One being staying truthful to yourself, another being letting things go. There were many that all came together and I labelled the entire thing Optimism.

The reason I gave it that name was because of the faith based element in the theory. I have reached a point in my life where I think that having faith is important. Something I struggled with for a long time was whether or not there was a God, and whether even if there was one it was one I wanted to worship, or even pray to. Yet I always felt that there was something missing.

I firmly hate the idea of destiny, and that anyone has more control over my actions than me. For that reason praying to a God was not something I ever wanted to do. So what was there to pray when I was in a situation where I wanted to?

To give you an example where optimism can exist completely on it's own.

You are on one side of the world, on the other side of the world a group of miners are trapped in a mine, running out of air. You have no capability of acting or not acting that will make any difference what so ever. No amount of you framing this situation in one way or the next will change what is going to take place. But that does not change that you want the best for those miners. You have the ability to hope for the best or assume the worst. Optimism is having faith that in situations like this one the best result will occur.

quote:

Originally posted by TO guy This last bit sounds a little too platonic for my liking. As a realist, I can't really accept the forms. And now that I reread the first bit, I am wondering if the Is there freewill in these actions that we are not particularily aware of? Sort of a Liebnitzian predicate-in-notion thing going on?

Maybe this is where my own personality is the difference maker here and why you don't agree.

I will explain.
I am not trying to predict what will take place, but I am trying to maximize the enjoyment that I have in my life. At this point I think that the best way to do that is to continually evaluate why I am doing the things that I have, and try to keep as many of these different ideas in mind as possible. I acknowledge that I will change my mind numerous times over my life about how I should act, but currently think that being keeping the end goal in mind (maximizing enjoyment)is best accomplished by evaluating why you do what you do.

If a person was not concerned with maximizing enjoyment as the supreme goal in life, or they didn't think my methods were the best way to accomplish them than they will certainly disagree with all of the arguments I am making.

I just think there is tremendous value to self-reflection.

quote:

Originally posted by shanny I just think there is tremendous value to self-reflection.

I couldn't agree more.

quote:

Originally posted by shanny I don't see how that conflicts with optimism at all though.

Heh, it doesn't. I said it's a much simpler and more universal form of it.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie It means when you do something, you take responsibility for it and don't play the blame game or make excuses or try to justify it with bullshit. Either you thought/said/did/felt something, or you didn't. It IS a simple as that.

OK, I understand what you are saying, and I generally agree that people should be responsible for their actions.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Taking charge of oneself? It means you make yourself and only yourself responsible for your happiness or unhappiness. And that's as simple as an attitude adjustment.

I am not sure I totally agree. Life is more complicated than this. While I agree that I can take responsibility for my own general happiness, sometimes things are beyond my control. Just because I "adjust my attitude" and take responsibility, doesn't necessarily mean that I will be happy.

I guess what I am getting at is that you just can't be accountable to yourself, because your behavior is influenced by its consequences. And so unless you are living in a bubble, these consequences almost always involve other people. That said, I believe that people are generally more personally accountable when they are motivated by an appropriate incentive, such as praise, money, love, laughter, security, a sense of belonging or community, etc., which, surprise, surprise, almost always involve other people.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie It has nothing to do with values at all. You either decide that you're taking action and being conscious in your life, or not.

If values are a description of the beliefs of an individual, then isn't your definition of accountability (that people.. "take responsibility ... and don't play the blame game or make excuses or try to justify it with bullshit") really just a description of one of your values? Strict personal accountability is one of your values. lol

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie No, I disagree. The only thing that matters in this case is how your choices AFFECT other people, which is different than being concerned with what they're going to think. Why should what someone ELSE thinks have an effect on YOUR life?? Who's driving the ship here?? The idea is ludicrous to me. That might matter to some people, but not to me.

Huh? How can you not be concerned about what other people think, when many of the consequences of your actions are going to impact YOU?

I bet you care about what other people think a lot more that you are leading on. Maybe not about what I think, or some of the the people here on TA think, but there has to be people in your life who's opinions matter to you. Come on, you're tough, but not that tough.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie I think worrying about what other people think is just another excuse not to be fully accountable.

Ha. I call it living in the real world.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. That's how I live, plain and simple. I'm not asking you to believe me either. I shouldn't have said anything, I knew it wouldn't be understood the way I meant it.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie I'm not asking you to agree with me. That's how I live, plain and simple. I'm not asking you to believe me either. I shouldn't have said anything, I knew it wouldn't be understood the way I meant it.

Hey now, I appreciate your comments and that you made the effort to share your views. It honestly helped me think about a bunch of things I hadn't thought about in a while. Thanks.

P.S. Nobody knows anything.

quote:

Originally posted by SuperJimbo P.S. Nobody knows anything.

P.P.S. Everybody knows nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by SuperJimbo P.S. Nobody knows anything.

Yeah, pretty much.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Yeah, pretty much.

Except DigiNut. He is God.

Haven't had much time to respond to this, but I'm going to try tonight and see how far I get. RJ and SuperJimbo already put forth some very good arguments along my own lines of thinking, but let's dig a little deeper here into what this philosophy really means.

First of all, before we can have any sort of meaningful discussion on a philosophy that's distilled into a single word, we need to define what that word actually means. So far, this hasn't been done very well, and in fact I'm seeing a lot of what I might call conflicting definitions. Relativist arguments aside, if we don't agree on a common language then we are merely talking past each other.

Let's start with the following:

1. Optimism is an expectation that, given a set of possible outcomes, the positive ones (positive as perceived by the optimist) are more likely - or at least equally likely - to occur as the negative ones.

"Expect the worst, hope for the best" is not optimism, it's an empty platitude. Everybody hopes for the best. It's hard to imagine anybody hoping for anything else. Positive hopes and dreams are essentially a universal human characteristic unless one is a true nihilist, which very few of us are. The only useful distinction to make is in the expectation; optimists expect a better outcome than pessimists.

2. Optimism is an interpretation of a situation in the most positive light possible. It's certainly possible to come up with an positive interpretation of trapped miners, although that is something which would require most people to significantly bend their perceptions and values. Of course, most people are also inclined to avoid the cognitive dissonance associated with such loose values; they are set fairly firmly in their beliefs and won't venture too far outside of those in the whole mental reconfiguration process.

This still leaves plenty of room for interpretation; people's beliefs don't cover every specific situation in life, so if you smash a glass on the kitchen floor, it's not producing a lot of psychological friction to say "oh well, it was already chipped, we needed some new dinnerware anyway". This is a trivial re-interpretation, but I'm only using it as a supporting example.

3. The actual psychological condition of optimism is contextual. When a person is an "optimist", it really means that he is optimistic about most things (or perhaps all things). A person still needs to be optimistic about something, however. If there are no specific circumstances or outcomes to consider, then the distinction between optimism and pessimism is really nothing more than a vague emotion. I think we can all agree that angst is not a synonym for pessimism.

--- SO... ---
Armed with this wonderful long-winded definition, we can start to put together a coherent picture of what the eternal optimist is doing to himself.

Optimism as an expectation leaves little to no room for actual in-depth analysis of the risk/reward ratio for some particular action. Statisticians call the probability-weighted outcome the "expected value"; optimism, almost by definition, will always overstate this value. This leads to more risky actions when the risk may not be justified (pessimism may be equally bad with its indiscriminate risk-aversion, but I am not advocating universal pessimism as an alternative here).

Gamblers are optimists. They may or may not actually be aware of the odds against them, but they think they can beat those odds anyway. Some might, in the short term, but the fact remains that the odds in a roulette wheel or slot machine are still very firmly against them. They are no more likely to win because of their optimism, but they are more likely to keep playing. I'm sure we've all heard "I'm on a hot streak" or "I'm due" - no matter whether the optimist is actually winning or losing overall, he's always sure he's going to win the next round.

I'm an engineer, and one thing we never want to hear in this industry is "don't worry, it'll work". It doesn't matter whether you're building a bridge ("these struts look fine to me!") or software ("it's bug-free, trust me!"), no one with an IQ higher than coleslaw will accept such a claim without a lot of supporting evidence. And if there is a lot of supporting evidence, then we're not being optimistic, we're being practical.

Optimism as an interpretation is generally more benign in its effects, but it is also the weakest form of optimism because people are inherently limited by what they already believe. It has its problems too, though. Aside from the fact that it doesn't help very much with the moral gray areas (which are, of course, the most troublesome ones for most of us), it also has a tendency to preclude real research on a problem and its possible solutions.

It's precisely the state of unhappiness (or perhaps fear) associated with some set of circumstances that drives a person to improve it. It doesn't matter whether this is proactive (goal-seeking) or reactive (disaster-averting), there is always an implicit admission that the status quo is not acceptable. This is totally at odds with most of the original posts in this thread, which were all about acceptance and moving-on. Accepting and moving on does not cure the physical problem, it only treats the psychological symptoms.

If the same problem comes up in the future, and you made no attempt to solve it the first time around, you're going to be just as lost as confused the second time. And the third and fourth times. Even if you tried and failed to solve a problem the first time, it is still better than having simply re-framed that problem in a more positive light, because at least you will know what doesn't work. Saying "it could be worse" and shrugging it off provides precisely zero preparation for later recurrences.

**

So, I'm saying that we should never do any of these things, right? Hardly. Just that a person shouldn't make it their guiding philosophy. Sometimes a problem may be truly unsolvable, and in these cases it's absolutely necessary to alter one's perception in order to cope psychologically. And sometimes ambition for a goal, no matter how unachievable it looks in the beginning, is enough to spur people on to accomplish it (eventually).

But none of this is impossible if we ditch the universal optimism and opt for a more measured approach. If a problem can't be solved, then a deeper investigation of the problem would reveal this - and usually the knowledge that there is no solution is more than enough to convince a person to change his perspective. And people can still go after an unlikely goal while accepting its unlikeliness - actually, that's generally a good thing, because if those people fail, they are more likely to hold themselves accountable instead of blaming others (or fate).

It's really not difficult. The whole philosophy I advocate can be summed up in two short sentences:

1. Try to understand each problem from all possible angles.
2. Weigh your options carefully.

That's it. No mental gymnastics nor complicated rationalizing required. Just understand your context, solve the problem (if there is one), and you will almost always be happy because you know you made the best possible decision based on the information available at the time. And if the most appropriate way to solve a specific problem is simply to re-interpret it, then so be it - "optimism" is a perfectly viable tool in context.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^-------- Exactly.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie I'm not asking you to agree with me. That's how I live, plain and simple. I'm not asking you to believe me either. I shouldn't have said anything, I knew it wouldn't be understood the way I meant it.

Don't be discouraged, the best part of the entire thing is getting to see how everyone operates completely differently from one another. Even though we obviously see differently on the way the world works I am very happy you let us see how you see things, it only makes everything that I am seeing more clear.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut It's really not difficult. The whole philosophy I advocate can be summed up in two short sentences: 1. Try to understand each problem from all possible angles. 2. Weigh your options carefully. That's it. No mental gymnastics nor complicated rationalizing required. Just understand your context, solve the problem (if there is one), and you will almost always be happy because you know you made the best possible decision based on the information available at the time. And if the most appropriate way to solve a specific problem is simply to re-interpret it, then so be it - "optimism" is a perfectly viable tool in context.

I think if you add 3. Be prepared to accept the consequences and risks involved from and possibly result from your actions and that pretty much sums up my frame of mind.

I understand what Aaron has said and from an engineering standpoint it is just the way that it has to be done, because if not then people could literally be dead.

But I think that you are not paying attention to the faith people!

Faith is belief in the absence of reason.
Pure analytics can solve or realize it can't solve every problem on earth, but the one thing it also can't do is produce faith.

The human life is something that should be completely insignificant. It is one spec in an ever expanding universe. So how do you make your life meaningful?

This is where faith comes into play.

I lived the better part of my childhood not knowing what to believe about supernatural powers, jesus christ, god and religion.

I now know firmly that there is something to believe in and that It is goodness!

Faith is something that you believe against all odds. It means you believe in the face of all that is logical. If everything that is logical tells you one thing, yet you still believe in something else that is faith.

And Optimism is what I have faith in, because I believe that good will prevail.

quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel (and someone please fast forward to 2077 and make sure that Adam and I are still happily together - at the ages of 99 and 100 - then I can relax)

GOOD NEWS!! I was actually able to kick start my ZENA3 time warper and warp myself into 1966....sorry 77 was too far..

You and Adam were still Happily married with three children (you wanted more but Adam got a vasectomy). Part of the family is five bunnies, two dogs, three cats, a ferrat, and a pig.

Now you can relax!!!!


DigiNut:

spoken from a true engineer. I defintely agree with you, and I do apply these tactics to certain areas of my life but I believe that if these were the only methods I used, I wouldn't be genuinely happy.

As advocating ONLY this as a philosophy to make one happy. I cannot agree. These guidelines are very logical but too restrictive.

With optimism brings enthusiasm, trust, and encouragement. Its these three aspects that contribute to my happiness.

A healthy mixture of both philosophies are key ingredients.

So, faith is the only way to make one's life meaningful? And here I thought that personal relationships and personal accomplishment had something to do with that...

You're certainly right, Josh, in your definition of faith. I won't argue with that. I'm just not sure why that's necessary or, truthfully, even helpful in life. There's no denying that some people would be lost in life without faith of some sort (and usually this is manifested as faith in God, because an intangible perfect being is always so much easier to have faith in than imperfect human beings), but those people are generally not the pragmatists when you separate faith from the equation. It's much easier to show someone another faith than it is to teach them reason and judgment.

Those people you meet or hear about who led hopeless lives until they found faith in something generally turn out to be the ones who lack any reason or understanding of their environment. They are not ex-pragmatists.

Pragmatists generally don't find themselves lost without faith. I realize that this is something that's very hard to understand for the people who depend on faith and trust and optimism, who think we must all be sorely depressed and empty with unfulfilling lives, but we actually do just fine without resorting to irrational behaviour.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree I think if you add 3. Be prepared to accept the consequences and risks involved from and possibly result from your actions and that pretty much sums up my frame of mind.

That's fair, although I would point out here that decisions don't happen in a vacuum. That is, the consequences of one decision are a component in the circumstances of a future decision. If you truly accept point #1 that I mentioned above, then you've implicitly accepted your #3; understanding all aspects of a problem means understanding what you may have done to cause it.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut That's fair, although I would point out here that decisions don't happen in a vacuum. That is, the consequences of one decision are a component in the circumstances of a future decision. If you truly accept point #1 that I mentioned above, then you've implicitly accepted your #3; understanding all aspects of a problem means understanding what you may have done to cause it.

Not necessarily.

I find a lot of people have trouble with the concept of personal responsibility and accountability. So understanding a problem doesn't mean you accept the consequences, IMO

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut So, faith is the only way to make one's life meaningful? And here I thought that personal relationships and personal accomplishment had something to do with that... You're certainly right, Josh, in your definition of faith. I won't argue with that. I'm just not sure why that's necessary or, truthfully, even helpful in life. There's no denying that some people would be lost in life without faith of some sort (and usually this is manifested as faith in God, because an intangible perfect being is always so much easier to have faith in than imperfect human beings), but those people are generally not the pragmatists when you separate faith from the equation. It's much easier to show someone another faith than it is to teach them reason and judgment. Those people you meet or hear about who led hopeless lives until they found faith in something generally turn out to be the ones who lack any reason or understanding of their environment. They are not ex-pragmatists. Pragmatists generally don't find themselves lost without faith. I realize that this is something that's very hard to understand for the people who depend on faith and trust and optimism, who think we must all be sorely depressed and empty with unfulfilling lives, but we actually do just fine without resorting to irrational behaviour.

I recently read The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, which addresses many of these issues. I highly recommend it, whether you a person of faith or an atheist.


Here is a link to the first chapter, for those who are interested....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/b...&pagewanted=all

An excerpt, which I think is helpful...

"Let's remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism."

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Why should what someone ELSE thinks have an effect on YOUR life?? Who's driving the ship here?? The idea is ludicrous to me. That might matter to some people, but not to me. I think worrying about what other people think is just another excuse not to be fully accountable.

The quote below accurately describes my bias...

"Strange is our situation here on earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: That man is here for the sake of other men - above all for those upon whose smile and well-being our own happiness depends, and also for the countless unknown souls with whose fate we are connected by a bond of sympathy. Many times a day I realize how much my own outer and inner life is built upon the labors of my fellow men, both living and dead, and how earnestly I must exert myself in order to give in return as much as I have received and am still receiving." --Albert Einstein

quote:

Originally posted by SuperJimbo The quote below accurately describes my bias... "Strange is our situation here on earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: That man is here for the sake of other men - above all for those upon whose smile and well-being our own happiness depends, and also for the countless unknown souls with whose fate we are connected by a bond of sympathy. Many times a day I realize how much my own outer and inner life is built upon the labors of my fellow men, both living and dead, and how earnestly I must exert myself in order to give in return as much as I have received and am still receiving." --Albert Einstein

I understood you before you posted this.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie I understood you before you posted this.

Haha. Sorry, even though I quoted you, the post wasn't really directed to you. I just liked the quote, decided to post it, and thought the post required context...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.