 |
|
|
|
 |
DigiNut
You kids get off my lawn!
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Self-proclaimed Centre of the Universe
|
|
|
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.
___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here
|
|
 Jul-14-2007 04:30 
|
|
|
|
|
DigiNut
You kids get off my lawn!
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Self-proclaimed Centre of the Universe
|
|
|
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.
___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here
|
|
|
Jul-15-2007 01:50
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:52.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|
