|
On Optimism (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by SuperJimbo
P.S. Nobody knows anything.
:D |
P.P.S. Everybody knows nothing.
:toothless |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by SuperJimbo
P.S. Nobody knows anything.
|
Yeah, pretty much. ;) |
|
|
| SuperJimbo |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Yeah, pretty much. ;) |
Except DigiNut. He is God. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
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. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^-------- Exactly. |
|
|
| shanny |
| 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. :p |
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. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| 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. |
|
|
| shanny |
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. |
|
|
| MissK |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
