Are you optimistic?

[marjoram_blues]

As things stand, I could tick all 3 boxes in the poll:
Undecided pessimistic optimist
What an unbalanced balancing act.

It probably mean you don't think about things in terms of optimism and pessimism and whatever feeling happens happens. Some others, like Seagull or Dalek, take a more deliberate approach - optimism for utility and pessimism as a defence against disappointment.

While forced optimism may seem naff or false, research by Dan Gilbert found that what he called "synthetic happiness" - the "forced" happiness of settling for second best when your desires are unfulfilled - was practically, hedonically and physiologically indistinguishable from the "natural happiness" that comes from getting what you want.

So the "mask can become the face", and that's what deliberate optimism is about in a nutshell. Reprogramming and personal development. By contrast, pessimism is about inoculation, desensitisation and, if not extreme, preparation for potential threats.

Thanks Greta, appreciate the thoughtful and informative post.
It it is unfortunate that my response seems to have been interpreted as my simply accepting feelings as they arise; giving little further tbought fo their quality, implications or management. For me, it is important for feelings/emotions to be examined and dealt with appropriately, depending on their strength and duration.
Which philosophy of life one adopts may help or hinder this process. It is interesting to speculate and perhaps organise world views in terms of top 10 wellbeingness success. Not sure I would believe the outcomes...

I think that the concepts of optimism and pessimism can be usefully analysed. Are they simply feelings of happiness; a core type personality, both. More ? Extreme ends of a spectrum, where most of us lie in the middle, if we even think about it but would likely want to be seen at the positive, good end.
I don't see that it is beneficial to see others in black and white terms. For example, if you have a certain philosophy ( like Dalek's ) you are pessimistic, if you disagree then you are pollyannish.

I understand everything you speak about. I am not a complete newcomer to the approaches you describe so well. It's clear that you have researched well. Is there a single philosophy which fits well with you. Or is it a case of daily processing...

Being able to tick all the boxes in the poll means that it is a poorly designed poll; signifying not a lot.
However, it kickstarted a valuable conversation, so all is well with the world

[Skip]

In the depression workshops, they call that "fake it till you make it" - and it works for more people than it doesn't. In any case, it's better, both for the protagonist and her or his environment, than sincere moping. It also enables one to make contacts and get productive work done that they otherwise might not face.

We all have to force ourselves to pretend something we don't really feel, quite a lot of the time. Optimism [It'll be all right!] and confidence
[I can do this.] are the masks we most often need to put on, for the sake of others, for the success of an effort, and to reassure ourselves in frightening situations and difficult undertakings.

Optimism and pessimism are not so much about emotions (those are transitory) or even states of mind (those are caused by past experience) but rather more about expectations of the future. Those are a product of temperament + experience + observation of current external conditions + + understanding of one's own power + reasoning and calculation.
I'm quite optimistic about asteroids, rogue planets, vulcanos and tsunamis - I genuinely don't think I'll be under one any time soon.
I have to fake any show of optimism about my flaky aorta, the value of a dollar, Monarch extinction and forest fires.

[Obvious Leo]

I have to fake any show of optimism about my flaky aorta,

I'm right with you there, sister. The only way to cope with treachery from within is to pretend it ain't happening.

[Skip]

Well, you do what you can to mitigate the effects, but beyond that, putting a good face on it is the only way forward.
Otherwise, you just spoil whatever time you have left.

[Greta]

It it is unfortunate that my response seems to have been interpreted as my simply accepting feelings as they arise; giving little further tbought fo their quality, implications or management.

"Seems to" being the key phrase. My intent was that you are just observing without judgement.

That's so much of the web today - clarifying comments rendered ambiguous by the need to not incur tl:dr. Then, if we go into detail, we have to re-explain the things missed by people first coming to grips with novel complex ideas and not ready for that detail. So it goes. Optimistic or pessimistic, much of life involves graft.

For me, it is important for feelings/emotions to be examined and dealt with appropriately, depending on their strength and duration. Which philosophy of life one adopts may help or hinder this process. It is interesting to speculate and perhaps organise world views in terms of top 10 wellbeingness success. Not sure I would believe the outcomes...

The top ten is a funny concept :) I suspect that, with all the shared information online, the conclusions people come to are becoming more homogeneous and streamlining into major tranches of thought.

I think that the concepts of optimism and pessimism can be usefully analysed. Are they simply feelings of happiness; a core type personality, both. More ? Extreme ends of a spectrum, where most of us lie in the middle, if we even think about it but would likely want to be seen at the positive, good end.
I don't see that it is beneficial to see others in black and white terms. For example, if you have a certain philosophy ( like Dalek's ) you are pessimistic, if you disagree then you are pollyannish.

I agree. Ideally most of us would have views somewhere in the middle but the homogenisation of human ideas through common exposure is bringing us to more black and white conclusions, especially with the ever-more-ubiquitous news media manipulating public opinion for profit and political influence. Humans still have a survival-based negativity bias, and this is creating a feedback loop of negativity.

There is growing misanthropy and enormous anger at the destruction of ecosystems, especially as it is occurring without material benefit to the general public due to the growing disparities equality. Still, with the benefit of hindsight, today's problems were predictable enough for the ancients' to devise the four horsemen of the apocalypse meme. Even the people of the Iron Age couldn't help noticing that over time populations grow, things get crowded and ever more competitive, and projecting on from there to non-sustainability is a matter of simple logic. Part of the skewing of the modern mind comes from media propaganda - denials of basic physics and logic by those of influence with vested interests. Society appears to be splitting and it seems likely from here that that drones are being created as part of an evolving world order.

However, while events in our own lifespan are obviously most important to us, due to the creative and destructive cycles of nature, the destruction of society as we know it is probably neither good or bad to a larger, planetary or universal perspective. I am increasingly seeing the Earth like an egg. In nature, creatures lay numerous eggs but there is often a high attrition rate. If life of Earth falls away before reaching its potential life elsewhere will surely "crack the code" and master/transcend their biology enough to persist.

I understand everything you speak about. I am not a complete newcomer to the approaches you describe so well.

I would expect that on a philosophy forum and that's why I am here! You can actually converse substantially with people who don't give you blank gazes or a "shut up you nerd" vibe, or change the subject. Yesterday I was chatting with a couple as we walked our respective dogs and the subject of flightiness in dogs came up. One mention by me of "amygdala" earned me a blank look and a quick exit, leaving me yet again feeling like Robinson Crusoe awash in a sea of anti-intellectualism. So I come to philosophy forums ... as do you rest of you :). Any smart person has reason to focus on the negative. Still, with age I increasingly see it is a skewed perspective that only takes half of the equation into account. If the aim is to better understand reality, then neutrality helps. If the aim is to be happy, then optimism helps. If the aim is not to be disappointed and be ready for upcoming threats, pessimism is the tool. There have been studies suggesting that pessimists tend to be more realistic and live longer, although if one is a miserable, pessimistic sod it begs to question as to why a longer life would be of benefit :)

It's clear that you have researched well. Is there a single philosophy which fits well with you. Or is it a case of daily processing...

I confess to the use of performance enhancing drugs like any good information junkie and dedicated psychonaut :)

I like parts of various philosophies (obviously superficial hedonism is a favourite) but not all of any particular philosophy. I bought a philosophy overview book with summaries of each philosopher's ideas and I could barely read it because it read like a stream of misapprehensions, blind alleys, ephemera, linguistic games and occasionally utter tosh - and with far less of substance than I expected (no doubt editing played a part, to be fair).

I was left with the impression that the most clear modern thinkers, with the benefit of their predecessors and advances in science, have embraced ever more realistic and substantial paradigms. In that sense, philosophy seems like science, with its own progression of provisionally accepted and rejected memes.

Damn, done it again. Next post will be short!

[Walker]

There is growing misanthropy and enormous anger at the destruction of ecosystems, especially as it is occurring without material benefit to the general public due to the growing disparities equality. Still, with the benefit of hindsight, today's problems were predictable enough for the ancients' to devise the four horsemen of the apocalypse meme. Even the people of the Iron Age couldn't help noticing that over time populations grow, things get crowded and ever more competitive, and projecting on from there to non-sustainability is a matter of simple logic. Part of the skewing of the modern mind comes from media propaganda - denials of basic physics and logic by those of influence with vested interests. Society appears to be splitting and it seems likely from here that that drones are being created as part of an evolving world order.

However, while events in our own lifespan are obviously most important to us, due to the creative and destructive cycles of nature, the destruction of society as we know it is probably neither good or bad to a larger, planetary or universal perspective. I am increasingly seeing the Earth like an egg. In nature, creatures lay numerous eggs but there is often a high attrition rate. If life of Earth falls away before reaching its potential life elsewhere will surely "crack the code" and master/transcend their biology enough to persist.

Nature. People don’t pay much attention to nature until they’re up against it. It’s a reactionary world now. Debates are sound bites.

Folks used to plan things out more, such as when a man builds a church and also plants a stand of trees with laws in place to preserve them for hundreds of years, until they grow round enough to replace the beams in the church that have by now, rotted.

As one who knows stoop work in the hot sun, I still remember the thrill I felt when I first read these words. It's like looking at a majestic mountain range from the window of a climate-controlled car and saying ah, how beautiful, while in past times the mountains were a dangerous obstacle.

In fact, I couldn't find a quote on it anywhere, but I remember Hoffer wrote that the whole of nature should be paved over.

Almost all the books I read spoke worshipfully of Nature. Nature was pure, innocent, serene, health-giving, bountiful, the fountainhead of elevated thoughts and noble feelings. It seemed that every writer was a “Nature boy.” I assumed that these people had no share in the world’s work and did not know Nature at close quarters. It also seemed to me that they had a grievance. For couple with their admiration of Nature was a distaste for Man and Man’s work. Man was a violator, a defiler and deformer.

The truth about Nature I found in the newspapers, in the almost daily reports of floods, tornadoes, blizzards, hurricanes, typhoons, hailstorms, sandstorms, earthquakes, avalanches, eruptions, inundations, pests, plagues, and famines. Sometimes when reading about Nature’s terrible visitations and her massacre of the innocents, it seemed to me that we were surrounded by devouring, pitiless forces, that the earth was full of anger, the sky dark with wrath, and that man had built the city as refuge from a hostile, nonhuman cosmos. I realized that the contest between Man and Nature has been the central drama of the universe.

- Eric Hoffer
https://books.google.com/books?id=4zMEA ... re&f=false

[marjoram_blues]

In the depression workshops, they call that "fake it till you make it" - and it works for more people than it doesn't. In any case, it's better, both for the protagonist and her or his environment, than sincere moping. It also enables one to make contacts and get productive work done that they otherwise might not face.

M: Really? In which depression workshops, where, and run by what kind of an organisation ? In other words, I'd like a source for this strong claim being made in respect to people with depression. Also, I'm curious about the use of vocabulary: 'protagonist'; 'sincere moping' - what do you mean? 'Putting a face on' so as to face work and societal obligations might be beneficial or detrimental, depending on cause or type of depression. As to how long it 'works' for, and for whom, type of depression - any follow-up studies ( quantitative/qualitative) ?

We all have to force ourselves to pretend something we don't really feel, quite a lot of the time. Optimism [It'll be all right!] and confidence
[I can do this.] are the masks we most often need to put on, for the sake of others, for the success of an effort, and to reassure ourselves in frightening situations and difficult undertakings.

M: There is a difference between everyday kinda masks ( or roles, we play as a matter of social lubrication) and the earlier kind of pretending that we are fine ( all is well with the world, thank you ) when there is actually something seriously wrong with either our physical/mental health. In the latter, you might well end up a dead ostrich with a gobful of sand.

Optimism and pessimism are not so much about emotions (those are transitory) or even states of mind (those are caused by past experience) but rather more about expectations of the future. Those are a product of temperament + experience + observation of current external conditions + + understanding of one's own power + reasoning and calculation.

M: I agree about the transitory nature of some emotions such as joy/anger - however, even the transitory can become a permanent way of reacting to the world, almost second nature. I agree that you hear of the 'angry young man'; 'grumpy old woman' with apparently static states of mind, caused by life experience. However, such states of mind are not fixed; as you say, new experiences/knowledge come into the equation. They can just as easily 'change minds' to a more realistic way of thinking (philosophy). This does not necessarily produce an 'optimist' or a 'pessimist' out of the raw materials.

I'm quite optimistic about asteroids, rogue planets, vulcanos and tsunamis - I genuinely don't think I'll be under one any time soon.
I have to fake any show of optimism about my flaky aorta, the value of a dollar, Monarch extinction and forest fires.

M: OK, I get it - you like to be an optimist with pessimistic leanings; it works for you. But it wouldn't necessarily prevent an episode of depression. Just sayin'. And that ain't me being pessimistic. And you (people) shouldn't feel you let others, or yourself, down should such an event occur. That's (almost) the worst thing that could happen.
But I reckon you know all that...
Good Luck with the heart - you show plenty of it here, your shininess

[marjoram_blues]

It it is unfortunate that my response seems to have been interpreted as my simply accepting feelings as they arise; giving little further tbought fo their quality, implications or management.

"Seems to" being the key phrase. My intent was that you are just observing without judgement.

M: Yup, 'seems to', 'appears' and 'depending' - all useful phrases. Glad you clarified your intent. And to clarify the 'without judgement' aspect, for anyone reading and wondering. If and when I observe feelings/emotions of varying degrees of force/duration, then some kind of judgement, or assessment, is necessarily involved. However, being non-judgemental - with no excessive criticism of self or others - is helpful in any attempt to objectively deal with the subjective.

I agree. Ideally most of us would have views somewhere in the middle but the homogenisation of human ideas through common exposure is bringing us to more black and white conclusions, especially with the ever-more-ubiquitous news media manipulating public opinion for profit and political influence. Humans still have a survival-based negativity bias, and this is creating a feedback loop of negativity.

M: Wow ! Homogenisation of human ideas, eh ? Wouldn't that result in grey, rather than black and white ? Where did you read of this stuff re humans and a survival-based negativity bias creating a feedback loop of negativity ? It sounds ominous...do you think that philosophy could be a weapon to bite into any loopy loop ?

There is growing misanthropy and enormous anger at the destruction of ecosystems, especially as it is occurring without material benefit to the general public due to the growing disparities equality. Still, with the benefit of hindsight, today's problems were predictable enough for the ancients' to devise the four horsemen of the apocalypse meme. Even the people of the Iron Age couldn't help noticing that over time populations grow, things get crowded and ever more competitive, and projecting on from there to non-sustainability is a matter of simple logic. Part of the skewing of the modern mind comes from media propaganda - denials of basic physics and logic by those of influence with vested interests. Society appears to be splitting and it seems likely from here that that drones are being created as part of an evolving world order.

M: Yes, a degree of imagination and logic would help in any prediction of humanity's progress, or otherwise, in the world. However, the sharing of knowledge and understanding has never been so great. Clearly, the world and its structures change over time - humans may well be taken over by robots...so many ifs...our own stories pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Zooming right out, we can put our temporary difficulties into perspective; zooming on in to particular pains or pleasures can make or break us, depending on...yup...our philosophy. Some people just get on with life - it fills their all. No room for yacking about optimism or pessimism.

I understand everything you speak about. I am not a complete newcomer to the approaches you describe so well.

I would expect that on a philosophy forum and that's why I am here! You can actually converse substantially with people who don't give you blank gazes or a "shut up you nerd" vibe, or change the subject. Yesterday I was chatting with a couple as we walked our respective dogs and the subject of flightiness in dogs came up. One mention by me of "amygdala" earned me a blank look and a quick exit, leaving me yet again feeling like Robinson Crusoe awash in a sea of anti-intellectualism. So I come to philosophy forums ... as do you rest of you .

M: Your expectations appear to be significantly higher than mine ! Or are you having a laugh ?

It's clear that you have researched well. Is there a single philosophy which fits well with you. Or is it a case of daily processing...

I like parts of various philosophies (obviously superficial hedonism is a favourite) but not all of any particular philosophy. I bought a philosophy overview book with summaries of each philosopher's ideas and I could barely read it because it read like a stream of misapprehensions, blind alleys, ephemera, linguistic games and occasionally utter tosh - and with far less of substance than I expected (no doubt editing played a part, to be fair).

M: I haven't aligned myself to a single philosophy - my own worldview is probably a mish-mash of 'what will be, will be' sprinkled with a 'just because it is that way, doesn't mean it should be that way'. And other bits and pieces...basically boiling down to vanilla.

I was left with the impression that the most clear modern thinkers, with the benefit of their predecessors and advances in science, have embraced ever more realistic and substantial paradigms. In that sense, philosophy seems like science, with its own progression of provisionally accepted and rejected memes.

M: Really ? Who counts, in your book, as a 'clear, modern thinker' ?

Damn, done it again. Next post will be short!
M: If you got it, flaunt it...it's good to read about others' perspectives but sometimes difficult to respond...

[Skip]

[M: Really? In which depression workshops, where, and run by what kind of an organisation ?

The one two of my chronically depressed friends attended for several years, in conjunction with cognitive therapy, art therapy, peer support group and a course on coping, under the auspices of a respectable outpatients clinic. And that's as far as I'm willing to breach their privacy.

In other words, I'd like a source for this strong claim being made in respect to people with depression.

I'm just reporting what they said.

Also, I'm curious about the use of vocabulary: 'protagonist'; 'sincere moping' - what do you mean?

The protagonist is the person whose narrative is being reported; it's gender-neutral. Sincere means expressing what you actually feel. Moping is a demeanour usually characterised by a sad face, slow responses to stimuli, sluggish movements, a reluctance to engage with the world, a lack of joy or enthusiasm. It's not a pleasant way to spend one's day, let alone one's life.

'Putting a face on' so as to face work and societal obligations might be beneficial or detrimental, depending on cause or type of depression.

If that were easy to determine, it might be easier to treat! Alas, in many cases of chronic depression, the cause is never determined. You can spend 30, 40, 50 years trying to figure it out, and feeling crappy the whole time. This is why so many people with chronic depression - as also with chronic pain, or eating disorders, or addictions - benefit from coping and managing strategies. Beats the heck out of drugs that make you deaf. (Incidentally, my friends don't like to think of themselves as patients or sufferers or victims - hence my use of 'protagonist'.)

As to how long it 'works' for, and for whom, type of depression - any follow-up studies ( quantitative/qualitative) ?

Probably lots, but I didn't follow it up. Anecdotal. "Fake it till you make it" is simply a shorthand reference to behaving as you would like to feel. It's a way of taking control, doing something positive to break the cycle of fast slide down/slow climb up from the pit; of changing habits through awareness and deliberate repetition. It's not so much pretence as rehearsal for a more desirable way to be.
If it doesn't work for you, try another strategy.

OK, I get it - you like to be an optimist with pessimistic leanings; it works for you.

Not exactly. I'm an optimist who prefers to see more3 vivid colours than pink.

But it wouldn't necessarily prevent an episode of depression. Just sayin'. And that ain't me being pessimistic. And you (people) shouldn't feel you let others, or yourself, down should such an event occur. That's (almost) the worst thing that could happen.

You can't prevent depression - you don't know it's going to happen. Nor can you prevent people who become depressed feeling inadequate and guilty over letting their loved ones down by telling them they "shouldn't" feel how they feel. That's one of the things the support group has to deal with, all the time, cose it keep coming back: how to stop beating yourself up for the things you shouldn't or can't.

[Dalek Prime]

Is nature a good thing really. Think what nature is; it's the status quo, in it's implied intent. So, going against nature is really just going against a status quo. I've always pitted myself against human nature eg. didn't procreate.

In Frankenstein, the crime was creating a consciousness outside the status quo, or natural order. But any way you look at it, it was about creating a consciousness, without its consent, and throwing it into the world.

* Nature was brought up, and brought this to mind. Pardon the excursion.

[marjoram_blues]

Hey Skip - I just experienced a most Intense feeling of déjà vu. Have we been here before ? The only stand out new bit, for me, is the phrase 'sincere moping'.
Is that how the protagonists describe their depression ?

It makes me cringely smile as I consider it as my sign-off.

Thanks for all the clarification and perspective placement.
The subject of depression is a whole world of investigation. And I hold out hope that someday all such chronic and acute health problems can be cured by a painless flick of the brain, or summat.

[Skip]

No, that's not their description, Their description runs to a couple of pages and varies from one day to the next. I was merely responding to some previous reference to genuine or sincere emotions as they are different from assumed or put-on ones. If you dislike the phrase, disown it, replace it. How about "genuine melancholy"?

Yes, I'm sure the subject of depression, its experience and management, has come around more than once. There is enough of it around! And, as you see, I have a personal interest. One of my friends has irreversible tinnitus caused by an anti-depressant that wasn't even effective.

[Obvious Leo]

Drug strategies on their own are of vanishingly small therapeutic value when it comes to effective treatment for depressive illness. It is estimated that only about 2% of all the people who are routinely prescribed anti-depressant drugs ever derive any benefit from them beyond placebo and the range of possible harmful side-effects grows daily. By and large such drugs benefit only those that manufacture and sell them.

[Harbal]

We shouldn't exist, and are better off that way. Much less unnecessary unpleasantness between now and our inevitable extinction.

I think we can safely put you in the pessimist camp.

[attofishpi]

We shouldn't exist, and are better off that way. Much less unnecessary unpleasantness between now and our inevitable extinction.

I'm very optimistic that this may soon be the case.