Image: Matt Collins
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
I am, by nature, an optimist. I almost always think things will turn out well, and even when they break I am confident that I can fix them. My optimism, however, has not always served me well. Twice I have been hit by cars while cycling—full-on, through-the-windshield impacts that were entirely the result of my blissful attitude that the street corners I had successfully negotiated hundreds of times before would not suddenly materialize an automobile in my path. Such high-impact, unpredictable and rare events are what author Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls “black swans.” Given enough time, no upward sloping trend line is immune from dramatic collapse.
A bike crash as a black swan is, in fact, an apt metaphor for what the investigative journalist and natural-born skeptic Barbara Ehrenreich believes happened to America as a result of the positive-thinking movement. In her engaging and tightly reasoned book Bright-Sided (Metropolitan Books, 2009), she shows how the positive-psychology movement was born in the halcyon days of the 1990s when the economy was soaring, housing prices were skyrocketing, and positive-thinking gurus were cashing in on the motivation business. Academic psychologists, armed with a veneer of scientific jargon, wanted in on the action.
The shallow bafflegab of such positive-thinking pioneers as Norman Vincent Peale (The Power of Positive Thinking, 1952) and Napoleon Hill (Think and Grow Rich, 1937) or the “prosperity gospel” preachings of such contemporary “pastorpreneurs” as Frederick “Reverend Ike” Eikerenkoetter, Robert H. Schuller and Joel Osteen are predictably data-light and anecdote-heavy. But one expects better of respected experimental psychologists such as Martin E. P. Seligman, who almost single-handedly launched the positive-psychology movement in academia that is, according to the Positive Psychology Center Web page (www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu), “the scientific study of the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive.” Ehrenreich systematically deconstructs—and then demolishes—what little science there is behind the positive-psychology movement and the allegedly salubrious effects of positive thinking. Evidence is thin. Statistical significance levels are narrow. What few robust findings there are often prove to be either nonreplicable or contradicted by later research. And correlations (between, say, happiness and health) are not causations. Seligman and his colleagues drank the positive-thinking Kool-Aid, Ehrenreich shows, but she provides the antidote.
Take Seligman’s “happiness equation” (physics envy lives!): H = S + C + V (Happiness = your Set range + the Circumstances of your life + the factors under your Voluntary control). As Ehrenreich notes, “if you’re going to add these things up you will have to have the same units [of measurement] for H (happy thoughts per day?) as for V, S, and C.” When she confronted Seligman with this problem in an interview, “his face twisted into a scowl, and he told me that I didn’t understand ‘beta weighting’ and should go home and Google it.” She did, “finding that ‘beta weights’ are the coefficients of the ‘predictors’ in a regression equation used to find statistical correlations between variables. But Seligman had presented his formula as an ordinary equation, like E = mc2, not as an oversimplified regression analysis, leaving himself open to literal-minded questions like: How do we know H is a simple sum of the variables, rather than some more complicated relationship, possibly involving ‘second order’ effects such as ... C times V?” We don’t know, thereby rendering the equation nothing more than a slogan gussied up in math.
See what we're tweeting about
52 Comments
Add CommentInteresting article. I'm glad that Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King Jr. weren't realistic thinkers. As for moving science forward, I'm not sure that any of our true advancements came from realistic thinking. Realism (looking at what is and accepting it as the 'end all be all' of valid thinking) is an excellent way to stagnate scientific progress and deteriorate the emotional experience of mankind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo we experience 'black swans' from time to time. No reason to tuck our tail between our legs and become stale realist s protected from the potential let down of thinking too big. Thought is the next big frontier. Negative thinking is moving backwards ... it's about moving towards what you don't want. Realism is about standing still ... it's about saying "I'm good with what is". Positive thinking is thought moving forward into new areas that stimulate us and enhance our experience and our science.
Yes 'black swans' happen. But when we fall of the bike of positive thinking, the best thing we can do is get back on... not become realists!
@stevenleinweber
I am an optimist, in that I always believe that everything will be great. The trick to being happy is not to try to define what 'great' is. Therefore take 'everything will be great' as the axiom. That way whatever happens, however you feel about it, you will know that it is actually great and how can you not feel good about that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis way of thinking is closely related to the 'having faith' notion in many religions and spiritual philosophies. It may sound a bit kooky, but it is both logical and realistic as well as avoiding misery and disappointment.
Perhaps a simpler, but less absolute way of looking it is that you can always imagine a worse situation than your current one (even if your current one is by typical standards dire). Compare the two and voila, things aren't so bad after all are they?
I somewhat disagree with @stevenleinweber that realism is the emotional equivalent of standing still. I think of it more as a potential springboard- my dog died last week (he really did), so I realistically mourn and accept his death, then I decide what to do next (get another dog, eat a tub of ice cream, etc.). To me, "positive thinking" in and of itself is empty, without meaning or result, unless one applies some sort of analysis or method to it, such as visualizing success and then doing what it takes to make success happen. The "doing what it takes" MUST start from a realistic standpoint, or else one is just boxing the air. Therefore, realism is the basis for an effective optimism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSteven, I think you confuse realists with passifists. Realism is about acknowledging what is and is not there. The hero's you mention were all realists. Did MLK believe he could wipe out racism? No, but he knew he could campaign for equality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRealism and Idealism/Optimism are not mutually exclusive.
Positive thinking certainly has sinister benefits (snake oil has been around a long time, and I may have a bridge or some florida swampland to sell you!), but the article demonstrates that as a legitimate science, it's mostly bunk.
arynix,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour right...if an idea is a looser, you fail no matter how positive you are.
stevenleinweber,
Realism is recognizing the truth and where it CAN and CAN NOT take you. Is the idea worthy of the risks?
You also choose three very poor examples for positive thinking... why?
All those people tapped into the resources of the huge population of "Do Gooders".
kieryn,
You should plan a weekend camping trip to Mars or Pluto, since everything is Great, an having Faith is Logical an Fixes Everything.
You said, "That way whatever happens, however you feel about it, you will know that it is actually great and how can you not feel good about that?" I don't think so, Why?
A positive attitude is not the issue...it's having a positive attitude when it's clearly time to make some changes. A whatever happens happens attitude, must be great... is not ok.
It puts you in a situation of accepting stuff you should clearly change.
Positivism is very much like drinking kool-aid; you don't care what it's made of or what it will do (other than juice you up), just just drink it and "feel better." Hardly a sound basis for making any sort of decision of weight. It also ignored the function of human emotions: to cause responses or adaptations to stimulus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnger isn't just a negative emotion, it's an indicator of something gone amok that needs an adaptive response. Pleasure isn't just a positive bliss-out, it's an indicator that whatever just happened functions to get that bliss-out. When psychology is used to promote a cult-like religion (feeling good at all cost, regardless of whether you should or not under a given set of circumstances) it is always a very very dangerous idea because all manner of hoohah begins to masquerade as the truth: e.g., war is peace and other bullshit.
Realism is certainly the key. One of the things I've learned from being around bipolar wired people is that emotions are great indicators of circumstance and provocateurs of actions, but terrible end-goals. BP's are people who "feel" and take in stimuli in a broadband sort of way--deep and dense on all channels simultaneously. Genetic research, the little we have so far, shows the alleles that code for BP are fantastic adaptations to stress: hunker down (depression) or jump the crevasse right this minute (mania). When you get a genetic pooling effect for these you end up with a BP wired person who has too much of a good thing. IOW, the emotional highs and lows are excessive and cover-up the underlying good adaptive use of emotional indicators to respond to stimuli.
Positivism is like grabbing onto mania and insisting that feeling good is the normal state of being, much like a BP wired does when manic. Unfortunately "reality" holds eventually there's a crash and that's the consequence of being happy-happy when you just should not be, and it'll cost ya.
Coftinator,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou expressed the solution with such honest clarity..thank you.
"accepting stuff you should clearly change"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut why? What is the point of striving for anything if you are happy with the status quo or anything else that might change it? By what mechanism or principle do you figure out what you should 'clearly' change?
Like I said, if you take that 'everything is great' as your axiom, there really is no reason to change anything. If we all thought this way everyone would be happy. Sure, we'd probably all be hungry, sick and dying, but who would care? la di lah... nah nah tee hee. I'm hungry now. Where did I put my sandwich?...
Jews in WWII Warsaw had a positive attitude until they were herded into cattle cars and shipped to the gas chambers. If they had been more realistic earlier they might have put up some defense, or at least made the Nazi's pay more than they did against Jewish positive thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHermit
Hermit's comment demonstrates the falacy of positive thinking vis a vis 'blaming the victim.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI only mention this because some people (positive thinkers?) might not catch Hermit's insinuation that the jews (and homosexuals, and learning disabled, and others) were/are somehow to blame for their own massacre/persecution.
Hermit's example is a grave and gross over-simplification, which, unfortunately, is precisely what happens when you divide an argument between "positive thinking/optimism" and "realism."
That line of thinking can be extended like this: Poor people are poor becuase they aren't/don't/should...(fill in the blank).
There might be some partial truth to the statement, but it explicitly neglects and implicitly excuses other complex factors which may be more to blame.
(@Bops - my pleasure, and thanks for the feather in my cap today)
Arynix, you put this into words quite well. It's important to see 'what is' but we can't stay focused only on 'what is' if we want to move forward (no disagreement here at all... you just laid it out better! Thank you!).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reality of now or 'what is' is the springboard for launching what's next. Absolutely. Launching with negative thoughts has a strong tendency to pull most people towards what they don't want. Focusing only on 'what is' tends to keep most people stuck experiencing 'what is'. Launching with positive thoughts tends to take most people in the direction of what they do want. Again, I think your comment illustrates this very well.
All the positive thinking in the world isn't going to make bad things not happen to you. It isn't going to make injustices like the one Hermit mentioned disappear. That's ridiculous thinking. I'm simply a tenacious advocate of focusing on the goal regardless if bad things happen ... with a positive attitude towards achieving the desired outcome.
It's worked well for me and for everyone I've met (or read about) who has overcome enormous obstacles and achieved a goal despite what 'reality' was telling them. People who suceed don't sit still, point at 'what is', and argue for their limitations. They acknowledge 'what is' and positively move towards what they want anyway.
Positively leaning beyond reality,
@stevenleinweber
Most religions contain basic elements of positive thinking-somewhere in time our lives will get better here on earth or in heaven. Studies in hospitals have shown that religious people usually fare better in overcoming or accepting disease better than non-believers. They become less discontented with their lot, or, happier than non-believers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Sol Biderman
Most religious people believe their life will be fuller and HAPPIER somewhere in time--either in this life or in another.This belief has sustained them to endure greater hardships throughout history.Hospital studies have indicated that religious persons endure or adapt to pain and disease with less trauma than non-religious persons.Their religious beliefs have also helped them create the greatest forms of art--through music, painting, literature--and in most cases have made their interlocutors happier for having discovered great art.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Crick who helped discover DNA resigned from his college in Cambridge because the college had decided to build a chapel. Imagine the prejudice of one of the great scientists of recent times against religion and against those who use religion in the pursuit of a tenuous future HAPPINESS
--Sol Biderman
Wow, Croftinator, you wildly misread my comment and I wonder why you are so quick to accuse me of, "insinuation that the jews (and homosexuals, and learning disabled, and others) were/are somehow to blame for their own massacre/persecution." That's not at all what I said, but if you are saying Jews had no chance to save themselves, even if they had reacted sooner, then you disagree with many Jews as well as with me. I never mentioned homosexuals or learning disabled so I doubt if you have any idea what I think about them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany Jews in '48 very purposefully rejected their ancestor's positive attitude that, "all would work out" and took reality into their own hands, winning a fierce war for Israel. That's what I was talking about; positive thinking can be denial posing as a belief. Confidence is based on experience, not what feels good, so bravado or dismissal are less likely and real action plans become more realizable. A positive attitude was suicidal for Poland's Jews. I think other cultures in dire peril have saved themselves by determined/desperate struggle (Viet Nam) while still others have succumbed by positively believing their conqueror's would be benevolent (Incas.)
As for me blaming the victim, I have lifelong Jewish friends, have helped a gay friend keep his partner in the country and worked with learning disabled in grad school. I don't blame them any more than you or me so please don't bring them into it. When your ideology knee-jerks at certain words you aren't really thinking and miss very obvious points, or worse. Life is always an interplay of external and internal variables (at least before the train rolls into the camp) and focusing exclusively on one or the other makes for helplessness or delusions of grandeur.
By the way, if you really respect Jews, please use a capital "J" in "Jew."
Hermit
In corporate America it is almost impossible for a manager to avoid those who sell the virtues of a positive mental attitude. The attitude and how to get it is contained in a barrage of books, business magazines, corporate literature, and newspapers, and forms the basic message at corporate pep rallies, which range from large scale cavernous meetings of several thousand employees to intimate pseudo group therapy meetings and inspirational retreats. Managers returning from these events eschewed all forms of negativism even to the point of isolating employees accused of spreading negative energy or negative vibes and in some cases terminating them. What is a negative employee? Typically they are those who cause trouble, give their manager a headache, they may seek to mobilize employees against management or some change initiative, but in most cases they are employees who point out flaws, suggest alternatives, and question assumptions. They enjoy critical thinking and they love to diagnose and solve problems. One could say they embrace what the positive/happiness people dread, the diagnostic medical model. As a matter of fact the positive/happiness people dont refer to it as the medical model of diagnosis they call it the disease model and maintain that it promotes victimization, pathology, and of course, negativity. As a consultant stated in an address to several hundred managers, We have to stop focusing on problems or whats wrong, we need to change our attitude and the attitudes of our employees and develop their strengths. Negativity and pessimism spreads like a cancer and the only way to combat it is to get on with whats good, what works, thats our strength. While condemning the medical model he conveniently uses it. Positive consultants aggressively report that negativity is a disease and must be defeated and only a positive attitude defeats this disease. This is indeed simplistic or magical thinking, but it has a powerful voice in universities and among an ever growing field of organizational consultants, coaches, gurus, speakers, and writers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn corporate America it is almost impossible for a manager to avoid those who sell the virtues of a positive mental attitude. The attitude and how to get it is contained in a barrage of books, business magazines, corporate literature, and newspapers, and forms the basic message at corporate “pep rallies,” which range from large scale cavernous meetings of several thousand employees to intimate pseudo group therapy meetings and inspirational retreats. Managers returning from these events eschewed all forms of negativism even to the point of isolating employees accused of spreading “negative energy” or “negative vibes” and in some cases terminating them. What is a negative employee? Typically they are those who cause trouble, give their manager a “headache,” they may seek to mobilize employees against management or some change initiative, but in most cases they are employees who point out flaws, suggest alternatives, and question assumptions. They enjoy critical thinking and they love to diagnose and solve problems. One could say they embrace what the positive/happiness people dread, the diagnostic medical model. As a matter of fact the positive/happiness people don’t refer to it as the medical model of diagnosis they call it the disease model and maintain that it promotes victimization, pathology, and of course, negativity. As a consultant stated in an address to several hundred managers, “We have to stop focusing on problems or what’s wrong, we need to change our attitude and the attitudes of our employees and develop their strengths. Negativity and pessimism spreads like a cancer and the only way to combat it is to get on with what’s good, what works, that’s our strength.” While condemning the medical model he conveniently uses it. Positive consultants aggressively report that negativity is a disease and must be defeated and only a positive attitude defeats this disease. This is indeed simplistic or magical thinking, but it has a powerful voice in universities and among an ever growing field of organizational consultants, coaches, gurus, speakers, and writers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suppose this article is symptomatic of science-oriented publications intended for the general public. That is, as previous commenters have noted, none of the terms are thoroughly defined/operationalized. "Realism" vs. "optimism" vs. "pessimism": while common sense evokes certain definitions of these terms, there are no clearly articulated definitions within this piece whereby a reader might agree with, disagree with, or qualify the author's conclusions or feelings--as it is clearly a review or critique rather than an original piece of research. If this problem suffuses popular science publications, it may also be an unfortunate constant in quite a few projects of modern psychology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest that this bit of pop-sci journalism is patently unconvincing because the theories it's critiquing are thin in terms of evidence, and also because the critique the author is endorsing is equally as vapid: Ehrenreich simply rebuts, with logic, the tenuous conclusions of positive psychology's proponents. From what the author quotes of her book, one would never know as to whether she calls for more research into the area or finds this particular line of psychological theory irredeemable or a myriad of other possible ending notes...Yes, of course, the universe continues without regard for an individual human being's feelings but HOW does or should that affect a given individual's psyche? How do human beings negotiate such an uncaring universe? How does one make sense of it? Link it back to the original problem in a convincing, fresh fashion.
So while Ehrenreich's interaction with Seligman, in which they discuss his "equation," is trotted out as a damning piece of journalistic evidence as to how positive psychology enthusiasts have misled individuals into ill-advised, unwarranted bouts of optimism, the question as to what a "realist" or "realism" consists of is never quite brought to the fore.
Publications like this one have a bad habit of publishing articles and editorials that speak to a notion of "what feels right" or "what a reasonable person would surmise"; this is NOT science nor is it scientific. And while the opening sentence, in which the author "confesses" to being an optimist, may be disarming, it is a decidedly condescending tactic. I, for one, need and want more substance and less pathos...even if it is Scientific American.
BTW, "positivism" is a philosophy of science first; it is not generally understood as a branch of psychology.
Honestly, this article sounds like it was written under some time pressure. Fluff.
Well realism is good. But much, indeed most in developed nations, of what we refer to as 'the world' is socially constructed and it is nonsense to suggest that those aspects of reality are not hugely affected by our attitude. Realism is good. Thinking to coast through life (or round corners on bikes) in neutral gear is not realistic. Either we build exchanges that promote upward spirals or we do something else. Kool-aid did not leap out and force itself down people's throats; it was deliberately administered by a deranged attitude to others. Nor indeed did the corner referred to in the article 'materialise' a car. Of course there are more complexities behind "H=S+C+V" than anyone understands or claims to have worked out - a primary schoolchild would know that. That doesn't mean it is isn't an effective way of getting across a general point (nor that it has no appropriate bases). I quote it often but never as a simplified mathematical equation and never have I encountered anyone who thought it was to be taken fully in such a way. I present it and they take it as a signpost on an important journey.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have not read Ehrenreich's book and nothing in this poor article inclines me to do so. Some will jump on it and say, "see we told you all along this was nonsense." That's a pity for it will waste time (mainly their's).
But there is a touch of Scrooge in this. Don't seek happiness or it will be your downfall. Prepare for hardtimes. One Christmas returning from Philadelphia and MAPP I woke to the radio as usual and heard a Free Church Minister arguing that there was no basis in the Bible for Christmas (there isn't in many ways, there are in others) and warning that it was folly to 'spend what little time you have in this life enjoying or celebrating things when you should be preparing for your eternal life hereafter.' I knew I was back in Scotland. Though after reflection I realised I could have been anywhere. These matters are universal. The story of Scrooge, Tiny Tim and his family remains a pretty good example of H=S+C+V. But then it is just fiction, just a social construction. Not reality? Reality is that winter has been and still is often hard for many. We learn from our parents and others that spring and indeed even summer will come, if we did not we might give up. We have learnt something of building upward spirals and of dealing with adversity, often with fun and joy.
At risk of invoking Sherman and Ehrenreich's ire, let me dare to wish you all a Happy Christmas/winter festival.
Best
Angus
Well realism is good. But much, indeed most in developed nations, of what we refer to as 'the world' is socially constructed and it is nonsense to suggest that those aspects of reality are not hugely affected by our attitude. Realism is good. Thinking to coast through life (or round corners on bikes) in neutral gear is not realistic. Either we build exchanges that promote upward spirals or we do something else. Kool-aid did not leap out and force itself down people's throats; it was deliberately administered by a deranged attitude to others. Nor indeed did the corner referred to in the article 'materialise' a car. Of course there are more complexities behind "H=S+C+V" than anyone understands or claims to have worked out - a primary schoolchild would know that. That doesn't mean it is isn't an effective way of getting across a general point (nor that it has no appropriate bases). I quote it often but never as a simplified mathematical equation and never have I encountered anyone who thought it was to be taken fully in such a way. I present it and they take it as a signpost on an important journey.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have not read Ehrenreich's book and nothing in this poor article inclines me to do so. Some will jump on it and say, "see we told you all along this was nonsense." That's a pity for it will waste time (mainly their's).
But there is a touch of Scrooge in this. Don't seek happiness or it will be your downfall. Prepare for hardtimes. One Christmas returning from Philadelphia and MAPP I woke to the radio as usual and heard a Free Church Minister arguing that there was no basis in the Bible for Christmas (there isn't in many ways, there are in others) and warning that it was folly to 'spend what little time you have in this life enjoying or celebrating things when you should be preparing for your eternal life hereafter.' I knew I was back in Scotland. Though after reflection I realised I could have been anywhere. These matters are universal. The story of Scrooge, Tiny Tim and his family remains a pretty good example of H=S+C+V. But then it is just fiction, just a social construction. Not reality? Reality is that winter has been and still is often hard for many. We learn from our parents and others that spring and indeed even summer will come, if we did not we might give up. We have learnt something of building upward spirals and of dealing with adversity, often with fun and joy.
At risk of invoking Sherman and Ehrenreich's ire, let me dare to wish you all a Happy Christmas/winter festival.
Best
Angus
Not to say that I entirely agree with Seligman or entirely disagree with Ehrenreich, but the H=S+C+V criticism seems to be just nitpicking. It can be viewed as simply identifying the different components of H. Sure it can be H*C*V or H^C^V. Whatever. Nitpicking on the "units" and the formal relationship between the variables seems to be missing the forest for the trees..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first two "positive thinking" comments here both exhibit a similar silliness and misunderstanding of the words optimist and realist. As croftinator pointed out, realism and optimism are not incompatible. Realism means attempting to recognize the world for what it actually is, especially when it conflicts with your preconceptions of what the world should be. Optimism is expecting future events to (generally) be good, and usually taking a positive view of present events. Nothing about these two definitions conflict. In fact, all optimists who have some interest in actually being correct about the things they are optimistic for should consider themselves a realist. The word for an optimist who is not a realist is "delusional"; a person who expects the world is/will be a certain way even though they know the world doesn't operate like that (or they're off in a fantasy land where it doesn't matter). And don't try to say nothing good has been done in the name of realism. As far as I know, most science has been based on investigating how the world actually works, rather than how the scientists would like it to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, just as an aside on the second comment, taking a philosophy of "everything will be great" only works if you can have different levels of great. If not, then having a job and a life would be equally great to sitting on the couch watching TV, but would be more difficult, so would be irrational to pursue. So you need to have gradients of "great", with some things more great than others. But that doesn't really work either. Since good and bad are just relative terms of levels of desirability, either you've done absolutely nothing, or at best you've said there are no undesirable events. You could argue for that "there are no undesirable events" is a legitimate philosophical position, but it's not a very good heuristic for the world we live in today.
Interesting that the author mentions the Peale's book, written in '54 & then tries to tie this process - positive thinking into the '90's. Peale's book is one of the definitive works... cc'd & plagerised by many "self help gurus"... & authors... but it does work. As mentioned above. Without positive thinking, nothing would new would happen. Perhaps 99% of the time the new thing, may not work... but the 1% is what moves society forward.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlack swans do occur of course... positive thinking is not going to eliminate all danger or reduce risk in risky activities. Sounds to me like one of those Natterings of a nabob of negativism... Bottom line... if one stay positive, one can influence more positive behavior in oneself & others & that in turn... moves society forward - more so than doing otherwise. Pay it forward does work... hard to find it in big cities sometimes... too many mice in that cage... try merging into traffic in a smaller town... pretty soon, more folks are doing it, than not & it becomes sort of contagious...
Also, if I am riding a bike, regardless of my "rights" I would stick to bike paths... & I wouldn't do it, in cities at all... there are fewer black swans in those roads... one reason I gave up my motorcycle... the odds were against surviving prolonged use...
Realism is simply facing the facts and someimes the facts aren't very pleasant and I will bring attention to that. As a result I have been labeled a pessismist and negative, which is, in my estimation a criticism of poor judgement. If there is a reason to be positive I certainly will be so and thus optimistic. I refuse to live a lie and blind myself to what is obvious in our lives and our world. I agree wholeheartedly that looking at everything through rose colored glasses isn't living in the real world and not being open to change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo be a realist is to be a pessimist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo then Sneeral you must find reality depressing! It can be but not always! There are ups and downs in life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a difference between being an idealist (Mother Teresa et.al.) and being an optimist, and the two conditions are not necessarily found together. I actually think they aren't; realists are capable of perceiving inadequacies in life and work to improve such conditions. Optimists tend to think life is simply grand as it is, and seem to believe that people can better their situations simply by "being positive."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, being a positive thinker i'll tell you what happened this week to me. As i was heading to work I slipped on some ice and dislocated my knee, I'm off my feet for 2 weeks and I'm in some pain. but hey! I wanted some time off of works, I can catch up with friends and I get to unwrap my knee from the immobilizer for christmas! also if you're referencing the jones town massacre for drinking the kool aid, it was flavor aid damnit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael, this is a tough one for me to take, personally. I remember your answer to the Edge.org question on "What have you changed your mind about", and I could relate, in fact I still find myself drawn to and referencing Radical Behaviorism: The Philosophy and The Science by Mecca Chiesa (a book favorably reviewed in Free Inquiry magazine which I ordered from Prometheus books). I thought what you wrote on Edge took courage mainly do to the fact that as a teacher you had helped others accept what you now reject (though I did find it interesting that your turn rested primarily on EP - an area where skepticism has always been needed).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel the same now, not only did I drink the cool-aid, I have argued fairly strongly for positive psychology. I think you were at a Beyond Belief conference with Sonja Lyubomirsky (author of The How of Happiness). She seemed straight forward about her science, which seems sound, and the objections seemed to fall mainly around philosophical and definitional complaints with regards to the word "happiness". She and others, like Seligman seem to take the provisional approach to their science, amicable to modification in light of contradictory data.
I consider myself a realist. I am a long time reader of Skeptic, Skeptical Inquiry, Free Inquiry and general science publications. The way you approach this issue seems like a complete debunking, is that true? It appears to me that the foundation of the Positive Psychology movement rest on what Albert Ellis would recognize as rational emotive behavioral therapy. In this way, the foundation is empirically sound. However, it appears now (gulps) beyond that, we are possibly applying a "sky-hook".
I have read other skeptical reports on PP, but this is a particularly difficult hit (mainly due to the fact I know yours and Barb's work rather well and have a certain level of trust there with regards to an issue like this). Funny, in a way, stories you've related, such as, "Airborne Baloney" , where right up front you state: "I violated Feynman’s first principle during a recent book tour" (you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool), actually help me to evaluate what I'm feeling at this moment.
I could take this in a more personal route, but saying "ugh" will have to suffice. An issue like this comes with preexisting emotional attachment, so my reactions to reading and reviewing your article have run from, "this tone is inappropriate" to "how do I face this". I still wonder about the tone. Anyway, thank you (I guess :)).
Here my favorite guy (Shermer) attacks one of my other favorite guys (Seligman). I think I'm with Seligman on this one! Positive Psychology is a new field with a ways to go scientifically (granted), but the idea of using psychology to improve the level of happiness in well people is certainly worthwhile.The formula H = S + C + V is just a way to express the factors that impact happiness. Its not meant for calculations. And if your looking for more science in Positive Psychology, don't stop with Seligman but also consider Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Jonathon Haidt, and the Experimental Philosophy gang.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBrian Fleming,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am with you somewhat, and I'm finding it hard to accept the near complete dismissal of positive psychology. In my post (just above yours), I mentioned the foundation is empirically sound, there is a great deal of evidence of the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy. Shermer is only offering a glimpse at Barb's work, so I'll have to see what else she has found. However, I have several questions and a couple concerns with Michael's piece. I need to approach those while holding my emotions in check.
Concerns first. One, the way Michael has depicted the Seligman PP movement is simply wrong in it's attempt to making it guilty by association. In this case, in the same paragraph, intentionally or unintentionally linking PP with Peale and Hill. The problem with that is from my reading PP debunks Peale and others of his ilk. Two, the tone here seems inappropriate given the limited evidence offered to make the other linkage, that of drinking the kool-aid. That last one could be problematic when viewing this scientifically.
Questions: One, what about other research in the field. Michael takes some glancing blows (and I'll see what Barb found), but what for example of the foundation I spoke of above. Two, how about someone like Lyubomirsky's research and her combining it with ideas such as "hedonic adaptation". It would appear to me that PP is staying scientific and supporting the results. Basically she, Seligman, Mihaly and others have said for example; lets put away the myth that "money can buy you lasting happiness" (seems realistic to me).
The "set point" for something defined appropriately like "happiness" and what limited areas we may see in a neural plasticity mode or simply to "feel" a different way, seems reasonable (what else do we call this, why would we ever place a; "happiness vs. realism" demarcation?). I think Seligmans own foundation is fairly solid, unless Barb found something wrong with the research and theories from Seligmans studies which brought him to "learned helplessness". From there he was only asking the question; why are some of the subjects not falling into despair even within the changed environment and what can we learn from them, a question not even Skinner asked (we could look at Shermer the same way, why is he an optimist and what can I learn from his optimism to possible help me - unless he feels his optimism isn't worth much to teach others - his "set point" is simply higher than mine - his optimism can be viewed as "happiness" in some regards).
Continued:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the question about Seligmans "learned helplessness" research and theories and what direction it took him seems reasonable. How do we explain the results. Do we say the non-human animals in the studies were acting "reasonable", the ones not falling into despair were actually being realistic? That's problematic for a several reasons. I could accept the work is faulty (though I haven't seen that, outside of minor objections to date). However, is it not scientific to ask why the anomaly, what explains what up to that time everyone else seemed to ignore? If we have "set points" for something appropriately defined as "happiness", is this not a realistic thing to do? If the non-human studies are as sound as found then certainly a objections based on they are within a "realist set point" seems ridiculous.
One more on this. I fear in the way Michael departed from Behaviorism because of work in Evolutionary Psychology, he may have prematurely pulled the plug on Positive Psychology without being fully informed (I'm certainly not implying Michael was not well informed on Behaviorism or Evolutionary Psychology, only dismissing Behaviorism completely is something even he would do).
Correction to last sentence in my last post, in parenthesis:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"..... only dismissing Behaviorism completely is something even he *would not* do."
I am not sure a postive attatude has anything to do with haveing a bike crash, when doing something not safe. As I write in my book, if you go into a biker bar enough times, you are going to get in an incident. If you run a red light enough times you will get in an accident.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing positive, does not mean the risk levels will change, if you take enough risks, I am positive you will get in a situation. But I am also positive if I have a positive outlook, I will be in a better frame of mind to handle a situation, if and when it occurs.
I too am optimistic to the degree my therapist told me I was "addicted to hope in a hopeless situation". I am still looking for the true balance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd much rather be a pessimist, since I stay happier that way. When something bad happehs I'm prepared for it, When something good happens it's a pleasant surprise and I can rejoice! I guess what I am is a realist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA blend of positivism and realism is the way to go. Humans can't be solely one or the other. With solely positivism, they have no logic to base their actions on, with solely realism, they have nothing to live for but to live itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans are not only logical, but they are also emotional beings. Thus we need a "positivity" or positive emotions to keep us wanting more in life, but we also need "realism" when we have factors that limit our potential for getting what we want.
Humans are both logical and emotional beings. Thus, we must not only use reason to help us get what we want, but we must also want something to have something to use reasoning for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we want to strive for is a personally good balance between optimism and realism - instead of just solely one or the other.
With optimism one will want and hope and believe that there is something for him/her out there in the real world, while logic/realism will help him do what he needs to do to get him there. Without optimism, there is nothing out there to hope for and believe in or want; and, without realism, one will want something but will not see or be able to cope with the necessary obstacles that may come in between that person and what he/she wants.
Luke, lets check into Barbara Ehrenreich's book and report back. I'll use my Christmas bookstore gift cards!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter reading Michael Shermers article Kool-Aid Psychology in the January 2010 Skeptic column, I was left wondering why the author concludes that the embrace of optimism and the virtues of positive psychology is reduced to a fantasy which is fundamentally inferior to reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that this hasty conclusion is instigated by the articles featured author Barbara Ehrenreich, who references the Enlightenment and the pursuit of objective knowledge which all honorable science must be grounded upon. True, the Enlightenment had cast off previous ignorances such as the mistaken attribution of humanlike or Godlike forces to natural occurrences, such as Aristotles description of gravity as objects which yearn to lay upon the earth . But we cannot follow the path of the extinguishment of humanlike forces in humans, which is the strict domain of (positive) psychology. Feelings matter, of course, Shermer claims, but the first rule of skepticism is not to fool ourselves, and feelings& too often trump reason . Yet who is being fooled, who would call feeling fantasy and reason reality? Why it is that Shermer believes reason to be more real than feelings in the domain of the mind is unclear. It is more useful in many respects, surely. But more real?
In the end, we are compelled to agree with Shermer that reality must take precedence over fantasy. Yet we must (so as not to fool ourselves) retain the full spectrum of reality. In doing so, we must remain very careful as to what we deem fantasy, and mind the distinction between fiction and what simply lies outside the scope of our preconceptions and predilections.
~Adam Young
Franklin, Massachusetts
Avast shipmates, dost thou weak-minded land lubbers hide within thy fantasy worlds, a world of thine own concoction, a world of, ye gads, "Positive Psychology"! LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShiver me timbers...
"It was one of those less lowering, but still grey and gloomy enough mornings of the transition, when with a fair wind the ship was rushing through the water with a vindictive sort of leaping and melancholy rapidity, that as I mounted to the deck at the call of the forenoon watch, so soon as I levelled my glance towards the taffrail, foreboding shivers ran over me. Reality outran apprehension; Captain Ahab stood upon his quarter-deck."
Beware ye hardy shipmates that in this world and worlds to come that reality doth not outrun thine apprehensions. LOL
Ishmael, Jr.
While interesting, this article makes a common mistake in failing to differentiate the feel-good, think happy positivism movement (ie: the secret) which has sprung from the favorable economic climate of the 90's and all the materialistic pleasures that came with it, and the positive psychology movement, which officially emerged in 2000 following an article by seligman & czisentmihaly. The positive psychology movement is in fact merely a reaction to the dominant disease-focused model which had dominated psychology for over 50 years. Rather than focusing on studying ONLY stress, depression, schizoprenia, and mental illness, psychology should also turn its attention to developing mental health, happiness, and motivation (ie: self-determination theory).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn an effort (voiced heavily by seligman) to gain legitimacy, positive psychology has pushed perhaps too far in trying to establish itself as a science (ie: trying to lay out formulas from physics). However, what he refered to with beta weights was probably that these in fact represent how strongly a variable influences another variable. The problem with psych as a science has always been the complexity of all the variables involved, for example, in creating happiness. This makes it hard to come up with absolute answers as in physics, but is still very useful for understanding what variables are important.
Many have commented that realism should prevail over positivism. Although I agree that the "think positive and good things will happen" idea is crap, positive psychology does not fall under this umbrella. It is in fact (and seligman tries hard to deny this) a continuation of humanistic psychology, which itself represents the ideas of philosophical humanism proposed by aristotle. In order to be happy, we must lead a good life, not one driven by pleasure. The think-positive movement consistently focuses on materialistic wellbeing, which as we have seen leads to nothing but tremendous debt and empty lives. Humanism holds that humans must feel a sense of purpose in their lives and relate with their fellow human beings. People who do this derive the greatest happiness from helping others and feeling that they are a part of something important and greater than themselves.
That being said, life is full of senseless violence, destruction and treachery. The rich continue to pillage poor nations, government officials continue to serve their own best interests, and people rob, rape and kill eachother.
There is no denying reality, but there's also no denying that we all NEED to be happy
So I read Barbara Ehrenreich's book 'Bright-Sided' and found it to be a book-length op-ed piece that attacks positive thinking and positive psychology without contributing any primary research or alternative approaches (other than 'get realistic'). One weakness is that Barbara rails against the business community's use of positivism to motivate employees, not recognizing the favorable impact it may have on the goods and services produced. But if Positive Psychology takes her constructive criticism into account, it can only make the discipline stronger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood to see an article published making the point, that needs to be made more frequently, about the growth of *scientism* in the scientific community. But that makes it even more of a shame that the piece falls into the same trap as the subject it criticises. It too is "data-light and anecdote-heavy". Looking at Ehrenreich's credentials (degree in Physics, masters thesis on Electrochemical oscillations of the silicon anode and a Ph.D in cellular biology) there should be no need for that (though I haven't read her book and she became an investigative journalist and political activist rather than a scientist). Personally I'd prefer way more data and far less unnecessary invective. Then your piece would have been capable of citation. As it stands it isn't and that's a missed opportunity in my opinion. Or have I missed the point about Scientific American?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an absolute fallacy. You can be a realist and be equally adventurous and passionate as anyone. I want to evolve and expand my reality
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an absolute fallacy. You can be a realist and still be passionate, adventurous and unlimited in your thinking. Realism isn't about standing still. Quite frankly it's going forward intelligently with a greater chance for success. Unfortunately you seem to have associated realism with people you don't approve of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi,good coment....Im into journalism,and therefore surpriced how valid "KOOL-AID"is taken by those who coment on it here????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeep it matematical&and simpel!
If you have TWO versions of HARVARD....one doing positive thinking.....and one doing negative thinking.
Logicly students are GAMBLERS,if they pick the NEGATIVE version!Do the math!(The articel will there never get in SciAm,so....Shermer has to do the math before he writes his articels,....how did the dang get in SciAm????
I'll take Seligman in my canoe any time. At least I'd know he would row!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Mr. Michael Shermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have just finished rereading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
When I read your Scientific American, (January 2010) Skeptic column Kool-aid Psychology , in your last paragraph:
Feelings matter, of course, but the first principal of skepticism is not to fool ourselves, and our feelings both positive and negative too often trump reason. In the end, reality must take precedence over fantasy, regardless of how it makes us feel
The sentiment and basic truth are remarkably similar and very well appreciated by me. Please keep up the good work .
Who is John Galt?
Nick
Paul Nicholson
1158 Carmel Cir #240
Casselberry FL 32707
407-657-6947
Dear Mr. Michael Shermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have just finished rereading “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand.
When I read your Scientific American, (January 2010) “Skeptic” column “Kool-aid Psychology”, in your last paragraph:
“Feelings matter, of course, but the first principal of skepticism is not to fool ourselves, and our feelings – both positive and negative – too often trump reason. In the end, reality must take precedence over fantasy, regardless of how it makes us feel”
The sentiment and “basic truth” are remarkably similar and very well appreciated by me. Please keep up the “good work”.
“Who is John Galt?”
Nick
Paul Nicholson
1158 Carmel Cir #240
Casselberry FL 32707
407-657-6947
I found Smile or Die a great book that cheered me up with its evidence that it's ok to be rational. My work in risk management has led to me research how we think under uncertainty, and to consider the biases that affect us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI finally realised that optimism and pessimism, or some point in between, are not the only options. I wrote up the details of this on my website as an article called "Optimism, pessimism, and open-minded realism".
http://www.managedluck.co.uk/objectivist/index.shtml
The point that I find most helpful is that it is possible to be unbiased and yet still energetic and motivated.
Interesting article, and I was very pleased with your comment stevenleinweber. Do you have a blog or something?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this