A question about atheism and negativity.

[Aurora Elegance]

I might be wrong but is there a correlation between being an agnostic/atheist/freethinker and being misanthropic/cynical/negative? I ask because a large portion of posters here and on other boards where non-theists are the majority have expressed pretty hateful and pessimistic comments about people in general. Personally, even as an atheist myself, I find it pretty alienating when so many people sprew such negative things.

This sort of ties in to the question as to whether it's true that the smarter and more intellectual you become, the less emotional and/or optimistic you are.

[dave_a]

I might be wrong but is there a correlation between being an agnostic/atheist/freethinker and being misanthropic/cynical/negative? I ask because a large portion of posters here and on other boards where non-theists are the majority have expressed pretty hateful and pessimistic comments about people in general. Personally, even as an atheist myself, I find it pretty alienating when so many people sprew such negative things.

This sort of ties in to the question as to whether it's true that the smarter and more intellectual you become, the less emotional and/or optimistic you are.

Yeah, I dunno. I am an atheist and feel totally alientated by the uber left leaning folks on the IIDB political thread. I mean I think they are idiot conspiracy theorists without any theory.

More than anything else I think atheists/agnostics/freethinkers seem foreign to you and I because we are nonconformists and march to the beat of our own drum.

We look at the world, see how it is marching and say "This is not for me". So we turn away from it. This doesn't do anything to unite us though.

Ultimately if we are to be a group we will have to do better than the mainstream at accepting our differences.

I don't consider myself nonemotional, although I certainly do not wear my heart on my sleeve, so to speak and I do not lack optimism, rather I am a realist ;-)

[Dingfod]

I like to think of myself as a realist rather than a pessimist. But, if the foo shits, smear it... or something like that.

Smart? That's definitely debatable, I'm a prime example of where an excellent memory often mimicks actual intelligence.

Intellectual? Not by the usual standards, see the response above.

Misanthropic? I'm not misanthropic in general, but I am losing faith in humanity, one person at a time, or so goes the bumper sticker slogan. Well, no, that's not entirely accurate, back early in November I lost faith in millions at once, but that is an unusual case, but seeming to become more usual than unusual.

Cynical? Yes, I am cynical, it's in my nature. How can I avoid that if I face anything resembling reality?

Negative? Realists are most often negative because that is the direction it leads. Seems to me that reality seldom does indicate a positive outlook as realistic. Experience shows otherwise.

However, I am emotional, very emotional, just not the positive ones like that optimistic thing of which you speak.

[Godless Wonder]

I fit your stereotype, I suppose. I don't know, I can't just go around smiling like an idiot for no reason all the time...

[Dingfod]

Is it just me, or are there two identical threads opened here?

[Adora]

Just a question AE: did you post this on II as well?

[Aurora Elegance]

Yes, I did. Just to get as many responses as I can.

[livius drusus]

Did you mean to post 2 identical threads here, Aurora? I could merge them if you'd like.

Edit: I went ahead and merged dantonac's post into this thread since the OPs were indentical.

[Farren]

I think being too focused on what you don't believe is likely to make you generally more negative.

Many years ago when I was feeling quite militantly anti a lot of stuff (religion, suburban bliss etc) and doing poetry recitals in a bohemian part of Joburg where I lived at the time, an unlikely looking chap offered me a drink and made an observation I've often thought about since. I'd just finished an on-stage poetic polemic about all things religious, family-friendly and mundane and this tough looking biker character asked me what I believed in.

I proceeded to articulate in more conversational terms what I'd been ranting about in poetic terms and he listened patiently then said I hadn't actually told him what I believed in. In the course of the subsequent conversation he said a couple of things that stayed with me.

One was that defining yourself entirely in opposition to something else makes you a mirror of that thing, which is rarely attractive. Far better, he said, to stand for a set of principles and only find yourself in disagreement with other principles because they aren't congruent with the ones you hold.

For an athiest there is no prospect of life beyond the grave, so spending the limited tenure on this earth that you've got unhappy about stuff is wasting a precious opportunity. Yet many athiests seem to spend a lot of time and energy raging against Xianity, Islam, whatever.

This doesn't, of course, invalidate the athiest world view. Rather its an important consideration in evaluating what to do with the lack of belief in a higher power. Like zero in mathematics, the choice to disbelieve has immense utility in making certain world-views more internally consistent. But one requires a full set of numbers to do anything useful with zero.

[Godless Wonder]

to spend a lot of time and energy raging against Xianity, Islam, whatever. And some people try to find ways to fight against cancer. The fools! :)

[ApostateAbe]

Yes, there certainly is correlation in all of those things. Religious people tend to have a more optimistic outlook. They believe that everything is kept under the will of a supreme God, and everybody will get what they deserve in the end, in either a happy place or a sad place. Atheists, however, generally have a more uncertain view of humanity. Things might improve, or things might just get worse. Human life could be wiped out any second, or it could be more of a slow and painful death.

[wildernesse]

Yes, there certainly is correlation in all of those things. Religious people tend to have a more optimistic outlook. They often believe that everything is kept under the will of a supreme God, and everybody will get what they deserve in the end, in either a happy place or a sad place. Atheists, however, generally have a more uncertain view of humanity. Things might improve, or things might just get worse. Human life could be wiped out any second, or it could be more of a slow and painful death.


That's better.

[Goliath]

Yes, there certainly is correlation in all of those things. Religious people tend to have a more optimistic outlook. They often believe that everything is kept under the will of a supreme God, and everybody will get what they deserve in the end, in either a happy place or a sad place. Atheists, however, generally have a more uncertain view of humanity. Things might improve, or things might just get worse. Human life could be wiped out any second, or it could be more of a slow and painful death.


That's better.

:? What's better than what?

[Farren]

to spend a lot of time and energy raging against Xianity, Islam, whatever. And some people try to find ways to fight against cancer. The fools! :)

Oh dear, you seem to have missed my point entirely (aside from the fact that comparing religion to cancer only has partial utility and is mostly hyperbole).

I'm not really commenting on the moral rightness or wrongness of adopting a particular position or behaving in a certain way with respect to religion and the belief in God. Certainly a lack of belief in God is defensible and there's nothing morally wrong with trying to convince other people that they have no sound reason to believe either.

I'm commenting on the fact that being angry and fighting is not a pleasant experience - and if you spend most of your life doing it your life will mostly not be pleasant.

I'm also commenting on the fact that, like mathematics requiring other numbers than zero, its as important to know what you do believe as what you don't believe. Many athiests (and I include my younger self in this category) would answer that they do have positive beliefs: In physics, cosmology, biology and so on.

But only a tiny subset of those have a great interest in secular morals and living philosophies. As a result, the oftimes useful thing which many people derive from religion is not supplanted by the positive things such athiests believe in. Please note, I'm not saying morals are inherently religious - I'm saying that values and about how to live life, enjoy it and be socially harmonious, along with commensurate behaviours are often closely tied to religion in the societies in which we find ourselves.

As a result, many athiests (in my personal experience) do throw out the baby with the bathwater, shedding useful values and behaviours because they're percieved as "belonging" to a particular religious creed. I know several people who've done this and I myself did it.

Beyond that, having a set of alternative, secular values also affects the nature of conflicts between atheism and religion, to the extent, even, of affecting whether or not it is conflict. If one has an alternative, positive standpoint, one can propagate one's views rather than battling to negate the other's view.

Something I admire a lot of Buddhists for is the implicit philosophy of non-prosthelytization. If someone admires enough they're likely to emulate you. Its far more satisfying to live a life largely free of conflict, seeking out and sharing positive experiences and having people flip to your view out of admiration for its virtues rather than having to bludgeon people into submission at every turn in service of a principle.

Obviously if you're trying to avert imminent horror such as a child-bride being beaten or a homosexual being flogged direct opposition is appropriate. But if your goal is an overall value shift in society I feel the suggested methodology is both more effective and allows one to enjoy life more.

[viscousmemories]

I agree with Abe that not believing in an objective purpose has contributed to my being pessimistic and cynical. Of course being raised in a dysfunctional family, years of alcohol abuse and suffering from clinical depression and an anxiety disorder all contribute too.

I also agree with Farren that defining oneself in opposition to an ideology is unhealthy and unproductive, and that a lot of atheists (myself included) have thrown out many useful moral values with the bathwater. In fact I did so consciously when I concluded that the beliefs I had been raised with weren't necessarily true, because I thought it was important to discover new values on my own.

[xorbie]

Has anyone possibly considered that the reverse might be true? That people more predisposed to being intellectual, cynical, negative and depressed might be more likely to renounce religion?

[Godless Wonder]

to spend a lot of time and energy raging against Xianity, Islam, whatever. And some people try to find ways to fight against cancer. The fools! :)

Oh dear, you seem to have missed my point entirely (aside from the fact that comparing religion to cancer only has partial utility and is mostly hyperbole). Perhaps you missed the smiley? (Not to say I didn't miss your point, quite likely I am guitly of that.)

[Farren]

to spend a lot of time and energy raging against Xianity, Islam, whatever. And some people try to find ways to fight against cancer. The fools! :)

Oh dear, you seem to have missed my point entirely (aside from the fact that comparing religion to cancer only has partial utility and is mostly hyperbole). Perhaps you missed the smiley? (Not to say I didn't miss your point, quite likely I am guitly of that.)

My bad. I'm waaay too serious sometimes :yup:

[Farren]

Has anyone possibly considered that the reverse might be true? That people more predisposed to being intellectual, cynical, negative and depressed might be more likely to renounce religion?

That's probably also true. Cynicism, pessimism and skepticism are quite close to each other. But I think it should be said its not mutually exclusive with the other ideas expressed here.

[Godless Dave]

Interesting. I never threw out any values associated with religion, because I learned all my moral values in the absence of a religious upbringing.

[viscousmemories]

Interesting. I never threw out any values associated with religion, because I learned all my moral values in the absence of a religious upbringing.
That's cool. I always forget there are people who were raised without religion. I was raised in a charismatic, mostly fundamentalist Christian community, so I believed in an objective morality as defined by the God of Abraham in the Bible. I stopped believing that and started reading existentialist literature around the same time (in my early 20's) and pretty much abandoned the moral code I grew up with in search of a new one. I now believe morality is intersubjective, but I'm still uncertain where I stand on a lot of issues.

[Farren]

Yeah I was raised in a non-lapsed Catholic home and I threw out almost everything and started from scratch, with mixed results. I say almost everything because murder, theft and just being plain mean for no good reason were still no-nos.

[pzmyers]

I might be wrong but is there a correlation between being an agnostic/atheist/freethinker and being misanthropic/cynical/negative?

There may be a correlation, but I don't think there is a direct causal link. One reason atheists may tend towards cynicism is that they are a despised minority surrounded by idiots. It's hard to be chipper in that situation.

My hypothesis would be that if the country were 90% atheist and 10% theist, the theists would feeling pretty negative. I think we need to do the experiment and find out.


I'll also add that I don't think the correlation is very strong, if present at all. Look at theists like Falwell and Robertson, or various grim, dull personages of the christian persuasion on some of the fundagelical boards; there is a rather nasty fatalist streak there, where everyone is a sinner and the majority are going to hell. I don't find that particularly happy talk.

[The Lone Ranger]

There may be a correlation, but I don't think there is a direct causal link. One reason atheists may tend towards cynicism is that they are a despised minority surrounded by idiots. It's hard to be chipper in that situation.

My hypothesis would be that if the country were 90% atheist and 10% theist, the theists would feeling pretty negative. I think we need to do the experiment and find out.


I'll also add that I don't think the correlation is very strong, if present at all. Look at theists like Falwell and Robertson, or various grim, dull personages of the christian persuasion on some of the fundagelical boards; there is a rather nasty fatalist streak there, where everyone is a sinner and the majority are going to hell. I don't find that particularly happy talk.

That's an interesting point. For most of my life, I lived in an area where Fundamentalist Christians were probably an absolute majority. And yet, they simply never stopped complaining about how much of a "persecuted minority" they were (chiefly because the laws of the land prevented them from forcibly converting all others to the One True Faith, as best I could tell).

The Southern Baptists I grew up with fervently believed that people are wicked by nature and completely untrustworthy -- only "True Believers" could be considered "good" or trustworthy people in their eyes. All others were -- either knowingly or not -- "tools of Satan." Such was what I was told over and over and over again in Sunday School.

A more paranoid and fearful group of people would be hard to imagine. Furthermore, since they were firmly convinced that many (perhaps most) people who didn't share their views were actively allied with the Forces of Evil, they made no pretense whatsoever that they simply despised those who refused to follow the One True Faith.

These were not happy people, except insofar as they seemed to quite enjoy getting together every Sunday to pat each other on the back for having the good sense to know The Truth, and to talk about how wonderful things would be when they got to Heaven -- which would surely be any day now, given all the "clear signs" that the End Times were at hand.

Cheers,

Michael

[seebs]

Interesting questions. I have noticed that atheists and theists seem to express negativity in very different ways. Not sure how to articulate the details.

[Corona688]

Warning: I'm all for a good argument. Clears the sinuses. Don't take the bluntness of my post as anger, it's just blunt. Oh dear, you seem to have missed my point entirely (aside from the fact that comparing religion to cancer only has partial utility and is mostly hyperbole). In your opinion. Some religion I can take or leave, but there's some of it out there that wants to control and/or destroy my way of life. I don't think that's something I can easily ignore.I'm commenting on the fact that being angry and fighting is not a pleasant experience - and if you spend most of your life doing it your life will mostly not be pleasant. True. I don't think atheists are really defined what they are not, though. We have a life beyond defending ourselves from occasional religious ignorance. We're mathematicians, artists, lawyers, teachers, craftsmen... the whole set. If you want to avoid an argument, don't argue needlessly.I'm also commenting on the fact that, like mathematics requiring other numbers than zero, its as important to know what you do believe as what you don't believe. Many athiests (and I include my younger self in this category) would answer that they do have positive beliefs: In physics, cosmology, biology and so on.

But only a tiny subset of those have a great interest in secular morals and living philosophies. When there's no more grand holy high poobah handing down nonsensical moral rules from on high, moral codes are no longer universal. I don't have to spend massive amounts of time thinking about, maintaining, and pushing a "perfect" way to live 'cause there probably isn't one. The system I have seems to work fairly well when dealing with fellow humans, more or less.As a result, the oftimes useful thing which many people derive from religion is not supplanted by the positive things such athiests believe in. Please note, I'm not saying morals are inherently religious - I'm saying that values and about how to live life, enjoy it and be socially harmonious, along with commensurate behaviours are often closely tied to religion in the societies in which we find ourselves. Each to his own. I never found religion to be particularly harmonious, enjoyable, or much like living. When I got the courage to admit it never made any sense to me, I was happy to leave.As a result, many athiests (in my personal experience) do throw out the baby with the bathwater, shedding useful values and behaviours because they're percieved as "belonging" to a particular religious creed. I know several people who've done this and I myself did it. If that works for you, wonderful. But that's not for everyone. What if we're prepared to take the decent concepts we learned from it and ditch the rest of the superstition and culture, not because we're rebelling but because we really don't like it?

Besides, you're falling into the all-or-nothing fallacy. There exist alternatives between being a regular church attender and sitting at home all weekend. Or so I'm told. :( When I've got time again maybye I'll branch out. These classes feel like they'll never be over...Beyond that, having a set of alternative, secular values also affects the nature of conflicts between atheism and religion, to the extent, even, of affecting whether or not it is conflict. If one has an alternative, positive standpoint, one can propagate one's views rather than battling to negate the other's view. Frankly, I don't think many atheists have had the experience of having no values at all after deconverting. The values we keep make sense to us, not because they're churchy but because they make sense to us. I'd call that a positive standpoint.Its far more satisfying to live a life largely free of conflict, seeking out and sharing positive experiences and having people flip to your view out of admiration for its virtues rather than having to bludgeon people into submission at every turn in service of a principle. And are you not violating this own principle by parading a strawman of most atheists beliefs? I don't actively attack other beliefs but I'm willing to defend my own.But if your goal is an overall value shift in society I feel the suggested methodology is both more effective and allows one to enjoy life more. This I can agree with.

[HelenM]

Negativity comes from how we interpret and respond to circumstances, not from the circumstances per se. Of course it's harder to be positive in some circumstances, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. People who say "of course I'm negative - look at my circumstances!" often haven't realized that they have choices in how they respond to circumstances. They don't have to sink into negativity.

And negativity often results from a distorted perspective. If you feel that the election is a total disaster, yet you're (mostly) healthy, have enough food to eat and a few good friends (or at least, a few people who will respond if you post on online discussion boards), then your life isn't a total disaster.

Based on my observation, atheists often could do more to help each other see that negativity is not the only rational response to circumstances. Sometimes negativity is a more irrational response because it's a response which incorporates fear, worry and/or paranoia and a distorted perspective which exaggerates the negative and underemphasizes the positive.

Some Christians tend towards negativity also; however, there are aspects of Christianity which actively encourage and teach Christians to have a more positive outlook. These do often work for Christians even if they wouldn't work for atheists because atheists reject the Christian basis for hope/a more positive outlook.

Helen

[HelenM]

If you think negativity is the only response to your circumstances, I suggest you read Learned Optimism by Martin Seligman.

Helen

[Godless Dave]

And negativity often results from a distorted perspective. If you feel that the election is a total disaster, yet you're (mostly) healthy, have enough food to eat and a few good friends (or at least, a few people who will respond if you post on online discussion boards), then your life isn't a total disaster.

While I agree with your overall point, I have to take issue with this analogy. I think the 2004 presidential election was a total disaster not because I will be worse off, but because American soldiers, marines, poor people, working class people, and gay people will be worse off, because people in some second and third world countries will be worse off, and because the world as a whole will be worse off. My dismay from the election is not motivated by immediate self interest (although most of the things I mentioned will affect my long-term self interests). I'm white, straight, male, and too old to be drafted - I'll be fine.

[HelenM]

And negativity often results from a distorted perspective. If you feel that the election is a total disaster, yet you're (mostly) healthy, have enough food to eat and a few good friends (or at least, a few people who will respond if you post on online discussion boards), then your life isn't a total disaster.

While I agree with your overall point, I have to take issue with this analogy. I think the 2004 presidential election was a total disaster not because I will be worse off, but because American soldiers, marines, poor people, working class people, and gay people will be worse off, because people in some second and third world countries will be worse off, and because the world as a whole will be worse off. My dismay from the election is not motivated by immediate self interest (although most of the things I mentioned will affect my long-term self interests). I'm white, straight, male, and too old to be drafted - I'll be fine.

Yes, I realized what I was writing might come across as selfish or an exercise in denial.

I didn't mean, if it doesn't affect you then you shouldn't care. And I didn't mean, if it doesn't affect you, ignore it altogether.

What I did mean is, you don't have to snap at the checkout person because Bush won the election. If it has got you in a state where you are too angry not to express your anger at people who don't deserve it, then I would say your perspective is distorted and I would suggest you work on being able to be concerned, shocked, moved to more activism, whatever by an event like an election which didn't go your way, but not letting it rule your whole life and all your relationships etc.

Does that make sense?

Helen

[Godless Dave]

Yes, that makes sense. That's not what I think of as pessimism though.

[HelenM]

Yes, that makes sense. That's not what I think of as pessimism though.

I'll stick with the word in the OP - negativity - I think of negativity as something that, if we are characterized by it, will affect the people around us.

I enjoy being around positive people more than negative people.

I find being around negative people a) an emotional drain b) it encourages me in mental directions which I consider unhealthy for me.

I might choose to be around negative people if I think they want me to be or I think they find my company helpful, but as I said, I find it draining rather than fun.

Helen

[viscousmemories]

I agree, Helen. I am someone who has been mostly negative most of my life, and I've seen the effect it has on me and those around me. I have only recently begun to make more of an effort not to be negative all the time, and I find that overall I'm much more peaceful and people seem to enjoy interacting with me more as a result.

[Sweetie]

:D Maybe it's just that theists may get more sleep than non-theists.

I remember my mom coming home from work bitching, well, over the course of months, that these people she works with stay up late and get up early and come to work growly and she has to deal with it all the time, she would say, "why do I have to suffer because they won't go to bed?"

Maybe non-theists have more exciting things to do at night and Christians are bound by their moral code and cannot, so they go to bed, or maybe they're more likely to be married. How does that joke go, why do you gain weight when you are married? The non-married comes home and looks in the frigde, doesn't find anything interesting and looks in the bedroom, the married look in the bedroom and goes to the fridge. :P

[godfry n. glad]

And negativity often results from a distorted perspective. If you feel that the election is a total disaster, yet you're (mostly) healthy, have enough food to eat and a few good friends (or at least, a few people who will respond if you post on online discussion boards), then your life isn't a total disaster.

While I agree with your overall point, I have to take issue with this analogy. I think the 2004 presidential election was a total disaster not because I will be worse off, but because American soldiers, marines, poor people, working class people, and gay people will be worse off, because people in some second and third world countries will be worse off, and because the world as a whole will be worse off. My dismay from the election is not motivated by immediate self interest (although most of the things I mentioned will affect my long-term self interests). I'm white, straight, male, and too old to be drafted - I'll be fine.

Godless Dave, I'm going to have to starting hiring you as my official spokesperson... these were my feelings exactly.

Also, I think it's mistaken to typify negativity as some kind of failing. In my experience, optimism is generally more often the misplaced attitude. Indeed, the optimism of the current administration in proceeding with the invasion of Iraq was greatly misplaced.

Negativity has it's place...as does optimism.

I adopt a negative point of view because is prevents me from being perpetually disappointed. When I'm negative, I can view those positive things that happen in a much more accepting and thankful light. Being an eternal optimist is a big setup for disappointment when things go wrong....

I also find that having a negative outlook has provided me the reputation of being able to identify potential problems within most systems before they are put into place. That has proven a valuable skill in the recent past.

godfry

...and a small note: optimism is pointless against an aggressive malignant cancer.

[Dingfod]

All you rosy-cheeked bright-eyed optimists can stick it up your shiny clean wazoo. I like being negative, cynical and skeptical. It has served me well, driven my desire for knowledge, my curiosity, and is my personality. I'm afraid to become an optimist would make me a different person than I am. If this makes me "draining" to be around, I'm the one that has to come to grips with that. The only person that can make me happy is me.

I'm open minded but I'm afraid I wouldn't get past the first chapter in Helen's recommended book, I'm having a bit of trouble concentrating right now anyway and haven't read a whole book in several years. I've taken Zoloft in the past for depression and social anxiety and despite the commercials on television, it did not make me into anything resembling a happy bouncing ball. It did remove the really bad thoughts that would pop into my head though. But, I think no medication is going to make me an optimist, but some might make me be happy being me, which is what I am, whatever that is. If chemicals won't do it, why should I think a book would?

My doctor, who has been trying to get the right dosage of antidepressants, described a graph, demonstrating with his hands, "You're down here." while holding his right hand a couple feet below his left hand, which was about chest height. "We're not trying to get you here." moving his right hand way up about two feet over his left. "We want to get you about here, normal." he moved his right hand to the same level as his left. My response was to inquire what normal is. He said normal is what is normal for me. Then I described how I've been my whole life, to which he responded, "Maybe for you, we need to get you here." demonstrated by moving his right hand a few inches above his left hand, which was still in the "normal" position. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer.

Note: I've never snapped at other people for what I view negatively, I mostly internalize it. The internets have become my outlets for this. I'm sorry that all of you must suffer me. You are my sales clerks after the election.

[Sweetie]

I'm glad you have an outlet for your unchoosen (but admittedly preferred) negativity, so says the happy, happy, joy, joy annoying bouncing optimist beside you who contemplates the myriad of ways she could annoy and soften the heart of the cynic. :bgirl:

Damn, I'm not an optimist. :sadcheer: But I'm not not an optimist either. :doh:

:wink:

[HelenM]

All you rosy-cheeked bright-eyed optimists can stick it up your shiny clean wazoo. I like being negative, cynical and skeptical. It has served me well, driven my desire for knowledge, my curiosity, and is my personality. I'm afraid to become an optimist would make me a different person than I am. If this makes me "draining" to be around, I'm the one that has to come to grips with that. The only person that can make me happy is me.

I'm not sure what you mean. People do affect each others moods. If you like being around others (when you're well enough to have the energy for it), I would think it's in your best interests to know if there are things you do/say that tend to discourage others from seeking out your company, so that you can work on those things.

I'm open minded but I'm afraid I wouldn't get past the first chapter in Helen's recommended book, I'm having a bit of trouble concentrating right now anyway and haven't read a whole book in several years. I've taken Zoloft in the past for depression and social anxiety and despite the commercials on television, it did not make me into anything resembling a happy bouncing ball. It did remove the really bad thoughts that would pop into my head though. But, I think no medication is going to make me an optimist, but some might make me be happy being me, which is what I am, whatever that is. If chemicals won't do it, why should I think a book would?

Because I believe our feelings are driven by our thoughts in large part and we have some control over our thoughts. And it's a book about how we think which discusses how we can change our thoughts so they don't worsen/reinforce our negative feelings.

My doctor, who has been trying to get the right dosage of antidepressants, described a graph, demonstrating with his hands, "You're down here." while holding his right hand a couple feet below his left hand, which was about chest height. "We're not trying to get you here." moving his right hand way up about two feet over his left. "We want to get you about here, normal." he moved his right hand to the same level as his left. My response was to inquire what normal is. He said normal is what is normal for me. Then I described how I've been my whole life, to which he responded, "Maybe for you, we need to get you here." demonstrated by moving his right hand a few inches above his left hand, which was still in the "normal" position. We're not there yet, but we're getting closer.

If he can find medication that gets you where you want to be, I think that's great.

Speaking for myself, I want to try everything that could help and I believe that being careful about what I think does help.

Note: I've never snapped at other people for what I view negatively, I mostly internalize it. The internets have become my outlets for this. I'm sorry that all of you must suffer me. You are my sales clerks after the election.

If you snap at people on the internet, then you aren't just internalizing it. But the RL shop clerks probably appreciate you not taking out your frustration on them.

Helen

[SharonDee]

All you rosy-cheeked bright-eyed optimists can stick it up your shiny clean wazoo.
:roflmao:
:happy:
Well, you gave me a good laugh, you ol' crank.

Thanks. I needed that.

[wade-w]

[...] yet you're (mostly) healthy, have enough food to eat and a few good friends (or at least, a few people who will respond if you post on online discussion boards), then your life isn't a total disaster.


What if I don't have any of these things? Am I then justified in being negative?

I'm not healthy, much of the time I don't have enough food to eat (I'm only able to be online because someone else is paying the bill) and I have no friends irl (and mostly it seems people only respond, if at all, when I make a negative post, which paradoxically results in positive feedback of that negativity). So should I consider my life a total disaster?

If this is such a drain on people, perhaps I should reconsider posting at all. I really do hate to be a burden on anyone, yet that feeling is slowly eroding the only reason I have been able find to keep going.

[HelenM]

...and a small note: optimism is pointless against an aggressive malignant cancer.

I disagree. Denial is pointless but I think even a person with an aggressive malignant cancer often has some choices and a person who determines to make the most of their remaining time/fight the cancer if there are ways to fight it will probably have a better quality of life - and maybe a much longer one - than someone who pessimistically gives up and doesn't even try to fight back or make the most of the rest of their life.

Optimism doesn't change circumstances that are impossible to change. However, our attitude does affect how we respond to our circumstances and our responses have ramifications - which means that our attitude does indirectly cause changes in the world around us. An optimist in the same circumstances as a pessimist may act differently enough because of his/her attitude that things happen which the pessimist thought were impossible.

In other words, nothing ventured, nothing gained. But if something is ventured, something might be gained.

Helen

[Sweetie]

What if I don't have any of these things? Am I then justified in being negative?

I'm not healthy, much of the time I don't have enough food to eat (I'm only able to be online because someone else is paying the bill) and I have no friends irl (and mostly it seems people only respond, if at all, when I make a negative post, which paradoxically results in positive feedback of that negativity). So should I consider my life a total disaster?

If this is such a drain on people, perhaps I should reconsider posting at all. I really do hate to be a burden on anyone, yet that feeling is slowly eroding the only reason I have been able find to keep going.

Just breathe wade, and no, don't go. :hug:

[Sweetie]

Who forgot to piss in my cornflakes this morning? :glare: :D

Man, maybe I am an optimist, or maybe just some days. :P

[HelenM]

[...] yet you're (mostly) healthy, have enough food to eat and a few good friends (or at least, a few people who will respond if you post on online discussion boards), then your life isn't a total disaster.


What if I don't have any of these things? Am I then justified in being negative?

I'm not healthy, much of the time I don't have enough food to eat (I'm only able to be online because someone else is paying the bill) and I have no friends irl (and mostly it seems people only respond, if at all, when I make a negative post, which paradoxically results in positive feedback of that negativity). So should I consider my life a total disaster?

No, you should not consider your life a total disaster.

Do you do things IRL which would help you make friends? I find that friends don't just materialize in my life; I have to make time to be where I might meet people I could become friends with and then I need to make time to be with them in a way that enables a friendship to develop. If I don't do that it doesn't happen.

If this is such a drain on people, perhaps I should reconsider posting at all. I really do hate to be a burden on anyone, yet that feeling is slowly eroding the only reason I have been able find to keep going.

Your posting is not a burden to me. I don't see how posting could be a burden to anyone because it's up to them whether they read and respond.

I was thinking more about how I'm trying to be careful IRL who I spend time with (to the extent I have control over that), so that I don't feel worse after I spent time with them, rather than feeling I enjoyed the time we spent together.

Helen

[seebs]

(FWIW, wade, I like you lots, and I'm always happy to see you around online.)

I'm an optimist. I wasn't always. However, I learned something interesting: When I make optimistic assumptions, I tend to do better. I think part of this is that my brain is very good at finding patterns which match my expectations, so if I'm looking for opportunities to succeed, I tend to find them.

I think some of this is a learned trait, and some of it is probably brain chemistry.

But... Ultimately, I'm happier. The main argument I see for cynicism per se is that it reduces the chances of being disappointed. Me... I'm an optimistic cynic. I'm not sure why, but disappointment just doesn't bug me the way it bugs some people. I think I sort of know going into things that they might work out badly. That's fine. I expect them to work out well, or be fixable, and most of the time, I can adapt.

[pescifish]

I have never really seen a solid correlation between circumstances and relative happiness. Some people whine about the lack of mustard in the sandwich their spouse made for them, while others drag their quadraplegic asses out of bed with a smile and a happy plop.
[...] yet you're (mostly) healthy, have enough food to eat and a few good friends (or at least, a few people who will respond if you post on online discussion boards), then your life isn't a total disaster.


What if I don't have any of these things? Am I then justified in being negative?Helen, I think it is dangerous to select a few items and assume that those are basic human needs and criteria for a positive existence. And I don't think any person can infer how another person should feel or view their world/life. Everyone has different reasons and criteria for what makes an acceptable basic existence. We all have a right to our positive or negative attitudes, regardless of the circumstances. When wade poses his hypothetical questions, I think it serves to show that making such blanket judgments and criterias is wrong. I don't believe a person can decide whether another person's life is good, bad or a total disaster.

As for the OP, I consider myself a true misanthrope, with a real hate for how human beings tend to develop group social patterns. However, I love individuals, particularly ones who look at the world and live their lives in a unique way. I would say I'm a negative person, but compared to most I think that's an unrealistic assessment. Given some of the circumstances of my life, I think many people would think I'm rather positive. Most people I know seem to be unhappy and think things will only get worse. Most people I know are Christians. Is there a correlation? I doubt it.

One thing I can say for sure is that my attitude toward life, negative or positive, has never been affected by my belief in God or lack thereof.

[godfry n. glad]

...and a small note: optimism is pointless against an aggressive malignant cancer.

I disagree. Denial is pointless but I think even a person with an aggressive malignant cancer often has some choices and a person who determines to make the most of their remaining time/fight the cancer if there are ways to fight it will probably have a better quality of life - and maybe a much longer one - than someone who pessimistically gives up and doesn't even try to fight back or make the most of the rest of their life.

Well, I disagree. It's not an either/or situation. Once cancer is diagnosed, all the bells and whistles of modern medicine are brought to bear. One never really knows, during treatment, whether the treatment is efficacious or not. Optimism feeds the hope that medical treatment can actually do something....often when it can't. Optimism does nothing to improve the situation and, if the situation turns bad, optimism leaves the survivor feeling stupified and cheated. It's only afterwards that I found that my optimism was false...nothing but whistlin' in the dark.

Just to clue you in, I lost my beloved wife of 18 years to ovarian cancer just last year. We kept up our optimism in the face of surgery and chemotherapy. We put off doing things we wanted to do or might have done had we not held on to our optimism that the therapy would be effective. Still...it killed her. We could have done so much more in her final months...but we were optimistic that the treatment would work, right up until two weeks before she died. To be quite frank, I felt cheated by that optimism....we could have had some quality time together before she died, but we continued plodding on, going to work and the usual routines. It was a false optimism and felt like a huge delusion once everything was done and she was gone.

By the way, my therapist has indicated to me that controlled studies of the health effects of positive attitude as versus negative attitude in illness indicates that the effect has not been shown. In fact, she indicated that there is an active backlash against the whole "optimism can make you feel better" in that it tends to reinforce the idea that those who are negative/pessimistic bring on their own maladies, which is wrong.

Optimism doesn't change circumstances that are impossible to change. However, our attitude does affect how we respond to our circumstances and our responses have ramifications - which means that our attitude does indirectly cause changes in the world around us. An optimist in the same circumstances as a pessimist may act differently enough because of his/her attitude that things happen which the pessimist thought were impossible.

Yep. And vice versa, too. It cuts both ways. I know from experience.

In other words, nothing ventured, nothing gained. But if something is ventured, something might be gained.

Helen

I'll agree with "nothing ventured, nothing gained," but note that it has very little to do with pessimistic versus optimistic outlooks. The pessimistic tend to venture with alternatives in mind in case the venture fails, the optimist often has no default in the venture and if it fails, the cost (real and psychic) is almost always higher.

godfry

[HelenM]

[...] yet you're (mostly) healthy, have enough food to eat and a few good friends (or at least, a few people who will respond if you post on online discussion boards), then your life isn't a total disaster.


What if I don't have any of these things? Am I then justified in being negative?Helen, I think it is dangerous to select a few items and assume that those are basic human needs and criteria for a positive existence. And I don't think any person can infer how another person should feel or view their world/life. Everyone has different reasons and criteria for what makes an acceptable basic existence. We all have a right to our positive or negative attitudes, regardless of the circumstances. When wade poses his hypothetical questions, I think it serves to show that making such blanket judgments and criterias is wrong.

I see what you're saying. It wasn't my intention to make blanket judgments. I was trying to give an illustration of a distorted perspective but perhaps I shouldn't have, since it implied that I was specifying criteria necessary for happiness.

I don't believe a person can decide whether another person's life is good, bad or a total disaster.

I don't think a person has a right to tell someone else how they should feel about their life. In the end that's the other person's decision. But I think a person can help another person re-evaluate their life; I believe the input of others can be helpful to us.

Helen

[HelenM]

Well, I disagree. It's not an either/or situation. Once cancer is diagnosed, all the bells and whistles of modern medicine are brought to bear. One never really knows, during treatment, whether the treatment is efficacious or not. Optimism feeds the hope that medical treatment can actually do something....often when it can't. Optimism does nothing to improve the situation and, if the situation turns bad, optimism leaves the survivor feeling stupified and cheated. It's only afterwards that it was false optimism.

I know people who've had treatment and gone into remission. There are types of cancer where treatment can be at least somewhat effective.

I would call the kind of optimism you're talking about, denial, rather than optimism.

Just to clue you in, I lost my beloved wife of 18 years to ovarian cancer just last year.

Yes; I remember that now. I'm sorry :(

We kept up our optimism in the face of surgery and chemotherapy. We put off doing things we wanted to do or might have done had we not held on to our optimism that the therapy would be effective. Still...it killed her. We could have done so much more in her final months...but we were optimistic that the treatment would work, right up until two weeks before she died. To be quite frank, I felt cheated by that optimism....we could have had some quality time together before she died, but we continued plodding on, going to work and the usual routines. It was a false optimism and felt like a huge delusion once everything was done and she was gone.

I'm sorry that you have regrets about how you spent her final months.

By the way, my therapist has indicated to me that controlled studies of the health effects of positive attitude as versus negative attitude in illness indicates that the effect has not been shown. In fact, she indicated that there is an active backlash against the whole "optimism can make you feel better" in that it tends to reinforce the idea that those who are negative/pessimistic bring on their own maladies, which is wrong.

I hear you but yet I think that because our attitudes drive our choices, our attitudes do indirectly affect our health. An overweight person who thinks "What's the point in even trying to lose weight?" and therefore doesn't try is likely to be less healthy in a year than someone who does try, even if the one who tries is gets partway to his/her goal.

I'll agree with "nothing ventured, nothing gained," but note that it has very little to do with pessimistic versus optimistic outlooks. The pessimistic tend to venture with alternatives in mind in case the venture fails, the optimist often has no default in the venture and if it fails, the cost (real and psychic) is almost always higher.

I agree with you when pessimism and optimism are defined with those caveats.

Helen

[Dingfod]

If you snap at people on the internet, then you aren't just internalizing it.I did say "mostly". I don't really think I snap at anyone anywhere, I do not have a hair trigger. Maybe I get a bit defensive now and then, but it'll always be about something related to what is bugging me, almost never is an innocent bystander my target. The anonymousness of the internet allows me to be a bit more, shall we say, uninhibited. I feel freer to express things I would never talk about openly with people that are merely casual acquaintances. Since I have no close friends or relatives I can open up like that to, the internet is my only outlet. I'm glad I have it.

Do I say thinks or act in ways that drive people away? Probably. I certainly am not the life of the party, but in groups I tend not to be very outgoing anyway, kind of a wallflower. Perhaps this is why I don't really like socializing. Is it misantropic? I don't know, but I do have a certain distain for people I don't have much in common with. I know for sure I don't like crowds of people. Most of the people I work with socialize with one another, AFAIK they think of me as too serious and business-like. Those that know me better think I'm pretty funny and well-informed. Both views are right. I've been lauded for being level headed and even tempered. I am both, but it is on a low level, negative even.

My bosses throughout my career have stated that they like that they can get the unvarnished truth from me and that if there is anything that can go wrong with a project I'm the first to be able to see it. I coined it my ability to see the dark cloud in front of every silver lining, the opposite of that old phrase optimists often use, always looking for the silver lining behind every dark cloud. Negativism has value, much value. Perhaps many projects, the Challenger shuttle mission for example, would've benefited from having just one more person pointing out what could go wrong, just one more might have made the difference. Some people recognize the value of cynical pessimists, some wearing rose-tinted blinders don't.

A world full of optimists? *gag*

[Sweetie]

I'm an optimist.

I think I'm an optimist to pessimists and a pessimist to optimists. Too much sugar is too sweet, yuck, too much vinegar is too sour, yuck. So, I'm sweet and sour, I think, or better, bitter-sweet, mmmm, dark chocolate, my favorite. Actually, if I were to define for myself the word realist, the above would be it's definition.

Realist: a person who accepts the world as it literally is and deals with it accordingly.

I think that's how the world really is, neither too hot nor too cold, neither too bad nor too good. "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

To the optimist I might say, "sorry to piss on your cornflakes but...", and to the pessimist I might say, "have you tried these cornflakes, they're really very good!"

[wildernesse]

I'm confused about the point that optimists just think that everything is going to be alright and that they don't actively look for errors or problems or whatnot. As an optimist, I can say that I don't just throw up my hands and go with the flow, knowing that everything will turn out ok. What you're talking about is stupidity, laziness, and incompetence--likely coupled with inept leadership. Optimism might be a handy cover for this scam, but I don't think it causes it.

To me, optimism has nothing to do with whether or not I look at all possible sides of an issue or ramifications of my decisions--that's an analytical ability that seems to me to be unrelated to whether or not someone thinks that it's more likely that the waitress spilled the coffee because she hates you or because it's an accident.

Often in my life, negative feelings and interactions are more often false and distorted than otherwise. Reality rarely appears to align with my negative feelings, whereas my generally non-negative outlook appears to meet up with reality much more often.

[Dingfod]

To me, optimism has nothing to do with whether or not I look at all possible sides of an issue or ramifications of my decisions--that's an analytical ability that seems to me to be unrelated to whether or not someone thinks that it's more likely that the waitress spilled the coffee because she hates you or because it's an accident.In this sort of case, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. Does that make me an optimist? Probably, somewhat.

Often in my life, negative feelings and interactions are more often false and distorted than otherwise. Reality rarely appears to align with my negative feelings, whereas my generally non-negative outlook appears to meet up with reality much more often.My life experience has show much the opposite. Many times things I've held an optimistic outlook on have, as I've put it before, been dashed upon the rocks of reality.

Perhaps my pessimism isn't a worst-case pessimism, more of a negative outcome pessimism.

Anyway, for a different view and a poll, see my new thread here. (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1169)

[Beth]

I know some of the negativity repels me in regard to atheists, but then, I also see Christians who are very negative as well. I often see the negativity equally. If either side feels their beliefs are being assaulted, either side can get downright hostile. Only difference is on side acts gleeful you will writhe in eternal hell fires, another accuses you of being illogical or stupid.

Then you have regular people who are in the middle. They are neither negative in nature, nor are they super upbeat. They get angry when provoked, are gleeful when happy.

Being a Christian did not make me more positive, honestly. I prayed and I miserably waited on the answers to my prayers. Things have been really, really bad at times. The prayers did not really make me feel better but the made me feel I did something. Other times, my faith made me feel powerless, like I was a cursed existence who blighted everyone whom I was close to.

Thing is, as an atheist, I can more vocally voice my negative thoughts because I am not worried about having or presenting a lack of faith and always trying to show a false positive. Those false positives hid a very horrible suicidal depression. Now, when I get like that, I can be negative and then decide that I want to change the negative. If I always hid the negative and never faced the problem, I could not work on healing it.

Anyway, I am not speaking of all Christians, I am just speaking of me, a former believer.

[Aurora Elegance]

To elaborate, I'm optimistic mostly. Despite all we do, I still believe that humans are really good at heart. But I also believe that we're susceptible to destructive habits and/or situations that can eventually cause us to become corrupt.