3 ms·
I haven’t read the article, but maybe not all distortions need correction. Maybe in some cases somebody might need to balance their optimism in such a way that
by user8501 4y ago
I haven’t read the article, but maybe not all distortions need correction. Maybe in some cases somebody might need to balance their optimism in such a way that more wisdom can be utilized, but I still see nothing wrong with embracing a distortion, especially one as helpful as being optimistic.
- aussiesnack 4y agoDepends what you mean by 'wrong'. It's certainly a cognitive mistake to do so, pretty much by definition. If you embrace either optimism or pessimism, your view of the world is less likely to be veridical than if you abjure or correct for either. If you mean 'wrong' as a value judgement, I'd agree it's arguably reasonable to opt-in to optimism or pessimism on non-cognitive grounds. You might prefer optimism if you believe an inaccurately sunny view of consequences is pragmatically effective. Or you might prefer pessimism if you think it leads to reduced disappointment. What also follows is that, given their opting in to non-veridicality, us third parties should take the views of any self-proclaimed optimists or pessimists less seriously than we do those who take cognition seriously.
- user8501 4y agoYou’re making a qualitative judgement by saying a sunny view of a situation might be “inaccurate”. That’s not for anybody to judge except the individual holding the sunny view. And if their perspective needs correction, again only they can say if that’s the case or not.
- aussiesnack 4y agoYou don't have any idea what optimism and pessimism mean. And your radical individualistic epistemology is absurd in the extreme.
- user8501 4y agoPlease explain to me what they mean then. And then explain how embracing one’s optimism is a “cognitive mistake almost by definition”.