5 ms·
It makes sense at a surface level, if you ignore negative information it could potentially lead to negative outcomes for yourself. If you ignore positive news,
by milsorgen 4y ago
It makes sense at a surface level, if you ignore negative information it could potentially lead to negative outcomes for yourself.
If you ignore positive news, what's the worst that could happen if you're caught unawares? Something positive or at least personally benign?
- Gare 4y agoYes, we are primed as animals that we are to be scared and vigilant. Because that ensured survival.
- Forestessential 4y agoheedfullness and fear are closely related. similar to hate and resolve.
- attemptone 4y agoWe were also primed to seek comfort and stability. Because that ensured survival. Like OOP said, that was a surface level thought. Finding evidence in evolutionary psychology seems like a big leap from that.
- bawolff 4y agoI don't really think that's a good counterexample News of bad event could directly impinge survival. News of a good thing happening to someone far away does not really improve comfort and stability.
- attemptone 4y agoNews of a bad thing happening to someone far away does not really impact survival as well. The point was not about providing a good counter-example. I wanted to show that when one hand-waves away a behavoiur to an abstract selection criteria, one can easily come up with criteria that contradicts that notion.
- themitigating 4y agoI watched a farewell video of a very far right person dying of Covid. He didn't get vaccinated but I don't know if it was because he was anti-vax, didn't think Covid was real or didn't get a chance as this was early in the pandemic. It was a recording made from a hospital bed and uploaded to Facebook. As he was saying his goodbyes he said something like "...and tell Brandon (son) I love him, not to trust anyone, and no one will ever help you in life" I realized that certain people indoctrinate their children, and this is the correct usage of the word, with a negative outlook on life. They ignore the altruistic nature of humanity for a distance based trust system. Assuming the son takes this message to heart he'll likely experience more problems because of his mistrust and when he examines his situation in life confirmation bias will prevent any self reflection. I don't understand why you reduce us to "scared and vigilant" and I wonder if that is a self fulfilling state.
- calvinmorrison 4y ago[flagged]
- initramfs 4y agohah, the person below you did a nice imitation. They forgot "Assuming the daughter" not son. But more seriously, the reason people indoctrinate isn't because they want them to be negative, but to realize that being pessimistic is actually going to be a more reliable way to have a plan for life when no one is able to help. For example, if your car breaks down and your cell phone battery is around 30%- you have time to make a few phone calls, but instead of wondering if your friend can pick you up (assuming he has a cheap pickup truck that can tow), you rationalize- he might be sleeping, working, unwilling to answer the phone. You have three phone calls to make, so you decide you'll compare the rates of the two nearest towing companies. Which do you call? You have money and time to spend, but you don't want to be stranded for a very long time, even assuming you were able to pull your car over to the side of the curb. Being pessimistic is just being prepared, and similarly, you want to try to save for a rainy day.
- DeathArrow 4y agoYes, but ignoring some bad news can make you healthier and happier. It's just that you should know what you can afford to ignore.
- themitigating 4y agoIs missing out on something positive bad? Don't positive stories contribute to a positive outlook on life? Therefore missing these stories could be a negative?
- yifanl 4y agoAs the saying goes, if you never know you have it, you'll never miss it.
- jader201 4y agoI this this is a fair point. I would argue, though, that 99% of the negative news (or most news, for that matter) will have zero effect on 99% of the population (e.g. focusing on individual crimes vs. aggregate crimes or a systemic crime problem). In an ideal world, news outlets aren't pushing news that is shocking for the sake of being shocking (and therefore, increasing viewership/readership), but pushing news that is actually relevant to a good percentage of their viewers. Sure, report things like severe weather forecasts, boil water advisories, etc. But I don't need to know about every crime, or every scandal in Hollywood, etc. -- and this is most of the negative information that's covered. Not the things that are genuinely relevant to most of us.