3 ms·

There are two meanings of "optimist" (same for "pessimist") that are often confused and mixed up. The first meaning is a person who is biased to expect overly p

There are two meanings of "optimist" (same for "pessimist") that are often confused and mixed up. The first meaning is a person who is biased to expect overly positive (negative) outcomes compared to what is suggested by available evidence and history. This is supposed to be a personality trait and irrespective of any concrete question or issue. As such, both biases are stupid. A self-described "proud optimist" in this sense is proud to be knowingly delusional. I'm not sure anyone calls themselves a "proud pessimist", but replacing the word by "sceptic" or "realist" changes nothing if by it one still means being proud of cognitive bias. The second meaning of optimism (pessimism) is to expect positive (negative) results for a given question or issue compared to other people with access to (roughly) the same evidence. In this case, it's normal that there would be a spread of opinions, these differing opinions need not be biases (while crucial to explore further and eventually reconcile) and the words optimistic/pessimistic describe something meaningful and useful. I wish people stopped saying "I'm an optimist" and instead listed explicitly the things they're optimistic about (in the second sense). If you're optimistic about everything, you're most likely just biased and could improve your decision making by working towards correcting this bias.

StevenWaterman 3y ago
In my experience it's a third option - that optimistic and pessimistic people have different experiences and evidence. So when people say they are an optimist, they mean "in general the evidence that I have leads me to a more positive conclusion than most people"
- staunton 3y ago
  I would say that's a special case of my second option. Maybe I didn't phrase it broadly enough. It concerns a single question or issue. (Unless somebody thinks they have some magical evidence or experience that concerns literally every issue, which I would find highly suspect). If people in such situations care about their conclusions (which may not always be the case, not all issues are equally important), they would proceed to share the evidence and experiences.
kmmlng 3y ago
As conceptualized by Seligman, there is also a component of optimism called "explanatory style". Basically, if you experience some kind of adverse event, how do you explain to yourself what has happened? Let's say you are rejected for a job. Do you take it personally? Does reason you were rejected concern all aspects of your life or is it specific to this situation? Is the problem permanent or temporary? If you explain adverse events in a way that's personal, pervasive, and permanent, you have a more pessimistic explanatory style and are less likely to try again in the future.

StevenWaterman 3y ago

In my experience it's a third option - that optimistic and pessimistic people have different experiences and evidence. So when people say they are an optimist, they mean "in general the evidence that I have leads me to a more positive conclusion than most people"

staunton 3y ago
I would say that's a special case of my second option. Maybe I didn't phrase it broadly enough. It concerns a single question or issue. (Unless somebody thinks they have some magical evidence or experience that concerns literally every issue, which I would find highly suspect). If people in such situations care about their conclusions (which may not always be the case, not all issues are equally important), they would proceed to share the evidence and experiences.

kmmlng 3y ago

As conceptualized by Seligman, there is also a component of optimism called "explanatory style". Basically, if you experience some kind of adverse event, how do you explain to yourself what has happened? Let's say you are rejected for a job. Do you take it personally? Does reason you were rejected concern all aspects of your life or is it specific to this situation? Is the problem permanent or temporary? If you explain adverse events in a way that's personal, pervasive, and permanent, you have a more pessimistic explanatory style and are less likely to try again in the future.