4 ms·

I had to look up the reference, and based on the wikipedia plot summary at least, I admit I don't quite get the relevance. I expected a plot where someone handl

I had to look up the reference, and based on the wikipedia plot summary at least, I admit I don't quite get the relevance. I expected a plot where someone handles criticism quite badly and suffers as a result, but in fact the plot was actually about someone who handled criticism very well instead, and improved the lives of others as a result? So now I'm curious! In what way does Pollyanna relate to adults who can't handle critique? Have I got the wrong Pollyanna by any chance? xD

unkulunkulu 2y ago
I’ve also thought about that based on the same info, i.e. not reading the source completely. There is a notion of a “Pollyanna mode” in schematherapy. What it means is ignoring negative facts and challenges with an outwardly positive attitude and avoiding addressing the issues themselves. This certainly can be harmful to oneself. Another harmful thing is hating and bashing oneself for mistakes and faults and I won’t make a comparative judgement, but a healthy way is supposed to be along the lines of speaking up openly about what bothers you and thinking what can be done about it if at all.
- tpoacher 2y ago
  This makes sense. Thank you for your comment! Learnt something new today :)
talideon 2y ago
A Pollyanna is somebody who's cheerful and optimistic to a fault, i.e., even when it's unjustified. The plot summary of the book is likely not what you should be reading as it's become an idiom. Something like Wiktionary or another dictionary would be a better place to look it up. In this case, it's not about being able to receive criticism, but about being reticent about _giving_ it.
- Y_Y 2y ago
  > The plot summary of the book is likely not what you should be reading as it's become an idiom. This is a good and perhaps under-appreciated point. When I first read the term "Polyanna" I made the same mistake as GP. I think if you read "The Prince" to find out what "Machiavellian" meant you'd be no better than when you started. Even terms like "Kafkaesque" have taken on lives of their own and are probably better not thought of as mere literary references.
  - ekidd 2y ago
    Machiavelli's "The Prince" will give you a decent understanding of what people usually mean by "Machiavellian". The book explains what methods would allow an absolute ruler to stay in control of state. It does not generally make moral judgments about those methods. Machiavelli's "Discourses" is the one that will really confuse a reader looking to understand the colloquial meaning of "Machiavellian". In this book, Machiavelli lays out a vision of a healthy "republic" (or more precisely, res publica) which benefits the people who live in it. Among other things, Machiavelli argues that republics actually benefit from multiple competing factions, and from some kind of checks and balances. Apparently these ideas influenced several of the people who helped draft the Constitution of the United States. Now why Machiavelli had two such different books on how governments worked is another interesting question...
    - Y_Y 2y ago
      > Machiavellian > adjective > uk /ˌmæk.i.əˈvel.i.ən/ us /ˌmæk.i.əˈvel.i.ən/ > using clever but often dishonest methods that deceive people so that you can win power or control (from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/machiavellian https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/machiave... ) Ymmv, but I think that's far from the point of the book, and isn't even the main topic. It's hard for me to imagine taking a person who'd never heard the term, letting them read the book, and then asking them to propose a definition, would produce anything like the above.

unkulunkulu 2y ago

I’ve also thought about that based on the same info, i.e. not reading the source completely. There is a notion of a “Pollyanna mode” in schematherapy. What it means is ignoring negative facts and challenges with an outwardly positive attitude and avoiding addressing the issues themselves. This certainly can be harmful to oneself. Another harmful thing is hating and bashing oneself for mistakes and faults and I won’t make a comparative judgement, but a healthy way is supposed to be along the lines of speaking up openly about what bothers you and thinking what can be done about it if at all.

tpoacher 2y ago
This makes sense. Thank you for your comment! Learnt something new today :)

talideon 2y ago

A Pollyanna is somebody who's cheerful and optimistic to a fault, i.e., even when it's unjustified. The plot summary of the book is likely not what you should be reading as it's become an idiom. Something like Wiktionary or another dictionary would be a better place to look it up. In this case, it's not about being able to receive criticism, but about being reticent about _giving_ it.

Y_Y 2y ago
> The plot summary of the book is likely not what you should be reading as it's become an idiom. This is a good and perhaps under-appreciated point. When I first read the term "Polyanna" I made the same mistake as GP. I think if you read "The Prince" to find out what "Machiavellian" meant you'd be no better than when you started. Even terms like "Kafkaesque" have taken on lives of their own and are probably better not thought of as mere literary references.
- ekidd 2y ago
  Machiavelli's "The Prince" will give you a decent understanding of what people usually mean by "Machiavellian". The book explains what methods would allow an absolute ruler to stay in control of state. It does not generally make moral judgments about those methods. Machiavelli's "Discourses" is the one that will really confuse a reader looking to understand the colloquial meaning of "Machiavellian". In this book, Machiavelli lays out a vision of a healthy "republic" (or more precisely, res publica) which benefits the people who live in it. Among other things, Machiavelli argues that republics actually benefit from multiple competing factions, and from some kind of checks and balances. Apparently these ideas influenced several of the people who helped draft the Constitution of the United States. Now why Machiavelli had two such different books on how governments worked is another interesting question...
  - Y_Y 2y ago
    > Machiavellian > adjective > uk /ˌmæk.i.əˈvel.i.ən/ us /ˌmæk.i.əˈvel.i.ən/ > using clever but often dishonest methods that deceive people so that you can win power or control (from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/machiavellian https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/machiave... ) Ymmv, but I think that's far from the point of the book, and isn't even the main topic. It's hard for me to imagine taking a person who'd never heard the term, letting them read the book, and then asking them to propose a definition, would produce anything like the above.