On Aug 24, 7:59 pm, Alastair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Why do you keep forcing me to give such depressing posts :-?
>
> I am a miserable old bugger, so my daughter gave me a book for my
> Christmas called "Learned Optimism" by Martin Seligman. In the review
> by a n Amazon.co.uk customer he writes:
>
> "Pessimists, by their way of thinking, constantly tend to destroy
> their own hope and build self-blame and guilt. A pessimistic thinking
> style causes many problems: emotional problems, under-utilization of
> your potential, and health-problems. Thinking pessimistically is a
> dangerous habit. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy: by thinking you
> have no way of influencing a bad situation, this becomes true.
> Optimists, on the other hand, build hope and maintain a positive self-
> image. They perform better at school and/or work, and are, on average,
> healthier. If this sounds interesting to you, maybe you should read
> this book. It will help you to assess your own habits of explanation
> and helps you to develop the skill of thinking positively."
>
> What the reviewer does not say is that Seligman then goes on to
> question why, if optimism leads to success why then has pessimism not
> evolved out of the human species? His answer is that pessimism is
> actually realism, and at time of crisis the realists are needed.
Actually, I don't think that's a clear picture of what Seligman said.
Optimist have the ability to sustain effort toward a goal if there is
a glimmer of hope. In certain situations, that obviously leads to a
better success rate. Picking up women in a bar comes to mind, but
there are more serious examples.
I am not sure if the pessimist-realist connection is quite as strong
as Seligman presents. He reports on an experiment that shows optimist
tend to have an illusion of control, but I don't think the
reproducibility of that experiment has been good since the book was
published.
>
> What I am saying is that you have to be realistic, otherwise we are
> all doomed.
Probably need both optimist and pessimist. Optimist are perhaps
better cheerleaders for change, better salesman, better at not giving
up.
Seligman said that an optimist makes a bad quality assurance person.
Pessimist are better when you need to seek out errors and pitfalls to
avoid failure.
>
> As Lovelock says, the US can get us out of this mess. Your rate of
> switch to biofuels is a good example of that. But biofuels alone are
> not the answer, when Oklahoma is returning to desert. Until you face
> up to reality, then the world is heading for disaster. Don't forget
> that even when the US is convinced to take action, we still have to
> convince India and China.
>
> OTOH, China has already started to take action with its one baby
> program. The real problem is over population. But now all the
> resources have been depleted it is a bit too late to cut population :-
> (
>
> Sorry, but I am just a realist :-(
>
> Cheers, Alastair.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
