View source for Talk:Optimism

{{Afd-merged-from|Abundance mentality|Abundance mentality|20 April 2009|date=May 2009}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Low|epistemology=yes|ethics=yes}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Low}}
}}

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-08-14">14 August 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-12-04">4 December 2020</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Univeristy_of_Puerto_Rico_at_Cayey/INGL_3103_Intermediate_English_(Fall_Semester_2020)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:PMG2020UPRC|PMG2020UPRC]].

{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 05:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
==Half-there==
Minor change: I added in the part about "It is half-there". Not often heard, I believe it is still relevant as an example in the article. - [[User:Gingerkitteh]]
:Isn't "It is half there," about the same as saying, "It is half full"? It still addresses the question by suggesting the quantity is half what it ''should'' be--and positively, noting what is still there instead of what is now absent. A more disinterested response would be to state a measurement without reference to maximum capacity: "The glass contains 105 mL of water." That is, this measurement is not relative (positively, negatively, or equally) to another.

== Half Empty/Half full ==

I stumbled across this the other day, don't know wether it will have any relevence here, but still worth a look
[http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/s0459396/proof.html James' dissproof of pessimism]

:It's half full if it's just been half-filled. It's half empty if someone just half emptied it. This isn't philosophy - it's just argument over language. Wittgenstein would be spinning in his grave...
:CWM

::Can something be half empty, when empty is the equivalent of nothing? In other words; What is half of zero? Therefore I suggest that the phrase "half empty" is merely an incorrect use of language and that the choice of these words has no reflection on being a pessimist, since a pessimist, too, can know the difference between correct use of language and not.
::The shaver

== Psychology Section ==

This section should be flagged for bias.  It equates optimism with psychological well-being, which cannot be proven.  For example:  

I feel the best possible outcome will happen when I execute my plan to rob a bank.  I'm not robbing the bank because I need money.  When I was a kid a bank teller gave me a funny look.  

The example shows a clearly unstable psychological profile, yet also a clear optimism.

:It may not be ''equivalent'' to psychological well-being, but the two are certainly ''correlated'', as per the references. [[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <span style="font-size:x-small;">[[User_talk:Feezo|(Talk)]]</span> 02:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
:Reverted an apparent vandalism (insertion of "woo") in this section. [[User:Jackrepenning|Jackrepenning]] ([[User talk:Jackrepenning|talk]]) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
True true i couldent agree more.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.21.146.161|173.21.146.161]] ([[User talk:173.21.146.161|talk]]) 23:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Optimism about known and unknown facts? ==

I think that 1. optimism about known facts (Is the glass half full or half empty? Has my life been happy or unhappy?)
is completely different from
2. optimism about unknown facts (I'll win in this lottery; I'm sure that he must have survived). 

Optimism 2. is about how much luck one expects.
Optimism 1. is about how to relate to things.

Is there any widespread terminology for these concepts?
Does this current article on optimism now explain optimism 1. only?
[[User:Emmisa|Emmisa]] 14:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

==Image== 
I made an image that represents optimism, if it doesn't make sense please remove or replace it. Thank you. [[User:M&NCenarius|M&amp;NCenarius]] 06:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

:... I very like it. --[[User:Euyyn|euyyn]] 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== Remain encyclopedic in content and form, please ==

Form:

''Optimism is represented by the color [[Rose (color)|rose]] (just as its opposite, pessimism, is represented by the color [[grey]]).''

By who? Has that representation of ideas by color a name? Is it somehow standard?

And content:

''According to a ten-year-long research project, it is proven that possessing an optimistic world view increases one's IQ by at least ten points.''

LOL Coooooome ooon!!!!

--[[User:Euyyn|euyyn]] 21:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Relating to the optimism-IQ relationship, high IQ scores have a high correlation with depression, which implies pessimism.  So, optimism may increase your IQ score, but it most likely applies to those in the low and middle parts of the spectrum.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/35.11.156.115|35.11.156.115]] ([[User talk:35.11.156.115|talk]]) 03:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Nirmit Patel ==

Where the article now mentions Leibniz for the first time, under the philosophy heading, it formerly mentioned a "Nirmit Patel."  I don't know who this is, but I'm fairly certain the reference is Leibniz, as would be indicated also by the reference to him in the followng paragraph. --[[User:Delong71487|Delong71487]] 03:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Newbyguesses|Newbyguesses]] 10:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)well if we wish to discuss OPTIMISM and be optimistic, thenPangloss <the best of all possible worlds> and Pollyanna both deserve a mention

About Leibniz and Dr. Pangloss, I see that 'panglossianism' now redirects to 'optimism'. The two are not the same thing. As opposed to panglossianism equaling optimism, panglossianism is the belief of some people that this world can't change, combined with not being able to stand facing it's imperfections, thus through the process of panglossianism they find a way to delude themselves. For example, an optimistic black man living in Georgia in 1850 believed that slavery could be overcome. A panglossianist in the same situation convinces himself that he really is inferior to the white man and needs to be periodically whipped to stay on the straight and narrow. The two are not the same thing.  
[[Special:Contributions/98.157.103.147|98.157.103.147]] ([[User talk:98.157.103.147|talk]]) 08:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

==List of famous optimist==

I suggest that any list of famous optimistic people added to this page, is limited to only those people who where famous for their optimism, or whose optimism was famously a part of their character. Maybe one could argue that Karl Marx was an optimist, but that is not what he is famous for...
For now, I'm going to remove the entire list. [[User:SevenMass|SevenMass]] 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
==Constant==
Is optimism constant or can it change to pessimism, and than back to optimism? Because that happened to me. [[Special:Contributions/83.228.89.2|83.228.89.2]] ([[User talk:83.228.89.2|talk]]) 20:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

:See [[mood]] vs [[philosophy]]. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] ([[User talk:Hyacinth|talk]]) 07:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
-langston hughes
-hellen keller
-martin luther king jr.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.39.18.127|75.39.18.127]] ([[User talk:75.39.18.127|talk]]) 14:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== "Optimism in culture" ==

[[User:PeruAlonso|PeruAlonso]] just wrote this section which makes no sense to me. I commented it out, pending clarification/expansion. -- [[User:Rmrfstar|Rmrfstar]] ([[User talk:Rmrfstar|talk]]) 21:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

==Current image: [[:Image:WPaskell,MountKearsargeinSpring(JJH-WFP301).jpg]]==
How does [[Mount Kearsarge (Carroll County, New Hampshire)|Mount Kearsarge]] visually represent "the world as a benevolent place"? [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] ([[User talk:Hyacinth|talk]]) 03:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

:Never mind. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] ([[User talk:Hyacinth|talk]]) 07:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

== Needs work bad ==

Note in re the article subject [[Barbara Ehrenreich]]'s [http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/brightsided.htm Bright Sided]. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.177.92|72.228.177.92]] ([[User talk:72.228.177.92|talk]]) 05:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

== Redirect ==

Why does [[negative thinking]] redirect here? Thanks seems rather counter-intuitive. Shouldn't it go to [[pessimism]]? —[[User Talk:Focus|<span style="color:#0404B4;">focus</span>]] 02:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

:I'd guess the reason is that the phrase "negative thinking" is so vague and subjective that it's functionally meaningless in an encyclopedia.--<small>[[User:TyrS|'''<span style="color:#702963;background:#967BB6">&nbsp;TyrS&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:TyrS#top|'''<span style="color:#967BB6;background:#702963">&nbsp;chatties&nbsp;</span>''']]</small> 02:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

== Optimalism ==
In the subsection optimalism, the definition of it is not precise. It needs to be defined as a philosophy, or an outlook on life, etc. If that is a direct quote Nicholas Rescher, I would add quotation marks as well. Besides that, contrasting the idea with perfectionism gave me a decent understanding of what optimalism was. Might want to go into less detail about perfectionism and go more into detail about optimalism. --[[User:KJamison7|KJamison7]] ([[User talk:KJamison7|talk]]) 01:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

.................  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/115.240.61.185|115.240.61.185]] ([[User talk:115.240.61.185|talk]]) 04:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== [[Science News]] resource ==

[http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/335187/title/A_mind_for_optimism  A mind for optimism].  Reality checks affect [[judgment]] more when prospects are rosier, study indicates.  By Laura Sanders October 13th, 2011, excerpt ... {{Quotation|[[Human Brain|Brain]]s are unabashedly optimistic, lapping up good news and virtually ignoring the bad, scientists report online October 9 in [[Nature Neuroscience]].  The findings could help explain why people overestimate their life span, underestimate their chances of getting a divorce, and scoff at the thought of bankruptcy.}}

See [[computational neuroscientist]], [[Virginia Tech]], [[University College London]], [[MRI brain scan]], [[Prefrontal cortex]] (inferior prefrontal gyrus specifically), prefrontal [[gyrus]],

[[Special:Contributions/99.181.140.213|99.181.140.213]] ([[User talk:99.181.140.213|talk]]) 05:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

== criticism for optimism ==

When you go to the pessimism site, they will list a short phrase that pessimism is often linked to being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I do not see why this should not be just as correct for optimism.If you believe something is bad, it will likely get worse.Why is the same not true for: if you believe something is good, it will likely get better?In the end, much of the course of action one takes upon one´s interpretation of a situation may or may not lead to a result which you believed previously woul be attained.
One should also not forget that chance still may or may not have a play in the ultimate outcome but still, what is valid for one side must also be, reciprocally, be valid for the opposite.So i do not see why pessimism would have listed a criticism but optimism not.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.99.17.34|83.99.17.34]] ([[User talk:83.99.17.34|talk]]) 01:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


None of us seem to understand.  Every article that relates to pessimism carries an extreme bias toward optimism.  Optimism causes bad planning.  Optimists assume that they won't be raped or murdered, they won't crash their car, their marriage won't fail, their investments will work out, they'll win their bets at the track.  Pessimists understand that suffering and disappointment are inescapable, inherently part of all risk, and that preparing overmuch for these outcomes is also likely to fail.  They become more interested in learning how to cope with life, and less interested in fighting it.  The Internet, like the world of psychology/psychiatry, is full of people who are disproportionately privileged, and thus we don't understand just how important it is to expect ill fortune as a matter of course, especially in the rest of the world, where babies still die starving.  We don't fucking get it.  Pain is much worse when you don't think it's coming.

:That's true only for a very limited definition of optimism. Being an optimist doesn't imply not recognizing that the world can be a dangerous place. A rational optimist recognizes that car accidents happen, and thus it makes sense to have good insurance, drive a safer car, drive safely and use your seat belts. Preparing for negative outcomes is rational, giving up and saying "why bother?" is not. Smallpox was eradicated because people were optimistic enough to think it was possible to do so. Disappointment may be inevitable, but an optimist sees disappointment as a price worth paying for a chance at success.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:RLent|RLent]] ([[User talk:RLent|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RLent|contribs]]) 17:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== optimism is not progress ==

The belief that this is an optimal world, or the best of all possible ones, simply acknowledges as Job, that we have to take God and nature as it is and not expect Him or Her to roll out one more to our liking.  Optimism, on the other hand, is just that sort of mania.  We might make progress if the world does not, however, but undoubtedly not via enthusiasm.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.178.16.31|71.178.16.31]] ([[User talk:71.178.16.31|talk]]) 23:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Independent reviews for the health benefits? ==

The health section is mainly based on primary sources. It is dangerous to draw conclusion based on individual studies or our own selection of positive studies only, see [[WP:MEDRS]]. I have tried to search for independent reviews or meta-analyses, preferably in medical journals. Unfortunately, I have only found one meta-analysis ({{PMID|19711142}}), but this was criticized the next year ({{PMID|20358319}}): "Optimism may be related to physical health, but the
number of basic methodological issues and coding inconsistencies we identified shows that this cannot be established from the meta-analysis conducted by Rasmussen et al."  Are there any better sources out there? [[User:Vesal|Vesal]] ([[User talk:Vesal|talk]]) 16:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

==Optimism in the philosophical sense==
This article would be improved if it clarified how optimism in the psychological sense can be distinguished from optimism in the philosophical sense, where it means the philosophical doctrine associated with [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]] that this is the best of all possible worlds. I would say that Wikipedia needs an article on optimism in this sense, with a disambiguation tag heading this article.

== Health psychology ==
{{hat|reason=Thread started by blocked sock. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' &#124; ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 22:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)}}
<s>Forgetting Ikigai for a moment, I disagree with this revert[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Optimism&type=revision&diff=984598470&oldid=984562602]. User Schazjmd says here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHealth_psychology&type=revision&diff=984598803&oldid=984580492] that they reverted it because {{quote|text=I also removed the section-see-also in [[:Optimism]] that pointed to [[Health psychology]]; a reader wanting to know more about optimism and health would not be well served being brought to this article.}}. But such a reader would in fact be well served to be directed to [[Health psychology]], inasmuch as optimism is an aspect of psychology. It is a case of going from the specialized association to the generalized association. I wonder what other editors think. Is opening a RFC the only way to attract comments, or is there some other lightweight way? PS: How do I ping an user appropriately? Is the quote template appropriate? [[User:Jonahloci|Jonahloci]] ([[User talk:Jonahloci|talk]]) 18:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)</s>
:You can learn how to notify other editors at [[WP:PING]]. See if other editors contribute to the conversation before considering an RfC. I disagree with the section-see-also, there is only the most vaguely tenuous relation between the two articles, but I'm certainly not going to edit-war over it. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#9966FF;">Schazjmd</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#5500FF;">''(talk)''</span>]] 19:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
::Also, see [[WP:RELATED]]: {{tq|Disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title. They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic}} and (the purpose of hatnotes) {{tq|Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for}}.  [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#9966FF;">Schazjmd</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#5500FF;">''(talk)''</span>]] 19:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
:::[[User:Jonahloci|Jonahloci]], although I've not looked into this in detail, I think [[User:Schazjmd|Schazjmd]] is correct.  The [[wikipedia:Hatnote|hatnote]] is a "big" way of adding this link.  I would have no concern about a link in the middle of a normal sentence (if there was a suitable sentence where health psychology was mentioned naturally), but I think that the hatnote in the section is too much. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Toxic Positivity ==

There is an ongoing discussion in various mental health support groups and disability activist groups, that ordinary "think positive" or optimism has its dark side- it suppresses the voice sharing the problem and wanting the support. Also this type of forced positivity may make people feel ashamed about taking pause or rest and, also "good vibes only" type positivity can seclude those people send negative nonverbal signal. This type of harmful positivity has been termed as 'toxic positivity'. 
[[Special:Contributions/2409:4061:70B:F80:C4AC:3DA3:CDEF:B9F5|2409:4061:70B:F80:C4AC:3DA3:CDEF:B9F5]] ([[User talk:2409:4061:70B:F80:C4AC:3DA3:CDEF:B9F5|talk]]) 15:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
:It's an interesting perspective. When academic sources discussing it are published, it will be a useful addition to the article. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#9966FF;">Schazjmd</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#5500FF;">''(talk)''</span>]] 15:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
:: Although very few, there are some literatures such as https://repository.uel.ac.uk/item/8842y ,  http://simplyhappy.co/toxic-positivity/ etc.  [[Special:Contributions/2409:4061:70B:F80:E7:4F4A:12E7:2091|2409:4061:70B:F80:E7:4F4A:12E7:2091]] ([[User talk:2409:4061:70B:F80:E7:4F4A:12E7:2091|talk]]) 05:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
::: Thanks. That second link isn't a reliable source. The first is, but it's specific to positive psychology, and the article on that does have a section on toxic positivity: [[Positive_psychology#Toxic_positivity]]. What I've done is copied one summary-style sentence on the criticism of positive psychology to the paragraph in this article on the same. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#9966FF;">Schazjmd</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#5500FF;">''(talk)''</span>]] 14:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much [[Special:Contributions/2409:4061:70B:F80:0:0:1A4D:80A0|2409:4061:70B:F80:0:0:1A4D:80A0]] ([[User talk:2409:4061:70B:F80:0:0:1A4D:80A0|talk]]) 17:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:I appreciate you noticing the gap here and bringing attention to it. {{smiley}} Happy editing! [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#9966FF;">Schazjmd</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#5500FF;">''(talk)''</span>]] 17:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)