6 ms·

There was a science experiment where they took pessimists and optimists and had them rate themselves from one to ten in terms of looks. Then they had another e

There was a science experiment where they took pessimists and optimists and had them rate themselves from one to ten in terms of looks. Then they had another external group of people rate them based off of the same 1 to 10 scale to get an unbiased baseline. Turns out pessimists had a more accurate and realistic rating around how good they looked. While optimists had ratings that were wildly overblown. There are other experiments that measured other things related to these two groups of people. It turns out optimists are, happier, have higher salaries and are much more successful in life while pessimists are more likely to be clinically depressed. This experiment tells us a dark truth about human nature. We lie to ourselves to stay sane. We construct illusions to protect ourselves from fully experiencing the cruel reality of life. Optimism is a special kind of blindness. It's blindness that blinds you from being aware you're blind. So look deeply at yourself. Are you happy? Are you optimistic? If so then that is in itself a statistical statement about how delusional and intelligent you actually are. Can you handle the truth? I wonder how this post will get voted? Down for being depressing and negative? Or up for being truthful?

r3trohack3r 3y ago
> I wonder how this post will get voted? Down for being depressing and negative? Or up for being truthful? Likely down for talking about votes. And for assuming there is only one truth. > We construct illusions to protect ourselves from fully experiencing the cruel reality of life. Reality is cruel. Nature is cruel. Existence is cruel. And Humans have overcome a substantial amount of that cruelty and enjoy a quality of life our ancestors couldn't even dream of. There are many other things to be optimistic about given where life on earth started and how it is going for humans. Our ancestors have come a long way in 4.5bn years, it would be special kind of blindness to write that progress off as a lie we tell ourselves to stay sane.
- HervalFreire 3y ago
  Who knows? You could be right and I could be the one that is totally blind. I propose an experiment to find out just which one of us is actually more delusional. To start off, how would you rate yourself in terms of looks from 1 to 10?
rixed 3y ago
Let's see if there is anything of value in between those two extreme viewpoints... Reality is cruel and often sad, and for our own sake our brain tricks us into believing it's all pink, making us optimistic, delusional and stupid. On the other hand, contemplating all the time just how cruel and vain everything is left us depressed and unmotivated and eventually makes life useless and worthless. Well, then maybe we could aim for the middle, aknowledge that our brain has a tendency to paint everything either pink or black, but that with some little effort it's not so hard to recognize these trends when they happen and navigate in between, and be realistically satisfied that we can actually achieve to do that and be happy without delusion?
mewpmewp2 3y ago
I disagree with a lot of what you are saying. Firstly I wouldn't label myself any way, neither pessimist or optimist. But you can be amazed at what has happened throughout the whole history and what humans have built, and be optimistic and excited about the future, and that we can handle the problems thrown at us and be completely realistic at the same time. And even if there was some way to accurately judge whether optimists or pessimists view the World more accurately, it doesn't mean you can't still view the world accurately and be an optimist at the same time. It might just be that optimists on average are more likely to view things in a better light than they are, but it doesn't apply to every single optimist. There is truth, but also even bad truth like a problem coming your way you can treat it as an exciting challenge or a nuisance.
- HervalFreire 3y ago
  https://radiolab.org/episodes/91618-lying-to-ourselves https://radiolab.org/episodes/91618-lying-to-ourselves What I'm saying is not something I made up. It's actual science. Listen to the podcast if you have the time. It's derived from actual multitudes of scientific research done on thousands of people. It's only 12 minutes and it's really good and it will change your perception of the importance of knowing the truth. This is real. And the experiments cited in this podcast are only a fraction of the psychological experiments used to confirm this theory. It's not about a matter of your opinion, it's science. But even if it's real it doesn't matter does it? Because it's all about your perception and your ability to delude yourself.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    I was responding to your points. Is there any other specific point you want me to respond to? Because the arguments are that you can overestimate your capabilities or be overconfident to perform better, which I agree with, but my point is that none of it is indicative that someone having generally a positive view of the world necessarily implies that they would have less grasp on reality. I think the experiments are not evidence that one has to "delude" themselves to be positive or happy. Because the end of your post implied that there must be at least some level of delusion going on.
mnky9800n 3y ago
but it isn't a lie. everything you said here is biased by your perspective on reality. everything you read here is biased by your perspective. everything i understand you said is biased by my perspective. it is a wonder any of us at all are able to communicate with each other ideas using words and body language. it is quite possible that we are all non-overlapping cognitive bubbles traveling around interpreting input never actually connecting or understanding each other in any real way.
- HervalFreire 3y ago
  Would it be different if I told you that what I wrote here is based on and confirmed by science? When subject to the rigor of statistical confirmation then what I said is no longer a "perspective". It is a fundamental fact about reality as we know it.
  - mnky9800n 3y ago
    Science is an attempt to remove bias from perception but it's not perfect. I feel like we are on the same page but reading different books.
    - HervalFreire 3y ago
      Its nearly perfect if the sample size is big enough. Barring that it's also the best we can do. There's no better alternative to science so you either believe in the science or you believe something significantly less accurate then science. If you're not on board with science that has been thoroughly researched then it's akin to saying you're not on board with reality.
      - mnky9800n 3y ago
        I feel like I'm on board with science. I have a PhD in physics and a position at a researcher both in an industrial research lab and part-time at a university. I spend most days thinking about something related to science. But I also think about how we as individuals perceive reality and is there an objective perception of that reality? Often times our perceptions bias even what we choose to observe scientifically. This can blind us or make us stick to things even when they are no longer useful. For example, Sabine Hossenfelders criticism of inventing new particles with the only evidence being various unexplained statistical uncertainties [1]. Science is quite useful because it's a way to try and average our perceptions of reality such that we get an explanation that we all more or less agree with. But, most of these explanations are wrong in some way depending on what initial and boundary conditions you pick. That is, it's all about the perspective you choose when approaching a problem as to whether you ever arrive at a meaningful solution or not. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physic...

r3trohack3r 3y ago

> I wonder how this post will get voted? Down for being depressing and negative? Or up for being truthful? Likely down for talking about votes. And for assuming there is only one truth. > We construct illusions to protect ourselves from fully experiencing the cruel reality of life. Reality is cruel. Nature is cruel. Existence is cruel. And Humans have overcome a substantial amount of that cruelty and enjoy a quality of life our ancestors couldn't even dream of. There are many other things to be optimistic about given where life on earth started and how it is going for humans. Our ancestors have come a long way in 4.5bn years, it would be special kind of blindness to write that progress off as a lie we tell ourselves to stay sane.

HervalFreire 3y ago
Who knows? You could be right and I could be the one that is totally blind. I propose an experiment to find out just which one of us is actually more delusional. To start off, how would you rate yourself in terms of looks from 1 to 10?

rixed 3y ago

Let's see if there is anything of value in between those two extreme viewpoints... Reality is cruel and often sad, and for our own sake our brain tricks us into believing it's all pink, making us optimistic, delusional and stupid. On the other hand, contemplating all the time just how cruel and vain everything is left us depressed and unmotivated and eventually makes life useless and worthless. Well, then maybe we could aim for the middle, aknowledge that our brain has a tendency to paint everything either pink or black, but that with some little effort it's not so hard to recognize these trends when they happen and navigate in between, and be realistically satisfied that we can actually achieve to do that and be happy without delusion?

mewpmewp2 3y ago

I disagree with a lot of what you are saying. Firstly I wouldn't label myself any way, neither pessimist or optimist. But you can be amazed at what has happened throughout the whole history and what humans have built, and be optimistic and excited about the future, and that we can handle the problems thrown at us and be completely realistic at the same time. And even if there was some way to accurately judge whether optimists or pessimists view the World more accurately, it doesn't mean you can't still view the world accurately and be an optimist at the same time. It might just be that optimists on average are more likely to view things in a better light than they are, but it doesn't apply to every single optimist. There is truth, but also even bad truth like a problem coming your way you can treat it as an exciting challenge or a nuisance.

HervalFreire 3y ago
https://radiolab.org/episodes/91618-lying-to-ourselves https://radiolab.org/episodes/91618-lying-to-ourselves What I'm saying is not something I made up. It's actual science. Listen to the podcast if you have the time. It's derived from actual multitudes of scientific research done on thousands of people. It's only 12 minutes and it's really good and it will change your perception of the importance of knowing the truth. This is real. And the experiments cited in this podcast are only a fraction of the psychological experiments used to confirm this theory. It's not about a matter of your opinion, it's science. But even if it's real it doesn't matter does it? Because it's all about your perception and your ability to delude yourself.
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  I was responding to your points. Is there any other specific point you want me to respond to? Because the arguments are that you can overestimate your capabilities or be overconfident to perform better, which I agree with, but my point is that none of it is indicative that someone having generally a positive view of the world necessarily implies that they would have less grasp on reality. I think the experiments are not evidence that one has to "delude" themselves to be positive or happy. Because the end of your post implied that there must be at least some level of delusion going on.

mnky9800n 3y ago

but it isn't a lie. everything you said here is biased by your perspective on reality. everything you read here is biased by your perspective. everything i understand you said is biased by my perspective. it is a wonder any of us at all are able to communicate with each other ideas using words and body language. it is quite possible that we are all non-overlapping cognitive bubbles traveling around interpreting input never actually connecting or understanding each other in any real way.

HervalFreire 3y ago
Would it be different if I told you that what I wrote here is based on and confirmed by science? When subject to the rigor of statistical confirmation then what I said is no longer a "perspective". It is a fundamental fact about reality as we know it.
- mnky9800n 3y ago
  Science is an attempt to remove bias from perception but it's not perfect. I feel like we are on the same page but reading different books.
  - HervalFreire 3y ago
    Its nearly perfect if the sample size is big enough. Barring that it's also the best we can do. There's no better alternative to science so you either believe in the science or you believe something significantly less accurate then science. If you're not on board with science that has been thoroughly researched then it's akin to saying you're not on board with reality.
    - mnky9800n 3y ago
      I feel like I'm on board with science. I have a PhD in physics and a position at a researcher both in an industrial research lab and part-time at a university. I spend most days thinking about something related to science. But I also think about how we as individuals perceive reality and is there an objective perception of that reality? Often times our perceptions bias even what we choose to observe scientifically. This can blind us or make us stick to things even when they are no longer useful. For example, Sabine Hossenfelders criticism of inventing new particles with the only evidence being various unexplained statistical uncertainties [1]. Science is quite useful because it's a way to try and average our perceptions of reality such that we get an explanation that we all more or less agree with. But, most of these explanations are wrong in some way depending on what initial and boundary conditions you pick. That is, it's all about the perspective you choose when approaching a problem as to whether you ever arrive at a meaningful solution or not. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physic...