I'm doing some research and thought I'd poll the forum.
Choose Optimistic or Pessimistic if you see yourself as mostly one or the other.

The last two options are to cover all bases.

Also feel free to comment on which option you choose. Thanks.

Definitely more pessimistic... :tongue:

'End up like a dog that's been beat to much, till you spend half your life just a coverin up' 

Optimistic...I'm optimistic, someday I will play this guitar very well. Think positive think positive think positive...


Hope this works!

Quote from: Steve on January 30, 2007, 09:41:52 PM
'End up like a dog that's been beat to much, till you spend half your life just a coverin up' 

I always thought that line was, "end up like a dog that's been beat to a mut...."

 Optimistic mostly.;

Some say "The glass is half-full"   Others say "The Glass is half-empy" .  I say "The glass is just too big".
:roll

This polls going no where....whats the point....the statistics will be flawed anyway....who cares..... :?

:humour:

I hate to think that I'm pessimistic....but the truth is the truth...

interesting poll....

:cheers

Blue

Quote from: Blue in VT on January 31, 2007, 11:31:09 AM
This polls going no where....whats the point....the statistics will be flawed anyway....who cares..... :?

I hate to think that I'm pessimistic....but the truth is the truth...

LMAO :laughin:

Quote from: inspector13 on January 30, 2007, 10:38:01 PM
Optimistic...I'm optimistic, someday I will play this guitar very well. Think positive think positive think positive...

So I'm not alone...

jimmy

To paraphrase Ringo when asked a similar question, "I'm a mocker."

how about an optimistic realist? The full glass will soon be empty.. :beer

Cheers,
Rob

OK here's another question. Do you think, being strongly optimistic or pessimistic has an effect on objective reasoning? For instance, I've heard in discussions before where one person will eventually tell the other person "you are just being negative(or pessimistic)", as if it were evidence for their point. Kinda like, "that's just unAmerican". Of course both examples would be cases of irrelevancy, but what I'm getting at is, what does that say about the person who said it? Does thinking in terms of all or most things being positive or negative blind us from the truth?

I'm optimistic with a capital "O"!  Every new day, I look forward to wonderful things that might occur on that particular day.  I've had my share of challenging days.  However, I feel the good times are just around the corner.  I'm in sales and you have to feel this way to maintain your good attitude.  I have a friend who has been dealing with cancer since 2000.  She could write a new book on optimism.  She sends our emails on a regular basis and they are an inspiration to everyone who reads them.  She amazes her doctors with her attitude and her results.  I always think of her and her great optimism when I begin to feel a bit depressed.  There is optimism in all of us-You just have to dig a little deeper to find it with some folks. :thumb

i tend to be a left brain thinker so i usually let the facts determine if it will make me feel optimistic or pessimistic or something in between.  for example if i was swimming in the ocean and a 10 foot tiger shark approached me i'd feel pessimistic but if i were a 20 foot great white shark and the 10 foot tiger shark approached i'd feel optimistic. it's the same for the trials of life.  as for now i tend to feel more pessimistic for many reasons but i tend to habitually work on ways to improve things rather than stew in the mud.

i would say that being strongly pessimistic or optimistic does affects your objectivity to some degree particularly if your a more right brained thinker.  left brainers tend to separate their feelings from their sense of judgement.  i have a friend thats a strong right brain thinker and it's very evident he just can't separate his feelings from his sense of judgements even to save his own life so i really hope he never gets picked for jury duty or anything else that requires thinking. :arrow

I'd like to be an optimist, but I doubt if it would work out.  :whistling:

"OK here's another question. Do you think, being strongly optimistic or pessimistic has an effect on objective reasoning? For instance, I've heard in discussions before where one person will eventually tell the other person "you are just being negative(or pessimistic)", as if it were evidence for their point. Kinda like, "that's just unAmerican". Of course both examples would be cases of irrelevancy, but what I'm getting at is, what does that say about the person who said it? Does thinking in terms of all or most things being positive or negative blind us from the truth?"

Hi Jeremy3220

You are raising an important set of questions but,  if I may say so, you will inevitably encounter some problems with the assumptions inherent in your questions. For example, you may be taking it for granted that we have the capacity for "objective reasoning." Needless to say that concept will have to be operationalized so that we can use it in the same way. Same goes for "truth."  As far as I can tell, all we can hope for is "concensus."

You might enjoy reading stuff on the so-called "hermaneutic circle" or other "post-modern" philosophy such as from Richard Rorty. You seem to be interested in perception and for that I recommend reading Humberto Maturana.

I don't know how sophisticated you would like to get but it's fascinating stuff to read. If you already know all this, forgive me for assumming you didn't.

Hi Jeremy3220

You are raising an important set of questions but,  if I may say so, you will inevitably encounter some problems with the assumptions inherent in your questions. For example, you may be taking it for granted that we have the capacity for "objective reasoning." Needless to say that concept will have to be operationalized so that we can use it in the same way. Same goes for "truth."  As far as I can tell, all we can hope for is "concensus."

You might enjoy reading stuff on the so-called "hermaneutic circle" or other "post-modern" philosophy such as from Richard Rorty. You seem to be interested in perception and for that I recommend reading Humberto Maturana.

I don't know how sophisticated you would like to get but it's fascinating stuff to read. If you already know all this, forgive me for assumming you didn't.
[/quote]

Yeh, I cringed when I typed the word truth.

QuoteFor example, you may be taking it for granted that we have the capacity for "objective reasoning

If you mean in the sense we may not have the capacity for objective reasoning, then no, I don't assume that we do. I guess the question didn't address that, but most people would think the question did imply that "people have the capacity for objective reasoning, do optimistic/pessimistic people also?"

I think the question would have been phrased better as "Does perceiving yourself and others as being strongly optimistic or pessimistic have an greater effect on objective reasoning than those who don't think in terms of optimistic or pessimistic?" It seemed moderately offensive at the time. It also of course still doesn't address whether we are capable of objective reasoning.

My guess is it would be impossible to know oneself that well without frequently checking in with the community concensus. I think when most people respond to the question about being Oppties or Pessies , they are referring to their experience of a  background consensus that is not explicit or conscious. It is that "background concensus" that I would call objective reasoning. I do think that we can have a "feel" for that consensus and use it as a reference point in determining whether we are Os or Ps.


So, the question might be "would self- titled optimists demonstrate greater alignment with community consensus on any given issue than self-titled pessimists?"

It's fun huh?

Quote from: bearsville0 on February 08, 2007, 10:24:14 PM
My guess is it would be impossible to know oneself that well without frequently checking in with the community concensus. I think when most people respond to the question about being Oppties or Pessies , they are referring to their experience of a  background consensus that is not explicit or conscious. It is that "background concensus" that I would call objective reasoning. I do think that we can have a "feel" for that consensus and use it as a reference point in determining whether we are Os or Ps.


So, the question might be "would self- titled optimists demonstrate greater alignment with community consensus on any given issue than self-titled pessimists?"

It's fun huh?

Oh, I don't mean which is better at determining whether they are O's or P's. But rather, how well do people who think in terms of optimism or pessimism use logic compared to those who think they are neither an O or P. In other words, is an "optimist" more likely to be unwilling to accept an argument because they see the conclusion as pessimistic or coming from a pessimistic source?

I see, yes that's a different tact and you are making the point more clearly.

Plus, if you don't mind me being fussy,  it sounds like an exploration of biases, or how logic is SKEWED from the consensus by Os and Ps, rather than "how well they use logic."  Otherwise, it suggests there is this objective, universal thing or process called "logic." Again you would have to operationalize "logic."

(sorry for the delay responding but I was out all day.)

Quote from: bearsville0 on February 09, 2007, 08:37:53 PM
I see, yes that's a different tact and you are making the point more clearly.

Plus, if you don't mind me being fussy,  it sounds like an exploration of biases, or how logic is SKEWED from the consensus by Os and Ps, rather than "how well they use logic."  Otherwise, it suggests there is this objective, universal thing or process called "logic." Again you would have to operationalize "logic."

(sorry for the delay responding but I was out all day.)

Yes, yes, yes if logic exist... I can't answer that, but it seems that maybe once the definitions we are using in our arguments are agreed upon the rest is math(at least in formal logic). I think possibly logic does exist and is objective, but the problem may be we are not able grasp it without interference by our subjectivity/human nature/emotions, etc.

Sounds good.

My orientation is in "social constructionism" and I doubt you will be able to identify, much less define, "logic" as separate from the humans (and all our noise) who do it. The insights from so many of the post-modern philosophers have made it possible to avoid such tricky concepts as "objective" and "subjective" --they are considered relics from the Cartesian "modern" quest for certainty. The "social" in social constructionism proposes that those terms only have value in their use by people as "poetic" or rhetorical devices, not as "truth" statements.

But having said the above, your questions and interest in optimists and pessimists  sounds like a great research topic and I'm optimistic that you will have fun as you explore all this stuff.

I don't see optiimism and pessimism as being inclusive with objective reasoning. I see objective reasoning as shaping our world view which is always dependant on our skill at objective reasoning, always changing and always different from someone elses'. Optimism and Pessimism have more to do with our approach to our world view and has more to do with hope and faith. It seems statements like "that's unamerican" are mean't to be conversation stoppers, I don't want to think about that, so it's unamerican. While when someone says " you're being pessimistic" has more to do with a difference in perception of world views. Given the same set of "facts" or theories.. say in regard to global warming some may consider the devastating coastal flooding while some may just think about the great surfing  :thumbsup
Cheers,
robv

Quote from: bearsville0 on February 10, 2007, 08:17:57 AM
Sounds good.

My orientation is in "social constructionism" and I doubt you will be able to identify, much less define, "logic" as separate from the humans (and all our noise) who do it. The insights from so many of the post-modern philosophers have made it possible to avoid such tricky concepts as "objective" and "subjective" --they are considered relics from the Cartesian "modern" quest for certainty. The "social" in social constructionism proposes that those terms only have value in their use by people as "poetic" or rhetorical devices, not as "truth" statements.

But having said the above, your questions and interest in optimists and pessimists  sounds like a great research topic and I'm optimistic that you will have fun as you explore all this stuff.

Don't most people agree logic is seperate from human subjectivity? I mean formal logic works on mathmatical principles, which seem to be unisversally agreed upon. Like 2+2 always equals 4, and in formal logic A&~A* is truth functionaly false, who disagrees with that and has any proof? We as humans may not be able to perfectly use objective reasoning but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think if anyone throws out the possibility of objective reasoning they are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to argue their point.


*ex. 'I am going to the store and I am not going to the store' (can't be true)

Hi Jeremy3220, you state:
"I mean formal logic works on mathmatical principles, which seem to be unisversally agreed upon."

Yes,  I agree that when we are being "logical"  or using "objective reasoning" we are thinking in a mathematically precise way.  That would be one way to operationalize it.

So I am not throwing out objective reasoning per se, I am pointing out that it only exists or can be understood as a particular kind of human activity or behavior, not as a separate entity as your description suggests. 

We have a tendency to talk about reasoning and logic AS IF they were separate/have always existed independently from the people who do it. We are very clever at forgetting that the concept is a construction. The next step would be to invent deities or patron saints of logic and petition their help when we're confused. Humans do the darndest things.

And none of this, by the way, would necessarily change your research into optimism and pessimism. Your question,

  "how well do people who think in terms of optimism or pessimism use logic compared to those who think they are neither an O or P. In other words, is an "optimist" more likely to be unwilling to accept an argument because they see the conclusion as pessimistic or coming from a pessimistic source?"

remains a good question as long as "logic" is clearly defined, as you have begun to do (which was my original request in my first post).

Thanks, this helped clear my head.

Hi robv

you state:
" I see objective reasoning as shaping our world view which is always dependant on our skill at objective reasoning, always changing and always different from someone elses'."

With all respect, robv,
if our world view is   "always dependent on our skill at objective reasoning, always changing and always different from someone elses' " doesn't  it makes for a very subjective world view. Now that's irony!

Best wishes

Quote from: Sabatini on February 01, 2007, 04:35:29 PM
I'd like to be an optimist, but I doubt if it would work out.  :whistling:

:roll Too funny  :laughin:

Guess I'm optimistically pessimistic. Or would that translate into pessimistically optimistic?
Aw hell, I guess I'm just wishy-washy! :whistling:

OG