Judgment, Realism and The Total Perspective Vortex
Damn Interesting • The Total Perspective Vortex is a very cool article, of a sort I've been waiting a long time to find. (Thank you madly to reader marzzbar for the tip!)
You may want to read it, and you may not; it can be easily summarized thusly: As it turns out, through a more scientific lens, people whom modern society accuses of being "negative" and "depressive" are in fact being more realistic than "normal", well-adjusted/optimistic people. There is a valid point of view from which our individual lives are largely pointless, our work is all busy-work, and yes, we look pretty ugly to most people who may judge us, 'specially our nethers and nekkid parts. The comments (of which there are zillions) are fascinating too, as generally thoughtful people debate there how useful being a "realist" is versus being an "optimist", and whether the trade-off of being happy is worth being "wrong" to some degree.
The question raised by this (and much else) is not trivial: Honest, self-aware people want to be aware of and functioning in reality, not deluding themselves into happy-happy land. But nobody really thinks that a philosophy that demands that you be miserable is a good one.
"Ignorance is bliss" is in many ways a true statement, but for most people that opens up an ugly choice, since none of us wants either ignorance OR misery.
"Is the truth still worth it if it ruins your life?" …And the answer I finally reached to that question is this: A real truth, a whole truth, wouldn't do that. If your truth hurts you, then what you've got ahold of there is half a truth, or an illusion of truth.
(If you're of a philosophical bent and have not read the beautiful children's book "Old Turtle and the Broken Truth
(And click "Read more" for, you know, more. ;)
You shall KNOW the truth and the truth will set you free — if you don't know it completely, or if you mis-focus on the shadow instead of the substance of it, it may very well not. This is why the search for truth is so perilous, by the way. So if common reality includes a 70% chance of rain, the person who says "the weather this weekend will suck" gets to be right, but miserable. And the person who says "the weather this weekend will be great" gets to be happier, but is touting a reality that most people will agree isn't accurate or true, as they're slogging through the rain.
I say, what about the person who says, "There's a 70% chance of rain"?
The idea that we must form an opinion or judge every single thing (or possibly any thing) as good or bad is wrong, and stupid. In fact, our judgment facilities are only needed a small percentage of the time we use them; the rest of the time, we're borrowing suffering.
It feels good to have opinions. Maybe it's because we feel more solid, more real, when we add "detail" to our personality in the form of likes and dislikes? But they have a price. To judge is to make one more enemy in this life, whether it's of a person or a concept or a rumor in the news. Little enemies add up; negative energy tends to stick around, and to come back around.
Judge not, lest ye be etcetera.
I have been way happier since I started trying consciously to avoid making judgments, or registering opinions that weren't necessary. (It was the year 2003, and it is hilarious that I remember that. Forgive me, for my mind is a crazy hoarder with a million cats.) As soon as I started focusing on it, I realized it happens constantly; I had this running dialogue that literally never stopped, a full-time employee to put "Approve" or "Disapprove" stamps on everything. Man, was that guy a drain on resources. Things have run much more smoothly since I cut his hours. There are radicals out there telling me I can fire him entirely, even! What do you think?
Awesome creative commons image by josh.liba.
18 comments
I think it's a great article that you wrote and that you reference.
I do also think that what makes humans great is that we, often in the face of "reality" or "realism" do what is otherwise considered impossible or improbably.
What about all those people who go for Olympic gold? They know the chances of getting the gold and yet they go for it anyway. Can you imagine not waking up every day and thinking that you WILL BE the fastest, most accurate, best younameit on the planet on the day of the olymics? They don't have a chance if they don't believe that they are not good enough to get the gold. In fact, I'd venture to say that the ones who don't believe it 100% will never get the gold.
And what about all those people who aren't pretty or beautiful by most standards? When they get out of high school and start thinking about being an adult and being a parent and getting married, what should they think? Should they think that they can't compete or should they believe that "there is someone for everyone" or should they not have an opinion about themselves that they are lovely and charming and would make a great parent/partner?
This quote comes to mind about this issue:
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us most. We ask ourselves, 'Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and famous?' Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that people won't feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in all of us. And when we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
Used by Nelson Mandela in his 1994 inaugural speech
This is truly the same issue. Who are we NOT to think that we can get the gold if that is our heart's desire? Who are we NOT to think that we can find someone to love and be loved if we are obese, missing an arm, cleft palate, living with AIDS, etc.?
Should we just give up if we are not perfect? Should we bury our head in the sand if we don't look like a movie star or have the wealth of Donald Trump?
It's not the truth is going to hurt us. It's the idea that we are defined by our chances of getting what we want. It's not the we are defined by the chances of getting what we want (as if it were real), it's the possibility of getting what we want that makes the goal worthwhile to pursue. If it were not possible, it would be fruitless to pursue it. But who is to say it's not possible? If it lights you up and turns you on to run for president, then go for it!
I've heard it said that if no one is watching that what you do determines your happiness. If you are doing what you love, then no one can mess with you and whatever reality there may be about what you are doing and what you can achieve or what defines you is moot. You are just doing what you enjoy and that is what matters. The odds or chances or reality are just knowledge that distracts from the pleasure of being yourself and doing what you enjoy.
I think that all of us secretly admire people who are out there doing the impossible…whether it's Jack LaLanne pulling a boat across a harbor as he swims or someone winning the gold despite all odds or someone who is "mentally challenged" dancing to music in public while people stare.
the knower, that sits behind the thinker/judge/internal dialogue, points to presence
i like your thoughts!
"Is the truth still worth it if it ruins your life?"
I would have to say no. Although I would never be an advocate of deliberately living in ignorance, use the people from The Matrix. If you discovered that you had spent your whole life a slave to the machine, that every accomplishment and purpose you had to life was all part of a big pointless game, would that truth, that whole truth, not throw your world into a tailspin?
Would a child be better off believing that their beloved pet cat had ventured out into the world on an adventure or would they be better off if you shared the fact that you saw a kitty pancake behind the garbage truck?
If hope makes them happy is that such a bad thing?
Truth is better than ignorance, but is fact more important than hope and purpose?
So glad you enjoyed the link! And such an insightful response as well :).
I think it was this article that made me wonder about the value of irrational beliefs. I'm atheist myself, and I don't believe there is a sound rational argument for the existence of a God (obviously that's aguable and many would disagree, but bear with me). Having said that, just because a religion isn't rational, does that mean that people shouldn't believe in it? Religious belief provides a lot of personal benefit and comfort to a lot of people. What harm is there in keeping those beliefs?
I think I believe as you do, that truth is always preferable. This is a belief that gives me comfort and hope, which leads me to wonder whether THAT belief is irrational in itself, since it might be the case that irrational beliefs are sometimes preferable! ARGH!
I saw some other research recently with a counterintuitive conclusion: a mildly depressive, negative outlook in work correlates with, well, being more effective in your work, believe or not.
Fits right in, doesn't it?
There's doing the right things, and there's doing things right. Maybe optimists drive the former, pessimists the latter? Optimists have a superhumanly high self-image, but to err is human, and to behave as if superhuman is to err more often than otherwise. People who can see themselves more objectivelly will very likely see others more objectively as well, will anticipate error, and prevent it; perceive it where others haven't noticed it, and correct it; prioritize corrective action according to the real severity of problems, rather than wishing away the more significant downsides and focusing on the easier, more trivial problems.
Can we face reality? Here's a reality: a lot of people can't face reality. And the world is what it is in part because of that. Would it be better if we all could face reality? Maybe not: there's at least a sense of purpose in cleaning up after the optimists, a purpose that wouldn't exist if we were all realists.
Thanks for the awesome comment, Joseph! I *love* the Mandela quote. (I thought his name was Mandala for a long time, which the more I learn the less I’m inclined to apologize for. ;)
I had a teacher once who used to go crazy at the mention of the phrase “only human”. “Humans are the product of millions of years of evolution, made in the image of gods!” he’d rail. “Humans grow and adapt and discover and reinvent themselves every day! If a ‘mere human’ can’t do something, just who the heck do you think CAN?”
I miss that teacher. I need reminders like his — but thankfully I also have readers that send me awesome articles and write fantastic comments like yours!
Dead on, Alexander. Great minds and all that! ;)
Aximilation — I agree, but if I don’t have to choose between truth and hope as a dichotomy–and I still don’t believe they are–then I won’t. “Both” seems like the obviously best answer here, yeah? ;)
marzzbar — I loved it, and thanks again for the tip. I’m only just coming to a distinction between belief and faith, and I think it may be the answer to the paradox: Belief can be helpful or not, and the object of it can be true or not. Faith, on the other hand, doesn’t take an object (except in the very general sense of “goodness, truth, etc., expressed by whatever nouns you like”), and doesn’t have a truth value that can ever be proven (from here, anyway). So in other words, I would say that your “belief that truth is preferable” is actually faith — so it’s irrational, yes, in the sense that binary thinking doesn’t apply; but it’s not at risk of being *wrong*, like a belief in some fact or another is.
Beliefs — as I’m defining them — are judgments about facts that often don’t actually matter in our daily activities; hence, they can be discarded, and one can argue that any benefit to “happy” beliefs is outweighed by the possibility of being wrong; and any benefit to “negative” beliefs is outweighed by the harm of negativity itself. Beliefs–in the sense of judgments, broadly–seem largely unnecessary and avoidable to me; but faith is another deal entirely.
Like I said, this is a new distinction for me and I’m still parsing it out, but I certainly appreciate the help! ;)
puredoxyk,
Yeah, I'm writing a book and it deals with these things.
We have three important ways of describing what is real to us.
The first is fact; it can be proven directly and many times we live life as if our facts are provable but we get into trouble when they can't be proven and we are wrong.
The second is belief; it can be proven indirectly by experience or when there is an assumption that a fact is still provable.
Example 1: Do you believe in ghosts? Well, we talk about ghosts. People have seen what they call ghosts. They are real to some, so you can say you believe or don't believe in ghosts. Proof is needed for some but not for others. Here's how to test a belief: Are ghosts real? To everyone, no. Then it must be believed to be real.
You can replace the word "ghosts" with God or miracles or spontaneous remission of cancer and it's the same thing.
The third is faith; it can not be proven directly. When you say faith, it is the same thing as saying trust. Do I trust that my X will happen or will Y not come true? If you say that you trust, then you have faith. Faith is only in something that has not happened yet so it cannot be proven directly or indirectly.
An example of not being able to prove something directly is something like trusting that something will happen after you die. Will there be world peace? In my lifetime or not in my lifetime? It depends.
I hope that helps.
Some interesting research here:
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/gollwitzer/03Goll_WhyWeThoughtThatActionMind-setsAffectIllusionsOfControl.pdf
Trying to decide among goals makes you Deliberative, and more "depressively realistic" about your abilities in general, though more open-minded. Planning and (successful) execution of goals makes you unrealistically optimistic about what you can do, but also less open-minded. Two modes that are also moods.
"Is the truth still worth it if it ruins your life?" …And the answer I finally reached to that question is this: A real truth, a whole truth, wouldn't do that. If your truth hurts you, then what you've got ahold of there is half a truth, or an illusion of truth."
Here's an interesting paradox: the placebo effect still has some force even when people are told it's a placebo. If, "realistically", you can't be happy unless you're unrealistically optimistic, you might nevertheless be able to acknowledge that fact every day, but still go ahead with what makes you happy, in defiance of reality. Or, as I used to put it, "The point of life is to stay two steps ahead of questions like, 'What's the point of life?"
Hi Michael — I like it!–Maybe not “in defiance of reality”, but in *deference* of the fact that that’s how reality works, you included. ;)
Hi Joseph — very interesting, and hey, what’s your book called? Brave choice of topic, for sure!
However, I wasn’t *quite* framing faith that way — according to what I’m proposing here, a belief in whether there’s an afterlife or whether there’ll be world peace would still be a belief; it would just be a future belief. Faith, I think, isn’t a belief IN anything; it’s categorical not hypothetical, if you’ve ever done any Kant. Faith is the belief in the thing that some call God, some call Reason, some call Natural Law, others call a Unified Theory, and some just think of as “the good” or “the real”. Faith is the belief that *something* is worth believing in, that the world is somehow right or good or benevolent or necessary.
What do you think?
I like Mandela's quote from Joseph, but isn't that an example of the difference between the views of an "optimist" and a "realist"? After all, Mandela's speech was meant to inspire people more than to tell 'em like it is.
The realist's view would be that, yes, it is indeed our fear of inadequacy rather than our fear of greatness that torments us. However, I don't think it's also that simple and the points Joseph made were good. So was the quote. But I suspect, that if there are people with a fear of their own potential greatness it would stem from a fear of inadequacy, be it an isolated fear or an all encompassing one.
I read that article you speak of and it hit home like an arrow through my mind. It hit the target. And it's true. I can relate with the term depressive realism though I sometimes make an attempt to be sure that I haven't mutated my realism into pessimism.
But it's funny because a realist at one time or another is often mistaken for a pessimist, especially to the positive-obsessed fairies who flutter around and perch on a piece of shit and pretend they're sitting on a rose.
But I do confess that perhaps at times I do border between the two, between pessimism and realism, though I'm not always sure. I think there is a fine line between the two and I don't think the pessimism is a case of denial or delusion but simply a by product of a previous negative experience, kind of like if one were mauled by a dog one might not see one's encounter with another as a positive experience, but be somewhat aware of the fact that the dog has the potential to do the same.
Much like many police officers, I've noticed, who are often disenchanted or disillusioned with society and have a grittier and more realistic view of what society is, of what people can do to one another. Many of them seem pessimistic, and a lot of them are, but a lot of them are realists, or in a state of depressive realism.
@Kobajack: You are making some excellent points as well.
I guess this really comes down to pessimism v. realism v. optimism. I think there is an assumption that there is a "right way" of going about life with your world view.
I think it's more important to be aware of what that view is while other people think ignorance is bliss while others would say, "What world view? This is how it IS."
But this is what makes for an interesting discussion.
Some time ago people believed the world is flat. Some people still do and you would have to put them on a rocket to see the Earth as an oblate spheroid from space to see the world is not flat. However, who is to say that what we observe as three-dimensional space isn't actually flat? What if it just changes as we move the observer along flat space must like the way that you play a 3-D video game looks real but it really isn't?
I think we need to not only be aware of "how" the observer sees life (that is, how do "you" "see" life), but also the filters of experience that give those things you've seen meaning. Deep in your brain while you sleep questions are asked such as "Does this mean that life is not safe?" or "Does this mean that I should never get married?" and the like. It happens when we are awake as well and it often happens in the part of the brain that isn't even using words to pose those questions. It's the part that doesn't ask the question, but we hear the words in our own head, "Not with me you don't." or "No way in Hell." and the question WAS asked but you don't even hear it happens so quickly.
These experiences and decisions we make give us the filters and perspective that you are describing. If you're a police officer, then you really get to see the worst of the result of the mind chatter and it would certainly affect how you view life to see people living from such scarcity and fear. But that is how it goes. When a police officer really remembers why he or she became a cop to protect people, then they can get back to being optimistic about themselves and others. I've seen this happen. One of my friends was an LAPD captain in a very bad area of LA and he's remarkable in his optimism about people. He was cynical and then he "got it" and eventually left the police force to teach businesses how to communicate more effectively because he has great experience with lifting up people to that Nelson Mandela quote's light so that others can see themselves in it.
Hmm, yeah it does make for interesting discussion. I see what you're saying and it goes to show that there are so many different angles from which to view things. I suppose it's a given but it also tends to be forgotten.
Also, to clarify, I'm not a police officer, but I commented on them because my brother is and I've mixed with them and I've noticed a lot of police, at least around here, tend to be disenchanted with people and society and some of them have seen a lot of crazy shit which would be a significant factor for why they tend to be that way. But of course, not all of them are like that, though I think the very alert and attentive ones tend to lean toward a cynical way of thinking.
But also, one need not be a police officer to see bad things or to be disenchanted or bitter or cynical or depressed, but we all know that anyway.
Leave a Comment