Comments on: Judgment, Realism and The Total Perspective Vortex

By: Kobajack

Kobajack — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:45:45 +0000

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.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:06:50 +0000

@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.

By: Kobajack

Kobajack — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:58:35 +0000

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.

By: Kobajack

Kobajack — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:35:22 +0000

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.

By: puredoxyk

puredoxyk — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:42:29 +0000

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?

By: puredoxyk

puredoxyk — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:33:26 +0000

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. ;)

By: Michael Turner

Michael Turner — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:43:57 +0000

"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?"

By: Michael Turner

Michael Turner — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:25:56 +0000

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.

By: Joseph Dowdy

Joseph Dowdy — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:35:20 +0000

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.

By: puredoxyk

puredoxyk — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:16:47 +0000

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! ;)