Pharyngula

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 14, 2010 4:38 AM

Positive thinking, the idea that you can think a better mousetrap, guaranteed, no matter what kind of crap befalls you.

It's not the worst thing, to try and think on the positive side of things, it can be helpful to do that. Problem is, people can get seriously carried away with the notion. Personally, I find being pragmatic is good most of the time.

Posted by: jack.rawlinson | July 14, 2010 4:52 AM

Great stuff, and something I've been saying for years. The "Impossible is just a word" crowd drive me absolutely crazy because they are so clearly in denial about reality. What Ehrenreich crystallizes for me here is that in a sense this delusion has much in common with the delusions of superstition and religion. Which just makes it even more creepy and disturbing.

Posted by: nothingbutchappy | July 14, 2010 5:21 AM

a must watch for everyone in the world

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | July 14, 2010 5:34 AM

Frrt. Supposed to be "attitude" after the cruise control.

Posted by: Porco Dio | July 14, 2010 6:12 AM

wilful ignorance... a direct consequence of religion.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 14, 2010 6:38 AM

Yeah, I noticed the willful ignorance line myself. Beware the Oprahfication of positive thought. It will turn you into a pseudo-christian.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 14, 2010 6:50 AM

That was great. I remember hearing her speak about this on The Daily Show a while back. We need more people like her around.

Posted by: John Morales | July 14, 2010 7:01 AM

Top video.

Niiice!

Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | July 14, 2010 7:20 AM

By some strange outbreak of synchronicity I received notification of some TED lectures in the email. One lecture is Hans Rosling on global population growth. He claims to be neither a pessimist nor an optimist but a 'possibilist'.

See the video

Posted by: Zeppelin | July 14, 2010 7:38 AM

Welp, turns out a combination of religious wishful thinking, de-facto censorship and Just-World-ism is very attractive to religious people, which is mostly everyone in the US.

I feel for you poor few reasonable people over there :( Come to Germany and we can shout at homoeopaths together or something!

Posted by: Fred The Hun | July 14, 2010 7:45 AM

DiscoveredJoys @17,

I agree that willful ignorance does exist - but by definition most people refuse to consider unpalatable ideas. Peak oil - rubbished by the happy many. Population Growth - no limits in sight here! Economic growth - on to infinity and beyond! The glass is not half empty, it's overflowing!

BINGO!

Unfortunately even people who call themselves rational, such as the majority of Pharygula's readership, often refuse to see those monster leopards in the tall grass.

Most of us still subscribe to the prevalent groupthink meme that there are solutions to all of the above and refuse to even consider the possibility that we might already be completely and truly fucked...

Food seems to magically appears at the supermarket, all you have to do is jump in your car drive there and pick it up.

The JIT delivery system of all our necessities depends on on thing and one thing only *OIL*. We probably hit peak oil a few years ago and we don't have a plan B.

But don't worry we will all be driving electric cars soon, Right! Disclaimer: I own a renewable energy company, there is nothing out there that can substitute the energy density of oil, even if had spent the last 50 years working hard on using or access to cheap oil to build the necessary infrastructure that might have allowed us to survive. Energy is the basis of our global financial pyramid. It is in the throes of collapse as we speak.

This is a great talk by Ilargi Stoneleigh of Automatic Earth, listen and start building your lifeboat, you will need it soon.

http://sheffield.indymedia.org.uk/media/2010/06//453357.mp3

Cheers!

Posted by: Q.E.D | July 14, 2010 8:05 AM

Ehenreich is very good at pointing out that this "anything bad that happens to you is your fault because you are insufficiently positive" meme is used by Corporates to oppress the crap out of employees.

It is a tool of social control. Also very effective at killing off dissent or mere disagreement.

This reminds me of the "Who moved my cheese" book that told people to be "adaptable" and not to complain when they were "downsized", transfered, demoted, given more work with no pay raise. It was sold as a self-help book but used by corporations to "educate" their downsized, transfered overburdened employees. The message was "we're going to do something highly unpleasant to you and you had better smile while we are doing it -now bend over".

Posted by: Fred The Hun | July 14, 2010 8:35 AM

(Oh dear; some of you whippersnappers won't even remember Omni magazine...)

What are you talking about, I'll bet half the people here can still remember back to when the original Bill of Rights was introduced by James Madison, surely they still remember Omni magazine...

Posted by: Free Lunch | July 14, 2010 8:44 AM

But irrespective of the reality of the matter there is also a lot of thoughless enthusiam for AGW - which gives AGW denial some moral justification.

Why would anyone be enthusiatic about anthropogenic global warming? Do they not care what happens in Florida or Bangladesh?

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 14, 2010 8:46 AM

I don't understand this video. What was the refrigerator full of smeg intended to signify?

It indicated that, if our thoughts were able to change the world through magnetism, we'd be able to detect that magnetism.

I think the "smeg" was the reaction of the person who's head was stuck to the fridge. Y'know, like a magnet.

Posted by: Betelgeuse | July 14, 2010 8:48 AM

Cool video!

And Barbara Ehrenreich was spot on about the fact that its simply cruel to turn to somebody with problems, and try to convince them that its all in their heads. I would think that to be a particularly bad case of condescension.
There is indeed a line between genuine, context-dependent optimism and permanent delusion.

And its fun how the peddling of delusion always comes from the somewhat priviledged set.
Its one thing to be ignorant of the genuinely blah circumstances of other people's lives, but another entirely to use that as a springboard to making oneself obnoxious.
And one cannot take The Secret down enough pegs for selling this ideological-woo-based approach to things.

Try telling those living in abject poverty that *all* they need to do is change their attitudes. What you will get as a response is disbelief, and anger at that gross display of what can only be seen as patronization.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 14, 2010 8:57 AM

Most of us still subscribe to the prevalent groupthink meme that there are solutions to all of the above and refuse to even consider the possibility that we might already be completely and truly fucked...

Hold on a second. Just because we hope to solve problems doesn't mean we don't recognize the problems. I think many of us do recognize things like population growth or excessive use of limited resources as major issues.

We might very well be fucked. Oh, I'll give you that. Global warming may be out of control. Our food supplies may very well be destroyed by evolving pests. I believe we are quite likely at peak oil, and we live in a very oil-based economy.

So, let me consider the idea that we are truly and completely fucked. Just for a second. If it is true, then all our efforts are futile. The leopard has us cornered, and there is no escape.

Y'know, you're right. We should just give up.

Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe | July 14, 2010 9:38 AM

She's criticizing people who say "you have to change your attitude", but what is she telling them?

"You have to change your attitude."

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 14, 2010 9:53 AM

Dr. I. Needtob Athe @ 36;

She's criticizing people who say "you have to change your attitude", but what is she telling them?

"You have to change your attitude."

I think you will find that she is actually telling them that, contrary to their wish-fulfillment fantasies, 'positive thinking' does not grant magic Force Powers.

Further, telling people who are vulnerable or at a low point in their lives that it is their own fault that they lost their job in a depression/developed cancer/lost relatives to the 2006 tsunami because they failed to think nice enough thoughts is abusive and morally repugnant.

She is not telling them to 'change their attitude', she is telling them to acknowledge reality itself rather than a fantasy constructed of post-positivist voodoo.

Claiming that one can acheive one's heart's desire by simply thinking pink thoughts is not a valid 'alternate way of knowing'. There is no parity between those who peddle self-delusional woo and those who advocate realism.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 14, 2010 10:05 AM

2) it provides the denial of broader social structural explanations for an individuals fate (e.g., you're poor because you don't have a can-do attitude, not because of our mode of production).

Wow. I thought that was the entire point of her speech featured in the video. Y'know, that part about being downsized, or that you can get rich if you just change your attitude.

But maybe I just misunderstood what she was driving at.

Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | July 14, 2010 10:15 AM

I don't have sound on this computer but would someone possibly be able to give me a quick idea of what the narration's like? I want to send the video to a friend of mine. She's having some serious marriage issues because she has a job that she hates, her mom is sick with cancer and she's clinically depressed, but every time she tries to vent to her husband he shuts her up and tells her to think positively. I was going to mention that book Bright-Sided, but a 10 minute video would be even better. Would this be good to send to her?

Posted by: Lynna, OM | July 14, 2010 11:09 AM

An unrealistic emphasis on positive thinking is one of the factors in Utah leading the U.S. in use of anti-depressants.
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon197.htm
Excerpts:

Utah residents currently use more antidepressant drugs, notably Prozac® (fluoxetine hydrochloride, introduced in 1987), than the residents of any other US state. This problem is clearly, closely and definitely linked to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Approximately 70% of Utahns are Mormons.... Studies indicate that women suffer twice as much depression as men. These individuals then cope with their chronic mental pain and depression by using anti-depressant drugs and/or treatment by LDS therapists, who too often treat them ignorantly and counterproductively -- though typically with such smug assurance that it borders on unintended arrogance....
     Anny Mormon reading this report will recognize that virtually all LDS girls are taught from childhood to do all 24 of the following:
• be respectfully, politely, humbly and gratefully subservient to Mormon males in personal demeanor, activities, beliefs, plans and thought.
• not be, nor aspire to be, nor hope to be, independent from authoritarian males, nor independent in thought.
• attend male-directed religious services.
• participate in male-directed activities. (Even female-led projects are organized under male authorities.)
• attend male-directed weekday seminary classes in addition to academic school.
• obey all male-hierarchy-generated directives.
• submit to male-originated personal-matter (including sexual) private interviews.
• obtain a Patriarchal Blessing which usually promises becoming a mother in Zion if faithful and obedient.
• do genealogy research on male-headed (patriarchal) family lineages.
• marry an LDS man in an LDS temple.
• accept counsel from her husband, and not as just his opinion, but as God-inspired revelation.
• look to her husband as essential to her entry into the best category of Heaven.
• have children, more being far better than few.
• raise all of her children in this exact-same system.
• attend only the chapel assigned to her residence address, regardless of preference.
• accept that if she and family attend any other than this chapel, she and they cannot enter Mormon temples.
• know that her husband may, in the next life, marry numerous additional wives.
• know that she may not marry any additional husband, here (if still married to the first one) or hereafter.
• accept callings to work in church, auxiliary and welfare-project organizations.
• make several forms of financial contributions, ten percent tithing being only one.
• teach her children to become missionaries to convert other individuals into this same system.
• teach this same system to her grandchildren.
• teach her daughters and granddaughters to obey males at home and at church.
• never openly criticize any doctrine, practice, directive or male authority related to any of the above.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 14, 2010 11:23 AM

Perhaps the American positive thinking ideology is part of the bizarrely individualistic religious culture. Medieval Christianity may have been bad, but generally it did not actually blame individual people for their bad circumstances and advocate that everyone could be king if only their thoughts were more positive. On the other hand, when every individual gets to decide what the bible means for themselves, though, that verse about faith the size of a mustard seed moving mountains must have created some major incentives for positive thinking.

I get irritated with the positive thinking police for creating such a backlash against the idea that it's desirable to cultivate gratitude. There is a real difference between choosing to notice what is positive in one's life (however small) and mindlessly ignoring reality. Training oneself to notice good things is healthy. Delusional beliefs about one's power to change external circumstances is incredibly destructive.

Alain de Botton addresses some of the cultural origins of the positive thinking ethos in his lovely book, Status Anxiety.

Posted by: LinzeeBinzee | July 14, 2010 11:28 AM

thanks nigel!

Posted by: Fred The Hun | July 14, 2010 12:25 PM

Ben Goren @49,

I agree that positive thinking has value as long as you don't use it as some sort of magic get out of fucked status, card.

Hey, there's a reason we use drugs to counteract depression too. If you are chemically deficient getting a boost might make the difference between being able to get up and function as opposed to being stuck on the floor in a fetal position.

Posted by: A. Noyd | July 14, 2010 12:46 PM

DiscoveredJoys (#17)

But irrespective of the reality of the matter there is also a lot of thoughless enthusiam for AGW - which gives AGW denial some moral justification.

By "thoughtless enthusiasm," I'm assuming you mean the way some people overstate the known dangers we're facing to the point where they're certain of the upcoming apocalypse, and that you think AGW denialism is, in some parts, justified to help put the brakes on this. But it isn't. It is in no way moral to try to quell exaggeration by denying the entire phenomenon (or whether we can know anything about it) and condeming, in the process, the reasonable people with reasonable predictions about our climate future. The only ones with moral justification are those who insist on realism, not denialism.

Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | July 14, 2010 1:48 PM

A.Noyd (& others)

By "thoughtless enthusiasm," I'm assuming you mean the way some people overstate the known dangers we're facing to the point where they're certain of the upcoming apocalypse, and that you think AGW denialism is, in some parts, justified to help put the brakes on this.

Not quite - I'll clarify. The more enthusiastic cheerleaders for the AGW skip right through the science and unthinkingly support any data that apparently supports their case, and discount any data that doesn't. Automatically. Such unthinking enthusiam gifts the AGW deniers with an opportunity for sounding more sane and balanced, whatever the rights and wrongs of their views.

Personally I think that Climate Change is certain, and AGW is somewhere between quite possible and probable. What we choose to do about that is another matter.

Posted by: Sastra | July 14, 2010 2:29 PM

Ben Goren #49 wrote:

As part of a reality-based method for achieving goals, positive thinking can be a useful tool. Thinking that positive thinking has some sort of magical woo-woo powers is decidedly unreality-based.

Exactly. And one of the hallmarks of religious/spiritual thinking is seeing deep connections where there are none. It's a basic cognitive error, where people confuse different ideas or concepts which have a superficial similarity, so that the unrealistic, magical interpretation then rides to credibility on the back of the reasonable interpretation. Daniel Dennett coined the descriptive term "deepities." One meaning is true but trivial; another meaning is extraordinary but false. Quiet the skepticism for the second, by referring to the first.

A review of The Secret in Skeptic Magazine did a good job pointing out this sly sleight-of-hand. What does it mean to say that our attitude can "change reality?" Well, one interpretation would be this: you want a bicycle, and so you make up your mind that you are going to get that bicycle -- by doing everything you can to work and save and look and bargain and ask. By golly, you end up with the bicycle -- the old fashioned way. You earn it.

You changed reality, through your physical actions, motivated by a goal. Well, sure.

But another interpretation is pure magical thinking. Sit back, close your eyes, and imagine yourself with a bicycle. Send out your thought-energy rays, and let the universe respond to them. They shape reality through intention (the way God creates things through His Willpower.) One day, you will open your door -- and by golly, there's a bicycle!

You changed reality through nothing more than the act -- of having a goal.

Bunkum. That's not "the same" as the first interpretation. That's the OPPOSITE of the first interpretation.

But the book (and philosophy) of The Secret blurs the distinction. Sometimes when it comes to the "power of positive thinking" they mean the first interpretation -- true, but trivial (trivial in the sense of not-violating-the-laws-of-the-natural-world.) Other times, they imply or state the second interpretation, which is nothing more than blatant supernaturalism. If the first seems plausible, then the second is plausible. Deny the second, and they will accuse you of rejecting the first.

Don't we know this game? Religion is about morals and meaning -- and oh yes, also God. Say that there is no God, and you're really saying there are no morals or meaning. Alternative medicine involves not just reiki and homeopathy, but good nutrition and exercise, as well as doctors patiently taking a patient's history. Argue against energy healing rays coming from people's hands, and you're obviously the sort of person who wants Big Pharma to solve all problems with a Pill. There's supposed to be a deep connection between ethics and religion, or "holism" and common sense -- because sensitive minds see below the surface of things, and can put ideas together in their heads.

I loved Barbara Ehrenreich's book. One of the unexpected "connections" she made for me, was how the constant obsession with self/soul-searching of the Positive Thinking Movement ("what bad thought did I have, that caused this misfortune?") seemed to spring right out of the constant obsession with self/soul-searching of Calvinism ("what sin did I commit, that caused this misfortune?")

Physicist Alan Cromer once pointed out that, at the heart of religious and irrational thinking, lies the fundamental confusion between our inner world of thought and feeling -- and the outer world of object and event. Thought is a force, and has causal power over and above the physical, and connects all things. Try to find any piece of religion, spirituality, or "woo" -- which doesn't have that confusion, somewhere. So far, I haven't been able to.

Posted by: Sastra | July 14, 2010 3:23 PM

Mattir #57 wrote:

Some of the tools in the "spiritual but not religious" are woo-confused, but you can achieve the same goals (and even use the word "spiritual") without woo.

I agree, and used to use the term "spiritual" in just this secular sense. However, over time, I've chosen to abandon it personally, because of the very tendency towards confusion I mentioned. Instead of appropriating the reasonable meaning for ourselves, it seemed to me that it instead appeared to validate the woo-filled interpretation, as if everyone, deep-down, knows that there is some mystical "higher" power of the Spirit -- even atheists.

I suppose it's similar to the battle over so-called "alternative medicine." Do you accept the term, and then try to argue that there is alternative medicine which works -- like herbal remedies or massage -- and that which doesn't? Or do you decide that the term is so loaded, due to both its historical roots and popular interpretation, that it's just cleaner, clearer, and easier to continue to argue against so-called alt med, and insist that those things that work are already a part of science-based medicine?

So I understand what you're saying, and agree with it in principle; I guess I just disagree with it in practice.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 14, 2010 3:37 PM

@ Sastra - I prefer to keep using the word spiritual for a couple of reasons. First of all, the phenomena that people are describing when they use the word is intrinsic to the human brain, and I like to make sure that people understand that it is a human thing, not a belief in God thing. I tend to be fairly vocal about this. One of the reasons I didn't become an atheist years and years earlier is that my father was vocal about his atheism and was one of the most abusive, non-grateful, non-connected, non-reverent people I have ever met. I thought atheism meant, basically, a renunciation of the humanities and human community - no holidays, no celebrations, no music, no popular culture, etc. (Wow, that sounds just like some religious groups!) So I think that using the word, while being very clear about what it does and does not mean, is useful for people out there who are essentially atheist but think that using that label means renouncing some very pleasurable parts of human life.

The second reason to use the spiritual label is inconsistent with the first, but also useful quite often. I don't want to have to get into atheism every single time the subject of religion comes up, and saying spiritual gets a lot of people off one's back. I only use this tactic when I have to deal with religiously conservative types and I will be unable to participate if I don't have some cover. These are the people who are least likely to be actual atheists anyway, so presumably I'm not losing them as recruits by not defining spiritual as in the preceding paragraph.

Yeah, I know that reason #2 is sort of hypocritical, but there are plenty of such situations in contemporary American society, even in settings that are supposed to be completely secular. (Regretable, but true.)

Posted by: caseyhov | July 14, 2010 3:49 PM

@24
I hate that book with a passion.
I had an employer give me a copy of that, and a pocket sized version of the "7 habits of highly succesful fuckwads" Or something like that.

About 3 months later I literally got the, "we're going to be cutting hours" talk. That's when I was able to respond with a nice "Hey, don't worry, I can help everyone out! I can save you about 50 hours a week in pay, and let her know that I was going to be starting to work for a competitor she wasn't fond of.

I constantly point things out that employers don't like to hear, and I also make sure I share my reasoning with them. I've never been let go from a job before, and it's because the reality of it is, employers, even if they don't show it, know when they have an employee that is worth keeping. So I am constantly a dissenting voice when it's necessary, and although at times it makes it difficult, I encounter a lot of thta being positve shit, but ultimately, my ability to be successful hold a ot more water than my attitude when the shit hits the fan.

I think as individuals, we need to make sure that not only do we question this positivity stuff, but also, make sure that we're supporting our realism with our actions and in our discussion with the people peddling that idea.

Posted by: Sastra | July 14, 2010 4:08 PM

Mattir #60 wrote:

I prefer to keep using the word spiritual for a couple of reasons.

Those are fine reasons, and I think I sometimes tend to do both myself. The trick perhaps is in your phrase "using the word, while being very clear about what it does and does not mean." This is probably going to have the same effect as not using the word, while being very clear about what it does and does not mean. As you say, the important thing is to make sure that people separate inspiration from spirit, as concepts.

The diplomatic tactic is understandable, as a personal decision, but yes, I'm concerned that as a strategy it may not be a good general strategy. It's akin to trying to passively "pass" as straight, or white, in a bigoted culture because sometimes it shouldn't be the main focus: there are other goals in human interactions, no need to announce that you're "one of them" each and every time and turn every conversation into a battle and all interactions antagonistic.

On the other hand -- well, you can probably make the argument for the other hand yourself. I suppose that, if I had your family background, it might change my position a bit. As I mentioned, I think that talking about secular forms of "spirituality" is reasonable enough I pursued it myself -- and sometimes still do, with open caveats. I'm spiritual only in THIS way.

It's just that, like defining religion as "what one does with his solitariness" or God as "our Ultimate Concern," I think we're spitting into a much stronger wind than what blows back when we just try to be clear and get people on board with the human values of humanism.

Posted by: Diane G. | July 14, 2010 4:27 PM

#39Posted by: jmachine22 | July 14, 2010 9:58 AM

Ehrenreich makes some good points but I think she misses a few key ones as well. Positive thinking plays a powerful role in broader sections of American culture. Namely, the notion that your individual thoughts are ultimately responsible for ones fate is a message that Americans are socialized to believe because 1) along the lines of the American Dream, it inculcates individualism and responsibility, 2) it provides the denial of broader social structural explanations for an individuals fate (e.g., you're poor because you don't have a can-do attitude, not because of our mode of production). Given how popular she is as an author, I wish she took the argument a bit further.

Well, heck, maybe that's why she wrote a whole book about it. Really, it's a shame if anyone doesn't want to run out & buy it (or at least, borrow it) after watching this video, and read all the wealth of detail and fascinating threads of history, politics, religion, culture, and business she interweaves to support her thesis. And for all that, it's a fairly short, enjoyably readable little volume.

C'mon, those of you who can afford to--support Barbara; you won't regret the purchase. :)

Seriously, this is someone whose voice needs to be heard...

Posted by: mistermuz | July 14, 2010 4:45 PM

Hoo-rah for this lecture. It's a great relief that someone is paying attention to this nonsense. I've been thinking for a while on the poisonous confluence of New Age thinking, Self Help and post-structuralist philosophy and how it seems to underpin everything these days, at least at the middle class level. Skeptics and secular types should not think they are immune. This stuff is everywhere, as discussed; an oppressive necessity of nice.

It's the self fulfilling aspect of that pervasiveness I find so disturbing. People tell you to be nice and optimistic all the time because it improves everything about everything, including working relationships and social opportunities etc (they don't just use 'Quantum' either. Now it's popular to misuse the placebo effect and a lot of those psych studies on happiness being relative to outlook). But dare to be the one critical person and these things will indeed suffer as you are ignored or removed for messing with the vibe.

Everything in our lives becomes a kind of marketing or PR excercise for ourselves or what we are trying to say. Always end on an up in everything you say or do. And, as often as not, this isn't for the actual meaning of the words. It's not to convey things more accurately or achieve better results from what you want to get across. It's now etiquette, basically. We've made sales spin a way of life.

I may be drawing a long bow (or this might be covered more in the long video, I haven't seen it all yet), but I think this is a great obstacle for critical thinking. An ettiquette of optimism and positivity ultimately creates an atmosphere where difficult, and therefore emotionally challenging, ideas are to be avoided. Indeed, I'd go one step further; an atmosphere where difficult and emotionally challenging ideas are offensive. Not being positive (or at least contorting your words to sounds as such) is rude and, somewhat ironically, it often makes people very angry.

Australian former political speech writer and humourist Don Watson talkes about this a bit.
here
He's more interested in corporate speak specifically, but he points out one real world consequence of this kind of thing. The enquiry into the disasterous firestorm around Melbourne last year turned up some interesting things. The people who should have been issuing warnings, didn't. If you watch the inquiry videos and so on it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they just couldn't form the thoughts or words for the notions "Fire; Burn; Disaster; Death; Run" and so on. There's no positive management spin for that and the language centres of their brains shut down at the attempt.

But I contend this isn't just management or crazy woo-ers who buy The Secret. Tip of the iceberg. It's wormed its way into our society at every level. Watch for the next time you check yourself out of fear of being the negative one (not nasty or flagrantly offensive, just other than positive), or watch for people tuning you out when you are. Probably happens more than you think.

Anyway Ehrenreich probably covers this nicely, so I should go watch.

Posted by: mistermuz | July 14, 2010 5:27 PM

Worse, I think they'll spin it into an argument for positivity. You can hear that a little in some of the questions people ask in the long video. The idea that positivity might not be all good seems somewhat counter intuitive and hard to get across to them.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/KI9.4t8P0eWdP3v7Axw3LdtrXw--#48285 | July 14, 2010 6:14 PM

aka No Gurus,

The problem with all positive thinking is that it is based on fear. Negative thoughts not only are not harmful when they are realistic, they are inherently constructive since they allow men (women) to solve problems, to recognize and face adversity, to foresee and avoid problems, to know what is right and wrong in a moral sense, and to know what they like and dislike in a personal sense.

It is interesting that truly successful individuals, like a Gates, a Buffett, or a Ted Turner are not positive thinkers at all but realistic atheists who are superbly competent at what they do. They see all sides of a problem and fix problems that arise without attaching pejorative positive or negative labels. They expect problems and are attuned to recognizing and fixing them before they become bigger problems. Simply put, you cannot solve what you can't face, and all problems, by definition, are negative in nature.

Viktor Frankl, in his great book about the holocaust, "Man's Search For Meaning," said the optimistic ones in the concentration camps were the first to give up and die when faced with adversity. They were simply unequipped mentally to survive the harshness of the camps. Positive thinking, for Frankl, is giving up.

Posted by: A. Noyd | July 14, 2010 6:54 PM

DiscoveredJoys (#71)

Thank you for proving my point. "The more enthusiastic cheerleaders for the AGW skip right through the science and unthinkingly support any data that apparently supports their case, and discount any data that doesn't. Automatically."

In what way have I proven anything in what you've quoted of yourself? Be specific.

Are you certain that none of the data that denialists use is correct?

Probably a good deal of it is, but it doesn't matter whether 100% of their data are correct if they're not accounting for all the available data or making reasonable inferences from them. Cherry picking is cherry picking, and denialists are notorious for it.

I think their overall position is very probably wrong, but I also think that the AGW & Climate Change models used by the supporters of Global Warming still have a lot of slop in them.

Well, that's your own ignorance speaking. But whatever. Do you get that whether or not those who acknowledge the fact of AGW (as in, almost all climate scientists) have sloppy models, it doesn't lend any support to the entirely wrong position of the denialists? (Hint: It's the same as how even if evolution couldn't explain all biological diversity, that wouldn't make creationism less wrong.)

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 14, 2010 7:40 PM

@ Tis - You have heard the stories about bankers who pointed out the extreme risks of the sub-prime mortgage securities market and various other financial instrument shenanigans being criticized for negativity and then fired, right?

Negativity is actually valuable, sort of like the immune system, and if a human society systematically eliminate people who point out risks, the society suffers.

Posted by: Yunomi | July 15, 2010 12:21 AM

I like Barbara Ehrenreich. Reading her stuff made me feel better after being fired from two minimum wage jobs for "not smiling enough".

Posted by: deang | July 15, 2010 2:36 AM

After re-watching the video, I have to say that just about all the criticisms people have mentioned here could be answered by looking at the video again. And of course if that doesn't work, read Bright-Sided (sold as Smile or Die in the UK). An earlier book of hers, Bait and Switch, also addresses the irrational workplace positive thinking tendency, where attitude is all and skills/abilities don't matter. And there are plenty of clips of Ehrenreich speaking on the web as well.

Posted by: PookDo | July 15, 2010 3:20 AM

I should point out that I am a recovering self help junkie.After being verbally and intellectually bitch slapped by my genius wife as well as watching folks like Michae Shermer and others I came to my senses as to what a load of shit the self help industry is.Now I just listen to Behemoth and Dethklok all day and feel much better

Posted by: PookDo | July 15, 2010 6:25 PM

My wife and I recently watched a program on ABC here in Minnesota about the horrible events at a James Ray seminar late last year.Joe Vitale was briefly interviewed and more or less made an ass out of himself.Most really well known self help idiots are just really good sales people.I despise the word guru.Of the law of attraction is so great why are there so many books out on it? If any self help books really did what they say they do why do the authors need to write more books? I admit I am a brain science nut.I love studying the brain and how it relates to motivation or achievement.That said anybody with an average level of common sense should know that real change does not come about from a day long or 3 day seminar.Real change in the brain takes anywhere from 30 to 100 days.That is yet another reason why the LOA is crap.To use an example of something I just read.Say you own a toyota camry but decide you want to buy a ford mustang.After you but it and are driving it for a while you start noticing mustangs all the time.It's not that those mustangs just appeared out of thin air you just weren't aware of them before.That brain science

Posted by: cjcrashoveride | July 16, 2010 11:24 PM

This reminded me of Voltaire's Candide and the idiocy of French Optimism during his time.