The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Overconfidence bias leads people to prefer "winner-takes-all" systems of rewards instead of more proportionate systems, of overestimating their likelyhood to be in the top x% of earners (and so to support policies that benefit not themselves but the wealthy they think they are or unreasonably hope to become), or being reckless with debt, etc. Apparently
Overconfidence bias may cause many individuals to overestimate their degree of control as well as their odds of success. This may be protective against depression - since Seligman and Maier's model of depression includes a sense of learned helplessness and loss of predictability and control. Ironically, depressives tend to be more accurate, and less overconfident in their assessments of the probabilities of good and bad events occurring to them. This has cause some researchers to consider that overconfidence bias may be adaptive and/or protective in some situations.
The issue really is the difference in explanatory style (and this is something very fundamental to people's cognition)
Psychologists have identified three components in explanatory style: Personal. People experiencing events may see themselves as the cause; that is, they have internalized the cause for the event. Example: "I always forget to make that turn" (internal) as opposed to "That turn can sure sneak up on you" (external). Permanent. People may see the situation as unchangeable, e.g., "I always lose my keys" or "I never forget a face". Pervasive. People may see the situation as affecting all aspects of life, e.g., "I can't do anything right" or "Everything I touch seems to turn to gold". People who generally tend to blame themselves for negative events, believe that such events will continue indefinitely, and let such events affect many aspects of their lives display what is called a pessimistic explanatory style. Conversely, people who generally tend to blame others for negative events, believe that such events will end soon, and do not let such events affect too many aspects of their lives display what is called an optimistic explanatory style.
Anyway, just a couple of fuzzy data points. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
Some while ago I went through a similar phase in a different context eliminating the last vestiges of a Christian upbringing. That was often not fun - arguing with fundies isn't - but it was a very liberating way of clarifying what I did and didn't believe, and why.
Also, if the doom turns out to be realistic, it's better to deal with it now when the physical situation is still relatively stable, than later when everyone else is trying to deal with it at the same time.
Off-site I've been working towards some projects that might make a difference. I haven't diaried them because they're not ready for prime time yet. But they are - measurably - getting closer to being so.
Is this the end of civilization as we know it? This is what happens when you have unprotected congress with psychology. ;-) One should always wear latex - preferably over the head. You can't be me, I'm taken
I think a lot of people on this site are constitutionally unhappy or pessimistic. That is not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to analysis (see below) but it is a problem when it comes to action. Often success requires an unreasonable degree of optimism and self-confidence, and the ability to sustain it for long periods of time.
Success is perhaps easier to achieve with an unreasonable degree of optimism and self-confidence, and the ability to sustain it for long periods of time, (Sarkozy won), but it doesn't make success inevitable (Royal lost).
And I don't think the down feelings are entirely constitutional. There's an explanation there that you rightly relate to the myth of individual success in the rat race (ie the overconfident rats are getting screwed by the fat cats - overconfidence doesn't necessarily win 2). Circumstances matter too. Internet may be a new means of communication that allows for encounters and networking that surprise and delight us, it doesn't change the fact that we are atoms, one (or two) people on a terminal with a real life to live and often a fight to do that. The kind of task we see ahead is huge. It certainly calls for optimism (if you're really a pessimist, why bother?), and a degree of self-confidence is a sine qua non (can't do anything without it), but how much more optimism and confidence would we have if we had all the time we needed and the technical and financial means to work together (meaning more physical meeting and collaboration)! Whereas in fact we're each in her/is small corner, and what needs to be understood and thought is so colossal we get despondent.
What will come, will come because we care about it and it occupies our thoughts. It will come by bursts, appearing spontaneously rather than by conscious effort (though that doesn't mean there are no conscious efforts to be made!). There will be plateaus, deserts to plod through, but there'll be leafy oases.
So I wax lyrical. Pessimist, me?
That just underlines the point that rat races at the very top are between unreasonable optimists. The pessimists dropped out either because they got depressed or because they realistically saw the rat race for what it was. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
A standard problem is that it's compulsives who are often least qualified to lead effectively who push themselves into leadership positions.
This doesn't make them optimistic, so much as obsessive.
See? You're an optimist. Your personal explanatory style is external. I'm a pessimist, my personal explanatory style is internal. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
Well, that was my conclusion above.
But you're making plans for a commune or phalanstery, which surely makes you a raving optimist? ;)
A pessimist is someone who thinks that the world is as good as it's ever going to be. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
lyrical is right! 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
The conundrum to be solved, if the science is right, is how to implement a system that protects people from themselves without at the same time give them precisely that depressing feeling of lack of control.
Education seems like the only reasonable way to do it. Starting to learn statistics and psychology as early as pre-school maybe?
But:
Bell curve, Poisson distribution, probability density, all calculus.
Every time you replace an intractible situation involving very large (but finite) numbers with a continuous model you are doing calculus. The Fates are kind.
A better answer is volume 1 of Feller's "Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications", which uses entirely elementary techniques.
Epistemologically, all statistics is finite, and infinites and continuity only appear in the limit (via a process of closure useful because completeness simplifies many proofs, but not essential as sophisticated but straighforward proofs by closure can be turned into involved proofs using elementary techniques). Also, stochastic processes are equivalent iff all their finite-dimensional distributions are equivalent, so even there things can be a lot smaller than they are made to be by professional mathematicians.
My actual point is that the fixation with Calculus as the gateway to higher mathematics is misplaced. There is nothing more useless that what Americans call "AP Calculus" or "Freshman Calculus", especially for people in the humanities and social sciences (who, often, take a single term of Calculus as their only exposure to 'higher math'). I would much rather teach people "finite mathematics". Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
Radically Elementary Probability Theory
Which I must finish reading. When I find it again ...
Yes, but you don't have to teach calculus on its own first, you can just do it, in context. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
Some elementary stats might be useful ('the increase in cancer risk is a shocking 100% greater! - from p = 0.0000001 to p = 0.0000002...') but perhaps best left as an optional extra for those who want the advanced course.
Which part of math is that? The point of the subthread was that, if you're going to teach people "advanced math", it should be prob/stat.
Although making "How to lie with statistics" compulsory reading in secondary school wouldn't be all that bad an idea. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
It is no fun to think that a dramatic turnaround is coming. We do not have a fair and obvious warning - but the expanding civilisation did not gave any warnings either. Humanity deserves certain suffering and life loss - it is not possible to avert consequences of self-indulging illusions within the real world. We (progressives) do not really know what is coming and what we can do - but we know attitudes that could have helped to avoid or substantially postpone the trouble. Yet, the same attitudes can help us to go through the singularity of collective stupidity - and keep (or even make) the world as good as possible beyond it. An apocalypse is not a joy, but a privelege nevertheless.
Ok, my thoughts are not exactly uplifting. We ought to relax sometimes with some delight, and then try to do something - whatever you can do with the anticipated problems can be very significant, since no one else would probably do that.
I would argue that a person who is severely depressed is not seeing reality any clearer that an optimistic person...and in fact, would argue that their "reality" is distorted. Sure, a depressed person sees truth too, but from a distinct perspective. I find depression very difficult to work with, because is so damn sure they know what reality is...and they often don't.
Anyway, another world heard from... "Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
Perhaps you have heard of resilience...which is increasingly being discussed in psychological circles, but comes from physics...as in the ability of a metal to bounce back to its original shape after it has been bent or put under a heavy load. The concept of resilience in people is that it is an internal process in which an individual is able to adapt positively to particularly adverse circumstances and be able to cope with stress.
People who have a strong resilience tend to have strong positive concepts and optimism. In fact, per Colman's rant, I'd say our survival is a matter of having resilience...
Here's a piece of an article I wrote that was published in the ,,International Platform on Sports and Development" in January of this year on resilience and kids. But it is just as applicable for adults too.
Trauma, Sport & Resilience
Based on the findings of various research endeavours, four key protective factors which serve to support and promote resilience in all youth have been discerned. These are: the presence of healthy, supportive relationships between adults and youth; healthy peer to peer relationships; the ability of youth to develop and utilize internal and external problem-solving strategies, in order to affectively mediate adversity (including developing cognitive skills and understandings in order to better deal with stressful and uncertain situations); and healthy involvement with and commitment to a broader community, which includes the encouragement to contribute to the common good of that community. The existence of these over-arching protective factors are believed to help shield youth from such risk factors as trauma or severe stress experienced in catastrophes, as well as to help them "bounce back" after such experiences.
Maybe I should do a diary on this at some point... "Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
It didn't seem to convince everybody....
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 30 11 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 5 22 comments
by Oui - May 13 66 comments
by Carrie - Apr 30 7 comments
by Oui - Jun 1
by Oui - May 3119 comments
by Oui - May 3011 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2725 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 233 comments
by Oui - May 1366 comments
by Oui - May 910 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 522 comments
by Oui - May 449 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - May 29 comments
by Oui - Apr 30273 comments
by Carrie - Apr 307 comments
by Oui - Apr 2644 comments
by Oui - Apr 889 comments
by Oui - Mar 19143 comments