Is positive thinking oversold?

[white page]

This thread is fascinating , I read it all with great interest ,

But the author's point is that many of the more enthusiastic and simplistic self-help power-of-positive-thinking books don't seem to focus on reality at all. They arfe overly simplistic - think positive and all your problems will be solved. But the real world just doesn't work that way sometimes.

It seems that, like all quick fix theories , positive thinking gurus can do more harm than good in certain circumstances ,there is a difference between having confidence in your real potential , than believe that everything is possible for you and that you have no limits .
I believe that this article is trying to say this .

Our present economic system , is based on immeadiate self gratification . with out the consequences being taken into consideration , thus unrealistic .
Okay a couple of clich?s now ,
it is true that ...........
' nothing ventured nothing gained '
but '' look before you leap " !!

 

[Daniel E.]

And, obviously, there is a major difference between greed, positive thinking by people who are already optimistic, and overcoming the negative thinking of depression, anxiety, etc.

 

[white page]

And, obviously, there is a major difference between greed, positive thinking by people who are already optimistic, and overcoming the negative thinking of depression, anxiety, etc.

I agree ! I had a look at the 'greed ' link Daniel, the book looks really interesting .

 

[Sparrow]

Tx for the objectivity WhitePage.
Daniel, in my book greed is a very fatal thing.

Back to topic here's a simple summary of mine.

Positive psychology can be a good or bad thing.
Negative psychology can be a good or bad thing.

Stir the two in a myriads lifetime of a pot and take the serving you wish,
It may be foul or it may be fair but it is yours to do as you see fit.
And yet, we are all hungry at the banquet of life.

Did I mention I'm not the cook?

 

[Daniel E.]

the 'greed ' link Daniel, the book looks really interesting .

A book I like even more than American Mania is called Status Anxiety, for which there is also a documentary:

YouTube - Status Anxiety Pt. 1 (1 of 5)

 

[white page]

Daniel , I just googled Alain de Botton author of "status anxiety"
He's certainly brilliant , and prolific , I like what he says about himself , which rather fits in with this thread .......

"So, I think where people tend to end up results from a combination of encouragement, accident, and lucky break, etc. etc. Like many others, my career happened like it did because certain doors opened and certain doors closed. You know, at a certain point I thought it would be great to make film documentaries. Well, in fact, I found that to be incredibly hard and very expensive to do and I didn?t really have the courage to keep battling away at that. In another age, I might have been an academic in a university, if the university system had been different. So, it?s all about trying to find the best fit between your talents and what the world can offer at that point in time."

 

[stargazer]

And, obviously, there is a major difference between greed, positive thinking by people who are already optimistic, and overcoming the negative thinking of depression, anxiety, etc.

Right. This is what I was trying to say in one of my earlier posts. There are days when it's a struggle for me to *become* optimistic enough to proceed with the day. This is different than those who are by nature optimistic and seek to expand upon it through avarice. (I am like that on other days, but less so, lately, I've noticed. I've been less manic in recent times, and more depressed - if either.)

Now, I'm going to need to quote myself to clarify an earlier point I was trying to make, but that evidently I did not succeed in getting across. I did look at the article again, and I find no conflict between what Dr. Baxter has written and what I was originally trying to say. My point was not concerning what the article is about; but that, in being about what it's about, it can be construed to be a little misleading.

My other point was that the article doesn't deal with [the idea that *some* forms of positive thinking actually *are* of value], and in not dealing with it, it subtly misleads the reader into thinking that a positive attitude is actually a negative thing. And I don't think that's fair to those of us who believe strongly in the power of positive thinking.

My mistake was in using a definite article here - *the* reader - which gave my opinion a sense of absolutism. Rather than to have said, "it subtly misleads THE reader," I ought to have said: "There is a certain kind of person who will read this article and conclude that it is not good to exercise positive thinking."

Here's an example. I know a young man in his early twenties, the son of a friend of mine who very much embraces what you might call a New Age brand of positive thinking. Recently, the young man said to me: "This business of having a positive attitude is completely for the birds."

From his perspective, he equates "positive thinking" with "New Age thinking," and the two are not identical. If he were to have read this article, he might have said: "See what I mean? This guy hit the nail on the head."

If Salerno could have included a couple qualifying statements, such as: "Now I'm not saying that *all* positive thinking is bad," it would have lessened the likelihood of this kind of reaction; and, in fact, of my own reaction.

Here's what I mean. The title of the thread is: "Is Positive Thinking Oversold?" That sounds very good to me, because it doesn't suggest that positive thinking is useless. The title of the article, on the other hand, begins with: "The Poison of Positive Thinking." First off, someone is going to think: "positive thinking is poisonous?" We're talking about rhetoric here.

I can think of any one of a number of high school or middle school students of my acquaintance who would read this article and, from limited information, conclude that all positive thinking is bad. Young people in today's society really *are* of that mind! At least in California, they are.

I understand that it's not what the article is about. I'm only trying to say that I don't like the fact that the article isn't about it. That's why I think the article is "off-balanced."

 

[David Baxter PhD]

The title of the thread is: "Is Positive Thinking Oversold?" That sounds very good to me, because it doesn't suggest that positive thinking is useless. The title of the article, on the other hand, begins with: "The Poison of Positive Thinking." First off, someone is going to think: "positive thinking is poisonous?"

The title of the article is misleading, though, I think. That's why I didn't use it for the thread title.

 

[Daniel E.]

I think the reason this thread got so many replies was because the article was unbalanced. Those are my favorite kind, anyway

 

[stargazer]

I think the reason this thread got so many replies was because the article was unbalanced.

Agreed.

The title of the article is misleading, though, I think. That's why I didn't use it for the thread title.

I figured your reasoning was along those lines. That's why I pointed it out.

 

[Sparrow]

This "author" and article just plain bugs the heck out of me. Especially his wordplay and the method in which it was written. He could have written an article about flowers and his methodology or logic would have been corkscrew to me.

 

[amastie]

There is a part of me that is wary of appearing to agree with anyone so wholeheartedly, but I think you have expressed yourself very well with this post, stargazer, and again I agree. ..

...."There is a certain kind of person who will read this article and conclude that it is not good to exercise positive thinking."
..

...My point was not concerning what the article is about; but that, in being about what it's about, it can be construed to be a little misleading...

I meant to say earlier that I heard you when you corrected me on this point.

...If Salerno could have included a couple qualifying statements, such as: "Now I'm not saying that *all* positive thinking is bad," it would have lessened the likelihood of this kind of reaction; and, in fact, of my own reaction...

And mine (though it was not the only weakness in his argument). In one small paragraph near the end, he does use an exaggerated example to assure us that by saying that "No one is suggesting that people should curl up in the fetal position and expect the worst." (followed by his purported aim "This is about balance." ) The first sentence loses power by seeming to dismiss any counter argument by its exaggerated reference. Again, he gives no real weight at all to the value of pursuing positive. Again, I am struck by the tone of his words.

...The title of the thread is: "Is Positive Thinking Oversold?" That sounds very good to me, because it doesn't suggest that positive thinking is useless...

And because it refers clearly to the "selling" of positive rather than the pursuing of it in general.

..The title of the article, on the other hand, begins with: "The Poison of Positive Thinking." First off, someone is going to think: "positive thinking is poisonous?" We're talking about rhetoric here...

God, yes! And also, in this case in particular, a clear indication of an actual intention (despite his stated intention) *not* to argue, clearly, in a balanced way.

amastie

amastie added 26 Minutes and 3 Seconds later...

I think the reason this thread got so many replies was because the article was unbalanced. Those are my favorite kind, anyway

And because it goes to the heart of so many people today who pursue positive with such vehemence, likely a reaction to the flood of negative coverage on our tv and radio stations. And in such forums as these, where so many of us are mot eager to dispel our own negativity, it especially had to be triggering - though the arguments stand or fall on their own merit.

Till now, it has been negative which has sold - and still does - as people tune in to watch the dramas of "reality" tv shows (not real at all) and feel bombarded by radio "shock jocks". I believe that the US has such a presenter in Howard Stern, and there are others. We have our share of presenters here who feed off argument for its own sake - it's the particular style of journalism. Till the modern trend to New Age spirituality, the positive press had been relegated to more conservative, and traditional Christian tele-evangelists and others, mainly on a Sunday. Now the trend is to "New Age", a label which is used perjoratively when it emcompasses too much to be used in that way at all. "New Age" beliefs include such a mixture that they have to be looked at separately before being summarily dismissed.

By the way, Daniel, I've already purchased "Stumbling On Happiness" and am looking forward to reading it when it arrives. For the sake of others who might be interested, I priced it at Amazon where second-hand copies are selling for only about $1 US (plus postage, which wouldn't be as much to Canada or within the US).

 

[David Baxter PhD]

This "author" and article just plain bugs the heck out of me. Especially his wordplay and the method in which it was written. He could have written an article about flowers and his methodology or logic would have been corkscrew to me.

I don't understand the intensity of this reaction and some of the others in this thread. I don't read it as the author condemning ALL positive thinking, or CBT, or anything like that. I think he's simply railing a bit at the Pollyanna rose-colored-glasses messages that some of the self-styled self-help group (most of them authors trying to sell books) are giving - those that imply that the power of positive thinking can fix anything and bring people wealth and happiness beyong their wildest dreams.

 

[Daniel E.]

I think he's simply railing a bit at the Pollyanna rose-colored-glasses messages that some of the self-styled self-help group (most of them authors trying to sell books) are giving - those that imply that the power of positive thinking can fix anything and bring people wealth and happiness beyong their wildest dreams.

And that is a good point in the article. But the article is unbalanced because many of the books in the "pop positive" psychology genre reinfornce the notion that wealth seeking is actually a detriment to happiness. From two books that the author mentioned in a negative light (while trying to argue that such books partially caused the financial crisis):

The ego is a demanding force that's never satisfied: It constantly requires that we seek more money, power, acquisitions, glory, and prestige to provide the fuel it thinks it must have.

Amazon.com: Change Your Thoughts - Change Your Life: Living the Wisdom of the Tao: Wayne W. Dyer: Books

Perhaps there should be similar warnings on every banknote and bank statement: "Money can activate the pain-body ["the emotional component of the ego"] and cause complete unconsciousness."

Amazon.com: A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose (Oprah's Book Club, Selection 61): Eckhart Tolle: Books

(The second excerpt is a little too "New Age" for me, but it makes a similar point as the first, with "complete unconsciousness" being a lack of mindfulness, I suppose.)

 

[amastie]

I don't understand the intensity of this reaction and some of the others in this thread....

Yes, I'm aware that those of us who argue against this article are much more emotional on the subject and I put that down to the fact that we are, on the whole, more triggered by an argument that "appears" to argue against the pursuit of positive (because we live daily with trying to find any positive at all)

That's the reason for the emotion, but not for me the reason for the disagreement.

..I don't read it as the author condemning ALL positive thinking, or CBT, or anything like that...

I hear you when you say that David. And, in expressing my own opinions so strongly, I don't mean to disrespect others' point of view. I know that the author has expressed that intent. I just don't believe that the weight of his argument, and the tone of his words, support that intention. I think he offers too little to support his argument and that he overuses rhetoric to make the point. I do take offence at this article, not so much that he seems to me to be arguing against the pursuit of positive but that the tone of his words is every bit as preachy, and lacking substance, as what he argues against in those people whom he deriding.

...I think he's simply railing a bit at the Pollyanna rose-colored-glasses messages that some of the self-styled self-help group (most of them authors trying to sell books) are giving - those that imply that the power of positive thinking can fix anything and bring people wealth and happiness beyong their wildest dreams.

I also take issue with the argument that selling positive is, in itself, so easily given to being a duplicitous thing - or that authors which seek to do it (*whatever* their purpose) are responsible for people losing perspective on reality. I strugle to find an analogy to compare it to. It is almsot like selling people on a religious faith. Those are sold all over the world and there will be people who take their faith to extremes, some even becoming psychotic in the process, but no-one would argue to ban all adherence to faith-based beliefs on that account (except, of course, for atheists). "Feel good, believe in God", "Feel good, believe in the power of positive". No difference at that level. And God is often "sold" in the most simplistic of ways.

I said in an earlier post here that I don't believe that the line to be drawn is between (the pursuite of) positive and reality. Not even between the selling of positive (in Pollyanna and simplistic ways), and the loss of reality. I believe that the line to be drawn is between trusting a belief to the extent that it helps us (*whatever* that belief - it could be in munchkins!), and (on the other hand) giving up all personal responsiblity and all reason in that pursuit.

If I am ready to separate from reality to pursue a cause, then my readiness to separate from reality comes from somewhere else - inside me - not from the form that the cause takes. That said, I would be much more willing to take heed of the writer's stated purpose if he had argued it in a much more balanded way. And he didn't.

 

[Lana]

I’ve been following this thread since the beginning and like David, found myself confused by the intensity that it generated. While I get the gist of replies and where they’re coming from, I’m still not sure that they apply.

I re-read the article several times and no where do I see the author dogging positive thinking. He does, however, address the problem where people are abandoning critical thinking in favor of positivity. It’s not the same thing as speaking out against greed, or anything like that, it has to do with cases when…hmm….where people carry out a project and fail to do case studies and terminate projects doomed to fail because thinking critically is not positive. In other words, if someone questions anything, everyone gets on that person for being negative, while effectively neglecting to consider the concerns brought forth. If you want an example in mental health: a schizophrenic person stops taking their medication because he or she believes that positive thinking is all they need. Consider the famous Space Shuttle launch that failed and took lives of many people. There were one or two engineers that argued against launching it, but they were squashed by others and even accused of trying to sabotage the success of the launch. Imagine going to a doctor that tells a patient he or she has a terminal disease and when a patient reacts with tears and distress saying, “Now now, where’s your positive thinking?”

He also comments that many people, when presented with questions of feasibility or practicality, or bad planning, often blame negative thinking for the failure, rather then acknowledging that it was the lack of planning, analysis, and critical thinking that resulted in a bad deal. Truth of the matter was that positive thinking is what got them into trouble...to avoid negative thinking.

I think that’s a serious concern and warrants examination, not anger. It’s not about balance or positivity, it’s about relying too much on positive thinking and neglecting facts, warnings, analysis, and examination of reality as it is. What I think the author is trying to say is that positive thinking is not objective and can be right down dangerous while creating serious problems.

I realize that few are upset by this, but I think he’s right on the money and raises some interesting questions. Are people misusing positive thinking thus making it a “poison” to good decision making? In addition, misusing positive thinking is poisonous to the positive thinking movement itself. I would think that the anger should be with those that pull the “positive thinking” card when it is not appropriate, not the writer.

 

[Daniel E.]

For the record, I'm not angry I like the article in that it's thought provoking and makes a good point, though is otherwise commonsensical and overreaching.

 

[David Baxter PhD]

I?ve been following this thread since the beginning and like David, found myself confused by the intensity that it generated. While I get the gist of replies and where they?re coming from, I?m still not sure that they apply.

I re-read the article several times and no where do I see the author dogging positive thinking. He does, however, address the problem where people are abandoning critical thinking in favor of positivity. It?s not the same thing as speaking out against greed, or anything like that, it has to do with cases when?hmm?.where people carry out a project and fail to do case studies and terminate projects doomed to fail because thinking critically is not positive. In other words, if someone questions anything, everyone gets on that person for being negative, while effectively neglecting to consider the concerns brought forth. If you want an example in mental health: a schizophrenic person stops taking their medication because he or she believes that positive thinking is all they need. Consider the famous Space Shuttle launch that failed and took lives of many people. There were one or two engineers that argued against launching it, but they were squashed by others and even accused of trying to sabotage the success of the launch. Imagine going to a doctor that tells a patient he or she has a terminal disease and when a patient reacts with tears and distress saying, ?Now now, where?s your positive thinking??

He also comments that many people, when presented with questions of feasibility or practicality, or bad planning, often blame negative thinking for the failure, rather then acknowledging that it was the lack of planning, analysis, and critical thinking that resulted in a bad deal. Truth of the matter was that positive thinking is what got them into trouble...to avoid negative thinking.

I think that?s a serious concern and warrants examination, not anger. It?s not about balance or positivity, it?s about relying too much on positive thinking and neglecting facts, warnings, analysis, and examination of reality as it is. What I think the author is trying to say is that positive thinking is not objective and can be right down dangerous while creating serious problems.

I realize that few are upset by this, but I think he?s right on the money and raises some interesting questions. Are people misusing positive thinking thus making it a ?poison? to good decision making? In addition, misusing positive thinking is poisonous to the positive thinking movement itself. I would think that the anger should be with those that pull the ?positive thinking? card when it is not appropriate, not the writer.

:agree: :goodpost:

 

[Daniel E.]

Of course, governments are guilty of too much positive thinking, too, especially when they think going to war is a great idea. But what does that have to do with books like "The Secret" (which I am not a fan of, btw)? I mean, the article is actually blaming (partially) the largest financial crisis in decades on a genre of books.

 

[Lana]

Ok....what is it about the book that you're not a fan of?

P.S. And, yes, I've read it.