The Optimist, the Pessimist, the Realist, and Resilience

[Mole]

The optimist believes things will get better, the pessimist believes things will remain bad, while the realist recognises reality and seeks to improve their position.

When things don't get better, the optimist collapses. And when things remain bad, the pessimist becomes depressed. And the realist in recognising reality, and working to improve their position, is resilient.

The optimist believes mbti will make their life better, and when is doesn't they leave mbti. And the pessimist believes mbti will not make any difference and so become depressed. While the realist recognises that mbti has the same truth value as astrology, and seeks to understand the history of mbti, and how mbti is used today in society, indeed how mbti fits into a narcissist society based on fantasy.

The realist is fascinated by the resistance to reality by the optimists and pessimists of Typology Central, and recognises that taking away their fantasies is like taking the comfort blanket away from Linus van Pelt, click on Linus' security blanket - Peanuts Wiki

 

[Alomoes]

I'm the realist, and you are the pessimist. I see the value in MBTI as data that has empirical value. For those who consider the MBTI as completely useless, I see them as throwing out data. I don't know if it will help or not, but maybe it will. And so far, it has.

More evidence of pessimist behavior is apparent in your calling society narcissist. For comparison, I call society society.

Also I see nihilism in that paragraph above.

If I am correct, I expect you to attempt to dismantle my argument.

I must say though. I'm unsure of whether I am truly the realist or not, and or whether my judgment is sound. My action of doing this is an act of nihilism, but it is justified in that I value being correct. And also, if the realist found nothing of value in MBTI, wouldn't he leave? Thus the realist and the pessimist are really the same. Except, there is inherent value in data, and the MBTI is a system for organizing data. Hrrm. Interesting idea.

Also, I am fascinated by others' ability to ignore the potential for all of life and our universe to be meaningless. I figured it would be more prevalent in our culture, because doesn't that seem important? Maybe it is present, but masked. It seems to be a conscious choice to ignore the overwhelming sensory evidence. Things like natural selection. The idea of not having lived at a certain point fascinates me to a huge degree in this topic. It is interesting, because I cannot know whether or not it is true. I apologize if what I say is confusing, it is based upon my subjective senses of the universe.

I must note, my own quest for knowledge also interests myself greatly, as it implies that my self can generate its own sub reality in which seemingly all possibilities are laid out.

Conclusion: I like your system. It is flawed with subjection, but I'm stealing it. I've used those words a long time ago when dealing with someone similar who said realistically he has no shot at basketball, so he would not try. Not going into that. Thank you.

As for astrology, I'd need to do a ton of math to see if things far away affect things here on a psychological level. I'm not sure how strong human senses are. But through physics, the light coming from far away should have a degree of impact on our environment. Now likely it is negligible because the atmosphere would likely distort any signal that could be made via the light. Also 99% sure the human body would not read said signal on light.

Notice, signal is equivalent to pattern encoded on a form of wave. This is very theory intensive, I hope you understand. I also didn't check it for inconsistencies. I apologize.

I also predict that one could be rational, pessimistic or optimistic yet act normal to a degree. It would be interesting to study the differences between all three. Also uncertain as to whether it stays the same all the time.

 

[danseen]

lololol....most have not heard of MBTI in the real world...

i think you take it waaaay too seriously, it's a theory, little more.

 

[Alomoes]

It is a theory. I take theory very seriously. Without theory what am I?

Oh and I'm always like this after I think long and hard enough. I blame the function Te. I'm right, now I just need to feel like a human again. Also, do note. I was more or less copying the above persons writing style while also applying my value of agnostic logic, because my values were crossed. Values crossed ---> shred idea.

 

[Pionart]

I would think MBTI has more truth value than astrology, unless astrology turns out to be somewhat accurate itself.

There does seem to be something to introversion, and likewise the other scales. It's there in the language we use. It's there when we notice that 2 people behave quite similarly, or that someone's thinking patterns seem to reflect your own when they speak.

Now, I'm someone who likes to confuse my imagination with reality, and when I interpret social situations through the lens of MBTI, rather simply taking note of the social situation itself, I have committed a fallacy. I am using a model to change how I see reality, rather than using reality to change how I see a model. This is a problem. The problem would exist even if MBTI had no accuracy whatsoever. But it's an even stronger problem when MBTI seems on its own terms to be true (in a sense). Who knows?

I think I'm more of a pessimist than an optimist. I rarely expect things to go well. Worst case scenarios become the topic of paranoid ideation. Hopelessness for my personal life becomes the topic of depressive ideation. I don't expect to be liked, I expect my success to be limited. If something can go wrong, it will, and if it doesn't? Well, that'll get me down too.

But I have a good dose of realism too. I recognise what must be done. I pull myself out of my slumps and say, well, maybe things won't be that great, but maybe they will, and more importantly the effort I put in, starting with the effort I put in today is going to be the difference between things not going well and things going splendidly. The more I try, the further I will get, whether this is far or not. I just have to try.

I know what I have to do.

 

[Cellmold]

Nobody is a realist.

Human beings can't even decide or prove what reality is. More precise is to say people are shades of pessimism and optimism and anyone can swing between them through a change in conditioning.

 

[BadOctopus]

I try to hope for the best, while preparing myself for the worst. What does that make me?

 

[indra]

The Middle Way.

 

[Totenkindly]

Nobody is a realist.

Human beings can't even decide or prove what reality is. More precise is to say people are shades of pessimism and optimism and anyone can swing between them through a change in conditioning.

I very much disagree. You don't need to have a "perfect sense" of what "reality" is to take a mindset of taking life simply as it comes without expecting something (good OR bad) that isn't directly justifiable. This is even the basis for some philosophies like Zen Buddhism.

Essentially, you're just taking a situation as it IS versus what you want it to be or what you fear it could be, and you're doing the best with what you have to accept it and then change what you realistically can to improve your lot. It means being honest with yourself and others as to what you are dealing with.

I try to hope for the best, while preparing myself for the worst. What does that make me?

It makes you a bad octopus.

I think "hoping for the best while preparing for the worst" is more of a realist strategy, as you're being honest about the range of possible outcomes and remaining open to them. But you're not sitting there list in positive or negative delusions about what is going on; despite the connotations of the phrase, you're really just "covering your bases" so you're prepared for anything, it's a reasoned assessment. Optimism and pessimism are not reasoned assessments by definition.

 

[Cellmold]

I very much disagree. You don't need to have a "perfect sense" of what "reality" is to take a mindset of taking life simply as it comes without expecting something (good OR bad) that isn't directly justifiable. This is even the basis for some philosophies like Zen Buddhism.

Essentially, you're just taking a situation as it IS versus what you want it to be or what you fear it could be, and you're doing the best with what you have to accept it and then change what you realistically can to improve your lot. It means being honest with yourself and others as to what you are dealing with.

PS. I think "hoping for the best while preparing for the worst" is more of a realist strategy, as you're being honest about the range of possible outcomes and remaining open to them. But you're not sitting there list in positive or negative delusions about what is going on; despite the connotations of the phrase, you're really just "covering your bases" so you're prepared for anything, it's a reasoned assessment. Optimism and pessimism are not reasoned assessments by definition.

I see your point, but can any human truly live without expectation of any kind? Surely reality is what you make it?

Even buddhists have an expectation. Although it does depend on which version of teachings you follow. Also taking situations as they are is conditional, if you get stabbed in the stomach would you expect to be helped or expect to die or just accept that either could happen or accept that what happens, happens. And in intense conditions like that who really claims c'est la vie?

I see everything as being about expectation and zen thinking only replaces more common expectations with different ones.

 

[Totenkindly]

I see your point, but can any human truly live without expectation of any kind? Surely reality is what you make it?

We always have expectations, but if you are a realist, then you are essentially being honest with yourself about what your expectations are.

Again, optimists and pessimists by definition are pretending their expectations are reality.

 

[Cellmold]

We always have expectations, but if you are a realist, then you are essentially being honest with yourself about what your expectations are.

Again, optimists and pessimists by definition are pretending their expectations are reality.

Could pessimism and optimism be considered perversions of realism then? Like a spectrum? If you are being honest about your expectations...I don't understand how that is different from pessimism and optimism, do optimists and pessimists lie about their expectations? I don't think i've seen a pessimist claiming to believe the best. The issue of pretending their expectations are reality...but isn't a realist doing that as well?

I just don't see realism as floating about separately from those two, more a balancing effect between them.

I guess I just haven't reached that particular branch of enlightenment yet. I probably never will, I don't understand it. In the moment I guess. In MBTI terms it could be an issue with me being SJ and struggling to lighten my expectations of what has been before....of precedents. Even though it is more reasonable to assess something as it comes in order to understand it on it's own merit. I grew up in a strong environment of expectation so that has probably coloured a lot of my perceptions in this area. In my reality, consistent failure only weakens advances towards success, rather than picking oneself up you dig a bigger hole. Although I'm not very emotionally healthy so that probably isn't something to get into at the moment.

Baaaaad rigidity.

 

[Totenkindly]

Could pessimism and optimism be considered perversions of realism then? Like a spectrum? If you are being honest about your expectations...I don't understand how that is different from pessimism and optimism, do optimists and pessimists lie about their expectations? I don't think i've seen a pessimist claiming to believe the best. The issue of pretending their expectations are reality...but isn't a realist doing that as well?

Not as I defined all three of them. But maybe you have different definitions. That's another problem in this type of discussion.

I just don't see realism as floating about separately from those two, more a balancing effect between them.

What, like the ego balances the concerns of the id and superego? I guess you could look at it somewhat like that. The ego itself is really the "mediation" that occurs rather than a drive in itself, it's a balancing force.

I guess I just haven't reached that particular branch of enlightenment yet. I probably never will, I don't understand it. In the moment I guess. In MBTI terms it could be an issue with me being SJ and struggling to lighten my expectations of what has been before....of precedents. Even though it is more reasonable to assess something as it comes in order to understand it on it's own merit. I grew up in a strong environment of expectation so that has probably coloured a lot of my perceptions in this area. In my reality, consistent failure only weakens advances towards success, rather than picking oneself up you dig a bigger hole. Although I'm not very emotionally healthy so that probably isn't something to get into at the moment. Baaaaad rigidity.

I never really knew what type you were (I don't look at types much nowadays), but yeah, I know for me a lot of INTPs gravitate towards detachment/balance by nature... I tend to see all expectation as arbitrary and suspect in some way, especially accepting that everyone has free will and can choose at any moment to not fulfill another's expectations "just because."

That creates other issues for me of course (with motivation, for example, and relationship), but here I just tend to see a "WYSIWYG" and go with it. I was also raised in an environment where even if I did have emotional expectations, they weren't necessarily met often; I couldn't count on them being met; so I kind of ended up in that gray area... not everything goes wrong all the time, but not everything goes right either. It was safest to test something and understand exactly what it was (the good and the bad) -- to have a sense of its "probability" rather than "possibility" -- and then rely on it just appropriately. That way I maximize what good can come while being most protected against the bad.

 

[Mole]

lololol....most have not heard of MBTI in the real world...

i think you take it waaaay too seriously, it's a theory, little more.

Mbti is not just a theory, it is also a practice.

Mbti pretends to be a theory of psychometrics, but unlike legitimate psychometrics, mbti is based on no empirical evidence, and over 75 years there has not been one random double blind experiment.

And a legitmate psychometric test is invalidated if it is performed on oneself. And a legitimate psychometric test is invalidated if we interpret our own psychometric test.

Also a psychometric interpretation applied to our family, our friends, celebrities, and pets, is completely invalid if no actual test has been applied.

Mbti is based on narcissistic fantasy quite like astrology. Astrology is a successful cult and so is mbti.

And consider, mbti flies under a false flag called Typology Central. Our original name is MBTI Central, but we changed it for business reasons.

In the USA religion and money go hand in hand, and this is also true of mbti.

 

[BadOctopus]

Just wondering, [MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]: why do you single out the US so frequently? It's not like it's the only country with delusional, narcissistic people in it. And it's not the only country that places importance on religion, astrology, MBTI, or any other "dubious" institution, either.

To be clear, I'm not asking because I'm trying to rile you up. I'm asking out of sincere curiosity. Goodness knows I'm not defending the US; in fact, I find the whole concept of patriotism kind of ridiculous, considering the fact that none of us have any control over where we're born. But it's definitely not the worst place to live.

 

[Alomoes]

Haha. The US. I think it's a hilarious place I live in. People are so introverted here, but it is an extroverted society. Seems like everything anyone does is awkward except for working. That could be me making it awkward though.

I'm now thinking I am the optimist. It is because of my one assumption, that all things most likely happen for a reason. But then again, I do realize myself as having this bias for a legitimate reason in that the contrary would make everything I do have no point, so yeah. Doubt resolved.

 

[Mole]

The National Interests of Oz and USA

Just wondering, [MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]: why do you single out the US so frequently? It's not like it's the only country with delusional, narcissistic people in it. And it's not the only country that places importance on religion, astrology, MBTI, or any other "dubious" institution, either.

To be clear, I'm not asking because I'm trying to rile you up. I'm asking out of sincere curiosity. Goodness knows I'm not defending the US; in fact, I find the whole concept of patriotism kind of ridiculous, considering the fact that none of us have any control over where we're born. But it's definitely not the worst place to live.

We have not one but three treaties with the USA. The USA has a policy of wheel and spokes treaties with many countries in the world. In other words the USA has individual treaties with many countries in order to remain the 'big wheel'.

By contrast Australia, through the WTO (World Trade Organisation), seeks multi-lateral treaties with many countries in order to trade on a level playing field.

So it is plain the trade interests of the USA and Australia diverge.

And just as our trade interests diverge so our cultural interests diverge.

So we pursue our trade and cultural interests in the face of the largest economy in the world, the largest military, and the best propaganda.

Where the interests of the USA and Australia converge is National Security. We are at one with the USA in terms of National Security.
[MENTION=23115]BadOctopus[/MENTION]