A 'Realistic' View?

Post Reply New Topic

I had a friend that was very negative and he passed off all his views as being realistic. I don't have anything against such people, but I am confused as no matter how I try to understand it, there is never anything more 'real' about the negative outlook than a generally positive one to me.

Why does it seem to be that negative = realistic and positive = fake/oblivious? Is it a defense mechanism?

How can a view be realistic, when it is shaded negatively (emotions, perspective)?

It could be defense mechanism that when people say he is too negative, he can say that he is being more realistic.
Personally, I have never found a generally negative outlook to be more realistic than a generally positive outlook.
I have found that positive people seem more flexible than negative people.

Negativity and Paranoia were and still are to a lesser extent defense mechanisms for me for cognitive empathy deficits, particularly vulnerability to being used and tricked. Everybody was always telling me you are so negative and I would reply "I am just being realistic" because is exactly what I thought. It took until my mid 50's and getting diagnosed and leaning about Theory of Mind etc to figure it out.

This has been true for me as well.

To put a positive spin on things, this "outlook" can be quite useful in my profession (building software systems). As it enables me to perform extremely thorough risk analysis, by identifying all the things that could go wrong and figuring out how to prevent them from happening in the first place. I am able to recognize patterns of failure days, weeks and occasionally months before anyone else notices. Obviously, I have to be very careful; otherwise others may begin referring to me as a “negative Nellie”.

I recently came from another forum where if you had a more idealistic viewpoint like mine, you were ridiculed as being naïve and unrealistic, and only the negative people were the realists. (Interestingly, I get the OPPOSITE reaction in real life--IRL I'm accused of being the one who's too negative and unrealistic.) I never understood this argument, myself. Why did it HAVE to be so black or white? I understand HOW one can achieve such a worldview (I'm close, myself--like I said, IRL I'd never be accused of being "too idealistic"), but why is it the only "correct" worldview? Of course if one is extremely optimistic/positive, that's probably unrealistic, but the same can be said for being extremely pessimistic/negative. Both extremes are blinded to the far more realistic middle ground.

And to be honest, 1. yes, being more idealistic/optimistic can open you up to being hurt by others, but so can being so negative that you completely shut the world out (I've experienced BOTH of these, many times over), and I'd rather keep seeking that middle ground or else I have nothing much to live for; and 2. like Btbnnyr said, optimists seem more flexible than pessimists (in my experience at least).

Pessimism and negativity have their place (I know that as well as anyone here)...I just can't bear to accept that that extreme is the only realistic one. It would kill me inside ("You don't matter and you never will") and make me feel hopeless. Just as surely as the opposite extreme would invalidate my own difficulties ("Just cheer up and get over it!") and make me feel broken.

I'm rather relieved that someone else is perplexed by this black-or-white worldview...I often feel like the only one. Online, at least.

...

I do not mean to step on toes or offend anyone with what is only my own viewpoint.

From what I have noticed, people who are too negative tend to think their views are accurate so they think anyone else who thinks they're negative and thinks more positive are in a fantasy world and living a lie and they don't want to know the truth and the reality.

I think everyone has negative views but there is balance in between. I can't stand negative people and I can't stand people who are too positive. I like it in between. Not too negative and not too positive. One of my ex's was too negative and it was not a good thing because it made him jealous and he took it out on others and he always felt bad about himself so it made him put other people down. He was once telling me how much he didn't like his car because he felt it was too crappy and not nice looking and right next to us, I see a old pick up truck and it's junky looking because it was twenty years old or more. I tell him "Look at that truck there, it's in worse shape than yours" and he said "I bet he is just coming back from the dump and he has a nice car siting at home and has a wife and kids and they all have nice furniture and dishes and a nice yard for them to play in." See negative, he doesn't know the person's situation, he doesn't know if he has a family or not and a nice car and home and a nice big yard. He doesn't know but he assumed it and he always acted like he was a psychic about peoples lives including about my own childhood and how my parents raised me. Assumptions assumptions assumptions it was. Nothing was ever good enough for him. He had to have more to be satisfied and because he didn't have more, he was depressed over it. This is not having a realistic view.

Because it is.
Many times it's not a negative statement that is being labeled as realistic. It's a realistic statement that is being labeled negative.
For most people it seems, even entertaining realistic possibilities of negative outcomes, is seen as being negative.
That is skewed and false labeling.

Asking the right questions and being able to "project" possible future negative outcomes is the most valuable feature of systems type thinking.

However, when it is done, many people take it personally, as though it was done in order to make them feel bad for some reason, as they filter everything through their identities.

The identity filter is what asks "what does this mean to ME?" and is where the negative label gets applied.

This is a separate issue to catasrophizing, or statements like "we're all going to die".

Could be depressive realism. If that exists, it suggests that most people find it necessary to distort things in a positive way to avoid a depressing life in which they don't feel they're especially lucky or wonderful people.

I tend to feel as if most people apply a positive gloss that I don't need, so for me it's the positivity that seems fake. I read about a working Aspie who brought everybody down at a meeting when somebody asked "what could possibly go wrong?" and he replied with a full list of possible snags to the plan. That wouldn't have depressed me at all, I'd have been glad to get that list of holes, because I could then plug them and work out contingency plans, so the main plan would become much more reliable.

What does this even mean?

Post some examples of what you are trying to say here.

I feel the exact same way.

The people I know who are more negative don't seem to have the talent of figuring out all the things that could go wrong, but instead seem more paralyzed for doing things, because they think things will be too hard or go wrong, but specifically, they don't know what will happen. If someone knows specifically the potential problems, then they could take action more easily, since they would usually also know what to do about those problems if they arise. There is a difference between the type of person who points out the things that could go wrong vs. the type who feels that things will always go wrong and is paralyzed by their negative emotions.

Also, many people who take a positive view also know about all the things that could go wrong, and they also know what to do if those things go wrong. Knowing the potential problems many contribute to having a more positive view and taking action, since you may feel like you are more in control.

I think most people think their own view is realistic, whether or not it actually is.

When you are autistic things will go wrong particularly in the social realm leading to negative expectations. Everybody has areas they are poor at figuring out, so most just figure they are weak in these areas. Autistics are poor at figuring out what society has deemed by far the most important human traits and are often labeled not poor at that thing but a loser, broken person etc. It's a vicious cycle WP is here in part to try and revert.

This is what I meant by negative.



Depressive realism sounds interesting.

I'd find it helpful if they listed something like this, and I think that most people would in a professional situation. In a more personal situation however, strictly listing perceived negatives is .. not realistic in the slightest.

In response to Rugulach, that isn't what I meant by a negative view.




[Refer to the post I quoted from btbnnyr]

I think this is the case in the instances similar to what ToughDiamond posted, but I believe what I am trying to describe is different.

These examples don't define a dimension with which to restrict examples, but my friend could say:

1. 'Bowling is going to suck, because all you do is throw a ball and watch it roll down the lane hoping that it hits the pins.'

That has emotional value attached to it, very clearly negative. It is not a realistic view, how can it be? Sure, you bowl a ball down a lane and watch it hit some pins, but that's ignoring the enjoyment you may get from it and many other factors. It's also very clearly dependent on perspective, and that to me is a negative view of bowling.

2. 'Life is meaningless; no one matters and they never will.'

He's the type of person that would rant on about the meaninglessness of life, and while technically realistic, it becomes a negative view if it is thought about/mentioned constantly, especially when it is applied to situations. As a meta-example, 'there's no point in learning because we'll all die one day'. You don't go about complaining about the meaninglessness of life incessantly because it is realistic - there is no motivation there.

I guess whoever said "what could possibly go wrong?" did so because the group had ended the "analytical" phase and were moving into a "confidence building" phase, like when a trainer tells a sports team that they can't lose (another delusion I've never been capable of or needed). So, hopefully the group would have found the list of potential snags useful if it had been offered at the right time. Even as late as it was, if there were things in there that looked significant, it would probably have been foolish to ignore them, but I think people can be wary of too much procrastination, so once they feel they've made their decision to act, they prefer not to listen to anything that seems to unpick their assumptions. There's also the problem many Aspies probably have in keeping their diligence appropriate to the size of the investment and return - with inexpensive matters, it's often more effective to "play to win," to take risks and learn by experience rather than trying to pre-empt every possible snag.

For more personal situations, I suppose it similarly depends on the exact context and timing. There are times when people want to know the downside of their plans, and times when they don't.





That sounds like depression, and to my mind it's essentially irrational, because to have fun and make yourself comfortable has nothing to do with life having any particular meaning. It can be very annoying and demoralising to live with a depressed person.