General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy is unjustified pessimism so much more tolerable than unjustified optimism?
So many people seem to be certain of the outcome of this Supreme Court nomination, a human political process not so easily predicted by armchair opinionators.
By definition, none of us alive in the present can authoritatively predict the future - speculate yes, but NONE of us know the outcome aforehand - so why do we seem to get some kind of emotional solace, and why do we seem to get some kind of mutual support, from projecting negative outcomes rather than positive ones?
Just curious... humans interest me.
LandOfHopeAndDreams
(872 posts)When things are going against you on a consistent basis, you begin to see it coming from a mile away.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Which doesn't end well either.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)there is no equivalence to Stockholm Syndrome? I want to believe we as human beings are able to overcome our worst instincts.
This mass murder was the sole responsibility of a mad mad who mirrored the far right wing white supremacist beliefs of people like Steve Bannon and rumpie. There will always be mentally ill people willing to drink the political Kool-Aid and sickos like Bannon collecting cash while promoting mass suicide. imo
Separation
(1,975 posts)I think it has something to do that goes waaaaaay back into our DNA when we were all sitting around campfires telling stories. The good knight wins, the children are rescued etc.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)The great myths and epics all contain great tragedy as well. And the hero's journey must include adversity, and failure, before it can tell of triumph... otherwise its not relatable
Separation
(1,975 posts)I think we have had our fill of that, I'm ready to start hearing about the triumph!
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)kentuck
(111,110 posts)...when the numbers are against them? However, I would agree with you that it is not a prediction of the future.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)"Guess it comes down to a choice... get busy living, or get busy dying."
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Those of our ancestors who saw a lion behind every tree were sometimes right and lived. Those who didn't became lunch.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)John Fante
(3,479 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 4, 2018, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)
only the ones that actually contained a lion. Not only did they live, they thrived.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)But generally speaking, those with a heightened sense of danger had a greater chance of survival than those with little or none. Too much fear is no good either. But our brains are biased to never feeling quite settled and being a bit pessimistic, especially when we are not in control. We are not in control of the government right now, and that is scary.
mythology
(9,527 posts)But it's more popular because it lets people feel like a victim and that they don't have any way to make changes. And people like to shift blame and agency away from themselves.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)much less control or refuse.
unitedwethrive
(1,997 posts)Every piece of evidence and past actions of the repubs point to the fact that this whole process is rigged.
There are plenty of things to be optimistic about, but in this era, there is very little about politics that is tilting for the side of what is good and just.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Sentiments like "nothing I do, including vote, will make a difference" and the like are the sentiments that made voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering that have enabled the non-representative Republican majority across our government so successful.
CrispyQ
(36,540 posts)Also, if this is in regards to politics, anyone paying attention saw the GOP throw the rule book in the trash in 2000 & the dems are still playing catch-up almost 20 years later. That said, expect the worst; hope for the best.
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Leaving the erosions of Reaganism in place required an attitude reflecting that disaffection and disempowerment - the same sentiment I'm asking about here. So why, even amidst the Obama presidency, did an affirmative sentiment not take hold with the apparent depth of the pessimism you describe?
CrispyQ
(36,540 posts)there is a very strong & powerful contingent working against it. They have played the long game. They've lied & cheated. And they are very close to accomplishing their goal of one-party rule. The dems have effectively been neutered. If we don't gain control of at least one Chamber this November, it's curtains for the US as we know it.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)I reject that notion completely, even as we face overwhelming domination in every branch of government, social media and news.
CrispyQ
(36,540 posts)The dems couldn't even get a hearing for Garland. The GOP is going to force Kavahaugh on us, in spite of the will of The People. Even if Mueller finds something on Trump, a GOP Congress won't act on it. Do you have a better adjective for our current situation?
GOTV for November. It's our only hope.
Response to CrispyQ (Reply #53)
FreepFryer This message was self-deleted by its author.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Many words apply, but not that one. The idea is anathema to effective politics.
While you breathe, and vote, you have political power.
ZZenith
(4,130 posts)All of civilization is based on optimism.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)ZZenith
(4,130 posts)Keep fighting the good fight. I am certain that a great many who post deflating messages on this forum do so with nefarious intent.
Somebodys poisoned the well! - Woody
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)"We don't have defective cans, we have a defective person out there!"
ZZenith
(4,130 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,600 posts)Or maybe it was that podiatrists are right more often than optometrists are. I get them confused.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)over and over again, you tend to guard your heart by not allowing it to happen again. That is why people put walls up with all sorts of things. Better to be pleasantly surprised than unpleasantly surprised.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)An attitude defaulting to expecting the negative may not be incorrect as often, but that doesn't take into account that a preponderantly negative attitude may cause negative outcomes to predominate.
rampartc
(5,439 posts)"expect the worst. you will never be disappointed."
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)rampartc
(5,439 posts)no "kegs with bart at the beach" for me
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)BAND GEEKS RULE
Sunsky
(1,737 posts)some people need to expect/predict bad outcomes. For them it helps to ease the negative emotions they would experience during a let down. They can say, "I told you so" or "I expected this". I people it shows weakness.
I am an optimist and a fighter. I believe in fighting to win, right up until the end, and if I lose I can feel proud that I never gave up.
Until those votes are cast, we still have a chance. We just have to be in fight mode. We need to cohesively present FFFFFBart O'Kavanaugh to the American people again tonight. We need to call and challenge those "moderates". We need to challenge the process, especially the sham of a background check. We need to show the negative effect this is having on other sexual assault victims.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Never let anyone take your power, even as they take your power.
OneGrassRoot
(22,920 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)It's the reason I have no idea why so many people are opposed to wagering against their favorite sports teams or political interests. I've done it successfully for 35 years.
I can tell when my sports teams are frauds and up against it, like when I wagered on New England vs. the Dolphins last week or LSU vs. the Canes on opening week. The weaknesses are glaring, if you are a balanced observer. I look at the pointspread in those situations and can't imagine anyone thinking it is a true representation of the two teams.
Likewise in politics I currently bet on the Republican at least 70% of the time. When there are obvious spots in which our side has little to no chance, why not take advantage of it? I still root for the Democrat but it is simple to identify the spots in which we have less opportunity than the odds suggest. I mentioned here that I have wagered on Kavanaugh to be confirmed at 44 cents to a dollar on Predictit, and I have also wagered on Republicans to hold the senate at 64 cents, on Cruz to be re-elected at 65 cents, and on Abrams to lose the Georgia governor race at 58 cents. In each case it is exactly the same variable -- simply too many conservatives to overcome.
I'd love to be wagering on more Democrats but I don't see as many bargains. One exception was I did wager on Dr. Ford to testify by 9/28 on Predicdit at 44 cents on a dollar, when scared conservatives on that site somehow believed Dr. Ford would share their fear and not show up.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)I appreciate your perspective on this, especially the attempted dispassion and probabilistic focus.
So, I'll get quantum... is it possible that if the general sensibility is that there is a 70% Republican slant, is it effectively there, even if its mythical, if enough people speculate that it exists?
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)That's the way I would summarize. When I lived in Las Vegas for 24 years in the sports betting world all the sharp guys were maximizing positions by jumping on the early numbers in projection where they would end up. For example, let's say they wanted 10 times ($11,000 to win $10,000) on the favorite -3. But they thought that favorite was too low and would probably rise to -4, due to injuries or public opinion..whatever. In that case they would wager much more than 10 dimes on -3. They might bet 50 dimes. They do that because there is immense value in an NFL game of giving -3 and taking +4 on the same game. They would win if the outcome landed on 3 or 4. Plus when you lock in that immense wager on -3 and the game indeed bumps to -4, that enables countless favorable options like jockeying money lines in relation to the spread or pointspread propositions, etc.
In that market you quickly learn that scalping (arbitraging) and middling are more profitable than merely grinding out winners. The first time I played a middle in a basketball game and it landed it was an incredible rush. That's a 20x payoff because you win both sides. I had $550 on -3.5 and $550 on +5 in some obscure college game involving San Diego State. When it finished on exactly 4 I won $1000. My risk was only $50...if the outcome finished on one side or the other I would win $500 from one wager but lose $550 on the other one.
Realities like that are the reason it is much easier to make a living on sports betting than conventional wisdom allows. Outsiders seem to envision people making a robotic wager on one team or another and then waiting for the outcome like a dolt. Hardly. It is constantly jockeying toward favorable math.
In my early political wagering years in Las Vegas I was frankly playing head to head against suckers. There was no legal political wagering in Nevada. The loudmouth sports wagerers in Las Vegas were overwhelmingly right wing blowhards. This was in the '90s. They were not nearly as sharp on politics as sports and I often took advantage. The Republican slant was in their mind alone and it often did not reflect reality. For example, a few months after the '94 midterm I had one guy give me Even money on Bill Clinton being reelected in 1996 for a huge bet. It was ridiculously favorable from my standpoint. The guy assumed '94 would repeat. He had no clue toward situational variables like an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term, the scenario Clinton enjoyed.
I also was in 16 man betting pools every two years, mostly with guys who tilted overly right.
Once fixed political odds showed up on offshore websites, the odds were quite primitive. For example, if a candidate had a 3 point edge in polling the odds reflected a 3 point sports advantage, like -165 favorite. That was a joke. A 3 point edge in polling is multiple times more meaningful than 3 point power rating edge in football. I was betting on the favorite time and again, no matter which party it was. Eventually sharper guys entered those offshore sites and drove the prices up, but not until Nate Silver became prominent in 2008 did political wagering dramatically change on the fixed odds pricing. In 2006 I got Lieberman to defeat Lamont at -160 (5/8) in the Connecticut general election. Meanwhile, if Nate Silver had already been established with percentages on his site I guarantee those odds would have been closer to -1000 (1/10).
I hope I am answering your question satisfactorily. I realize it is not quantum or brief. I thought it was best to provide an overall rundown of what I have experienced over 25+ years. Predicit is most interesting because of all the markets offered and also the comments below each market. Bettors will describe what they are thinking. Those odds in general seem to be a blend of the 538 number along with other political odds sites like Predictwise and Optimus https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/ , etc. That makes sense because sports odds are the same concept...a blend of the reliable mathematical power ratings.
The political odds on Predictit shift every day based on polling. That's why I say it is reactive. Check any race and if you see a 3 cent shift or 8 cent shift then invariably it is due to a new poll. Heitkamp, for example, was trading in the 40s in North Dakota but last I checked it was down to 23 cents after those back to back polls with a double digit deficit.
The reaction is measured based on the slant. Let's say North Dakota were a Democratic state but polls similarly showed a huge jump for Heitkamp's opponent. In that scenario, the odds would not have moved nearly as much because there would have been a ton of skepticism. When the poll change is in the direction of the ideological slant, and the direction people have expected the race to turn, then the price can move sharply and never come back. Political gamblers don't mind investing 75 cents to win a quarter. Lopsided political races are exponentially more reliable than let's say a 10 point favorite in a football game.
I like to wager 70% on Republicans right now because my pet category is that liberal/conservative breakdown by state. A very frequent occurrence recently is Democrats trying to win a state with 40+% conservatives. It very rarely happens, unless that Democrat is an incumbent. Obviously I hope Beto wins in Texas but that state has 44% conservatives and 3/4 of them say they are very conservative or extremely conservative.
My theory is that the polling does not adequately account for the ideology of the state, and that rigid liberal/conservative breakdown. If a Democrat trails by a few points in a state with only let's say 35% conservatives, that's not an impossible task. But bump it up to 44% conservatives and with a Democrat trailing by a few points, and that is a completely different ball game. Yet the odds seldom fully account for the difference. That's where I look for advantage, taking advantage of the rigid ideology. Let's say Beto trailed Cruz by identical polling but we were talking about Florida, not Texas. Florida has 36% conservatives. There is no way in hell I'd be giving 65 cents on Cruz. I'd be looking to wager on Beto, since a comeback would be significantly more available.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)both the insightfulness of your perspective and how utterly removed it seems from my own.
As Saul Goodman once said, "I'm more a humanities guy."
Thank you for putting in the time for such a reasoned response. Expect one from me (even if perhaps far less informed) in the coming hour(s), as I think through and research your insight and Predictit's model.
Separation
(1,975 posts)I wish I had the brain to keystroke ability that you do!
Vinca
(50,318 posts)the Orange Con Man entered the White House? And I don't mean riding the wave of Obama's economy. Nothing. Trump is a shit machine. To expect anything good to come from Washington is to be delusional.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)If I agreed, I would give up. Perhaps that's the difference?
Vinca
(50,318 posts)FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,219 posts)....you at least don't come off disappointed. And if anything except the worst case scenario does happen, there is a sense of relief that the worst case scenario didn't happen. So you get a little boost in coming in so negative.
Whereas if you anticipate a good result, and it doesn't pan out, you find yourself bitterly disappointed.
And people don't want to be disappointed, so given the choice of optimism or pessimism, many choose to be pessimistic rather than optimistic.
It's just a weird human way of thinking that is understandable if not necessarily rational.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)...as opposed to being wrong about a prognostication when everyone is angry.
I'd rather work to identify opportunity in crisis, and advance surprisingly against my enemy whenever possible. That inspiration doesn't strike easily through a fog of negativism.
California_Republic
(1,826 posts)I dont mind realistic reviews but the heavy pessimism here discourages people from fighting
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)California_Republic
(1,826 posts)That was about a week ago they pronounced it all over. But look a this excellent week of fighting.
Im not looking through rose colored glasses but Im not going to quit.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)I really appreciate your commitment and strength of will.
John Fante
(3,479 posts)the fact that she suffered a heart-breaking defeat not too long ago? Hillary Clinton. There's a reason for that:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/10/05/why-should-you-be-highly-optimistic-if-you-want-to-be-successful.html
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)ecstatic
(32,745 posts)tazkcmo
(7,303 posts)Being positive Is hard, especially in the face of adversity and it is human nature to take the easy path.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Plenty of time for easy after we've gone.
Maeve
(42,297 posts)The optimist just has to suck it up when wrong. Which state would you say is preferable?
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)forgives the offense of the bad prediction, while an unpleasing outcome is so much more undermining for an optimist?
Were all things equal, all things would be equal. The most preferable state would be to be correct about the correct outcome... I still don't understand the 'misery loves company' dynamic that forgives the pessimist and punishes the optimist, nor do I understand the mechanisms.
John Fante
(3,479 posts)vote didn't face setbacks? They did, daunting ones too. But they remained undeterred... and ultimately won. That is true greatness.
Contrast that with right-wingers. Look how angry they remain even after their Fuhrer's victory. Look how miserable Trump is. These are awful, negative people who bring nothing of value to society.
I know whose outlook on life I'd rather follow.
eleny
(46,166 posts)They'll come around because there's nothing to do but fight.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Obi Wan didn't give up when he took one for the team
eleny
(46,166 posts)Right now, this fight is winding down. It's a battle we may lose. But we'll be buoyed when we're in sight of the next hill to climb. And that's actually right in front of us. November is coming and we need to keep busy from now until then.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Politics aside, we seem destined to engage in skepticism for its own sake rather than the end goal of rational thought; our distrust of any institution has become a default position we advertise with witless pride, and our apprehension of good deeds done by anyone other than ourselves is automatically suspect.
"Greatness is never appreciated in youth, called pride in midlife, dismissed in old age and reconsidered in death. Because we cannot tolerate greatness in our midst we do all we can to destroy it." <JMS>
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)The men in the Senate busily deconstructing our mechanisms of consensus are indeed dismissing the greatness of political compromise, for example.
OxQQme
(2,550 posts)of the various aspects that take over the current persona as the guiding force along the path.
I read a book with a that in the title about five decades ago.
Looking back at the previous 'me's' that I've been, there've been years long outlook.
Shifting to a viewpoint that's for a period for which I never gave much attention to measuring it's length.
Defeated is the penultimate pessimistic platform.
Then I go and an outside force comes along and pumps some positive vibes
and I'm all
I'd say the collective conscience of this nation is becoming 'woke' in a new cycle.
So I'm seeking a savior to arise soon.
Surfing into our collective midst on the face of a curling pink wave.
BEACH PARTY!
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)when all posts assumed an absolute bloodbath, and it was all about just how bad it would be for Cons. Maybe there's still some trepidation over that even 2 years later?
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)...part of the reason the Republican aggro strategy on Kavanaugh is causing us such difficulty now.
We still just want the punches to stop, rather than working to ensure we can win the fight.
Charlotte Little
(658 posts)...isn't pessimism at all to others.
I believe a battle isn't truly over until the war is won. We're in fierce battles at present, but the war will wage on because white power is fading. Eventually, the chickens will come home to roost. But between now and then, many lives will be destroyed and/or lost altogether (e.g. Puerto Rico, immigrant families, Americans who lose healthcare, etc.)
We're in the part of the story now where the fan knows what it's about to be hit with. We shouldn't deny that just because none of us can foresee the future. In fact, denying it could potentially bring a far worse outcome. Just imagine if there was no resistance to what's happening in our country currently.
Also, it sometimes takes everything crumbling before anyone will act. It could be argued that losing hope is exactly what it will take for some folks to stand up and fight for not only their own rights but the rights of others.
Hope isn't always what it's cracked up to be. I can maintain hope that Mueller will eventually take down Trump and his god-awful flying monkeys. But if I don't take action myself and do something, anything, toward resisting the current state of affairs, I am likely to be very disappointed. I mean, there's a 50-50 chance of that, right?
So, being positive and hoping is definitely valuable, but it isn't any more so than feeling as if all is lost and fighting as if your life depends on it.
All of our lives do depend on it (think big picture like, say, climate change or nuclear disaster at the hands of the orange turd).
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)That's the scenario I'm asking about. Agree that if it gets you on your feet to face your challenges, its valuable (whether pessimism or optimism).
I'm asking about resignation, not fighting against-all-odds... because to stand and fight even when all seems lost is the essence of resistance... and while sometimes pyrrhic, is always a victory against oppression in itself.
Charlotte Little
(658 posts)...where even if there is hope, some will resign and not fight. Some folks just give up. It's intrinsic to their nature.
Historically, look at what happened with Hitler. We live in a different time now, but it could happen again (I'd argue it already is happening). It's just all happening in slow motion, which makes it harder for people to realize the danger we all are in right this very second and how our lives could literally be lost overnight. And I don't just mean death. I mean rights that ensure we may seek to live healthy lives can be taken from us. Americans may not get the happy ending that we all feel we deserve.
I've told my friends that it is going to take an enormous tragedy to really wake up the "fight or flight" response in the majority of Americans. By then, it may (will most likely) be too late. My friends hate me when I talk like that, but I can see the nervousness in their eyes and feelings of unease. (I like that. Maybe if they get uncomfortable enough, they'll get their asses out on the street with me in downtown LA at every protest going forward instead of looking at my photos of the protests on social media.)
It will take something truly horrific for the masses to act. It's coming. (But aha! I'm a hopeful pessimist! )
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)describing the same thing. It's a spark, that we either cultivate or let go out. Whichever makes us feel better.
As far as motivating the masses, it needn't take an enormous tragedy - only the removal of their opiates.
Literally, as well as figuratively...
LeftInTX
(25,607 posts)The two main holdouts: Flake and Collins are leaning towards confirmation. Republicans will vote for Republicans unless it was something really bad.
In this case, you have an investigation of Kavanaugh who did this as a minor. We know that he drinks and may have lied about his drinking under oath, but drinking is subjective** (it is not illegal) and he has not have any arrests involving alcohol.
Drinking as in having a few beers, being drunk, passing out etc etc. It is about different levels. Also if he was drinking underage while in college, I just don't see that as something that would be seen as a disqualification. I don't think college drinking is part of the background info for Supreme Court.
If they feel that he has sexually assaulted people as an adult, then I would feel more optimistic. I feel that he has but that has not been part of the FBI's investigation unfortunately.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)I hear what you are saying about what's going around in their circles, but their horribileness is a well-known quantity by now, imho. They defended Joe Arpaio, they defended Roy Moore, and they defend Donnie the Con.
Based upon the constantly vile lessons learned under Trumpism, I don't think we should leave it to Republicans to establish, or even pretend to represent, America's moral bar for a moment longer. Their characterization of this situation should be forever met with derision, not accomodation or tolerance.
When they get the kids out of the cages and the swastikas off the flags, perhaps we can talk about their ostenisble right to a moral position. Until then, I laugh at any claim of moral integrity on the part of those who defend Trumpist policies. They've abrogated that right.
LeftInTX
(25,607 posts)That does not make them moral or anything. They have power. More of them are elected than us.
Power does not equal morality.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)...perhaps I'm optimistic that whatever the outcome, marshalling our outrage and continuing our passion - to NEVER STOP FIGHTING TILL THE FIGHT IS DONE - will help to manifest a more decisive and meaningful longer-term victory?
LeftInTX
(25,607 posts)long term, but I'm getting old
AND I live in Texas.
I'm not talking Beto vs Cruz...I'm talking a corrupt state government which is so horrific that it never changes. The rest of our statewide candidates have no funds or anything. They don't even have pushcards or signs.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)and we like knowing the likeliest path. If you walk around thinking nothing wrong will happen to you, you don't prep for the lion in the bushes.
If you prep for there to always be a lion in the bushes, the worst case scenario is, there isn't a lion in the bushes.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)...and by then, you may be too late to benefit.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)Neither pessimism nor optimism have much of an effect on reality. Despite our belief otherwise.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)qazplm135
(7,447 posts)But my hopes or fears don't change reality. X will still happen or not happen regardless of my expectations.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)I can expect a likely result and still plan for other results or work towards an alternative result.
I'm voting for Beto but I don't expect him to win.
My expectation isn't leading me to stay home.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)qazplm135
(7,447 posts)Being generally optimistic or pessimistic does not in and of itself affect reality much.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)Seems obvious but then again, Im apparently an optimist !
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)Isn't necessarily attitude.
People play the lottery not expecting to win.
ecstatic
(32,745 posts)JMHO.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)ecstatic
(32,745 posts)and read optimistic posts. And I think that when people vent and post negative things, what they really need is a pick me up from the more optimistic members.
The only time the glass half full crowd became unbearable and out of touch was during the bush years, when every other day someone was promising that bush was about to be taken down. There's been nothing like that since (as far as a string of empty promises, over the top false hope), in my opinion.
FreepFryer
(7,077 posts)My sense is that there's a resistant, virulent aspect to today's pessimism that seems injected and artificially sustained, as evidenced most profoundly by its combination of persistence and substancelessness.