The media is highly pessimistic. So yeah when you look at the world you are looking at the world through a biased lens of pessimism. Pessimsim draws attention and sells hence the media creates a sort of negative viewpoint of the world.
But here's the weird part. Most individuals bias towards optimism. Most people are unable to see the hard truths of the world or even about themselves. The world is indeed cruel and hard and on the individual level people can't admit certain things about themselves. We see the world through rose colored lenses.
When people look at the world or news, they think everything is going to shit. But on the individual level when they look at things locally or at themselves, things are actually a bit too positive. People lie to themselves.
It's a strange dichotomy.
You will note that no one on this thread talks about what goes in between pessimism and optimism. What is the middle ground? That's how deluded everyone is. They read her article and buy into her BS. To be pessimist is to be negatively biased. To be optimist is to be positively biased. Logically the middle ground will then be unbiased.
Truth is what lies in between positive and negative biases. I choose to be unbiased. I choose to not be pessimistic or optimistic. I choose truth.
I think pragmatism would be the middle ground, or 'dealing with reality as best you can'.
I don't think it's possible to actually sit perfectly in the middle, won't you always end up thinking slightly positively or negatively about whatever situation comes up?
In that case I think that 'Expect the best but prepare for the worst' is a good mindset to have.
You don't get it. Your blindness is laid bare by this example.
You present this example to me as if the truth doesn't even matter. WHY did the person throw the rock? That is the truth behind it all. Seems like a critical part of a hypothetical situation that is entirely missing from your example.
Your biases are so strong that you didn't even feel a need to mention it. It's like talking about a flying turtle without describing why or how the turtle can fly. You inserted so much emotion and violence into this hypothetical situation that basically you are blinded by the fact that it's missing a critical point.
And that is the essence of what I'm talking about. A state of mind. If you can't view the situation neutrally. Then you are crippled. Forever blind from asking the critical question and realizing the ultimate truth.
But let's be straight here. The OP of this article is not in an emotionally charged situation. She's a neutral arbiter observing a changing world shielded from all the flying rocks being thrown all over the place. And from this neutral vantage point she makes a choice... she says, I choose to be biased... I choose to lie to myself... I choose to be an optimist.
But here's the weird part. Most individuals bias towards optimism. Most people are unable to see the hard truths of the world or even about themselves. The world is indeed cruel and hard and on the individual level people can't admit certain things about themselves. We see the world through rose colored lenses.
When people look at the world or news, they think everything is going to shit. But on the individual level when they look at things locally or at themselves, things are actually a bit too positive. People lie to themselves.
It's a strange dichotomy.
You will note that no one on this thread talks about what goes in between pessimism and optimism. What is the middle ground? That's how deluded everyone is. They read her article and buy into her BS. To be pessimist is to be negatively biased. To be optimist is to be positively biased. Logically the middle ground will then be unbiased.
Truth is what lies in between positive and negative biases. I choose to be unbiased. I choose to not be pessimistic or optimistic. I choose truth.