Something almost all effective polemicists have in common is a degree of optimism. They believe that their polemic can – at the very least might – make a difference. You can be as clever as all hell, but if all you do is cleverly convince yourself that your side in the argument is doomed, then mostly you will contribute only a lowering of morale.
Which is one of many reasons why, as JP noted the other day, I like Delingpole so much. He may be a bit naïve sometimes, a bit too boyishly enthusiastic for some tastes. But far better that than been-there said-that done-that seen-it-all certainty that there is damn all any of us can do about anything. Delingpole is always on the lookout for where a difference is there to be made in whatever argument he is involved in, and eager to make it.
In Australia for instance:
… in Australia, climate change is probably a more pressing political issue than it is anywhere else in the world. Australia after all is a ruddy great island made of fossil fuels. It has an economy which is dependent on fossil fuels. Therefore, when Australia finds itself burdened with an administration which decides to put a swingeing tax on fossil fuels – Gillard’s hated Carbon Tax – in the name of saving the earth from “Climate Change” then clearly Climate Change becomes of pressing concern not just to enviro-loon activists but also to ordinary, sane people who worry about tedious stuff like paying their bills, keeping their jobs and ensuring that their kids have some kind of economic future. The Queensland election result was, I suspect, just the beginning. The tide against the Great Global Warming Scam – the biggest and most expensive outbreak of mass hysteria in history – is turning and, right now, Australia is the best place in the world to go for a beachside view.
I don’t know if Delingpole is entirely correct about Australia being the best place on earth to set about saving the earth from the pseudo-earth-savers, but I like his attitude.
I have been ruminating quite a bit lately on the phenomenon of argumentative pessimism, and what causes it.
Pessimists will tell you that the reason they are miserable is that their team is losing the argument, and that nothing can be done about this. Which may, in this or that case, be true. But if, like the Delingpoles of this world, you think you might win, you might. If you think you won’t, then you still might, but it’s a lot less likely. If others win, it is likely to be in spite of you.
But I think there are many other and rather less honourable reasons for argumentative pessimism, less honourable simply because they are based on making various sorts of mistake.
One common error, similar to that made by the critics of the free market when they confuse their own inability to imagine an entrepreneurial (rather than state-imposed) solution to this or that problem that is exercising them, is to confuse one’s own personal inability to win some particular argument with the claim that therefore this argument is unwinnable, by anyone on your side. This is a form of arrogance. “If I can’t win this, nobody can.” Really?
Another error, I think, is the tendency to remember argumentative defeats but to forget argumentative victories. Victories mean that you tend then to move on to other arguments. But when you lose an argument you are liable to brood about it, and to remember it, and to hang around until you can reverse things. The cure for this is not necessarily to abandon fights that you are losing or have lost but believe that you might win in the future. Don’t be pessimistic about your chances of reversing matters. But it is worth recalling all those arguments that your team has won, but which you personally have then forgotten about. This exercise will remind that you although not all arguments are won, arguments at least can be won, because they have been.
I agree, before lots of commenters queue up to say it, that naïve optimism, especially when it takes the form of believing that total argumentative victory is just around the corner when actually it is not – that people “just need to be told” etc. – is also a mistake.
But one of the many reasons why excessively naïve optimism is such a big mistake is because it is yet another cause of pessimism.
I’ve always thought it was interesting that the term “naive optimism” is so common while the term “naive pessimism” is unheard of, and yet naive pessimism is actually quite common. Brian even gave an example in this piece: a person who can’t imagine entrepreneurial solutions to problems. It might be tempting to call that ignorance, rather than naivete and, in some ways, it is. But often I think it’s just naivete about the complexities of human behavior and society, dressed up as hip cynicism.
Failure to appreciate that acting in one’s own interest can result in benefits to others is a kind of naivete. Failure to appreciate that even “bad” people can produce positive outcomes is a kind of naivete. Failure to appreciate the significance of spontaneous order is a kind of naivete. Failure to see how people who believe they are acting in your interest might actually be acting against it, while those who claim not to care about your interest might actually be doing you a favour, is kind of naivete. (Think of investment banks and the people who seek to regulate them). I know people who are pessimistic because of each (in some cases, all) of these reasons. They are naive.
Tedd
Strongly agree about “naive pessimism”. I nearly used this phrase myself, but cut it out because I thought it would need explaining, at the sort of length that you did take explaining it.
Of course, my point about lack of entrepreneurial imagination is that it is similar to lack of argumentative imagination.
Sorry, but, provided we are limiting our discussion to people of some basic level of intelligence, I don’t think that neither ‘naive optimists’, nor ‘naive pessimists’ are really naive. I think that people tend to believe things they want to believe – this, after all, what distinguishes ‘belief’ from ‘knowledge’ (and no one knows the future), and so both optimists and pessimists are, for the most part, “pre-programmed” to be the way they are. Unless you or I misunderstand the meaning of the word ‘naive’. I took it to mean ‘someone who doesn’t know better’ – i.e. someone who is misinformed, and all it takes to correct their naivete is informing them. But if by ‘naivete’ we mean willful ignorance (for better or worse), then we are in agreement.
Perhaps Bryan’s post may conflate two issues; but, the context cited really seems to concern Optimistic Argumentation vis a vis Pessimistic Argumentation. That is, Argumentation and the form it is given are what is under discussion. It is possible I miss the other possible point, which might be the differences in how optimism or pessimism is expressed in argumentation.
As to the subject matter of the context, frustrations, rather than pessimism, may frame the tone and content of the argumentation. E.g., how do the generally sensible, individualistic peoples of Oz wind up with an “Administration” that installs a “carbon tax?” (That’s a frustrating perspective).
Equally frustrating is trying to figure out the “other side’s” framework of reasoning (and constantly encountering issues of motivations for which there are limited arguments).
And hey! If you want to see a broader context, watch the upcoming 2012 U S Presidential campaigns.
RRS:
Yes, I didn’t mean to derail the conversation from the core subject, I was just making an observation about a related subject.
Alisa:
I agree with you about people believing what they want to believe. But I think you’re on the wrong track with your definition of naivete. “Not knowing better” is ignorance, not naivete. (A distinction I briefly alluded to in my original post.) Naivete is a failure to appreciate the significance of something, even when you’re aware of its existence. Traditionally, it’s used to refer to a person who underestimates the complexities of human nature, such as a person who trusts someone when it’s not wise because that person is trustworthy in other circumstances. (The number of people I would trust to hold on to ten dollars cash for me is much larger than the number I would trust to hold on to ten million.)
So, yes, people have a tendency to believe what they want to believe, to be willfully ignorant, and are also pre-programmed to some extent for optimism or pessimism. But that is equally true of the credulous and the incredulous.
I also don’t think people believing what they want to believe has anything to do with the distinction between belief and knowledge. Belief is what you think is true even though you don’t have — or perhaps can’t have — the information to support that belief. Knowledge is what you think is true and can support with information and logic. Your reasons for having or not having the information are irrelevant to the distinction between belief and knowledge.
For example, I believe that natural selection is a major, if not the major, explanation for all life. However, I’m sadly ignorant about the details of this theory and the data behind it, so my belief is more argument by authority than anything else. People I think are credible tell me it’s true, and it sounds right to me, so I believe it. That makes it, for me, a belief, not knowledge, and the fact that it’s a belief has nothing whatsoever to do with either the reasons for my ignorance or the quality of the arguments in support of natural selection.
All good points, Tedd. I guess I didn’t take the time to think things through more clearly before commenting. I guess my main point is that people are pre-wired to various degrees to be pessimistic or optimistic, and so naivete (however defined) or lack of it may be beside the point?
Alisa:
Yes. “Beside the point” is a little… pessimistic, for me. But people are very much pre-programmed toward certain attitudes. (Both by nature and by nurture.)
I guess what I’m saying is that naivete is an issue in its own right, independent of optimism, pessimism, or whatever. I know people who I consider to be naively cynical. They adopt an attitude of cynicism that they think is sophisticated, but fail to appreciate that the very notion of cynicism as sophistication is promoted by people with an agenda. The phrase “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer” has survived for centuries, against all evidence, because the attitude it engenders is useful to people with certain agendas, and because it conveys a degree of faux sophistication on those who use it.
Sorry, I’m digressing, but I always find this an interesting subject.
I like The Delingpole. That, of course, biases me somewhat in this discussion. However, I’m not quite sure of the definition of ‘like’ nor, having never met him, how that relates to him personally. Never mind.
I’d like to add to Brian’s discussion of optimism and pessimism with the additional concept of realism.
The laws of nature (or law of physics if you prefer – I do, cos I’ve been trained in them) do not change, though the laws of (wo)man might change. Likewise the laws of society, and even society’s knowledge of the laws of nature.
Thus, I argue, optimism and pessimism relate only to society: in the belief that things might (overall or in some specific area) get better or worse.
Even this, though, must relate to a timescale (implicit or explicit).
However, experience (over a historic timescale or less) is that the human condition, and hence society, does get better.
The Delingpole, as realist rather than optimist, knows that he is right – and I agree with him, especially on that which he has written on CAGW.
Not everyone that knows (s)he is right, is actually right, but The Delingpole is (at least so far and IMHO). And who cares for a (wo)man that does not truly believe in what they claim to believe: only those who admire falsehood.
So the issue for realists is this: they care not about being wrong in the short term (ie being out of kilter with public/political opinion). This means they care for the rest of humanity over time (even Gaia) more than they care for themselves now or ever – and especially where they are strong for it.
That is an admirable trait – that the truth will out. Hence I admire The Delingpole – which is why I like him, a man I have never met.
Best regards
Smite Control has intervened (perhaps, and amusingly, over the frequent capitalisation of “the”), so please mark this time for your return.
Best regards
to confuse one’s own personal inability to win some particular argument with the claim that therefore this argument is unwinnable, by anyone on your side. This is a form of arrogance. “If I can’t win this, nobody can.” Really?
Closely related as another reason for excessive pessimism also related to arrogance is that optimism is uncool. To be optimistic makes you look naive, whether you really are or not.
But let’s not forget that some people are pessimistic without any arrogance. Their observations lead them to believe that their side will lose. They are very sad about that.
Professional pessimist here:
I’m pessimistic about lots of things. The reason I am pessimistic is I have concluded that it is the most rational outlook given the available evidence.
For example I am pessimistic about the prospect of their being a move toward greater liberty in the UK. I base this pessimism on the observation that the public in general find reductions in the state terrifying on the one hand, and are easily bribed with their own money on the other. I would consider this “Informed Pessimism” rather than Naive Pessimism.
Conversely I find some forms of optimism decidedly unpleasant. I work in academia – a great many academics are very (and I would say unjustifiably) optimistic about their research. Not because they really believe it has any merit, but because optimism is a required component of their career. They have marked out their patch on the academic treadmill, and are going to run with it as far as they can. If you point out some basic logical flaws (for example, the method you are using by definition cannot show what you are trying to show) that is just tuned out as white noise. They understand your argument has merit, they have the capacity to incorporate the implications of it into their worldview – they just chose to ignore it entirely. I would call this “disingenuous optimism”. Yes I am the life of the party in my department 😉
That’s the way it goes though, as Alissa said people tend to believe what they want to believe. If you can choose to believe what you are doing has merit, and carve a career out for yourself by so doing then it is not surprising that people avoid asking basic questions like “Is this even possible?”.
I don’t doubt that, in a 1980’s management-speaky kind of way, there is power in positive thinking. That doesn’t mean we should eschew looking at things realistically.
‘Naively cynical’ is an interesting one, heh. Yes, I agree, naivete is a separate and valid issue.
Natalie: indeed. Guilty as charged. Well, some times…more often than I’d like.
Nigel:
I like your distinction between the social realm and the natural realm. (Not that society isn’t natural, but let’s not get hung up on that.) I always think of optimism versus pessimism in the context of human activity and human relations, but it’s probably true that my optimism is of the long-term sort, perhaps conditioned by trying to see overall social trends as taking place within a more-or-less immutable natural process. (Like Kurzweil’s “law of accelerating returns.”)
For example, I see the long term trend toward less violence as much more significant than the relatively shorter trend toward exponential population growth and the corresponding impact on the environment. I would not be at all surprised to see both population growth and environmental damage become non issues over the next century, to the point where few people even remember that anyone worried about them. But the overall trend toward lower violence will likely continue.
Much of the pessimism I see seems to be predicated on the misinterpretation of transient phenomena as steady state.
Recommend Matt Ridley’s ‘Rational Optomist Blog’ to lift your spirits;
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/home
Being Australians, we don’t see it that complicated, AGW is a load of shit.
There is, for anyone wishing to make use of it… a means to take real advantage of both optimism and pessimism. Quite simply it is to start viewing them both as equal “tools” – mechanical devices of the mind (which is what they are, in truth).
In basic format: Pessimism subdues overexuberance, and Optimism raises depression. They are not the uncontrollable emotional demons that we so often lead to believe. They perform other functions too, which are also worth finding out about.
Attitude recognition in ourselves and others is one of those simple life skills that really should be taught.
All attitudes of mind serve a purpose, understand the purpose and you gain the basic premise for learning a new skill. If you can recognise what attitude you are in, and you know what the opposite attitude is like, it becomes fairly easy to play with switching between the two. When you can play with it to adjust your own attitude in midflow and notice the variety of ways it affects you – then you can start to notice how it affects those around you. Suddenly you find you have gained usable tools and a real skill.
I think James Delingpole may be aware of this 🙂
Hmm:
That’s a good point. We’ve been talking about optimism and pessimism as if they were fixed characteristics of an individual but, in reality, each of us exhibits pessimism at certain times and optimism at others. And, yes, I think a person can learn a lot by being aware of what attitude they most naturally adopt in response to different ideas or different kinds of situations.
Still, it does seem that we each have a natural centroid somewhere on the optimist-pessimist axis. And I think that fact tells us things about ourselves, too.
Optimism raises
depression? Other than that: a great point. Not new, but still worth reminding.
Tedd: yes, I’m naturally a pessimist, which leads me to point out problems with plans. This is actually a very useful thing because the people making the plans can then alter their plans accordingly for a better chance of success.
Alas, they could if they listened, but they don’t because I’m too pessimistic, always looking for problems…
Ayn Rand, ‘How not to fight against socialized medicine’, 1962.
Not exactly what you had in mind, but still. And RTHT.
JJM
RTWT, that is.
Alisa, “optimism raises depression” – yes, talking simple momentary attitude change, it does, and also that’s about the shortest easy explanation I could come up with. 🙂
None of it is new – it’s all part of the “basic” stuff that people read and go: “Oh yes, I should look into that sometime.”… but never do.
Tedd, yes we do have a natural optimistic/pessimistic “level” or levels – we often have slightly different ones for different areas of our life…. a family one – a work one – etc.. we all have roles that come with their good and bad habits, little happy/sad personalities we get comfortable with and tend to slot into without thinking about.
Viewing our habits (especially those dealing with other people) by checking on whether what you’re doing is optimistic or pessimistic is quite a good simple way to check on whether there is a better approach that can be taken.
whOOps:
Yes, that’s the problem with pessimism: you can become an Eeyore, and nobody listens to you anymore. The corresponding problem for optimists is becoming a Pollyanna, and then nobody listens to you, either.
But we all knew that already. So maybe it’s as simple as this: optimists are willing to endure the doubled disappointment of being optimistically wrong in exchange for the doubled pleasure of being optimistically right, whereas pessimists prefer to play it safer, taking pleasure neither in being right nor wrong.
Indeed, Tedd. In fact, I often wish I would be wrong more often:-)
I’m surprised no one mentioned Stoic philosophy, its worth reading up on their rational “pessimism”.
Remember: A pessimist is just a well-informed optimist.