Views: 236

Written by:

The Logic Of Optimism

wf_093014_Whatever_Glass_Hald_680x300

Is the glass half full, or half empty?

This is a classic question which classifies a person as being one of two things, an optimist or a pessimist. This issue may seem benign or obvious to you, but I see it saturating many important topics today. I wanted to devote a post to exploring exactly how these views can affect a conversation when a person ascribes to one or the other school of thought.

I’ll start with pessimism and why I am not the biggest fan (as I am sure you could have guessed!). The problem begins with a fundamental misunderstanding to how it should be applied. I see a stark difference between constructive criticism, or I will go as far as to call it constructive pessimism, and stagnant pessimism.

There is a branch of pessimism which is certainly very constructive. I will use Nick Bostrom and Ray Kurzweil as examples to illustrate these positions. Nick Bostrom I would consider a constructive pessimist. Kurzweil, on the other hand, an optimist. These are two men who think a lot about artificial intelligence.

Nick Bostrom is a pessimist. He sees all the ways an AI can go wrong and spell the end of humanity. I welcome this position and strongly support Bostrom in his views because he is constructive while pessimistic. He has started organizations like “The Future of Humanity Institute”, “The Oxford Martin Program on the Impacts of Future Technology”, and written “Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies” which inspired Elon Musk to speak about his fears for AI. This man is obviously not sitting around and throwing up his hands in pessimistic defeat. He is actively changing the subject he is concerned about so that it works in the way we would like it to. He is envisioning a future which could go in many ways badly, and doing all he can so that it becomes a future that we want. Kurzweil, on the other hand, envisions a bright future, and sees the evolution of artificial intelligence as happening simultaneously with our own evolution, acquiring artificial general intelligence or super intelligence as we ourselves enter the technological, non-biological medium while it progresses.

Unfortunately, Bostrom’s is not the status quo for pessimistic discourse. Usually, when I talk to people about possibilities of the future, or when I hear conversations among professionals, there is a pessimistic theme which follows the “hands thrown up in defeat” trend. While I welcome constructive criticism wholeheartedly, I am constantly discouraged by people who have no room for optimism in their views of the future. If you look at history, on a macro scale, you will see that optimism for the betterment of the human race has been verified over and over. The world is becoming a better place. You can search back in history and see thousands of accounts of pessimism and apocalyptic predictions for the future, none of which have come to fruition.

Of course humanity has had its hiccups. If you plot any mode of progress the trajectory is positive, but not without dips in the line. The problem is that pessimists refer to their amygdala, the old part of the brain that handles instinctual stimulates and calls for action. It is an important part of the brain, that we desperately needed when life and death was based on external threats we faced quite often. The paradox arises in a 21st century style of living that is vastly different from life of the early hominids. Despite what the news tells us, we are not facing psychopathic killers on a day to day basis, however our brain doesn’t think so. When we see a threat that is reported on the news, our amygdala fires, short-cutting our new, reason-based prefrontal cortex and interprets the threat in our biologically evolved linear fashion of thinking. Suddenly, as far as our brain is concerned, the threat is only as far away as the TV is from our eyes. Our brain shuts out any rational deduction that the threat is actually far away and statistically extremely unlikely to happen to us.

But why not be prepared just in case the homicidal maniac just so happens to attack me? This is a fine and rational way to think, and I would suggest investing in some state-of-the-art home security technologies. The problem arises, however, when the fear driven stimuli distort our view of reality and the way the world actually operates (perhaps not the world as a whole, but a first-world community which lives in relative comfort and has an infrastructure that involves law enforcement and protection for its citizens). When your view of the world consists of a future that is constantly bombarded by destruction and misfortune, then it is hard to listen to statistics and facts which show that the world is actually safer and better than it has ever been in human history. Of course there was a nuclear stalemate between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Twin Towers were the subject of a horrific terrorist attack, and people really are murdered or robbed with some sort of consistency. We can have rational concerns about these events, we can advocate deep concern for these events happening again, we can approach these events with horror and disgust for ever happening in the first place, but I argue that they should be understood within a context which is accurate to the environment in which they occur. The events which account for the consistent dips in our trajectories of progress should not be allowed to paint a picture of reality which has a negative trajectory.

The reality we live in is much brighter than people realize. There has never been a better time in history to live. Ideas have an incredible impact on the world. Our technologies allow them to be spread and infect all who have an open mind. We can make immense change in the world if we want to try. My problem with pessimism is that it is usually not substantiated in reality, and it creates a trend where people will give up because they view the workings of the world as out of their hands. In this view, the human race is doomed, and there is no reason to try to make it a better place.

This is the attitude I have a problem with. I see this pessimism as not only inhibiting things getting done, which is why I would call it stagnant pessimism, but even making an effort to stop progress and the spreading of good ideas. Imagine the kind of world we could live in if people left their pessimism at the door when they engaged in intellectual conversations and only promoted constructive criticisms which had their merit in some sort of objective reality. I find conversations held back significantly and wishing for a second that instead of always playing the devil’s advocate, two people would simply talk about what is possible, what we can create, what ideas the fruits of the 21st century allow us to conceive. I hope to one day create spaces where these types of conversations are made possible.

I think a bias for optimism has some substantiation in empirical evidence. I also believe that when you share ideas with an optimistic approach you infect people around you with that positive energy. My thoughts are based on the work of Matt Ridley who wrote “The Rational Optimist”, and also on Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler who wrote “Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think”. These are great reads for anyone interested!

Below is Matt Ridley’s TedTalk “When Ideas Have Sex”, which includes many essential takeaways from his book.

And here is a TedTalk by Tali Sharot on “The Optimism Bias” which I found very interesting. It highlights some of the positives of thinking optimistically, and also why we overestimate our own abilities versus the abilities of society at large.

So next time you go to tackle a problem, think positive, and trust in your abilities, and most importantly, question everything!

SSCP   CAS-002   9L0-066   350-050   642-999   220-801   74-678   642-732   400-051   ICGB   c2010-652   70-413   101-400   220-902   350-080   210-260   70-246   1Z0-144   3002   AWS-SYSOPS   70-347   PEGACPBA71V1   220-901   70-534   LX0-104   070-461   HP0-S42   1Z0-061   000-105   70-486   70-177   N10-006   500-260   640-692   70-980   CISM   VCP550   70-532   200-101   000-080   PR000041   2V0-621   70-411   352-001   70-480   70-461   ICBB   000-089   70-410   350-029   1Z0-060   2V0-620   210-065   70-463   70-483   CRISC   MB6-703   1z0-808   220-802   ITILFND   1Z0-804   LX0-103   MB2-704   210-060   101   200-310   640-911   200-120   EX300   300-209   1Z0-803   350-001   400-201   9L0-012   70-488   JN0-102   640-916   70-270   100-101   MB5-705   JK0-022   350-060   300-320   1z0-434   350-018   400-101   350-030   000-106   ADM-201   300-135   300-208   EX200   PMP   NSE4   1Z0-051   c2010-657   C_TFIN52_66   300-115   70-417   9A0-385   70-243   300-075   70-487   NS0-157   MB2-707   70-533   CAP   OG0-093   M70-101   300-070   102-400   JN0-360   SY0-401   000-017   300-206   CCA-500   70-412   2V0-621D   70-178   810-403   70-462   OG0-091   1V0-601   200-355   000-104   700-501   70-346   CISSP   300-101   1Y0-201   200-125  , 200-125  , 100-105  , 100-105  , 300-320   CISSP   N10-006   300-208   300-101   ADM-201   70-462   EX200   210-260   200-120   300-101   350-018   300-320   300-101   210-060   300-115   SY0-401   210-260   200-120   SY0-401   300-070   400-101   210-060   N10-006   400-201   ADM-201   CISSP   400-101   300-320   100-101   NSE4   N10-006   300-075   210-260   EX200   200-120   300-320   300-320   SY0-401   210-260   400-201   70-533   N10-006   300-070   210-060   200-310   SY0-401   352-001   300-320   100-101   810-403   MB2-707   N10-006   200-120   CISSP   810-403   300-075   210-060   300-208   70-687   N10-006   500-260   210-260   200-310   70-410   400-051   350-018   810-420   640-875   70-643   200-125   810-403   210-260   70-460   200-101   1Y0-300   400-051   642-467   350-018   400-101   SY0-401   642-181   MB2-707