On May 1, 2:34=A0am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> =A0 =A0 =A0Seems to me you're not paying attention. =A0The dogma you've
> described is highly questionable, sure, but not what I'm
> talking about here. =A0My point is that the sunny-sided advice to
> "Trust in our Savior always/To keep us every one in His
> care" runs into the little problem that providing everyone with
> good care isn't something he's done.
Not everywhere every time with a 100% guarantee. What would be the fun
of that?
That life on this earth can be a nasty beast is given. What is up in
the air is can you finesse the system by trusting in our savior always
even though it is clear he will not come through always? Does a
positive attitude or a negative attitude materially matter? Yeah or
nay?
I say that I do not know the answer to that, but oh by the way these
scientists have done experiments to address the question and their
consensus is yeah. And they have evidence. Results. Data.
> =A0 =A0 =A0Asked and answered.
Not to me.
>=A0The programatic optimism you referred
> to (we started with Reik, by the way, never heard of this
> Seligman) is just humming the lyrics to "Keep on the Sunny Side
> of Life," i.e., it's shallow as can be. =A0It's also
> self-deceptive, based on salesman****p while relying on PR-speak
> to reply to life's pains and tragedies, and disguises its
> unreliability by condescending to its critics. =A0Nothing new and
> nothing much.
The Seligman wikipedia article is not bad. See also positive
psychology, Csikzentmihalyi and Bandura. The reason this is relevant
to the Reik business is his explanation of self-defeatism and the
involvement therein of the subconscious. There is no evidence for the
existence of any such object as the subconscious mind, by the way. It
has never been observed on a brain imaging scan. It is a metaphor.
Seligman isn't referring to a metaphor. Learned helplessness is not an
airy hypothesis. He has numbers, charts, regression lines. You can't
dismiss numbers, charts and regression lines as shallow as can be,
unlike this subconsious mind metaphor, which you can dismiss as
shallow as can be, which I am not planning on doing so, since I have
often found it useful myself, in spite of this glaring flaw.
Bukvich
['Funk 49.']
|
