A neurological challenge to the “worse is better” scenario

Posted by anon / uh on October 26, 2011, 07:01 PM | #

“In time, everyone goes uh-ward.”

Of course, framing this matter as refuting only the “worst is better” crowd arbitrarily restricts the very grave implication for nationalism as a whole. If worse is just worse, then the predictive power of nationalism is entirely spurious, and we’re on the way out.

Is there a biological component associated to optimism? One argument for a biological explanation of optimism comes from Lionel Tiger whose book, Optimism: The Biology of Hope was published in 1979. Tiger maintains that when early man left the forests and became hunters many of them suffered death and injury. He reasoned that since the principles of learning tell us that humans tend to abandon tasks associated with negative consequences it was biologically adaptive for humans to develop a sense of optimism. He further argues that when we are injured our bodies release endorphins. Endorphins generally have two properties; they have an analgesic property (to reduce pain) and they produce feelings of euphoria. Tiger reasons that it was biologically adaptive for our ancestors to experience positive emotions instead of negative emotions when they were injured because it would reinforce their tendency to hunt in the future. Therefore, Tiger reasons, optimism is a biologically induced state (Franken, 1994). In fact, many personality theorists consider optimism a personality trait and not an emotion. They believe that optimism may be an inborn temperament; some people are, by nature, either optimistic or pessimistic.

Wrong.

The latest finding came from University College London (UCL), as reported in the BBC’s Brain ‘rejects negative thoughts’.

A study, published in Nature Neuroscience, suggests the brain is very good at processing good news about the future.

However, in some people, anything negative is practically ignored - with them retaining a positive world view.

The authors said optimism did have important health benefits.

Scientists at University College London said about 80% of people were optimists, even if they would not label themselves as such. [...]

It is notable that the UCL researchers believe The Optimist’s Brain suffers from “faulty” functioning in the frontal lobes. But if 80% of people are optimists, as the UCL scientists also claim—this would appear to be a a substantial underestimate—then the large majority of humans have “faulty” frontal lobes. If Nature gave us such frontal lobes—they must have had survival value a few million years ago and thereafter—it seems quite apparent they have little adaptive value in our troubled modern world.

The more parsimonious explanation is that Nature designed us to be optimists of the type described here, and nothing has changed, and it’s the brains of the much smaller minority of pessimists that are out of kilter with respect to “normal” human cognition.

http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2011/10/the-optimists-brain.html

It’s as though I was right, or something. Could it be that all ‘approach’, all ‘solutions’ — from butthexual Aryan futurism to Linderismo — are nothing but individual reactions to negative information under the influence of a fully functioning anterior cingulate cortex?

Posted by Captainchaos on October 27, 2011, 03:09 AM | #

How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality

So is that PF’s major malfunction?

Maybe this reframe will make him feel better: If enough angst can be channeled into the “unrealistic optimism” associated with a heroic rebirth via Krauty, jackbooted palingenesis perhaps it willl become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  LOL

Posted by Søren Renner on October 28, 2011, 09:47 AM | #

I am sure it will all work out for the best.

Posted by the Narrator... on October 29, 2011, 06:52 AM | #

It’s also a challenge to democracy, and explains why the election cycle continues to spin at the hands of (inexplicably) enthusiastic voters.
Just listen to Nixon debate Kennedy in 1960. The same script is still in use every four years.

It explains why Wal-Mart and every sports stadium from Maine to California still packs em in despite the crumbling economy and eroding standard of living.

It explains forty year-olds dressed like teens and seventy somethings with black/blue hair.

It helps explain why people who earn $10.00 an hour and are in debt up to their earlobes have two new $35,000 vehicles parked in the driveway of their $70,000 (and dropping) homes.

Or how, if you’re visiting a city, someone will tell you about the best places to go for “a great time for the whole family” while also listing the areas to avoid to keep from being murdered. That is a disconnect I’ll never be able to fathom.

But then again, you would have thought that America “officially” hitting 35% non-White and England heading toward 20% non-White, the proverbial sky would have fallen.

It also offers more support to the belief that it will take a Tyrant-King to extract European Man from the current predicament.

...