Last week, The Daily Pennsylvanian asked “Does Positivity Cripple the U.S.?” after hearing Barbara Ehrenreich speak in College Hall about her new book, Bright-Sided: How The Relentless Promotion Of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America. According to reports, her talk was an argument against positive thinking and smiles. Seriously.
Although we did not attend the talk or review a pre-released copy of the book, a few things about Ehrenreich are clear. According to the DP and The New York Times, she finds herself “infuriated” by teddy bears and frustrated by upbeat T-shirts. Positivity and optimism are “the strongest sources of negativity in our society” she claims — and optimism is “just too damn much work” to be a worthwhile pursuit. However, we resist the urge to dismiss Ehernreich outright as a grump.
Ehrenreich is critical of “bogus” and “false” and “unsullied” optimism. Fine. But such specific modifiers mean that there must be a “genuine,” “real” and “authentic” optimism out there — something imperfect but grounded in reality. In fact, realistic optimism is the bedrock of positive psychology — the scientific study of well-being. When carefully defined, optimism is about seeing opportunity in challenge, identifying the limitations of bad events and finding hope in the most dire of times. Optimism is what got Barack Obama elected.
In practice, what is the difference between optimism and pessimism? A pessimist examines a situation and can identify only the most dire possible outcomes. Case in point: Ask a good attorney to review a contract, and she will point out everything that might possibly harm you in its execution. Planning for the worst situation is a good thing when it comes to attorneys and airline pilots. But artists and authors and athletes flourish as optimists, when they take a chance and try to do better, and more, than their predecessors.
This isn’t just a matter of semantics — it’s science. Research started decades ago shows that Penn students who are optimists perform better in school and exhibit fewer signs of anxiety and depression than those who are pessimists. Today, every freshman in Wharton is required to complete the PennSTART program to learn how to enhance optimism skills through resilience training. In last week’s DP, columnist Maya Brandon called for PennSTART to become available to students in all schools.
In her talk, Ehrenreich reportedly railed against smiling. But research shows that people who exhibit genuine smiles in a high-school yearbook picture are less-likely to be divorced in their mid-50’s. And a happy physician reaches a faster, more accurate diagnosis of a difficult liver condition. Positivity levels were the difference between life and death for the Sisters of Notre Dame. Nuns who expressed the most positivity throughout life lived an average of 6.9 years longer than those who expressed the least.
But some of the most striking research shows that emotions of the heart, like hope and optimism are good … for the heart. Pessimistic men who suffered heart attacks were 86 percent more likely to die of another heart attack within 10 years. Only 33 percent of the most optimistic patients suffered the same fate. Put more bluntly, being a pessimist has the same effect on heart health as smoking about three packs of cigarettes a week. These findings are nothing to sneeze at — unless, of course, you’ve got a cold. If so, your roommate should hope he is an optimist — optimists have a significantly reduced chance of catching a cold, compared to pessimists.
Authentic happiness and realistic optimism have been rigorously studied around the world. Some of the best work comes from Penn’s own Martin Seligman, Ph.D., the Fox Leadership Professor of Psychology. Seligman and his colleagues have developed tests to let you measure your own optimism and happiness. The tests are available for free, at happier.com. Is your glass half empty, or half full?
Andrew Rosenthal and Doug Hensch are both Penn graduates. They are the co-founders of happier.com and can be reached at the web site.
Comments
happiness
Can Andrew Rosenthal and Doug Hensch seriously write that they are prepared to comment on a talk that they didn't attend and a book they hadn't read? Evidence free journalism is like a Twinkee - it may taste good but there's nothing nutritious about it.
ad hominem, straw man, and false support
rpsloan is correct. These authors engage ad hominem and straw man arguments in this dishonest piece. You can see that Ehrenreich is not advocating pessimism if you watch her interview on democracynow.org. The disclaimer revealing sloppy journalism does not excuse the false assertions in their ad hominem opening.
Ehrenreich discusses a learned obsession with positive thinking. The authors refer to the work of distinguished Penn researcher, M. Seligman, to support their attacks. But look at this review and ad for his book:
"Non-negative thinking, not positive thinking, is the key to success, according to Martin Seligman author of Learned Optimism: How To Change Your Mind And Your Life."
http://www.bainvestor.com/Learned-Optimism.html
Seligman does not support this false dichotomy of the authors. This hatchet job of Ehrenreich is worse than twinkee journalism.
give the gal a break!!
Erenreich comes to her point of view, in part, based on the additional burdens placed on her as a breast cancer patient to be "positive" and "smile"....she is onto something legitimate here....enough with the teddy bears, and pink ribbons and creating an iconograpy of hope, based on the assumptions that "it's good for you", and will "heal you"....so conversely, if you are not positive enough, or smile enough, the universe will punish you? If you get a cancer relapse, it's your fault? You didn't believe enough in the amorphous sense of good karma? Really. Prepared to offer that same advice to kids with cancer? Doubtful.
Rosenthal and Hensh make some important substantive points. But their argument would be alot stronger had they seen Erenreich in any of these forums... I saw her on Jon Stewart last week....she is a brass tack kinda gal....and she has more than earned her right to be something of a curmudgeon...she is a terrific and insightful writer who narrates an important take on yet another "slice of life" in contemporary Americana....
Donna Gentile O'Donnell