The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine

The Negative Side of Positive Psychology

This article is from Carol Tavris’ column, “The Gadfly,” that appeared in Skeptic magazine 19.3 (2014).

In his book One Simple Idea: How Positive Thinking Reshaped Modern Life, Mitch Horowitz reports with pride how he responded to a task assigned to him by the teacher of a spiritual group. For a winter camping trip, he had to find heart-shaped pink buckets for the female campers who didn’t want to venture into the icy woods at night to urinate. Round wouldn’t do; red wouldn’t do. He searched for days, annoying his wife, who wondered why he didn’t expend the same energy on household tasks. And then, incredibly, he found exactly the right buckets at a neighborhood grocery store. The moral, he says, is that when you “endeavor past all conventional effort, to the point where giving up seems like the only possible option,” you get “an emotional charge that no actuarial table can fully capture.”

Your response to this story will probably predict your response to the positive-thinking movement in general. Are you thinking to yourself, “Talk about bucket lists! What a charming account of positive thinking and persistence in the face of unlikely success!” Or are you thinking, “Did anyone think about the female campers’ reaction to being given a stupid heart-shaped pink bucket? ‘Thanks, Mitch, but I’ll just use my pee shooter so I don’t have to smell a bucket of urine all night or knock it over when I stumble out in the morning.’ How about those household tasks he wasn’t doing—did his wife tell him to, well, piss off?”

Over the years I have grown quite grumpy about positive thinking. I don’t object to it as a general life strategy, of course; but the oversimplified litany of alleged benefits it produces is scientifically problematic. Over the years of constantly updating an introductory psychology textbook with my coauthor Carole Wade, new research obliges us to keep whittling away our previous discussions of positive psychology’s benefits. In our latest edition, positive psychology is barely a shadow of its former hulking self.

Let’s start with optimism. When something bad happens to you, it certainly seems logical that it is healthier to assume that you will come through it okay than to gloomily mutter, “I knew it. The whole world is against me, including Minneapolis and Tasmania.” In a fundamental way, optimism in the face of occasional setbacks makes life possible. If people are going through a rough patch but believe things will get better eventually, they are more likely to keep striving to make that prediction come true. Even fans of the Chicago Cubs, who have not won the World Series in living (and non-living) memory, maintain a lunatic optimism that “there’s always next year.” This delusion is fine, especially on opening day. Look, Boston did it. Eventually.

A decade ago, studies were indeed reporting that optimism is better for health, well-being, and even longevity than pessimism is. The pop-psych gurus were ecstatic, some claiming that having an optimistic outlook would prolong the life of people suffering from serious illnesses. That hope unfortunately proved false: A team of Australian researchers who followed 179 patients with lung cancer over a period of eight years found that optimism made no difference in who lived or in how long they lived. Before long, for every study showing the benefits of optimism, another was showing either no effect or even that it can be harmful. Among other things, optimists are more likely to keep gambling even when they lose money, and they can be more vulnerable to depression when the rosy, hoped-for outcome does not occur. (Among older people who are widowed, pessimists are less likely to become depressed than optimists.) Optimism also backfires when it keeps people from preparing themselves for complications of surgery (because they wave off practical concerns with “Oh, everything will be fine”) or causes them to underestimate risks.

For optimism to reap its benefits, therefore, we might say a skeptical optimism is required. You can recite “Everything is good! I’m adorable! Everything will work out!” 20 times a day, but it won’t get you much (except worried glances from your neighbors). It must be grounded in reality, spurring people to take better care of themselves, regard problems and bad news as difficulties they can overcome, and get off the couch to solve their problems. Optimism needs a behavioral partner.

That partner was identified in one of the longest longitudinal studies ever conducted in psychology. Starting in 1921, Lewis Terman began following more than 1,500 children over the course of their lives. These children, affectionately called the “Termites,” were tracked long into their adulthood, and when Terman died in 1956 other researchers took up the project. The most recent carriers of the baton were health psychologists Howard Friedman and Leslie Martin, authors of The Longevity Project, who wondered what factors might be related to longevity in this sample.1 The answer wasn’t optimism or other forms of positive thinking. It was conscientiousness—the ability to persist in pursuit of goals, work hard but enjoy the work and its challenges, and be responsible to others and for one’s obligations. Conscientious people are optimists in the sense that they believe their efforts will pay off, but, more important, they act in ways to make that expectation come true. The findings on the Termites, who were largely a white, middleclass cohort, have been replicated across more than 20 independent samples that differed in terms of ethnicity and social class.

Over and over, other basic notions of the positive-psychology movement have melted in the hot glare of evidence. Take self-esteem (and I wish someone would, already). Consider all those programs designed to bolster children’s and adult’s self-esteem by having them repeat positive self-statements such as “I’m a lovable person!” (Comedian Al Franken satirized these efforts in his SNL character Stuart Smalley, who would stand in front of a mirror repeating “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me!”) That works fine for people who already have high selfesteem and are pretty sure they’re lovable, at least most of the time. But among people with low self-esteem, repeating positive self-statements and asserting how true they are (“that’s really me!”) makes them feel worse than people who do not repeat the statements or who focus on how the statements are both true and false (“that’s me…sometimes”). Similarly, when children who have low self-esteem are given inflated praise (“You made an incredibly beautiful drawing, Horace!”), that praise may momentarily please them, but it also often discourages them from taking on new challenges that they fear they won’t be able to meet.2 To be effective, praise and selfaffirmation must be grounded in reality: the person has to focus on his or her actual strengths, positive values, and good qualities and then use them to choose and work toward realistic goals.

It will come as no surprise to curmudgeons that even cheerfulness is overrated. In his paper “Don’t Worry, Be Sad!,” psychologist Joseph Forgas reviewed the many experiments, including his own, demonstrating that being in a down, melancholy mood can improve memory, reduce errors in judgment, boost motivation, increase the politeness of one’s requests to others, reduce selfishness in favor of fair play in dealing with others, and—get this!— reduce gullibility and increase skepticism in determining the likely truth of urban myths and rumors.3 Is that a great finding or what? Skeptics, we have a new motto: Surly to bed and surly to rise…

Forgas was talking about negative mood, not emotion; being in a constant turmoil of intense rage, grief, anxiety, or even joy is rarely conducive to critical thinking. Nevertheless, that muchvaunted “positivity ratio” proposed by positive psychologists Barbara Frederickson and Marcial Losada—the idea that you need to maintain a 3:1 ratio of positive emotions to negative emotions for ideal “flourishing”—was brilliantly debunked by Nick Brown, a British graduate student who thought the original data were too good to be true. He was right. In 2013 he and his colleagues published a damning assessment, concluding that there was no theoretical or empirical basis for the positivity ratio, and any claims for it were “entirely unfounded.” 4

There is nothing new about the positive-thinking movement in America, which was born in the 19th century with Mary Baker Eddy’s Christian Science and Phineas Quimby’s New Thought philosophy. They, like the Stoics centuries before them and cognitive- behavioral therapists today, understood that self-defeating ways of thinking can keep people stuck and suffering. Of course, how we think affects how we feel and how we act. But the problem our society faces is not that more people need to think positively. It is that not enough people are thinking skeptically about positive psychology’s simplistic promises. END

  1. Friedman, Howard S., & Martin, Leslie R. 2011. The Longevity Project. New York: Hudson Street Press.
  2. Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Orobio de Castro, B., Overbeek, G., & Bushman, B.J. (2014). “‘That’s Not Just Beautiful—That’s Incredibly Beautiful!’: The Adverse Impact of Inflated Praise on Children with Low Self-esteem.” Psychological Science, 25, 728–735.
  3. Forgas, Joseph P. 2013. “Don’t Worry, Be Sad! On the Cognitive, Motivational, and Interpersonal Benefits of Negative Mood.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 225–232.
  4. Brown, Nicholas J. L., Sokal, Alan D., & Friedman, Harris L. (2013). The Complex Dynamics of Wishful Thinking: The Critical Positivity Ratio. American Psychologist, 68, 801–813.

This article was published on February 17, 2016.


46 responses to “The Negative Side of Positive Psychology”

  1. Carol says:

    Love this. I see the Positive Thinking movement as being applied to politics. As a super-skeptic, I’ve sometimes envied the ability to lie to yourself, as if you were several separate clueless selves, but I’ve know many smart people who are happy tergiversators. Accomplished self-deceivers. I still can’t forget the basic set-up of this world: eat each other. It’s a nasty, ugly concept to start with. Positive thinking useful to Leftist politics, when you think about it. And optimists more likable, fare better socially, win votes. Take Cruz: he’s right! He’s Right! But loses votes on likability! Political correctness gets a boost from Positive Thinking.Not nice to say, or even think, anything negative. Better not to think about it. Could get you in trouble. Don’t be a nay-sayer. Don’t criticize. Maybe that’s why we’re in such a mess.

  2. Nathan Krawitz says:

    This review seems to back up some of my thoughts about altruism (giving) versus narcissism (taking). Those who are balanced tend to be selfish enough to persue procreation for themselves and personal gain while taking care of others, setting aside some personal satisfaction for the population’s survival as a whole.

    It is easy to see the destruction by those who are excessively selfish. What’s not easy is the destruction of those who are excessively giving. Often, they continue to give to the point that they don’t tend to their own health. More importantly, we initially tend to believe others act and think similar to ourselves. The narcissist tends to believe most think like them, so work to identify opponents to either use or destroy. They also seek out the gullible and willing to advance their personal greed. Altruists assume others are primarily honest and fair, leaving themselves wide open to scams and cons.

    Obviously, we need balance to be kind when it is prudent and selfish when necessary. Otherwise, we destroy ourselves and society as a whole.

  3. Brent says:

    Since this author edits psychology textbooks, I refuse to believe she doesn’t know the difference between positive psychology and positive thinking, which hints at a bias that many in the skeptic community have against anything termed “positive.” Our masochistic species seems to derive some pleasure (or at least pay-off) from the physiological symptoms of negative emotion. Barbara Ehrenreich and the whole lot build these elaborate straw-men over hundreds of pages and beautifully destroy them. Something more insidious and personal is at work here.

  4. Roger Whittaker says:

    I have had my doubts about Trying to make myself focus on ‘positive thinking’ to try to redirect my thinking, so as to feel better. I tend to believe positive thoughts will fall into place, if circumstances are good and our needs are being met. Trying not to be negative, can drive people away from speaking-out when disgusted or annoyed. There can certainly be an over-load of pretense that stifles a persons authentic thinking and behaviour. Some peoples lives are full of disappointment, while others lives are quite joyful and pleasant. So if our thoughts produce good outcomes all round, don’t question them.

  5. Ronnie says:

    Johan, you are so right!!
    “Positive thinking is the father of Positive Psychology”.

  6. Ronnie says:

    George serendipitously hit the nail on the head with his topographical error in this sentence:
    “Positive Psychology is a discipline that has MAD contributions to our undestanding of happiness, misery, and other aspects of a healthy and balanced life”.

  7. Johan says:

    The ladies do protest too much methinks. Positive thinking is the father of Positive Psychology – they just added some pseudo-scientific bullshit.

  8. George says:

    As many others have pointed out, Positive Psstchology and The Positive Thinking Movement are two seperate things which the author has at least conflated. Positive Thinking leads to improve your life by buying into “The Secret” and other such crap. Positive Psychology is a discipline that has mad contributions to our undestanding of happiness, misery, and other aspects of a healthy and balanced life. It has made contibutions to clinical and non-clinical methodolgies and assesments. After all, like attracts like. (Sorry for that)

  9. Hank Lam says:

    I would like to hear an elaboration or critique as (how) these concepts add to or debunk (from) this research:
    Kelly McGonigal: How to make stress your friend | TED Talk
    A long, happy, meaningful & healthy life is my goal!

  10. Susan says:

    This seems like yet another article that confuses positive psychology with positive thinking – two very different things.

  11. Ann Worth says:

    I wonder why this set of claims is any more trustworthy than the original set of claims.

    The present evidence downplaying the value of positive thinking doesn’t seem any different (in quantity or kind) from the previous evidence supporting it.

  12. Ann Kah says:

    To extremes, either Pollyanna optimism or Oscar-the-grouch pessimism is annoying in someone else, but at a lower level of either, I think most people would rather spend time with the optimist. I’d expect that to be true but have no statistics on the matter, and wonder if one’s optimism level has a correlation with number of friends. If that is so, the pessimist might find himself more and more isolated, which might increase his pessimism. This is speculation on my part.

  13. Dave J says:

    It’s all about balance folks. To every action is a reaction, whether it be positive or negative. Positive does not exist without negative, negative does not exist without positive.
    One is no better than the other. Both are a reality.

  14. Buck Bowen says:

    Seems like the author set up “optimism” to be this fluffy delusional notion of affirmations in the mirror, then proceeded to champion himself in its take down.

    The bottom line is “ACTION.” Your thoughts about the future will affect your behavior in the present. Positive thoughts, positive action, positive results.

  15. EJH says:

    Blessed is s/he who expects nothing because s/he will never be disappointed.

  16. Richard LaBrie, Psy.D. says:

    Indeed, positive psychology is different from positive thinking. Among other complex approaches within the discipline, positive psychology stresses elevating strengths and assets while attempting to reduce issues and symptoms. It is a balanced approach. Older psychological approaches tended to focus only on reducing symptoms or problems or issues, and tended to overlook what can be enhanced. I hope the writer/editor makes an attempt to correct the article above. Perhaps keeping “positive thinking” in the text and dropping “positive psychology” from the title would be more appropriate.

    • EJH says:

      All this Positive thinking malarkey is rather insulting. Rather Christian Scientist — you are only depressed because you don’t think positively — it is ALL your own fault.
      Imagine if this was extended to OTHER neurochemical diseases. You are only epileptic because you keep having fits.
      You are only schizophrenic because you keep hearing voices/imagining things.
      You only have insomnia because you won’t go to sleep.
      Don’t keep blaming your hypothryroidism– just get off your lazy backside and DO things. Get your thyroid functioning again!!!
      in fact, to be polite,
      it is a %$^)*&^%$#@# wank!

  17. J.C. Samuelson says:

    Glad others pointed out the author’s conflation of Positive Psychology with Positive Thinking. I’ve long believed the latter to be B.S. and never subscribed to it, but the former – whatever problems it may have of its own – is a different animal.

    With that being said, the article does a good job in the space it occupies debunking the notion of positive thinking and the fuzzy reasoning involved.

  18. Jeanne Aloia says:

    I attended a “New Thought/Science of Mind/Religious Science/church for several years (during “The Secret” fraud). You know, parking places magically appear, ad infinitum.) Then I read Barbara Erenreich’s “Bright Sided, How Positive Thinking is Undermining America”. Having had Breast Cancer, as she did, and enduring the Pink Overwhelm, my BS detecter kicked in and I was freed from the guilt associated with (as I put it) not holding my tongue right when I did “positive affirmations”. How sad the people who died thinking they were not positive enough.

  19. Nick Ireland says:

    Many thanks for pointing out the difference between “positive thinking” and “positive psychology.” Very helpful, given I am shortly embarking on a program of CBT and am already fiercely resistant and hostile to “required perky optimism” and presumed psychobabble. Even though I don’t know how it will pan out as yet. I’m hoping if I can change some trigger words like “mindful,” I can extract parts of the method that could be really helpful.

    Ironically, the reason for CBT due to CPSTD, was childhood torture by the rigid ALL POSITIVE ONLY method referred to in the last graph of this article, Christian Science. I nearly died from a childhood brain injury treated only by “positive prayer,” and 100% denial there was any injury at all. I was loudly attacked as a child for any illness (an “illusion”), as my being entirely responsible for creating the illusion with negative thinking. That’s funky at age three. “Mind over matter!” was a favored admonition, sometimes severely spoken. Actually, many CS children died, behind closed doors, before manslaughter convictions FINALLY started coming into play (long after my childhood). A friend today has one leg due to a treatable bone disorder as a child. As for mental illness, well of course that’s REALLY an illusion.

    The example someone told that it was once thought that polio children should be bullied out of their psychosomatic paralysis. Makes total sense to be.

    The several decades of popularity for “all positive all the time” makes me splutter with rage (or fear), and seems to me utterly deluded.

    Didn’t mean to rant on for so long, but it was so… topical. Sorry, rant over.

  20. Terry says:

    Your article summarizes what I’ve thought for a long time. Thanks for providing a convenient overview of the ideas and evidence that pertain to this issue. But are there any exceptional conditions under which it could be better from a mental health viewpoint to be a cockeyed optimist who engages in pollyannish denial rather than a stark realist who gloomily embraces the negative aspects of existence? For example, what about the terminally ill patient or someone with limited intelligence and poor prospects for a successful adjustment?

  21. Ray Madison says:

    Well, whatever one might think is an overly positive attitude toward our expectations, skeptical thinking as a realistic alternative is overly negative. Curiously critical thinking with an open mind is the more pragmatic road to take. We have evolved to use a trial and error thinking system for the predictive purposes of learning from our mistakes. Use it as optimistically!!

  22. Remo "Uzi" Gwaldabi groove scientist says:

    There’s an old song by the Beau Brummels, “You Tell Me Why” One verse I always thought very accurate and may pertain to this topic:

    You tell me I will find my way
    Tomorrow won’t be like today
    You tell me life was meant to be
    One-third good two-thirds misery
    Tell me why

    Not bad advice.

  23. Brian Pansky says:

    *The post I linked to is very long. For the specific part I was talking about, search for the heading that says: “First, Psychology Itself Is Not That Reliable”. It talks about psychology in general, and provides further links.

  24. Brian Pansky says:

    Thanks Glenn Thomas Davis, I also came here to point out that “Positive Psychology” is not the same as “Positive thinking”. Is it? The author says they are writing a textbook, thus should (hopefully!) know what they are talking about. (not that I bothered to scour the article to see if the author ever reconciled this seeming equivocation, that should have been near the start of the article if anywhere)

    Also, just for some extra reading for everyone, we should always be a bit cautious about the findings in ANY branch of psychology, because many of their “findings” fail to be replicated in later studies:

  25. Glenn Thomas Davis says:

    The author sets up a straw man version of Positive Psychology and knocks it down. The straw man he describes is in fact not Positive Psychology but Positive Thinking, which is an entirely different thing. This article is a disservice to people who seek to apply critical thinking to psychology and self-help.

    Positive Psychology is in fact closely aligned with Cognitive Behavior Therapy. My reading is that Positive Psych is essentially the application of evidence-based therapies such as CBT to the improvement of everyday life for ordinary people, thus expanding psychology’s scope beyond the treatment of mental illness. I’m sure this is overly simplistic, but I’m also pretty sure it’s closer to the truth than the author’s parody version of Positive Psych. It’s also hard to argue with the benefits of such an approach.

  26. Dick Bentley says:

    The curse of so-called “positive thinking” is that it gives stupid people the excuse to patronise unlucky people by making smug comments. This can become pathological, just look at all the ‘cures’ for the after-effects of polio that were peddled in the ‘Fifties. As late as the early ‘Seventies idiots were still publishing books saying that polio paralysis was psychosomatic and that sufferers should be bullied (for their own good) to make them walk again.

    There is a tendency in us all to think “I wouldn’t be as miserable as that if I had cancer! Why, I would be so strong that films would be made about how noble and optimistic I was!” The ghastliness of “positive thinking” is that it justifies this tendency of healthy people to look down on people who are ill as weaklings, and that is plainly evil.

  27. Haig says:

    This article’s author has confused modern Positive Psychology research with the superficial feel good schools of thought like the human potential movement. If the author were to have bothered to simply review the Wikipedia article on positive psychology he would not have made such a basic mistake.

  28. Mac McCain says:

    Just about everything us wrong about this article. Classical strawman arguement. I realky don’t think he read the book. If he did, was he sober.

  29. Dr Philip says:

    It’s embarrassing to see the author/editor confuse positive thinking related pop-psychology with Positive Psychology, which is new and scientifically rigorous, growing field of psychology and medicine.

  30. Marc Schneider says:

    In general, I agree with the article and, in fact, I think what I would call over optimism is a problem with the US in general; ie, believing that there are no limits on what we can do. Obviously, thinking things are good when they are not can only lead to trouble.

    On the other hand, I suspect that having a generally positive outlook on life-or at least a belief that life is susceptible to human action-more likely leads to optimal behavior than a view that all is doomed. You need some level of belief that things actually can be better. Negativity leads to fatalism, which is an acceptance that life is what it is and nothing will change. Moreover, being overly pessimistic can be as unrealistic as being overly optimistic.

    The key, obviously, is finding some middle ground between blind optimism and paralyzing pessimism.

  31. David Jones says:

    I like this statement by Ray Bradbury. Though in the context of writing, I believe it applies to many areas of life.

    “I don’t believe in optimism. I believe in optimal behavior. That’s a different thing … Action is hope. At the end of each day, when you’ve done your work, you lie there and think, Well, I’ll be damned, I did this today. It doesn’t matter how good it is, or how bad – you did it. At the end of the week you’ll have a certain amount of accumulation. At the end of a year, you look back and say, I’ll be damned, it’s been a good year.”

  32. Tim says:

    While this is an interesting and insightful article, I think that the field is more appreciative of these issues that the author implies. For instance, my colleagues and I are seeing the emergence of what we’ve called ‘second wave’ positive psychology, which views wellbeing in a more dialectical way (i.e., recognising that both optimism and pessimism can be conducive to flourishing, depending on the context). We recently published a paper on this idea of the ‘second wave’ if people are interested in reading it…

  33. lee spaner says:

    Loved the article. So many years I thought being so skeptical and an atheist was doing me some kind of harm,according to positive thinking that it sometimes made me sad. No more,I am who I am and strive to be even more skeptical now.

  34. Richard says:

    If one starts from the assumption that an objective of all humans is to have as happy a life on earth as possible, then presumably it makes sense to try and increase the aspects of life that improve that happiness and minimize those that have the opposite effect. Psychology, as a discipline, focused on the latter until recently when emphasis began to be placed on identifying those aspects of life that positively enhanced general happiness for humans. It seems to me that interpreting “positive psychology” as “positive thinking” is misguided…positive thinking may be one of the many factors that improve general happiness but it is by no means the only one.

  35. Al Cannistraro says:

    Modern Positive Psychology dates back only to 1998, and is more scientifically rigorous than the author suggests. It was founded by Martin Seligman and a few colleagues.

    • Eva says:

      I concur with Al. I think the author of this article confuses the New Age movement of positive thinking and affirmations with Positive Psychology, that actually promotes a balanced way of thinking.

      • Mark says:

        I agree with you and all; the Positive Thinking ‘movement’ and Positive Psychology are two very different things.

  36. Simon says:

    Can wholeheartedly recommend Smile or Die by Barbara Ehrenreich as an examination of the more insidious effects of positivity.

  37. Thomas says:

    Nice article! Blind, mindless euphoria cannot be a good thing. If a person actively pursues positive thoughts at every chance they get, they are apt to be not very vigilant or proactive. A high degree of positive thinking is probably self-limiting, because sooner or later the consequences of your actions lived by day in plain sight with unseeing eyes will come to haunt you at night. Confronted with a significant problem or injustice, who is willing to lull themselves over with the phrase, “Don’t worry, be happy”? According to sociologists Allan Horwitz and Jerome Wakefield, sadness’ evolutionary purpose is clear. (The loss of Sadness: How psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow into Depressive Disorder. 2007.)

    Given the fact that we are not sure (1) what genuine happiness is, (2) how to go about optimizing it, (3) whether it can be taught, or even (4) whether excessive positivity may be inherently self-defeating, I hold with those who favor seeking balance in daily living between altruism and selfishness, frugality and extravagance, commitment and freedom. It is okay, even healthy, to feel mad or upset when you miss a job opportunity or lose touch with an old friend so long as these emotions are fleeting and do not interfere with your ability to function in a productive manner long term, as if affected by a potent drug addiction. Do good, feel good; do evil, feel bad; do bad, feel nothing and you might be a sociopath! It is important a person does not dwell on past experiences, either good or bad, for extended periods of time. Conversely, to pretend as if your memories—whether pleasant or not—are nonexistent could cause unforeseen emotional damage to yourself and others.

    Bertrand Russell perhaps put it best, “To be without some of the things you want is an indispensable part of happiness.” Balance gives weight to the various ups and downs experienced throughout life. It is, after all, oftentimes discontent that drives change in man. The sensible, linear life that underlies idyllic conceptions of happiness may be incompatible with the very fabric of human nature. While unabridged happiness sounds terrific, it breaks down under scrutiny as most panglossian concepts do. Live well, whistle while you work, and smile once you’ve cried … though your heart is aching now, happiness will one day come your way.

    • Doug Dean says:

      [Thomas states: “we are not sure (1) what genuine happiness is”]

      Aristotle wrote that happiness is the principle of living well and doing well and is preferred for the sake of itself and never because of something else. In other words, it is in favor of happiness that all of us do all that remains. Sam Harris agrees that the principle of morality is wellbeing – not a feeling but the activity of living well.

      Thus, positive thinking smacks of aiming at the feeling of wellbeing as a substitute for those activities that naturally lead to wellbeing. Genuine health is as difficult to define as genuine happiness. The habits of activities maintaining health are not the same as thinking of yourself as healthy. In the same way, thinking of yourself as happy is not the same as happiness – and changing one doesn’t necessary lead to change in the other.

  38. Nilgün Saracoglu says:

    Since the “positive-thinking” was launched in our lives we all tried (I mean regular citizens – not scientists or researchers or thinkers, or writers etc.) to collect the +++ and the stars related to those positive thoughts.
    My mother a born skeptical, but a great humour, grumpy but loving and always laughing, a lady of eighty-nine was grumbling lately “I’m up to here with this positive-thinking, when people will understand that this doesn’t help, there are other things to do…”
    I didn’t immediately agree with her but I was “skeptical” too about this positive-thinking…
    So, thank you so much for this lovely reading from which I have chosen the last sentence to be my motto…

  39. Ray says:

    So perhaps the alleged Russian saying is true: A pessimist is a well informed optimist. And the traditional advice of hoping for the best but preparing for the worst does not seem too far off the mark either.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how Akismet processes your comment data. Comments are closed 45 days after an article is published.

Skeptic Magazine App on iPhone


Whether at home or on the go, the SKEPTIC App is the easiest way to read your favorite articles. Within the app, users can purchase the current issue and back issues. Download the app today and get a 30-day free trial subscription.

Download the Skeptic Magazine App for iOS, available on the App Store
Download the Skeptic Magazine App for Android, available on Google Play
SKEPTIC • 3938 State St., Suite 101, Santa Barbara, CA, 93105-3114 • 1-805-576-9396 • Copyright © 1992–2024. All rights reserved • Privacy Policy