The power of negative thinking

[CO. Hoosier]

For more than a generation it seems to me that many more people are attracted to consuming negative news which causes us to overstate and obsess over the negative aspects of our own lives and current events. Here is an article that explains that our attraction of negativity is a result of powerful biases. I'd take this a step further and suggest that consuming negativity is more like an addiction.

This matters, because research shows us that what we see on the news can significantly impact our mental health. While negative news may influence our thinking through multiple mechanisms, one important consideration is how it interfaces with our cognitive biases, keeping our focus on everything that’s going wrong while blinding us to all the good things around us.​

A headline in response to the piece the NYT wrote from a leak about increased death rates called that model "terrifying". Really? It wasn't terrifying. There are no zombies trying to break our doors down. They used the word terrifying because I believe some people want to be terrified. For perverse reasons, many of us take comfort in negativity, dwell on it, and use it to affect our decisions. This is not only true for us as individuals, but is also true for those who are elected to make important decisions for all of us. A small issue brought focus to this point. Early in March, Trump took criticism for "excessive" or "unjustified" optimism. Huh? My response then an now is that there is no such thing as excessive or unjustified optimism. Optimism, like negativism, is a state of mind.

This has real world consequences. It caused us to spend enormous funds and spend considerable effort to build unneeded hospital rooms and ventilators. That time and effort could have and should have been spent of PPE's.

Time to repost this:

 

[hoot1]

CoH, does this also explain the use of negative election campaigning including negative television ads?

How about fears concerning certain immigrants and foreign countries?

 

[twenty02]

 

[CO. Hoosier]

CoH, does this also explain the use of negative election campaigning including negative television ads?

How about fears concerning certain immigrants and foreign countries?

I don't think negative advertising is the same. Negatives about candidates are intended to get you to vote for the other candidate.

Fear mongering has been a part of campaigning since probably before Lincoln. That's not the same thing either.

 

[mcmurtry66]

For more than a generation it seems to me that many more people are attracted to consuming negative news which causes us to overstate and obsess over the negative aspects of our own lives and current events. Here is an article that explains that our attraction of negativity is a result of powerful biases. I'd take this a step further and suggest that consuming negativity is more like an addiction.

This matters, because research shows us that what we see on the news can significantly impact our mental health. While negative news may influence our thinking through multiple mechanisms, one important consideration is how it interfaces with our cognitive biases, keeping our focus on everything that’s going wrong while blinding us to all the good things around us.​

A headline in response to the piece the NYT wrote from a leak about increased death rates called that model "terrifying". Really? It wasn't terrifying. There are no zombies trying to break our doors down. They used the word terrifying because I believe some people want to be terrified. For perverse reasons, many of us take comfort in negativity, dwell on it, and use it to affect our decisions. This is not only true for us as individuals, but is also true for those who are elected to make important decisions for all of us. A small issue brought focus to this point. Early in March, Trump took criticism for "excessive" or "unjustified" optimism. Huh? My response then an now is that there is no such thing as excessive or unjustified optimism. Optimism, like negativism, is a state of mind.

This has real world consequences. It caused us to spend enormous funds and spend considerable effort to build unneeded hospital rooms and ventilators. That time and effort could have and should have been spent of PPE's.

Time to repost this:

View embedded media

The vast majority of articles I see are doom and gloom.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I would say this kind of incompetence and deflection are "horrifying". Trump made outlandish claims about what he inherited (forgot to mention the 69 page Pandemic Playbook that he basically ignored), but I digress. Basically Trump tried to claim that Obama had diminished the supply of PPE, and equipment such as ventilators that Obama was actually in the middle of doing in 2016 and was interrupted by the election that marked his leaving office...

The problem is that the Obama Admin put protocol and systems in place that they assumed would be carried on and followed by succeeding Administrations because let's face it no one envisioned an imbecile like Trump. I mean Trump not only IGNORED established policies and plans, he actually sabotaged some of the safekeeping mechanisms that were in place and that he inherited. Here are specific details related to your PPE concerns...

2015

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) sponsors study warning of a deficit of up to 60,500 ventilators in a severe influenza pandemic.

Department of Homeland Security study predicts a severe flu epidemic could result in 6.5 million hospitalizations and 2.3 million ICU admissions and “could overwhelm the Healthcare and Public Health Sector in as little as 3-6 weeks.” Warns of “significant shortages in… personal protective equipment (PPE), and medical equipment, including ventilators” as well as of “supply chain disruptions” that could “significantly hamper the effectiveness” of frontline workers.

Document outlines strategy now known a “flattening the curve”

Obama HHS solicits plans for a machine that can produce up to 2 million N95 respirators a day. “Respirator manufacturing capacity remains a critical gap” in pandemic preparedness says a top federal official in charge of project."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...ng-stone-timeline-coronavirus-america-982944/

Those are examples of the ongoing plans Obama left in place, figuring his successor would be COMPETENT. These are perfect examples of how Trump's priority on his stupid wall led to a shift in priorities at HHS, cuts to CDC and US delegation at WHO and cuts among US health representatives stationed IN CHINA. This cut in July 2019 was particularly damning...

"President Donald Trump loves to blame China for the coronavirus pandemic, but new information surfaced over the weekend that the administration eliminated a position last July that potentially could have helped the US get an earlier jump on a response to the crisis, suggesting the president may need to place blame a little closer to home.

The Trump administration told the United States’ embed at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that the position would be defunded, causing her to leave her post in July 2019, according to a report from Reuters’s Marisa Taylor. The embed helped train Chinese public health experts and served in part as a liaison between Chinese officials and their counterparts in the US.

With the administration planning to discontinue the role, the embed return to the US about five months before China began to see its first Covid-19 cases. Under normal circumstances, the embed likely would have passed information about the novel virus to US officials. Instead, Chinese officials were able for weeks to conceal the virus and the threat it posed, leading to a delay in the world’s response to what was then a matter of great concern and is now a pandemic."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/23/21190713/coronavirus-trump-china-cdc-embed-quick

So when Muir called Trump on the fact that he was 3.5 yrs in from what Trump claims were deficiencies he inherited, Trump tried to deflect and shift the blame to people "harassing him". Pardon me but Bill Clinton was "investigated from 1994 on, and in that time came to be regarded as someone who got things done and actually increased his popularity to the point that by the time the GOP House actually Impeached him his approval rating was north of 60%. I guess Trump was unaware that it's possible to not be "too busy" to actually conduct presidential business. This was truly a pathetic moment,in what overall was a train wreck. No wonder he only goes on Hannity and Laura...

View embedded media

I have a lot to say about this, but it has nothing to do with the thread. Delete this, and start a new thread and I'll join in later.

 

[hoosboot]

I have a lot to say about this, but it has nothing to do with the thread. Delete this, and start a new thread and I'll join in later.

Translation: I don't have anything to counter this, but it's kind of messing up my narrative here.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Translation: I don't have anything to counter this, but it's kind of messing up my narrative here.

Why should I counter an irrelevant post? This thread is not about what Trump did wrong or right.

 

[hoosboot]

Why should I counter an irrelevant post? This thread is not about what Trump did wrong or right.

No one said you should. But, it sure looks like the translation was accurate.

 

[Ladoga]

I don't think negative advertising is the same. Negatives about candidates are intended to get you to vote for the other candidate.

Fear mongering has been a part of campaigning since probably before Lincoln. That's not the same thing either.

View embedded media

You are correct. Political negative advertising has the purpose of driving independents, undecideds or "soft" support/opposition away from the subject of the negatives, to drive down enthusiasm for the subject of the negatives among those who might vote for them and to make the subject an unworthy choice. Where strong enough, it makes the subject un-electable.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Why should I counter an irrelevant post? This thread is not about what Trump did wrong or right.

Well, your original post certainly implied one of two things:
1. The mean old journalists were mean to Trump, and as a "consequence", the country spent too much money on the wrong things.

or

2. The pessimistic old journalists convinced Trump, through their pessimism, to become a pessimist, and as a "consequence", the country spent too much money on the wrong things.

Or is it both?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Well, your original post certainly implied one of two things:
1. The mean old journalists were mean to Trump, and as a "consequence", the country spent too much money on the wrong things.

or

2. The pessimistic old journalists convinced Trump, through their pessimism, to become a pessimist, and as a "consequence", the country spent too much money on the wrong things.

Or is it both?

Did you read the link? Doesn’t look like it to me.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Did you read the link? Doesn’t look like it to me.

Early in March, Trump took criticism for "excessive" or "unjustified" optimism. Huh? My response then an now is that there is no such thing as excessive or unjustified optimism. Optimism, like negativism, is a state of mind.

This has real world consequences. It caused us to spend enormous funds and spend considerable effort to build unneeded hospital rooms and ventilators. That time and effort could have and should have been spent of PPE's.

I just responded to what YOU posted. Trump took criticism for being too optimistic, and the consequences were that we spent too much money on the wrong things.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I just responded to what YOU posted. Trump took criticism for being too optimistic, and the consequences were that we spent too much money on the wrong things.

Lol. Nice try. Those are not connected. That’s why I wrote them in separate paragraphs.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

A headline in response to the piece the NYT wrote from a leak about increased death rates called that model "terrifying". Really? It wasn't terrifying. There are no zombies trying to break our doors down. They used the word terrifying because I believe some people want to be terrified. For perverse reasons, many of us take comfort in negativity, dwell on it, and use it to affect our decisions.

While not terrifying in the conventional, "zombie movie" sense, still...

I noticed the article was written in 2019, prior to this pandemic, and therefore, I question it's relevance to today's media coverage.
I mean, I guess the alternative is more palatable:

 

[CO. Hoosier]

While not terrifying in the conventional, "zombie movie" sense, still...

I noticed the article was written in 2019, prior to this pandemic, and therefore, I question it's relevance to today's media coverage.
I mean, I guess the alternative is more palatable:

I actually think the date makes it more legit. Seriously, do you think the article makes a point about where many people are? I read a lot of internet material that seems like there is much despair.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

I actually think the date makes it more legit. Seriously, do you think the article makes a point about where many people are? I read a lot of internet material that seems like there is much despair.

One person's despair may be another person's healthy caution.
Sorry, I really don't think the article is making the point you are trying to pretzel bend it into making. JMHO.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Lol. Nice try. Those are not connected. That’s why I wrote them in separate paragraphs.

Then what the hell does "this" refer to in that latter paragraph? Your post only makes sense if you read it as BVH does.

This is your argument.

"A happened.
This has consequences. For example, B."

And you are now trying to say that A and B are unrelated, that you clearly did not argue what you explicitly argued?

 

[hoosboot]

One person's despair may be another person's healthy caution.
Sorry, I really don't think the article is making the point you are trying to pretzel bend it into making. JMHO.

I don't know why everyone is being so negative about the economic consequences of stay at home orders. I'm not an economist, but my friend Keith worked in a bank and I just have a very positive feeling that nobody is going to lose their job or even suffer really any economic hardship at all...ever.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I don't know why everyone is being so negative about the economic consequences of stay at home orders. I'm not an economist, but my friend Keith worked in a bank and I just have a very positive feeling that nobody is going to lose their job or even suffer really any economic hardship at all...ever.

I get what he’s saying. Over the course of a day take a look at the stories listed on yahoo, by way of example. The vast majority are doom and gloom. For every “reported cases are on the decline in whatever state” there’s ten “reported cases are on the increase in whatever state.” It’s X amount died today instead of x amount recovered today. Even stuff like state Y opened yesterday and now has 3,000 new cases. Well those aren’t from opening; it’s not connected as those cases long predated opening. It’s like the media’s bent is always pessimistic.

One would think this would have a deleterious impact on our collective mental health. . I don’t know. Maybe they’re doing the right thing. Deaths are certainly more newsworthy than recoveries, but I think it’s hard to dispute that the lion’s share of reporting is doom and gloom. And again maybe bc that’s just the way is: things are shitty. I swear the only positive thing I’ve read in a week was about the Uswnt losing their case ( that was for you. Kidding.).

 

[hoosboot]

I get what he’s saying. Over the course of a day take a look at the stories listed on yahoo, by way of example. The vast majority are doom and gloom. For every “reported cases are on the decline in whatever state” there’s ten “reported cases are on the increase in whatever state.” It’s X amount died today instead of x amount recovered today. Even stuff like state Y opened yesterday and now has 3,000 new cases. Well those aren’t from opening; it’s not connected as those cases long predated opening. It’s like the media’s bent is always pessimistic.

One would think this would have a deleterious impact on our collective psychology. I don’t know. Maybe they’re doing the right thing. Deaths are certainly more newsworthy than recoveries, but I think it’s hard to dispute that the lion’s share of reporting is doom and gloom. And again maybe bc that’s just the way is: things are shitty.

If we could get a way-back machine to those golden days when the media wasn't focused on reporting bad things, we'd find ourselves in...never.

I'd humbly suggest that we only notice that the news free market demand gives us is generally negative is when we're feeling generally negative. Your noting Yahoo is a great example. The news you are getting there is based on an algorithm using what you consume as its data.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Then what the hell does "this" refer to in that latter paragraph? Your post only makes sense if you read it as BVH does.

This is your argument.

"A happened.
This has consequences. For example, B."

And you are now trying to say that A and B are unrelated, that you clearly did not argue what you explicitly argued?

Well, this whole thing has now entered the fancy world of lawyering, with logic and big words and syllogisms and shit.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Then what the hell does "this" refer to in that latter paragraph? Your post only makes sense if you read it as BVH does.

This is your argument.

"A happened.
This has consequences. For example, B."

And you are now trying to say that A and B are unrelated, that you clearly did not argue what you explicitly argued?

Pronoun reference is a bugaboo in many ways. “This” refers to to point of the thread—negative thinking. I think that was clear when I wrote it, but I’ll give you a fair point for this.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

One person's despair may be another person's healthy caution.
Sorry, I really don't think the article is making the point you are trying to pretzel bend it into making. JMHO.

“Healthy caution” makes sense for those who have some action to take or plan. That’s not what the article is speaking to. The article is written in terms of people being attracted to and consumed by negativity. This flies from the three biases outlined. I don’t know if I buy all three, but I think confirmation bias is an important factor. People need to confirm their negative outlook on order to feel good about it.

 

[hoot1]

I don't think negative advertising is the same. Negatives about candidates are intended to get you to vote for the other candidate.

Fear mongering has been a part of campaigning since probably before Lincoln. That's not the same thing either.

View embedded media

As a kid during the early part of the Cold War I obsessed over the fear of a nuclear war . I don't think my fear was irrational. The LBJ campaign reinforced this fear when I was a voting adult.

My fear over Covid 19 as an octogenarian is similar to my childhood fear of a nuclear war. In both cases I tell, or told, myself the odds are in my favor, but the fear lingers.

I suppose I could blame the media, the CDC, my governor, etc. for hyping the fear. Instead I think their actions are due to wanting to save lives.

Please note Donald J. Trump wasn't part of my response up to this point.

However, CoH, I must admit, this "fear thread" by you made me think it was a plea to us to buy the Trump proposition that his positive position beats the negative. The positive being don't give into fear and simply being positive will overcome.

Let us face it, the pandemic threat
is way more complicated than the Trump ""positive" version.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

As a kid during the early part of the Cold War I obsessed over the fear of a nuclear war . I don't think my fear was irrational. The LBJ campaign reinforced this fear when I was a voting adult.

My fear over Covid 19 as an octogenarian is similar to my childhood fear of a nuclear war. In both cases I tell, or told, myself the odds are in my favor, but the fear lingers.

I suppose I could blame the media, the CDC, my governor, etc. for hyping the fear. Instead I think their actions are due to wanting to save lives.

Please note Donald J. Trump wasn't part of my response up to this point.

However, CoH, I must admit, this "fear thread" by you made me think it was a plea to us to buy the Trump proposition that his positive position beats the negative. The positive being don't give into fear and simply being positive will overcome.

Let us face it, the pandemic threat
is way more complicated than the Trump ""positive" version.

There are numerous studies and other research suggesting that negativity is bad for physical and mental health. Of course I posted to cause people to think about their individual negativity. The link talks about excessive negativity flowing from three specific biases, I think it's more like an addiction, as I said. I don't think that being optimistic changes the outcome of anything. It's a matter of good health.

Trump is really irrelevant. He claims to be an optimistic person. He claims a lot of things, and I have no way to test any of that. I do know he is thin skinned and issues cringe-worthy tweets about quality people. That's not an earmark of self-confident and optimistic people. If he's truly a positive person, good for him. I don't know why that should be the subject of criticism. I'm a little disappointed that you see this thread as props for Trump. If I post favorably about Volkswagens, do you see that as props for Hitler?