July 30, 2012

• Realism without depression, optimism without bias

  JDN 2456140 EDT 14:53. (1453, rather important year: Fall of the Eastern Roman Empire.)

   

  One of the most, well, depressing findings from psychology today is depressive realism, the result that in certain cases, people with depression can actually be more accurate in their judgments about the world. Ask them to estimate the prevalence of bad things (homicide, rape, poverty) and they’ll be more accurate. Ask them to judge the probability of a new business venture succeeding and they’ll be much closer to the mark. Related is the phenomenon of optimistic bias, in which non-depressed people will tend to exhibit an overly optimistic view of the world, overestimating their chances of having good things happen to them.
  Both of these effects are controversial, because they only seem to work in certain cases. But the weird thing is, they actually may help people be more successful. Not as successful as they predict, but more successful than people who predict more accurately. By overestimating their chances, people persevere more, and their chances actually improve. The famous rule of thumb is that pessimists expect to die at 70 and do; optimists expect to live to be 100 and make 80 instead.

  These findings are very upsetting to me, because they make me feel that rationalism is part of the cause of my depression. Yet rationalism is one of the deepest parts of my identity—if there were one value for which I would die, it would be this: Reason. Truth. Knowledge. But could that be the very thing that’s killing me?

  One thing that has helped is to realize that even if this is true statistically, it need not be true necessarily. It need not be that the world is simply so bad that being more rational makes you depressed. It could instead be that most people suffer from optimistic delusions, and depression can take away these delusions (while perhaps adding some others in their place).

  So what would it look like, optimism without bias, realism without depression? How do we stare into the face of the abyss and find the strength to keep on standing?

   

  Compare these three hypothetical entrepreneurs:

  A. “I’m guaranteed to succeed. My idea is so brilliant, everyone will love it, funding will be easy, and I’ll make millions overnight!”
  B. “I won’t succeed. Why bother? This is a waste of time. I have no chance.”

  C. “I probably won’t succeed, since most startups fail. Even if I do succeed eventually, it will be a long and difficult road. But I believe in my project, and I believe in myself. I think it’s worth a shot.”

   

  Entrepreneur A is the classic optimistic bias (also your typical entrepreneur). Entrepreneur B is a typical depressive person, who is exhibiting depressive realism; indeed to call them an “entrepreneur” is really not accurate since they’re going to give up without even trying. Entrepreneur C, however, is being quite realistic—they acknowledge that failure is a likely option—yet they aren’t giving up, and in fact they might persevere just as well as Entrepreneur A (or maybe even better!).

   

  We can apply the same reasoning to other scenarios, like dating. Compare these three singles, who for clarity I have imagined as heterosexual men (you can do other combinations mutatis mutandis):

  A. “I’m God’s gift to women. No woman could dare refuse me, or if she did she’d be a fool. I can have any woman I want.”

  B. “It’s no use. No matter what I do, I’m going to get rejected. I’m ugly, or stupid, or my personality is all wrong. No woman would ever want me. So why bother? I’ll just stay home and masturbate.”

  C. “Most of the women I ask out will reject me. That will hurt, but I’ll survive. Others will start a relationship with me and it won’t work out for whatever reason. But that won’t kill me either. I just need to keep trying until I find the right woman. I’m a pretty smart guy, I’m fairly good looking, I have a lot to offer in a relationship. I can do this.”

   

  Once again, single A is probably going to do better than single B, but the price he pays for that success is being completely delusional, and in this case, narcissistic. He’s actually an archetypical date rapist. Single B isn’t going to do well because his depression is getting in the way, even though his assessments of probability are closer than single A’s. The real success rate might be 1%; that means single A who imagines 90% success is off by 89%, while single B who imagines 0% is off by only 1%. But what about single C? He can take that 1%, be even more accurate, and find the inner strength to persevere. Try 200 times, and a 1% chance per trial becomes an 86% chance overall. He can have as much success with women as single A does, without being a narcissist; and his dates won’t have to worry about being raped.

   

  We can do the same thing in the job market, three potential candidates:

  A. “I’m the best candidate, no doubt about it. They’ll hire me for sure. I’m smarter and better than everyone else on their list, I guarantee it; they’d be idiots not to hire me.”

  B. “I probably won’t get this job if I apply. I meet some of the qualifications, but there are a few I don’t, so obviously they won’t hire me. Hence, why apply? Why bother? I’ll apply somewhere that’s easier to get into, like Target or McDonald’s.”

  C. “I probably won’t get this job if I apply. But I definitely won’t get it if I don’t apply. I meet most of the qualifications, maybe not all but I can learn on the job. I’m punctual, I’m responsible, I’m hard-working. I can do just fine in the interview. If I don’t get this job, there are others I can apply for instead. I don’t need to settle for McDonald’s; I’ll find a job that really is advancing my career.”

   

  And I think where you see this is going. Candidate A might beat Candidate B, but Candidate C can achieve the same success without being delusional. He might even have a better chance, because he won’t come off as cocky and arrogant in the interview. He’ll be much more of a pleasure to work with.

   

  So that, I think, is the solution. I’m not quite there yet myself; I slip too easily back into B, and sometimes rationalize it by fear of becoming A. But there is a third option. We can be C: Realistic and optimistic at the same time. Hoping for the future without overestimating our chances. Take smart risks—not dumb risks like an A or no risks like a B. Play the good bets.

  And if everyone starts doing this, then we won’t even see depressive realism and optimistic bias in the statistics anymore. 

  • 4:05 pm
  • 1 Comment