Probably old stuff for many of you, but I just happened to stumble upon Max More's Dynamic Optimism this weekend. What a tremendous perspective on how the world can work, and how we ought to work within it. I was particularly taken by More's opening paragraph:

Angry faces filled the meeting room in my Oxford college. A student presented to the meeting yet another proposal for a protest. Righteous wrath amplified her voice as she spoke of a letter condemning corporations investing in South Africa. During the 1970s, the protests had been against nuclear weapons, nuclear power, and pollution. During the mid-80s, while I studied at Britain’s Oxford University, the protesters complained about apartheid, hunger, poverty, and the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher. Surrounded by gloomy, pessimistic protestors, I realized that the object of the protest was not the important thing. What mattered was simply to protest, to be against something or someone. These often well-intentioned people had adopted protest as an approach to life.

Another reason why we don't "do" politics on The Speculist; so much political discourse these days -- especially on the web -- is primarily about what people are against. Being for something just seems like a much more straightforward way to get things done, doesn't it? Of course, there are things that we're against. I have gone the record as being pretty down on death, for example. But I don't spend a lot of time railing against death. I've written a lot more about how life can be made longer, richer, and happier than I have about how awful death is.

There's probably an 80-20 rule that can be applied here. If we spend at least 80% of our time being for positive changes and not more than 20% of our time working against bad stuff, that's probably a pretty good mix.

Here's More's outline of the dynamic optimist approach:

INTERPRETING EXPERIENCE POSITIVELY:

(1) Selective Focus: Emphasizing the enjoyable, constructive, open aspects of life.

(2) Refraining from Complaining: Avoiding pointless complaining and whining about one’s difficulties. Taking the world as it is and not complaining that life isn’t fair.

(3) Questioning Limits: A constructive skepticism that challenges the limiting beliefs held by ourselves, our associates, and our society. A fundamental creative openness to possibilities.

(4) Sense of Abundance: Feeling free to do what you want, rather than feeling compelled by circumstances or people. Recognizing the world to be full of opportunities. Being for things, not against things.

(5) Humor: Seeing one’s own shortcomings with a sense of humor. Allowing healthy, good-natured humor to reveal new perspectives and combat dogmatic thinking.

INFLUENCING OUTCOMES POSITIVELY:

(6) Rational: Using reason rather than being lead by fears and desires. Objectively assessing situations and taking action based on understanding reality apart from our wishes.

(7) Self-Improving: Optimists see the self as a process and seek continual improvement. Their drive to improve is not pushed by fear but pulled by a inspiring self-image.

(8) Experimental: Frequently trying fresh approaches, staying out of ruts, actively seeking more effective ways of achieving goals, and being willing to take calculated risks.

(9) Self-Confident: Believing that we can bring about good things. A fundamental conviction of competence in living.

(10) Self-Worth: Believing one is worthy of success and happiness. Without this, attempts to improve one’s life will lack motivation.

(11) Personal Responsibility: Taking charge and creating the conditions for success. Being aware of how we determine our chances of success. This crucially involves integrity: living according to one’s values.

(12) Selecting Environment: Being attracted to positive people and situations. Seeking out those who will support and inspire, not discourage, distract, and undermine.

It's an excellent approach. I can't find much to disagree with. What a tonic this is after our recent discussions (here and here) about a very different "positive" approach to life.

By all means, read the whole thing if you haven't before. And if you have read it, it might be worth a second pass.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, as I tout optimism, Michael Anissimov finds common ground with a self-described Luddite.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 09:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

`Bear in mind then, that Brag is a good dog, but Holdfast is a better. Bear that in mind, will you?' repeated Mr Jaggers, shutting his eyes and nodding his head at Joe, as if he were forgiving him something. `Now, I return to this young fellow. And the communication I have got to make is, that he has Great Expectations.'

Dickens, Great Expectations

In the upcoming current edition of FastForward Radio, Stephen and I spend some time talking about our recent discussion about The Secret, and what our views on that matter have to say about where The Speculist fits on a scale from the completely skeptical to the completely mystical/credulous. Without giving too much away about a show that's still in production that you can just go listen to, I will just say that at this site, we are quick to entertain any idea that entertains us, but we don't spend a lot of time on ideas that don't have a solid basis in science and technology.

Which isn't to say that science and technology are the only worthwhile subjects that might be discussed. The folks who write for The Speculist would probably have a lot to say about religion, for example -- seeing as we are mostly people of faith -- but along with politics, it is one of the two topics we generally avoid. (With a few notable exceptions.) Those subjects are taboo not because they aren't interesting or because we wouldn't have a lot to say about them, but rather because:

1. They already get plenty of coverage elsewhere in the blogosphere, and

2. They tend to take over, leaving little time or room for other discussions.

Anyway, there are plenty of other topics that we haven't spent a lot of time on, except to have some fun with them. Things like UFOs, for example. We don't write about UFOs because they aren't particularly interesting to us; and they aren't particularly interesting to us because we don't think there's much of anything there. The real world can prove much more exhilarating than imaginary substitutes. Take sea monsters: an actual sea monster captures the imagination in a way that the mythical one can't.

Likewise, The Secret offers us a world of infinite possibility accessible by means of the fact that our minds control physical reality. That's nice, but speaking as someone not yet thoroughly convinced that my mind does control physical reality, I am nonetheless astounded by the future of limitless possibility that lies before us. In one of the earliest entries at The Speculist, written about three and a half years ago, I dashed off a list of items that I believed we have a pretty good shot at being able to live to see. At the time, I labeled these items the "extremely good news."

On the one hand, that's correct. It is good news that all of these items lie within the possibility space of humanity. But on the other hand, there's nothing particularly extreme about this list. These are just a few possibilities that lie far beyond the scope of what most practitioners of The Secret ever think about, and yet they lie well within the scope of what is attainable by humanity. These are not our Great Expectations; they're just our reasonable expectations.

Preserving and Nurturing the Biosphere

1. Methods of production that generate zero pollutants

2. Energy sources that produce zero pollutants

3. Reversing of previous environmental damage

4. Human population levels with zero negative environmental impact

5. Preservation of natural habitat for all living species

6. The long-term survival of all living species

7. The retrieval of lost species

8. The creation of new species and new biospheres

Standards of Living

1. Eradication of hunger worldwide

2. Adequate clean water, housing, clothing, for all

3. Medical care for all

4. Access to technology and knowledge for all who want it

5. Total economic independence for individuals and groups who desire it

Indefinite Human Lifespan

1. Eradication of aging and infectious disease

2. Quick, effective treatment for any kind of cancer

3. Effective prevention/cures for heart disease, diabetes, other chronic diseases

4. Suspension of life not sustainable by current means

5. The transfer of human consciousness to new media

Work

1. Work necessary for economic viability, not for economic survival

2. Continued blurring of line between work and play

3. Full immersion VR to eliminate distance

4. Artificial Intelligences to assist us in work

Recreation

1. Artificial Intelligences to entertain and befriend us

2. Full immersion VR to simulate any experience

3. Consumer model of entertainment rivaled by producer/participant model

(Amazing how much things can change in such a short period of time. Look at item 3 in the immediately preceding category. I'd say we're well on our way with that one.)

Stephen was taken to task in the comments section of the aforelinked discussion of The Secret for suggesting that a person's goals should be "realistic." But I think he would agree that everything on this list is not only realistic, but quite reasonable. With a future this bright within our grasp, who needs spooky magic powers?

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 07:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

As of this morning, The Secret is the #2 ranked book on Amazon.com, lagging behind only the new Harry Potter. As featured recently on Oprah and spoofed even more recently on SNL, The Secret purports to reveal the long-guarded principle that lies behind all human achievement. The publisher's blurb puts it this way:

Fragments of a Great Secret have been found in the oral traditions, in literature, in religions and philosophies throughout the centuries. For the first time, all the pieces of The Secret come together in an incredible revelation that will be life-transforming for all who experience it.

In this book, you'll learn how to use The Secret in every aspect of your life -- money, health, relationships, happiness, and in every interaction you have in the world. You'll begin to understand the hidden, untapped power that's within you, and this revelation can bring joy to every aspect of your life.

The Secret contains wisdom from modern-day teachers -- men and women who have used it to achieve health, wealth, and happiness. By applying the knowledge of The Secret, they bring to light compelling stories of eradicating disease, acquiring massive wealth, overcoming obstacles, and achieving what many would regard as impossible.

Cool! Now who wouldn't want to know that secret? Having seen the DVD version a while back, I can tell you what The Secret is. It's something the author refers to as "The Law of Attraction," the idea that thoughts become reality. So basically, if we want a certain thing to happen, we need to focus our attention on that thing, affirm its happening, visualize its happening, be very positive, eliminate negative thoughts, and voila! We get that thing we're focused on, whatever is is, ultimately because its our thoughts that control the universe.

Now the trouble with something the like the Law of Attraction is not that it would be hard to prove that it exists -- that would actually be a pretty straightforward exercise, as I'll explore later. Somehow, the burden of proof gets turned around on these things, and it is quickly asserted that you can't prove that there is no Law of Attraction. After all, any anecdotal evidence of focusing on an outcome that never shows up will merely be taken as a lack of commitment, focus, or positive attitude on the part of the individual trying to apply the law.

On its own, the Law of Attraction is probably not a bad idea and it almost certainly works up to a point. Putting aside just for a moment the question of whether our thoughts control reality, I don't see how it could possibly hurt to affirm, visualize, and spend a lot of time thinking about whatever it is you are trying to get done in this world. Ought to help, really.

But when you throw in that part about thoughts controlling the universe, it becomes a problem. There is some highly controversial scientific research which suggests that thought can affect physical outcomes to an extremely limited extent. And there are some ideas that get batted around in quantum mechanics which suggest an important, if not essential, role for conscious observers. But there's nothing coming close to scientific evidence supporting the Law of Attraction.

So what to do?

It occurs to me that a number of years ago, a significant test of the Law of Attraction was carried out by a large number of mostly young men, I'm assuming mostly in North America. These young men were engaged in focusing upon a common image, all with a very specific desired outcome in mind. They spent hours visualizing this outcome over and over. Their focus was quite intense. For those who might not be familiar with the experiment that I'm talking about or the image that inspired it, here's a reproduction:

Keep in mind, this reproduction is scaled down. Most of the young men participating in the this ad-hoc experiment had very large copies of this picture, usually hanging on their bedroom wall where they could achieve a certain amount of privacy while focusing on the desired outcome as intently as possible. Think about it -- thousands if not millions of young men giving great focus and affirmation to a certain desired outcome. If anything was ever a test of the Law of Attraction, this was surely it.

So if anyone reading this was a participant in this experiment (I probably would have been, but my mother would never have allowed me to hang such a racy picture up in our house), I'd like to hear from you. I'm especially interested in any of you who actually met and subsequently...shall we say dated Farrah Fawcett. Your experience will be proof positive that The Secret works!

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 01:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (22)

UPDATE 01/18/07, 08:05 AM MST: Just added this little tidbit about the apparent discovery of a cure for cancer. But no need to get all excited or anything!

What do you know, there's been some activity recently over on our sister blog. Check these out:

In the near future, will we all be traveling on missile-proof jets? I certainly hope so...

Better all the time: your good news round-up now available in video form!

So, you know, stop by. You'll be glad you did.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Some of these are better than others, but I really enjoyed this one:

I am optimistic about the only thing—by definition—that we can be optimistic about: the future. When I tally up the plus and minuses at work in the world, I see progress. Tomorrow looks like it will be better than today. Not just progress for me, but for everyone on the planet in aggregate and on average.

No sane person can ignore the heaps of ills on this planet. The ills of the environment, of inequality, of war and poverty and ignorance, and the ills of body and soul of many billion inhabitants are inescapable. Nor can any rational person ignore the steady stream of new ills that are bred by our inventions and activities, including ills generated by our well-intentioned attempts to heal old ills. The steady destruction of good things and people seems relentless. And it is.

But the steady stream of good things is relentless as well. Who can argue with the goodness of antibiotics—even though they are over-prescribed? Electricity? Woven cloth? Radio? The list of desirable things is endless. While they all have their downsides, we acknowledge the goodness of these inventions by purchasing them in bulk. And to remedy currently perceived ills, we keep creating new good things.

Read the whole thing. And then maybe give a few of the others a try.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 09:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Candide, amazed, terrified, confounded, astonished, all bloody, and trembling from head to foot, said to himself, "If this is the best of all possible worlds, what are the others?"

Candide, Chapter 6
Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire

Via El Jef, a quote from Lileks that sums it all up, really:

We can argue about all manner of strategies now, but there's one division that counts more than any other, and it’s fundamental and pervasive. Pessimism or optimism.One’s very satisfying. The other’s hard. I’d say we don’t have any choice, but we do, and that choice may undo us yet.

May, I said. I’m naturally pessimistic, and I hate it, and fight it. Cautious optimism: methadone for cynics.

As Lileks points out, optimism has an image problem -- it's not cool. Those who adopt an optimistic outlook get to be smeared with all kinds of epithets: naive, lazy, nonserious, delusional. To be sure, we have dubbed the brand of optimism that we peddle from this particular bandwagon "serious optimism." Picking up on the Candide quote from above, here's how I defined the term three years ago:

Voltaire's revulsion for philosophical optimism was a palpable thing. He dragged poor Candide and friends through hundreds of pages of battles, plagues, torture, and other horrors, always to Dr. Pangloss' absurd refrain that this is, indeed, the "best of all possible worlds." We might think that a short story would have made the point as well as a novel, but it doesn't seem that Voltaire wanted merely to dispute what he considered a shallow and utterly facile system of thought. He wanted to destroy it.

I would have to second that impulse.

The Lisbon earthquake that inspired Voltaire to write his novel was, in a sense, the 9/11 of its day. It was obviously not an act of terrorism, but it was a huge, unexpected catastrophe which raised many questions about the meaning of life and our place in the universe. Imagine anyone (other than an outright terrorist psychopath) having the gall to suggest that 9/11 was not only a good thing, but that it was the best thing that could happen, and a key ingredient in making this world the best place it could possibly be. When we consider that it was this attitude that Voltaire challenged with his novel, we might go so far as to suggest that he should have written a few hundred more pages.

Voltaire's rejection of philosphical optimism is a lynchpin of Enlightenment thinking that remains with us to this day. Unfortunately, that well-placed mistrust has spread, diffusing itself into a sort of vague cynicism towards all hopeful modes of thought. Those who turn up their nose at superficial "best of all possible worlds" scenarios will sometimes hastily shun any sort of optimism. And that's a mistake.

There is a kind of optimism that is not informed by wishful thinking nor driven by a desire to make everything seem (no matter what) to come out "right," but that is grounded in science and driven by realistic extrapolation of current capabilities. This is the optimism that talks not just about benefits, but about risks and downsides and the need for better understanding. Ironically, it is this kind of optimism that tends to gives us our most vivid and positive glimpses into the future. After all, who is really the more optimistic: the philospher who tries to paint a happy face on a tragedy, or the seismologist who works on developing warning systems, and the engineer and the architect who work to design buildings that can withstand the next quake? One takes an image of what we know to be bad and tells us that it's good; the others create an image of good things that can be.

It's easy to draw the hell-in-a-handbasket scenarios. The media, thriving on bad news and extremes of any sort, always push for this sort of thing. Plus, our political culture is -- any more -- pretty much predicated on making the case that the other guys are going to destroy the world if we allow them to have / continue to have power (depending on which angle the argument is being made from.) But this is all art-student angst. It can't quite ring true today from the media or the political establishment any more than it could a few years ago when some of my classmates -- healthy kids whose parents had given them a four-year ticket to do whatever they wanted -- announced that life was a pile of crap.

Voltaire's novel ends with our hero more or less happily settled down with his love interest, who becomes, unfortunately, kind of persnickety and not much to look at as the years go by, but a talented pastry chef nonetheless. In the final lines, Candide has forgone the highfalutin ideal of everything working for the best in the best of all possible worlds in favor of a much more modest approach to life:

"Excellently observed," answered Candide; "but let us cultivate our garden."

That's interesting. After sparing no rhetorical flourish in his demolition of philosphical optimism, Voltaire ends on a jarringly uncynical note. At the risk of coming off sounding like Chauncey Gardener, tending one's garden is an inherently optimistic endeavor. It's all about working diligently and lovingly towards an expected future benefit. So as our friend from Jasperwood puts it so eloquently, we have a choice. We can sneer that we're working a particularly lifeless patch of ground, or possibly that the wrong people are calling the gardening shots, or we can go to work. Serious optimism is all about going to work.

This is the 997th blog post at blog.speculist.com. We're counting down to number 1000!

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 09:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)