Is Positive Thinking a Disease in the US?

Great Debates
1

I’m reading Barbara Ehrenreich’s book Bright-Sided: How The Relentlessness Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermind America. I picked it up from the library reluctantly. I read her book Nickle and Dimed, and while I found it informative in many ways, I didn’t think she’d gone into the trenches deep enough with her experimentation. I was also reluctant because I’ve worried that the book would be a “Debbie Downer” read–something that would promote cynicism, leaving me feeling stupid for trying to cultivate a more optimistic outlook on life.

But that’s not what it’s turned out to be so far and I’ve agreed with her about 100% of the time. Her premise, however, is probably not widely accepted by the mainstream. Basically, she thinks Americans have been programmed to view the world as something they can control solely with their thoughts. If you want the world (or your life) to be a certain way, all you have to do is have the right “mind frame” and everything will come into place for you. It is this mentally that has made us blind to things that we could very well change, but only through pratical action.

She starts off by talking about her breast cancer diagnosis. Like many people who get diagnosed with something nowadays, she entered the world of internet message boards and support groups, thinking she’d be able to find out more about the disease, the treatments, the things she should be anticipating, and just places where she could air her painful feelings. But instead of finding these things, she found message boards filled with people talking about staying positive, how cancer had positively changed their lives (If I had it all over to do again, I wouldn’t change a thing!), how having the right attitude can help you get better. When she started a thread topic that basically expressed her anger and bitterness with her diagnosis, she was condemned for being so negative by the other posters and was eventually kicked off the board. She then exposed the infantile and hyper-feminized way breast cancer patients are treated (like, how groups will send out teddy bears and coloring books (!) to breast cancer patients, or they’ll send care packages filled with tons of cosmetics so one doesn’t have worry about looking ugly even through all the chemo. Also, she points out, it’s strange how much focus is given on breast cancer “survivors”–as if they’ve done something special and more admirable than the poor women who died. It’s because, she says, people have this notion that cancer survivors simply had a stronger will to live. All the teddy bears, stylized pink-ribbon-wear, coloring books, and cosmetics are designed to get people to think “positive” instead of actually thinking about the disease itself and how to be proactive about their treatments.

Part of me understands why people would be tempted to think this way. We’ve pretty much all been raised to not be a “crybaby” when you get hurt, that there’s virture in overcoming pain, and that if you have the right attitude, then nothing can really hurt you (sticks and stones may break my bones…). Buta lot of that is junk, IMHO. And Enrenreich not only agrees with my opinion, she backs it up with scientific evidence. Breast cancer patients who participate in support groups do not have a better outcome than those who do not participate, research has shown. In fact, she argues, that all the focus on “positive thinking” makes it harder for the ill, because they not only have to deal with the suckiness of their sickness, but also have to maintain a big facade of happiness and courage. Not only for the supposed benefit to themselves, but for family and friends who “expect” the patients to be happy and not feel sorry for themselves.

Then she talks about the mass marketing of positive thinking through the motivational speaker circuit. Don’t have a job? Wish you had a SO? Want a bigger house or nice car? Well, just hold up your hands and shout out to the universe what you want, and it will come to you (this may sound familiar to those who have heard about The Secret…or have ever attended a typical evangelical church). Enrenreich goes to many of these “workshops” and talks about how none of the speakers give any practical advice (like how to upgrade your technical skills to get a job, or how to actually woo a girl/boyfriend). It’s almost like the “real world” doesn’t exist; the solution is all metaphysical. The people who often go to these talks often learn only enough to become motivational speakers themselves…creating a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy. Or maybe some kind of ponzo scheme, I dunno.

Anyway, the book has been very eye-opening to me and has made me examine the way I look at my own life. I still caution myself against self-pity, and people who complain too much, especially over stupid things, will never cease to get on my nerves. But I do think we put too much emphasis on being positive. We need to accept that shit happens most the time just cause. Not because you necessarily did anything wrong or because you have the wrong attitude, but because we live in chaos. At an individual level, I think there is something to be said for looking for the upside when you’re given the raw deal and not letting that raw deal imprison you in a life full of excuses. But I also think all feelings, negative or positive, need to be respected and validated. I shouldn’t have to wear a clown mask when I’m hurting inside, just because you can’t stand to see me sad.

We’re so tempted to say, “Don’t cry. You know things will get better!” when maybe we should say, “Yes, that’s sucks. I’m so sorry this has happened to you, but know I’ll always be there for you if you need help.” And then just leave it at that. Isn’t that the take-home lesson of the book of Job? It’s been a long time since Sunday School. But I think it is.

I recommend the book.

Debate: Do we put too much emphasis on positive thinking? Or is Ehrenreich just meanly trying to show us how lame we all our (well, not me :)) for thinking we, like He-Man, have the power.

2

I agree with your OP and want to subscribe to your newsletter.

Well, not the newsletter, but I agree with the broad point you make. I think sometimes we need to acknowledge that lightning strikes at random and sometimes life sucks. It’s a hostile universe and there is no kindness beyond that which we bring to a situation. There is merit in looking objectively at things, even if that objective look hurts.

Of course, trying to make the best of a bad situation is probably a healthy course, but that shouldn’t mean putting on a false happy face. To use the example given prior - a breast cancer patient SHOULD have a place to rant about the unfairness of it all and not be told she’s negative or whatever. I mean, the disease sucks, can’t we just admit that occasionally? Have a good cry, get it out of your system, then soldier onward.

Or, from my own life - I once told someone I’d been poor just after I finished college, poor to the point of wearing a coat to bed because I couldn’t afford more heat, and really did go to be hungry once in awhile. The person then chirpped up “Oh, I’m sure you learned many valuable lessons from that experience!” No, I didn’t. I knew poverty sucked before I was poor. I didn’t learn anything unique, and certainly nothing wonderful. It sucked and there wasn’t anything positive about it. I was glad to climb out of that hole.*

  • Unfortunately, I’m currently poor again - but not quit that poor. And I have a wonderful spouse, who helps make the sucky parts more bearable.
3

I recall Ehrenriech appearing on The Daily Show a while back, and I agreed with her then and with the OP now: constant calls to ‘think positive’ are obnoxious when the thing one is supposed to feel positive about is well-known to end in a depressing and negative outcome, such as my late Mom’s brain tumor.

If someone wants to believe the best about the worst, they are welcome to and I’ll even play along if I feel I have to. Sometimes, however, bad shit happens, there is no particular positive response, and if it’s my party I’ll cry if I want to.

4

Sounds like an in-depth examination of magical thinking- the belief that if you just do everything right, nothing bad will happen to you. If you take all your vitamins, eat right, and exercise, you will never get sick. If you study hard, get into the right college, and excel in school, you’ll be guaranteed a fine job. Etc.

The poisonous implicit inverses are that a) if someone seems to have everything they want, they clearly deserve it and, worse, b) if someone gets sick or can’t find a job, they must have done something wrong and don’t REALLY deserve sympathy.

I think I should read this book and maybe recommend it to some people I know.

5

It annoys me when people act like everything happens for a good cause or has a good result. It doesn’t always work that way. I know one person who really seems to operate under this delusion (this person’s life is a mess in a lot of ways though).

Bad things can and do happen, and there isn’t always a pot of gold at the end. Just a new, different (and in many ways worse) normal.

Having said that, Martin Seligman has found many benefits to optimism. On the subject of cancer, I believe he found that the more optimistic ones actually became proactive about getting health info and fighting the disease, the more pessimistic ones just gave up.

6

There appear to be several forms of positive thinking operating under the same heading in the book.

  1. The concept of the secret, where if you ask the universe for something it gives it to you
  2. The just world phenomena, which allows people to think that good things happen to good people and bad things to bad people and as a result to write off people who are down on their luck as lazy, stupid or undeserving of help (because if you help them they won’t learn any responsibility, etc).
  3. People who want to pretend life is all meaning, happiness and enjoyment while ignoring the negative sides of life

I guess it depends on how you define positive thinking.

7

Sound like you might enjoy Holly Cole’s Cry If You Want To

I like most of the CDfrom which it comes.

8

My wife uses this technique very successfully. Of course ‘universe’ means me, friends, family, and colleagues, so when she’s being reasonable in her requests, it works out sometimes.

This one works well too. Just look for everything good that happens to the people you think are good, and look for everything bad that happens to the people you think are bad, and you can confirm that for yourself. When something bad happens to a good person, it’s only because God works in mysterious ways, and when something good happens to bad people, it’s Obama’s fault.

Well if someone can ignore his head catching fire, I think it’s viable. But don’t you think most people realize their attitude doesn’t control the universe, and that you might as well maintain a positive attitude instead of a negative one? I’m as pessimistic as you can get (I don’t walk outside without checking for falling anvils first), but I still prefer to wake up each day and join the struggle with a positive outlook. And don’t we all spend our lives distracting ourselves from the inevitability of our deaths?

Yup, just a matter of thinking about positive thinking in a positive way.

9

I used to believe strongly in this type of thing. Till one day I was giving a pep talk to my staff at work. One of the reservationists named Annie said “Mark, I understand what you’re trying to do and while I’d rather have you care too much than not at all, did it ever occur to you that maybe Myra just doesn’t have anything to be happy about.”

And that really changed my life.

She really had a point. Too many of these programs blame the person. They use “If you fail you didn’t try.” Well of course that’s right. It’s like the monkeys and Shakespeare.

The problem is when people start trying to revolve around motto and trite sayings. Yes it’s important to have a good attitude, but sometimes there IS NOTHING to be happy about.

This isn’t a license to allow you to wallow in self-pity or to give up, but to say it’s your fault is not accurate either.

Life isn’t what you make it. You take what life gives you and make the best out of it.

I found in every single case of a person who came with nothing and made something, they had an ENORMOUS amount of help. But yet according to them it was their personal drive that did it. And when I sit down and talk to them, it become blantanly apparent that they were being helped nearly every step of the way.

And there isn’t anything wrong with that. It’s good, too many people refuse help. But it’s wrong to be helped and then present it as something you did yourself.

People like Les Brown, Loretta LaRoche and Dale Carnegie make important points, but what they are really given you is a GENERAL overall outlook. This mindset but it certainly isn’t applicable for every day life. It’s applicable for an overall outlook, not on the micro scale.

10

I don’t think trying to be positive is incompatible with accepting that bad shit sometimes happens randomly and serves no higher purpose. They are two different things to me. People who believe in The Secret/God Works in Mysterious Ways school of thought are simply doing what humans have done for millenia: finding a way to make sense of suffering so that it no longer seems unbearable. It’s a coping mechanism that works for some people, but not so much for other people (including me). Those that can’t deal with this schtick must find other ways of coping, but I’m not going to pretend that those ways are less or more valid than Believers’ mechanisms. They are all psychological responses to pain, and wouldn’t exist if they didn’t work for some people, to some extent.

That said, telling someone to think positively when they are suffering is crappy mainly because it’s like telling them to shut up. On the other hand, when someone is going through something like cancer and they are venting about how horrible it is, the people around them aren’t going to want to agree with them by saying stuff like “Yeah, I know it must suck to be you right now. Poor you. I’d want to commit suicide too. Don’t know how you get out of bed everyday.” Certainly there is a middle ground in there people should be shooting for. But a lot of times they fail not because they are insensitive asses who demand a happy face mask, but because they don’t know what else to say or do because they aren’t in the other person’s shoes.

Does the author say what she wishes people had said to her when she was venting about her cancer? Allowing her to vent without insisting that she think positively is one thing, but that doesn’t explain what people should have been saying in place of “think positive!” This is my problem when people vent to me about their struggles. I don’t know what to say other than give advice about possible solutions.

11

I too am familiar with Seligman’s research, and that’s why I was wary of the book. But Ehrenreich makes it clear from the beginning that she doesn’t consider optimism the same thing as “positive thinking.” Optimism is “Things can get better for X, Y, and Z reasons.” Positive thinking is “Things will get better because I’m going to think it that way, goshdarnit!”

I always try to be optimistic when I’m facing a problem. Like, if I can’t get an Excel macro to work, I don’t give up. I know I can figure it out. I might have to spend an extra thirty minutes after work puzzling over it, but I will get it. Usually this attitude works. But it’s more than just an “attitude.” I’m actually working. Using my brain, trying to figure out what’s missing in my code, where’s the extra comma or bracket. Not thinking positively, but thinking constructively.

“Positive thinking”, as defined by Ehrenreich, seems to be more feeling than thinking. I have no problem with emotions or feelings, and they are useful to draw on if you use your gut to make decisions, but they also don’t get the gears of your brain working so you can actually fix the problem. Or realize that the problem can’t be fixed…or that maybe it isn’t a problem in the first place and you should just chill.

I’m only half-way through the book, but so far she’s at least touched on all of these. The last one really got me thinking, though. Another spin on this is the idea that life is meaningless, that there is no material reality, thereby explaining how you can control the world with your thoughts. Everything is an illusion. Like, we’re in the Matrix or something. But a lot of “positive thinkers” are Christians, not Buddhists like you might expect. The people I know who go around saying “Name it and claim it!” are some of the biggest Christians I know.

Why can’t they see that the world-is-a-Matrix goes counter to Christian theology? Like, why help the poor and the sick, which the Christ supposedly told us to do, if they don’t exist? Why be compassionate to the struggles of others if those struggles are just illusions? And if you are going to delve into this line of metaphysics, why are you trying to twist the Matrix into something selfish (e.g., getting a better job, a bigger house, more money, etc.)? Why don’t “positive thinkers” vibrate out energy abolishing hunger, war, disease, and pain? Ehrenreigh rightly points out that it’s always the individual’s “world” that can be changed by positive thinking, while issues facing the greater world are completely ignored. Positive thinkers generally don’t watch the news because it’s all “negative” and “meaninglessness”, forgetting of course that while the news sensationalizes stupid stuff, occasionally important tidbits slip through (like, there’s a hurricane coming your way, there has been a major egg recall, or your local politicians are stealing you blind).

Willful clueness. That’s what it is. My aunt, a lovely woman, is a positive thinker. I wouldn’t be surprised if she had been one of the first people to buy “The Secret.” She’s always “naming it and claiming it”, and to be fair, she has had some good luck fall her way (her being generous and sexually attractive probably has nothing to do with it, though). However, I recall that we had been four months into the Iraq War when she asked me, quite child-like, “Are we in a war?” When I told her that yes, and that we’d been fighting for quite some time, she just shrugged and went on her merry way. To go back to Martin Seligman, it’s like a happier version of learned helplessness.

12

I really don’t think Buddhism is anything at all like the ideology being talked about in Bright Sided. At least, not any of the Buddhists I’ve run into as a Zen practitioner.

13

I usually subscribe to the “if it works for you, fine” mentality. But not all ways of coping with life’s harsh realities are “equally valid.” A junkie abuses drugs as a way of coping too. That doesn’t mean I can’t judge that behavior as self-destructive or just plain dumb.

How about saying, “I can’t imagine how hard it must be, just getting out of bed everyday. I’d probably fall to pieces if I were in your shoes, but you’re so strong. Can I get you something to drink? Rub your feet? Get you a book to read? I feel like I need to do something nice for you today.”

I agree with you, that people don’t know what to say. So they fall back on bromides and trite sayings like, “God will never give you more than you can handle (unless he kills you, I want to add)” and “What doesn’t kill you will make you stronger.” Or worse,“Now don’t go feeling sorry for yourself. Think about the starving children in Biafra or that man down the street who’s paralyzed.” Or even more worse, “Please stop crying. You’re bumming everyone out.” We need to teach kids how to act empathetically by modeling. When a kid comes home after being attacked by a bully, a parent shouldn’t say, “Stop crying. Tomorrow that bully will be your best friend, just you wait.” They should say, “Oh, I’m so sorry that kid did that to you. He was SO not right. Next time he picks on you, you should say XYZ or just go to the teacher.” We should be taught to be respectful towards someone’s feelings and that if you can’t handle their feelings, explain to them that it is your problem not theirs. Offer non-accusatory suggestions if they seem open to them. Just say “I’m sorry” if you can’t think of anything else. There is plenty of middle-ground; people just have to drop the stuff we’ve been taught as kids and open our minds a little.

In the author’s case, she was was simply looking for others who were as angry as she was. She wasn’t looking for advice on how to deal with the anger; she just wanted a forum where she could express it since all the pink-ribbons and teddy bears and happy cancer-thoughts, in addition to the problems of breast cancer, were starting to wear on her. I think she would have been satisfied with one, “I know what you’re feeling. I feel like that too sometimes.” But instead she got, “You’re so bitter and filled with hate. How dare you bring your negativity here, in this happy-cancer support group!” She didn’t say so, but I’m betting she felt the way I feel when I read about this. What the hell is the point of a cancer support group if everyone is not only happy, but says that cancer is the best thing that’s ever happened to them? There’s no room for honesty in an environment like that.

14

It isn’t, and I apologize for my poor sentence construction. I meant to say that you would expect Buddhists to believe in the world-is-an-illusion concept. You would expect Christians, many whom are “positive thinkers”, to adamantly reject this notion.

Buddhists use the world-is-an-illusion philosophy to remove the baggages of desire and ego, humbling themselves down to the status a single neutrino in the scale of the universe. Positive thinkers who use this idea do so to make their desires and egos the forefront of their existence, essentially turning themselves into the universe. That is, to say, God. Which is bad form, from what I remember from my Christian teachings.

15

The problem is that it can be alienating if done wrong. I dug up the Ehrenreich interview on the daily show

About 3 minutes into it she makes really good points about this subject. It shows an empathy gap in our society, where people are crying out for validation and support and the people around them are only concerned with pretending life is happier and safer than it really is. It is very alienating to go through that because it seems people want to pretend that side of life doesn’t exist (the same way the media trys to pretend there are no fat people, or incest, or a ton of other bad things).

Optimism as Seligman defines it seems to have a large number of benefits. But Seligman himself always cautions that people should try to be as realistic as possible while doing it.

16

I think this would be encouraging to hear if I were suffering, but is it that far off from telling someone to think positively? Look at what you wrote here: the consoler is pretending or portraying themself as someone who would be weak and helpless in the face of the other person’s struggle, while telling them the sufferer that they are strong and capable (with the implication that they are not as weak as other people.) But maybe the person doesn’t want to hear that they are especially strong, when tears are pouring down their face, because it feels like the other person is telling them to act strong when they can’t or don’t want to at that moment.

It seems like human nature to dispense with sympathy in this kind of way. We emphasize hope and optimism and “you can do it!” when we talk to others, and don’t focus on validating the actual feelings of suffering due to fear of contributing to self-pity. But it’s situation dependent. When a loved one dies, rarely do I see people preaching positive thinking. Probably because it’s something we can all relate to and is clearly outside the scope of one’s control.

17

I understand your point. I just don’t think it’s the cause of major problems in this country. I’m sure there are some people who drive blissfully off of cliffs, and plenty of realistic people causing other problems. I’m not convinced this is a problem worth worrying about.

I was wondering what you meant about the media, then I realized you are talking about TV series and movies. But the talk shows, reality shows, and news programs focus heavily on problems.

18

I think it may have a played a part in the subprime mortgage bubble. A lot of “positive thinkers” setting their sights on houses they couldn’t really afford.

19

Everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds!

Everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds!

EVERYTHING IS FOR THE BEST IN THIS BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS!

20

Heh, “undermind” …