I had finished reading this article from Time magazine asking if we were biased towards optimism:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2074067,00.html
Then I came across this article in favor of pessimism:
http://www.parakhi.com/blogs/2011/08/17/in-favour-of-pessimists/
So I couldn’t help asking myself:
Would the nation you live in make you more OK with being optimistic or pessimistic?
I get a vague sense that America as a nation hasn’t had its optimism knocked out of it yet. It’s not like that in Europe. We’ve lost empires and stuff.
Here in the UK, I try to be a bit more rational than blindly assuming one way or the other. I thought the gag about Labour having swept to power to the sound of “Things can only get better” and making it even more true had a ring of truth about it yet now that the Tories and Lib Dems are claiming we’re all doomed, I don’t believe it.
I think we have quite an interesting dynamic going on between optimism and pessimism with it being possible to believe both at once - take school exam results for example: better results mean both that today’s students are doing wonderfully well and also that exams were a lot harder back in my day.
I rather suspect that this is so that we are guaranteed to be able to say “I told you so” whatever happens… we’re strategic dualists. Or triadists if sitting on the fence is an advantageous position.
I’ve definitely encountered more pessimists in the UK than I have in NZ. I see it as a pretty big cultural difference between the two countries.
Welcome to the SDMB. You should be aware that it is generally expected for the OP to offer more than a link a question. Generally, you are supposed to offer some analysis and give us your conclusion. Then we debate.
So, what do you think?
Show us yours, and we’ll show you ours. 
Fair enough. Here’s my opinion.
Instead of saying rich nation and poor nation, I will take Nepal as a poor nation (since that is what one of the articles refers to). And the US as a rich nation. Feel free to replace a rich or poor nation of your own choice.
It is very interesting to read one of the articles written by someone from a under-developed nation who says that it is better to be pessimistic…and that they are proud to be a pessimist.
I suppose both writers are right in their own way. The people from developed nations are probably better being optimistic and taking advantage of opportunities around them. On the other hand, for people from people like Nepal, being too hopeful and relying too much on the future that the leaders of their nation provide them…is probably a fool’s paradise.
I think the contrast between both these articles, who wrote it, what data they are basing their writing on and their intended audience…says volumes about the state of the world today.
I think ultimately the issue comes to expectations. If your expectations are very high…and the reality you experience is very low…you are disappointed. You become pessimistic.
If your expectations are very low…and the reality you experience is very high…you are thrilled. You become optimistic.
If your expectations match the reality you experience, you are neutral. You are not shocked by the highs or the lows because the reality you experience is the reality that you expect and accept. This should be the definition of being educated. It means that the map in your head about the nature of the reality of the world matches the actual territory around you.
But you have to understand that to the degree you are powerful, you don’t have to be educated. That is why the United States math and science scores are so low, and yet they rule the world.
To the degree that you are powerful, the negativity of the world touches you based on your terms. It is the weak that need to track every disease…because their immune system is so weak. This is one reason that you find that people in Nepal are so much better versed on the news of the world than people in America. Any body farting any where in the planet can affect Nepal negatively. Very few negativities happening around the world comes to affect Americans.
A lot of people in America are clueless about world affairs because their country is so powerful that the negativity of the world rarely disturbs them.
And when it does–like in September 11, the United States funds 100 of millions of dollars to countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan until they shoot guys Bin Laden in the head. So who dares intentionally send negative experiences to Americans?
What is there not to be optimistic about for Americans? The can afford to live in a delusional reality because their power has assured them that the negativity of the world will not reach them. So yeah, why shouldn’t Americans live in a fairy tale land full of optimism?
On the other hand, any Nepali child who doesn’t start to become pessimistic from an early age probably won’t attend the level of street smarts necessary to survive growing up in Nepal. Can you imagine a Nepali boy growing up with a big smile on his face trusting that the whole world is out there to love him and to look out for his interest? The poor kid wouldn’t survive his adolescence.
On the other hand, an American child can afford to do that. Why? Because their government and culture has made pedophiles, child-haters, child-abusers the worst criminals on earth. Who in Nepal has the resources to go after pedophiles, child-haters and child-abusers like they do in America?
Ideally American liberalism would like it that children never lost their innocence. Liberals want to keep children believing in the ‘love and beauty’ of humanity for ever. An American child displaying the kind of ‘street smartness’ desired in a Nepali child would be seen as being ‘needlessly over-complicated and pessimistic.’
I’m British and I agree - I think we do have a cultural habit of knocking everything and everyone down. Conversely, I think we’re extremely creative and inventive, which would suggest there’s some deep seated optimism we keep close to our chests.