Science of Optimism
An article in the health section of the paper today explores why the majority of human beings are more optimistic than pessimistic. There's also a test to measure your level of optimism. According to the test (I scored a "1"), I am extremely optimistic--which the article warns can be a dangerous thing--but I think they are...WRONG! 
Kids in bad or neutral mood perform better on tests
Pessimism/Optimism and mood
You know reading through all these posts, I'm thinking the whole defintion of what constitutes a pessimist or an optimist is very vague to me.
With that caveat--I'd say I'm not sure there's a real correlation between that polarity and mood. An optimist could be in a good mood--looking forward to some event that looks like it's going to be fun--and then be disappointed that it didn't measure up to the rosy picture painted ahead of time, while the reverse could happen with a pessimist, being pleasantly surprised.
But then, does that mean the people are not being consistently optimistic or pessimistic? To be a true optimist would the bad result of a prediction need to be reinterpreted in a positive way? And vice versa for the pessimist?
No correlation
I think "optimistic" people that become disappointed with an outcome of an event, would try to legitimize the negative outcome in some way. Some would insert they were compelled by wishful thinking or the like.
And I think you're right that there is no correlation between each polarity and our mood. As a result, I don't see it as a given that each polarity functions consequently - that is, if you are less optimistic it doesn't mean you are therefore more pessimistic. I'm saying, they don't reflect each other.
Bad Moods and Memories
Bad Moods and Memories
Pessimists, Optimists and Stress
I've heard that sort of thing before too
... but I ask - where's the study to support the notion that pessimists are "more stressed" than optimists? I just don't see that as a given.
Pessimists, Optimists and Stress
Well maybe it depends on how you define stress. I think I'm covering only a slice of your cake here, but currently I think one difference between optimism and pessimism is the longevity of general distress. And it seems to me that one factor pertaining to why a pessimist might have "more stress" is because their general negative perception and view of life may cause the insidious cyclic view that their world view is being proven over and over again. But whether or not that causes "more stress" is an interesting question.
Well I think you're kind of missing my point...
To say anything about the level of distress (vs. healthy stress) implies that a person with a given world view lacks an adequate coping mechanism for dealing with their own perspective and then don't adapt their lifestyle in a healthy manner. More simply-- that they "freak out" instead of using the conflict as an impetus to grow in a healthy way.
I'm just saying... a "pessimist" could see that the glass is half empty - believe that it will always be half empty -- never hope for it to change, but then also not really care about what's in the glass in the first place.
To assume "distress" on the part of the pessimist as part of the definition of the term would really negate the point of such studies (as the result would already be established and proven medically that distress is bad in the long term); it would break apart the established classification scheme that puts all "half empty" theorists in the same labelled group. The pessimist above that doesn't care what's in the glass at all would have to be called something else.
But this is the kind of thing I find that plagues a lot of the studies out there on this topic. There is a social stereotype that optimist=good and pessimist=bad. Hell... the word pessimist originates from the superlative for the very word "bad"; and optimist from the superlative for the word "good/ideal" (it's not surprising). I'm not aware of any studies that specifically and rigidly defines "pessimist" and "optimist" in neutral, measurable terms and so the results are affected by these unspoken presumptions... and yet neutral and measurable are just what you need to make a factual, objective result.
Because of this predisposition I also feel that there is a tendency to diminish the negative affects of being an optimist; and conversely the positive affects of being a pessimist are also diminished. Since I believe its the initial judgment in the individual's evaluation of a situation that is at question; I think we need to dump the supposition of any particular coping strategy in order to see if there is a general trend in behavior for either group.
I think a more neutral and effective way to approach this problem would be to evaluate the veracity/realism of these specific points of view and how they relate to the survivability terms in both the short and the long run. It also might be helpful to ditch the loaded terminology to terminology that can go either way -- I would suggest something like: skeptic vs. enthusiast.
I agree, too...
I don't understand why the world thinks there are typically only two types of people in any given situation. Yes, I did misunderstand your point. So what were you getting to with your above comment in "Bad moods make people more sensitive to what's going on" - you were wondering if there was a connection if pessimists really are in a bad mood more often than optimists.
To assume "distress" on the part of the pessimist as part of the definition of the term would really negate the point of such studies (as the result would already be established and proven medically that distress is bad in the long term); it would break apart the established classification scheme that puts all "half empty" theorists in the same labelled group. The pessimist above that doesn't care what's in the glass at all would have to be called something else.
Hybrid. 
What I was getting to
Well, I posted that study because I think it challenges what people want to hear about pessimists and optimists.
I think - stereotypically - people do suggest that pessimists are in a bad mood more often than pessimists... but also on that same line, benefits are not often or easily ascribed to pessimists in general... and this study is showing a benefit to being in a bad mood.
In general I think it's a good thing to question the approaches and the assumptions in any body of research in order to find what the raw data is really saying... and I suppose I hope that by posting things that challenge the status quo it might encourage thoughtful speculation on the topic. Or even more generally it might help people to realize and evaluate how subtle stereotypes might affect their perceptions of things as well.
I agree
that pessimism gets a bad rap. I think I've actually seen the worst side of both optimism and pessimism in my own family. On the one hand, the extreme optimist either ignored things like addictive or other troubling behavior in order to maintain a rosy view of the family, or (and this was especially true in dealing with an addiction) accepted the person's very heart-felt regrets about what they had done as a sign of change rather than looking at behavior.
On the flip side, the pessimist in the family took (actually still does take) a kind of odd joy (schadenfreude is the German expression) out of things going wrong because it allows a focus on how screwed up the world is, or other people, or "our government", or whatever the external focus is, rather than self-examination. So another form of denial in a way.
I think really either one is going to be a distortion if it's the approach one takes regardless of circumstances isn't it? If one always sees a happy ending, or one always sees a disaster--aren't specifics of a particular event being missed or incorrectly assessed?
Just a minor modification suggestion--how about skeptic/believer? 'Cause I can be an enthusiastic skeptic at times. (And an enthusiastic believer too--generally I'm an enthusiast ;-))
I knew there was a reason...
"Sharot and her colleagues then scanned subjects' brains as they thought about the future, and observed that imagining happy occurrences, such as winning an award, triggered more activity in regions of the brain involved with processing emotions than imagining negative experiences." -- Emily Anthes
Did I tell you I'm a lazy guy? 
The optimist sees the doughnut, the pessimist sees the hole
Are you an Explanatory optimist?
HA HA HA HA
This reminds me of what I wanted to post in response to this earlier. It seems to me like they left off multiple choice answers on the "Are you an Optimist?" poll. Here's the revised quiz for your reading pleasure...
Are you an Explanatory optimist?
Below are eight questions excerpted from a quiz developed by Martin Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania. These questions are designed to figure out if you "catastrophize" bad events - for example, if you lose your job, do you go on with your life, looking for work, going to parties, enjoying your family, or do you generalize that failure to other parts of your life, believing you're no good at anything?
Read the description of each situation and vividly imagine it happening to you. Choose either cause A or B as the one likelier to apply to you. Do not choose what you think you should say or what would sound right to other people.
1. You miss an important engagement.
A. Sometimes my memory fails me.
B. I sometimes forget to check my appointment book.
C. The engagement was stupid anyway. My life will be so much more awesome with a cooler crowd.
D. Hey it's not my fault this meeting was planned at such a ridiculous time.
2. You fail an important examination.
A. I wasn't as smart as the other people taking the exam.
B. I didn't prepare for it well.
C. Man that teacher really sucks if someone as awesome as me couldn't pass their test!
D. That'll teach the prof to go way over our heads! 'No child left behind' will cover me.
3. You prepared a special meal for a friend and he/she barely touched the food.
A. I wasn't a good cook.
B. I made the meal in a rush.
c. Ingrateful bastard! Ah well... just means more for me.
D. I know s/he's just jealous that I'm a better cook. I'll send home all the recipe cards with them as 'pick me up' gift.
4. You lose a sporting event for which you have been training for a long time.
A. I'm not very athletic.
B. I'm not good at that sport.
c. Those idiots are clearly on steroids. Guess I'll take up a new hobby!
D. Wow - those guys really rose to my challenge and I helped them succeed!
5. You ask a person out on a date and he/she says no.
A. I was a wreck that day.
B. I got tongue tied when I asked him/her on the date.
c. They are clearly not worth my time - what a loser.
D. It's hard not to be dazzled by my greatness, this is true. I'll give them another chance tomorrow.
6. Your romantic partner wants to cool things off for a while.
A. I'm too self centered.
B. I don't spend enough time with him/her.
c. What a pompous ass! If that's how it is, I'll be better off single.
D. Well, it's true "Absence makes the heart grow fonder"... it's cute how hard s/he is trying to win my affection.
7. Your stocks are at an all time low.
A. I didn't know much about the business climate at the time.
B. I made a poor choice of stocks.
C. Dumbass broker. I'll fire his ass and get me the best of the best next time.
D. Hm... Schoolhouse Rock told me to "buy low- sell high" - guess it's time to buy more stock!
8. They won't honor your credit card at a store.
A. I sometimes overestimate how much money I have.
B. I sometimes forget to pay my credit card bill.
C. Sometimes people underestimate how much I am worth.
D. Sometimes stores forget to raise my credit limit.
Scoring
Give yourself one point for every A or C you answered. If you answered A or C seven or eight times, you tend to catastrophize bad events.
If you answered A or C five or six times, you have a moderate tendency to do this; 4 is average; two to three times, you are moderately optimistic and one time or not at all, you are very optimistic in this dimension.
Heelarious!
Re: The optimist sees the doughnut, the pessimist sees the hole
What are we *really* measuring?
In all seriousness though, I do have issue with the definitions given for "what makes an optimist". The assumptions seem a little too wobbly to be making objective measurements or definitive statements on the potential impact either point of view may have on human health.
If the classic differentiator between an optimist and a pessimist is to take a half glass of water as the "neutral fact" and then add a judgement about the observer's view of life - how certain can we be really that the response is indicative of a trend/bias for this individual? Further - since the statements "the glass is half empty" and "the glass is half full" are mathematically equivalent statements, it'd have to be generally assumed that any supposed trend leads to the same physical behavior for the respective "optimist/pessimist" classes -- to make the point that the result of such a bias is visible in physical health trends.
It'd be difficult to prove in any study that the "half full" of the "half empty" crowd generally maintains that perspective all day in every thing.
As the one article points out - it'd be hard to prove the cause/effect (chicken or egg) for the resulting visible health trend - let alone that it would be difficult to establish which specific physical behaviors are indeed linked to the trend itself.
If we want any kind of useful answer to this question about what seems to generally be going on, these definitions need to be refined.
Generally speaking if we attack this issue - this next blog article brings up a lot of good points that to me seem to more directly relate to physical harm or benefit of either given perspective.
Optimism vs. Cynicism, which is more untrue?
The assertion is that it is possible for either view to "overstep its bounds".
The question this article asks really pertains to both optimists and pessimists; and that is - "Are you fooling yourself?".
The article is not as clear at mirroring the positions, but it seemed to me that in each example given, it is not the facts or points of view that create an unhealthy emotional situation for either party, but unchanging expectations that are "too black or white, all or nothing" whether or not it's seen through an optimistic or a pessimistic lens.
A common problematic element in the theme for both perspectives would be the tendency to magnify smaller elements of the situation to appear more important than they are. The expectation forms the belief, not the supporting factual details. When our perspectives are challenged on important issues, this initially may lead to fear that things will not or cannot change. It's how we respond to that conflict that defines whether or not we have a problem with our own physical reality. Are we going to feel stuck, or are we going to position ourself to act?
I agree with what this article asserts: "The key in cognitive behavioral therapy isn’t to turn these thoughts into sunshiny happiness. It works by first challenging validity, removing value judgements, and if the thought is true, asking yourself, “But is this helpful.” or “What do I need to do to make it better.” This empowers you to action, keeps you in the present where you can act."
Since scientifically it's anxiety and specific types of stress that create an unhealthy physical situation - it's my opinion that the answer is not to completely remove all stress, but to face only the elements of stress that are true/real and enable us to grow.
Again the whole concept of "the truth will set you free" comes to mind again... and in context:
Are we able to shift blame when blame is not ours to take - or do we shift blame when the blame is really ours?
Conversely --
Do we take credit when credit is ours? - or do we self deprecate and give credit that should be due to us to forces outside ourselves?
Looking at things in this way, trends we've already established to be true are linked in a meaningful way. There is healthy stress as well as unhealthy stress. There are healthy "pessimists" and unhealthy "optimists". There are optimists who have their feet solidly set in reality and pessimists whose views are not rooted in "what is real". Your frame of mind can impact and determine whether you succeed or fail. The truth will always come to light. The glass is both half full and half empty.
The summary of the article presents an interesting perspective of the balancing act:
"To some extent we all wear a mask. I would contend that taking the mask too seriously and comparing others “charmed life” to your own is much more dishonest.
... Conflating happy with delusional may have its own utility, but I can’t really call it fundamentally honest or likely to make you any more successful or happy.
I think its much more courageous and hopeful to take a look at our faults for what they are, and determine we can improve them.
...
When we speculate on the future, all we know is really a guess. That makes anything possible, and the truth is what you make it.
So here’s to optimism, true to ourselves, true to life, and true to our potential.
On a closing note in response and tangentally -- it seems to me that the "mask" we all wear 'to an extent' can simply relate to the different roles we play in life - letting out a specific side of yourself as it fits each situation... donning an archetype, as you will. As long as it's worn in utility to promote action, founded in fact, and presented to promote clarity of an issue it is beneficial and true. I would assert the hypothesis that negative outcomes (the kinds that have the negative impacts that affect our health) stem from masks used as an obfuscation or ruse to avoid conflict or promote conflict for conflict's sake.
So in the end it seems to me like living in a real world is the healthiest option.
Science of Optimism
Very interesting article...
According to the test I scored a 4.
Bad moods make people more sensitive to what's going on
On the forum where Jaz mentions your "Past is open to reinvention"... she quotes an article with several news stories in the Boston Globe - under the "Uncommon Knowledge" link.
NEXT TIME YOU take a test, you might want to put yourself in a bad mood. Researchers asked people who were exiting a small store to recall 10 random tchotchkes that were displayed around the checkout counter. When shoppers were in a bad mood - on days with bad weather (reinforced by playing sad music in the store) - their memory of the tchotchkes was more accurate. These findings are consistent with laboratory research showing that bad moods make people more sensitive to what's going on around them.
Forgas, J. et al., "Can Bad Weather Improve Your Memory? An Unobtrusive Field Study of Natural Mood Effects on Real-Life Memory," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (forthcoming).
This makes me wonder -- are pessimists generally in a bad mood more often than optimists? Fun stuff.