Liberals ought to be more optimistic about opportunities for success in the U.S.

1)"Temperament is something one is born with-- more of a natural predisposition. Whereas attitude is an orientation of the mind resulting from experiences, opinions, biases and conclusions based on reason-- all of which are typically used to arrive at one's political and philosophical positions. So I hold that it is possible to link one's political philosophy with his tendency to be optimistic or pessimistic in attitude with regard to specific issues." -Agreed; however, one cannot deny the impact of temperament on attitude, and both influence individual behavior and thought. Attitude in itself is a result of experience, opinion, bias, and conclusions based on reason, and these in turn derive from one's environment - their social position and their economic standing, among other things. If these factors have always had negative consequences for an individual, it is only logical that they develop a negative - a pessimistic, or even cynical - worldview, regardless of whether it is temperament or attitude that is claimed to be primarily responsible. "That might be true, but I believe most would agree there is definitely a correlation between ATTITUDE and economic success..." -You may believe and most may agree, but do you have any evidence to support this? Even if pessimism and optimism is a function of attitude and not temperament, there is scientifically no reason for supporting one position or the other. Further, many people are often guilty of "optimism bias": "Optimism bias is the demonstrated systematic tendency for people to be over-optimistic about the outcome of planned actions. People tend to see the future through "rose-colored glasses," as the saying goes. Optimism bias applies to professionals and laypeople alike.... 'In a study in search of the brain regions responsible for optimism, researchers noted that "humans expect positive events in the future even when there is no evidence to support such expectations."" - http://en.wikipedia.org... "It's reasonable to say it would be much more difficult for one to put forth such effort if he believes his effort will undoubtedly end in failure." -I disagree. Regardless of optimism or pessimism, people (including pessimistic liberals) still go to work, try to and do advance, and speak out for their causes. Whether or not this person or that person thinks that they will or will not succeed is irrelevant of the reality of any particular situation and its eventual outcome. "Perpetual optimism" or "relentless optimism" are only examples of realistic naivetï¿½, and the same would be true of perpetual pessimism - both are equally objectionable points of view. It is possible that a relentlessly optimistic person may continue through a multitude of failures until his optimism is fulfilled, or on the other hand, until he is broken and becomes a pessimist, whereas the pessimist who was more qualified got the job in the first place. Optimism is not what is called for to overcome this, it is perseverance, a fully different quality, and I argue that neither the optimist or the pessimist are more or less likely than one another to persevere. "For example, one could have a pessimistic attitude toward investing in the stock market, and then later become quite optimistic after taking a course on investing. So one can and "ought" to reverse an attitude of pessimism if it will serve him to do so. -Excellent example. Unfortunately, if one's economic circumstances prevent a person from investing (or from even taking the class) there is no reason for optimism. The old saying is that one has to spend money to make money, which I consider a truism, especially in this context; if there is no money to spend in the first place, what reason is there for optimism in making money, or achieving economic success? 2)""why should we change?" Because life is a numbers game. Yes, I am admitting that success requires some luck in addition to hard work. But I also know that luck comes to those who work hard and stay in the game..." -"Luck" is nothing more than a modern euphemism for Fortune; the luck you describe sounds more to me like inherited social and/or economic standing. However, I agree that life is a numbers game. Of course, you have to 1) be able to play the game, and 2) stay in the game if you fail one or more times. There are many that do not have the resources or ability to do either. If one can play, it is completely possible for them to be a pessimist and still persevere in the face of adversity, as pessimism and perseverance are not mutually exclusive. 3)"I believe the reason for economic pessimism on the part of liberals is irrelevant." -I think the reason that a person is pessimistic is completely relevant. If pessimism/optimism is a product of attitude as you claim, it most certainly is, as attitude comes from experience, etc., which derives from environment, etc. (see Point 1) Again, *if* p./o. are a result of attitude, who would be more likely to develop either view: rich kid born in the Hamptons, with economic success virtually preceding their existence, or poor kid born in the ghetto of X city? I also do not hold that liberals in general hold a pessimistic attitude. It is your observation that they are pessimistic, while it is my observation that they are simply realistic. 4)"If I were a betting man I'd say it is likely that the ones who did get out did not see themselves at "trapped" and sustained a belief that it was possible to move ahead." -Even if one has escaped, it does not necessarily mean that they weren't a pessimist, for the pessimist can believe that it is *entirely possible* to get out, just highly unlikely. As I think we agree that it is only a minority that do get out, the statistics verify that economic pessimists, if they are pessimists, of this kind are somewhat justified, if anyone is, in regard to their stance. From that perspective pessimism may even be the most rational view to hold, except possibly cynicism. 5)"The debate resolution is not aimed at you in particular, but liberals in general. But I appreciate your views, especially those on corporate welfare and conspicuous consumption." -I understand, but I can only speak of my views as I know them and of others' views as I perceive them. Where you see pessimism, I see realism, for the most part. 6)"Well, in my opinion..." First, thank you. You yourself have an excellent writing voice and are a great debater. It's funny that you should mention journalism; that was my original major in college. You are quite correct in your assessment of the potential capabilities of many of the disabled in today's world, but I am not quite at the extreme that many are, I admit. It is only those that have it the worst off, with no foreseeable, or even possible, change for the better in store that can claim true pessimism (opposed to the pessimism that I call realism) as their right. This would be perpetual pessimism, objectionable but reasonable in this case; I allow that Bill Gates (or someone similar) can be perpetually optimistic to avoid contradiction. They would even expect someone to try and take that from them - would they not be fully correct, per our current debate? Back to you, HandsOff Britt