Optimism vs. Pessimism

Optimism and Physical HealthCon admitted (and reiterated) that optimists lead healthier lifestyles. He said pessimists lead unhealthier lifestyles because they are struggling. That may be true. Regardless of the reason why they struggle or lead unhealthier lifestyles, the fact is that optimistic people are healthier than pessimists. My opponent claims that "correlation does not equal causation" and questions the link between optimism/health. He explains that optimism or pessimism might be a result of pre-existing realities. For example, in noting that optimistic people are in better health, it may be true that pessimistic people are pessimistic specifically BECAUSE they are in poor health. However Harvard Medical School has considered this possibility in their analysis: "Scientists have adjusted their analyses to account for pre-existing medical conditions. The studies that made these adjustments found that existing illnesses did not tarnish the benefits of optimism" [1].One reason for this is biological. Optimistic people have less stress which produces the harmful chemical cortisol. Cortisol has significantly detrimental health effects which I highlighted in the last round. In addition, there has been research which studied the relationship between optimism and one's immune system. When someone is more optimistic, they fight off infection more effectively than during the times when they are less hopeful [2].Furthermore, in the last round I explained why optimism leads to better financial success. Wealth allows people to pursue better health care. Moreover, optimistic people are more outgoing and likable [3], and therefore more likely to build support networks that alleviate stress and other burdens.Con writes, "Just because optimistic people are better at recovering from illness doesn't mean it is because of optimism." First, you'll notice that Con acknowledges the results: optimists have better, faster rates of recovery than pessimists. Thus he is NOT denying my contention. That said, of course there are many variables - but it has been repeatedly observed that optimism is one of them, and a positive preference over pessimism. Eric Kim, research fellow in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Harvard notes “Our new findings suggest that we should make efforts to boost optimism, which has been shown to be associated with healthier behaviors and healthier ways of coping with life challenges” [4]. There is a plethora of research confirming this logical conclusion. "The results make evolutionary sense. Early humans in close-knit social groups would have faced increased risk of viral infections, so they would have benefited from revved-up antiviral genes. By contrast, people who were isolated and under stress faced greater risk of injuries that could cause bacterial infection — and thus would need to respond by ramping up genes associated with inflammation, to help heal wounds and fight off those infections. But modern stresses lead to chronic and unhelpful inflammation, which over time damages the body's tissues, increasing the risk of chronic diseases such as atherosclerosis, cancer and diabetes" [5].Optimism and Mental HealthExtend my argument on mental health and the stress hormone; Con ignores/denies it yet it stands. My opponent relies on the "correlation does not equal causation" argument, though I have explained (and shown research not discredited by Con) that optimism is explicitly related to physical and mental health through both correlation AND causation. "Positive and negative expectations regarding the future are important for understanding the vulnerability to mental disorders, in particular mood disorders. Recent studies have found an inverse correlation between optimism and depressive symptoms, and also between optimism and suicidal ideation. As such, optimism seems to have an important moderating role in the association between feelings of loss of hope and suicidal ideation. . . Pessimists nurtured little hope for the future and were more at risk for depressive and anxiety disorders, with subsequent impairment of social functioning and quality of life. The role of optimism in the quality of life has also been investigated in depressive disorders emerging in patients suffering from somatic pathologies, (such as acute coronary syndrome, for instance) in which a significant inverse correlation was found between dispositional optimism and level of satisfaction in life on one hand and depressive symptoms emerging after the cardiovascular event on the other hand" [6]. Optimism and SuccessCon claims that my last round assumes pessimists are entirely useless. That is false. I pointed out that in order to start a project, one must believe in their idea and their abilities to succeed -- a trait more aligned with optimists than pessimists. This doesn't mean pessimists never start projects, so my opponent cannot rely on the claim that I am "exaggerating" pessimism. It simply means optimists are more likely to start projects, on balance. Next Con argues that optimism can hurt people via over-confidence, and ultimately lead to their failure or demise. Yet I explicitly addressed this suggestion already last round, when I noted that optimism doesn't mean being careless and taking profound risks. Instead it means valuing and factoring hope and positivity into the cost/benefit analysis.Con writes, "First off, optimists seem that way because they face less problems due to not properly solving them beforehand." This is a completely unsubstantiated claim. Con does not prove that optimists face less problems OR that they do not consider them beforehand. He also commits his own highlighted fallacy of radicalism. He continues, "Secondly, this is another example of radical pessimism being compared to rational optimism, which is severely flawed thinking." However I did not take radicalism into serious consideration. My arguments have been generalizations: on balance, optimists are X compared to on balance, pessimists are Y.Con challenges the contention that optimism leads to success as demonstrated by the swimmer example. The claim is that optimists use negative feedback to fuel success, whereas pessimists are more likely (note: this is NOT a radical claim but a general one) to use negative feedback as a reason to quit or presume their inevitable failure. There is similar research showing "when executives become really upbeat about earnings because of a string of recent successes, they appear to work harder to meet their bullish predictions, leading to an even more improved firm performance" [7, 8]. Shawn Achor is a world renowned psychology expert and winner of over a dozen distinguished teaching awards at Harvard University. He notes, "When we are positive, our brains become more engaged, creative, motivated, energetic, resilient, and productive at work. This isn’t just an empty mantra. This discovery has been borne out repeatedly by rigorous research in psychology and neuroscience, management studies, and the bottom lines of organizations around the world" [9]. Optimism and HappinessI wrote, "Optimistic people have a positive outlook on the world, and thus experience a greater level of contentment. If you think that the world is inherently good, and that life will work out in your favor, you're more likely to rate [perceive] your own health and sense of well-being as being better." Con claims these are circular statements. They are not. They are explanatory and relevant contentions. The first sentence highlights that optimism leads to contentment, and the second shows it leads to a more positive assessment of one's life (hence why it leads to contentment). My opponent is so obsessed with singling out alleged but unproven fallacies, that he fails to negate the actual arguments I've put forth or make any compelling cases of his own.My opponent is also obsessed with the "correlation does not equal causation" argument which is a fallacious misrepresentation of the debate at hand. Once again, I have proven the existence and relevance of both correlation AND causation. I've explained how optimism is relevant and directly linked to health and happiness. I've also shown how it can be arguably the direct cause of health/happiness. For example I explained that optimistic people are in the habit of being thankful, and gratitude causes happiness. My opponent has completely ignored this contention. I explained optimism promotes forgiveness. Rather than contest this argument, Con harps on the sources. But can Con prove that pessimism promotes forgiveness? Of course not. Con can also not prove pessimism promotes laughter or that pessimistic people are fun to be around. As such, he resorts to scrutinizing my sources (which is fine) but presenting no actual rebuttal. ConclusionI've argued that optimism is good for accepting constructive criticism. Con hasn't denied it. I've argued that it promotes innovation and inspiration, and also that it gives you confidence. Con hasn't denied it. I pointed out that it promotes tolerance, increases your overall satisfaction and makes you happier/healthier in general. Con hasn't disproven that either; again he simply challenges my sources and claims I have been "exaggerating." I've explained that I am speaking ON BALANCE in my generalizations, which is required of both of us for this debate. Pessimists are known to harp on the negative over the positive. This is the definition of pessimism. Can my opponent prove how choosing to embrace and accept the negative or presume a negative outcome makes individuals or society better? Thus far he has not. Meanwhile I've repeatedly highlighted why optimism is preferable to pessimism and why optimists lead preferable lives to pessimists. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...