Optimists: These people see good even when things are down. Generally speaking, people view optimism as a positive thing. In most circumstances, it is nice to be around an optimist. The problem with a full-blown optimist is that he or she has little grasp on reality and will often make decisions based on pie-in-the-sky predictions. My unprovable opinion is that optimists are by far the most likely people to get into serious debt. This is because they don't grasp that it might be difficult to make a $200 minimum monthly credit card payment for the rest of their lives.
Pessimists: These people see bad even when things are good. Most pessimists are burned out idealists. Pessimists typically claim to be realists, but the distinguishing factor is the assumptions that a pessimist will make. A pessimist will assume the worst in all circumstances while a realist simply accepts the possibility that the worst will occur.
Idealists: These people believe in attainable perfection and furthermore believe that they know the key to that perfection. Idealists are not just 19-year-old peace protestors. Almost everyone has some soapbox from which they like to spout untenable ideals.
Realists: These people get mistaken for pessimists because the world is filled with optimists and idealists. A realist sees the facts, both good and bad, and makes an objective assessment based on those facts. A realist also keeps an understanding of the scope of the situation and can differentiate between a disaster and a minor incident.
I like to say that I am a realist, but the more I type the more I realize that this is not always the case. Some examples.
- I can be an optimist. In the name of laziness I often tell myself things like, "that noise the car is making isn't serious," or, "this Adam Sandler movie will be funny unlike the last five."
- I can be a pessimist. If three or more things go wrong at once, you probably don't want to be around me. I will not believe that anything can possibly go right at that moment.
- I can be an idealist. I tell myself all the time that people are logical and cannot be swayed by empty emotional appeals and that true facts will be accepted as true if presented logically.
Though I may not be there yet, I always strive toward realism. The truth may sting but I'd rather be hurt by the truth than comforted by a lie.
37 comments:
Forget all those labels. No one should want to fit into any one of those categories. That would make life too predictable.
You make a realist sound like it is the best way to be. To me a realist sounds a bit boring. Where is the impulse, the romance, the hope, feelings, instinct?
Who wants to fall in love within a realist mindset? "I have thought it over long and hard in my head, and weighing your positives against your negatives; I have come to the conclusion the I could fall in love with you." Nah-for me it was the dark hair and the green eyes.
A realist seems to be a killer of creativity. A realist will state the facts but not give an opinion. Could a realist ever write that next great American novel? Realism style painting is boring to me. Have you seen the paintings where it takes you a while to figure out if it is a painting or a photo? What does the painter offer? Nothing. It is a duplicate of life with no artist interpretation.
We should be allowed to be optimistic without being an optimist, pessimistic without being a pessimist, ideal without being an idealist, and real with out a realist.
Forrest, for once I don't think I could disagree with you more. Why would a person who seeks truth for truth not be able to have a creative perspective?
I don't necessarily think that the artistic style Realism is the same as realism in life. Artistic Realism generally ignores everything except that which is easily seen surface, and that doesn't describe at all the realism that I am portraying.
Also, I may not have said this too clearly, but I am not claiming that most people can be described simply as one of the four types. I am more saying that people have differing levels of propensities to be certain types. So, I will be an optimist in one area of my life because I would rather tell myself it's all good than face possibilities of it not being good.
I don't get why label one as an optimist when they are being optimistic about something.
Yes, with truth you can be creative and you are assuming that a realist is the only way to seek truth. Realism may be the fact finding mission of truth, but once you have the truth how do you portray it? Optimistically? Pessimistically? Idealistically? Realistically? Again, I still find realism not at all creative. It is what it is - the facts of the situation. It does not leave you with the "creative perspective."
The realist will see a large rock and say that is a large rock, Michelangelo with his optimism and ideas saw that rock and said "there is a prisoner enslaved in that rock." He would then carve and free that soul.
I would not strive to be a realist,I would strive for balance.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
I believe that your view of what a realist is still has no correlation with what I have been talking about. Since when does a true realist see a rock and say that that is all that there is there? The only people who would do that would be optimists (thank goodness there is nothing more to that than a rock) or pessimists (stupid, useless rock).
One of the greatest realists of all time was also one of the most creative artists in my humble opinion. The apparent purpose Leonardo di Vinci's life was to understand reality, yet any person who considers him uncreative is lacking vision if nothing else.
As I see it, there are two purposes to art. One is aesthetic and the other is expression. A lot of art that falls into the official catgory of realism is aesthetic but lacks expression. However, the artist that expresses typically assumes he or she is expressing truth or reality, or the artist is being ironic and pointing out falsehood. Isn't that at least an attempt at realism, even if the artist is actually being optimistic, pessimistic, or idealistic?
In case anyone is wondering, I am aware of the irony that I am idealizing being realistic.
Or maybe your view of a realist has no correlation to what I am talking about.
Again, you are missing my point. One does not want to be labeled by any one of those personalities. It doesn't tell the whole story. Can one fully be a realist? An Optimist,etc.? I think not as you admitted in your orignial post.
You said: Since when does a true realist see a rock and say that that is all that there is there?
A "true realist" would say that is a rock and anything else fact related to it. But I don't think there are any true realist, therefore after using our realism to identify the rock, we can use idealism to create a sculpture and optimism that it will work.
You said: The only people who would do that would be optimists (thank goodness there is nothing more to that than a rock)...
That makes no sense to me at all.
You said: The apparent purpose Leonardo di Vinci's life was to understand reality...
Just because Leo tried to understand reality doesn't make him soley a Realist. Thank goodness he had some other personalities and was able to be creative and give us art.
There are many purposes to art. It is something you probably don't want to define down to two or you might miss something.
Like I said earlier, an artist will use their realist tendencies to define an object. An apple! And then use other personalities to express the truth they see in that apple. It still doesn't make them a realist.
In case if you were wondering about me:
I am a Romantic.
Maybe I'll post about that someday.
(Also, Dust. No more. I need to work today. Save it for Homer's tonight.)
Forrest, it isn't quite fair to describe why I am wrong, then essentially say, "don't reply to this." Easy way to get the last word. :) I will try to make this short, but there is a lot to respond to.
Of course my description of a realist have nothing to do with your description. Your view is simply that a realist is narrowminded and can't get past facts. That doesn't make sense.
I have not advocated that a person can be described solely as one of the types.
I do not connect creativity with whether a person is realistic, optimistic, pessimistic, or idealistic. One does not follow the other.
I know there are a lot of purposes to art, but I was trying to keep you from getting away with the assumption that realists can only create aesthetic art.
I guess that wasn't short.
Sorry I wasn't trying to stop you from having the last word, because I know you will. I was trying to say no more for me. But here I go again. (it's lunchtime.)
I never said that a realist is narrowminded. I said that I don't think that anyone is a true realist. We all lean those ways at different times.
How does a realist react to the truth? Optimistic, Pessimistic, Idealistic? If one says a realist doesn't react, they take it for what it is: the truth. Then, that's were I get the idea that being a realist is boring and not creative. Because if one has no reaction to the truth then they are nothing more than a computer. I don't think that is possible, everybody reacts.
You did say that you were striving towards realism. In your definitions of all the personalities, you listed the pro's and con's of each except for the realist, which was just pro's. Me trying to be a realist looked at realism, the good points and I discovered some bad points too. Now I am just trying to make an objective opinion if I want to define my life by one of those personalities.
I believe the way one expresses themself creatively is brought about by their personalities and the way they think. I see it in myself and others.
I don't believe realist can create art, period, for the moment they do they become someone else.
That's all from me, have the last word. (Any others?)
Not right now I don't. :)
I'm not sure I should get in on this one---but here it goes!
I felt that your definition of realist was more of a blend of the four things you're describing. So I decided to look it up.
2 entries found for realist on dictionary.com
re·al·ist
One who is inclined to literal truth and pragmatism.
A practitioner of artistic or philosophic realism.
realist
n 1: a philosopher who believes that universals are real and exist independently of anyone thinking of them 2: a person who accepts the world as it literally is and deals with it accordingly 3: a painter who represents the world realistically and not in an idealized or romantic style.
I found what you said to fit into the 2a. definition above, in my opinion.
For what it's worth, I consider myself a realist. Please don't think this is an "I want to be more like dust" moment. I grew up in a household that emphasized the "real" world and the difference between those who are "realistic" verses those who choose to live in it through rose colored glasses! (My sister said she likes her glasses, it's a pretty shade and we're not allowed to take them from her!---drives my dad nuts!)
Just my 1/2 cents worth.
The only concern I have with describing a realist in the terms of 2 is that it might imply that the realist has no understanding of what can be made of what currently literally exists. Otherwise, I completely agree.
I find it interesting that you are saying that you have concerns about the actual, factual definition of realist. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I kind of thought defintions were absolute.
BTW, it says "and deals with it accordingly" I take that to mean they understand what can be made of what currently literally exists. Again only 1/2 a cents worth. Oh well. You're probably bored with this by now anyways.
I can't speak for Dust, but what I take from his concern is that dealing with the world according to a literal sense would take away all inventiveness. We would be like animals. Animals are realist. They see their world literally and deal with it accordingly. What has been given to them in a literal sense is what they use to survive, what they use for shelter and what they use for food.
T- you are up to a penny, now.
I'm definitely not bored by it. :)
Really, when it comes down to it, my definition of realist is going to be slightly different from what the dictionary says because what I am attempting to describe does not have a specific word in English to describe it.
When I speak of a realist, I am talking about someone who cares about the real truth of an issue more than anything else. Likewise, an idealist cares more about how his or her ideals are impacted by an issue than anything else.
If my definition of realist was merely a literalist it wouldn't make much sense because a person can easily be a literalist and an idealist about the same issue (or a literalist and an optimist, etc). It simply wouldn't fit as a type of person.
I realize now that I had more to say on this that should be put in a comment. See my blog for my take.
... or just call me a rock :-)
Okay, I'll be up to 2 cents now..but here I ago again!
First. You have to keep definitions in context...it reads "a person who accepts the world as it literally is and deals with it accordingly." A person. people have the ability to reason and this implies reasoning takes place when it says....accepts the world and deals, that's a process. First you accept the situation and then you deal with it. Animals do not have the ability to accept a situation and deal with it. The situation happens and they react, it's an instinct---not a process.
Second. Why bother with using a word that is a real word and "defining" it if you are going to turn around and say "There is no way to say what I mean because no such word exists. Why not just create a new word? I believe if you are a realist this makes more sense then trying to create a new definition. Just a thought. Now, I'm at 2 cents for those of you counting. I'm still way behind you!
I still stand by my "animals" theory because the definition doesn't say anything about reasoning. Animals do accept the situation and deal with it. I see it all the time. Just because it may be an instinct doesn't make it any less of how they deal with the world accordingly. In fact, I am ruled by instinct sometimes and I find that often instinct is usually right when it is put up against reason. (Think back to tests in school.)
I am driving home last night and a rabbit darts out in front of my car. Something (instinct, process, reasoning) told the little bunny that it was about to become roadkill. It decided to turn back and get out of the way.
I believe it acted like a realist: A car is coming, it is bigger than me, it will hit me, it will kill me, therefore I better get out of the way.
More than once I have heard someone who was called a pessimist say, "I'm not a pessimist. I'm a realist."
I never read that statement to say that the person i claiming that he or she is a literalist. It means that that person accepts that reality happens. I dosn't think it matters whether it is a dictionary definition because it is used enough in a context where my definition fits.
T's right! I think you should come up with a new word to describe (not who you are)but how you handle situations or issues.
drealist
staycoolist
neo-realist
pesso-realist
off-the-bridgist
I'll stay in box that I've put God in and try to drink blindly again...
off-the-bridgist?
This is the definition I am going for. You can find the source here.
a way of thinking and acting based on the facts of a situation and what appears to be possible, rather than on hopes for things which are unlikely to happen:
- His decision not to expand the business shows his down-to-earth realism.
His decision not to expand the business shows his down-to-earth realism. Years later, bankrupt and businessless, he looks back and curses his down-to-earth realism. He now works as a greeter for a fellow classmate's business. His classmate took the risk and has now made Wal-Mart into one of America's top companies.
Enough optimists and idealists went broke on the Dot Com bubble burst that I am much more willing to accept the risks of being a pessimist or realist that were just described.
The question that I ask myself constantly, because I tend to play it safe is:
Do I let fear rule my life and squelch my dreams.
Fear vs. Faith - who wins.
I play it safe, but I don't want to give myself over to always playing it safe.
How does a realist react to God's voice telling you leave your job and become a foreign missionary for Him when you are scared of foreign travel and have no speaking skills and a family to feed?
If a true realist truly accepts God's voice as truth, then there is no question what the realist will do.
But all the facts of the situation would say no, it doesn't make sense; it is not a wise thing to do. I am not the right person.
Wouldn't that person have to surrender their "realist" mindset to have faith and trust in God. Accepting God's voice as truth takes an act of faith. Doesn't faith(hope for things not seen)require a bit of optimism? I feel this goes way beyond your definition of a realist (a way of thinking and acting based on the facts of a situation and what appears to be possible.)
God calling that person to be a missonary, in their world does not seem possible. They have to have faith in the impossible.
-Goodbye for the weekend
this is great!
I think you are confusing pessimists and realists.
If the realist truly believes in God (not just believes that God exists) and believes that God works things out for good, then the realist would believe that the facts point to obeying God. The realist would recognize that to do otherwise would be more painful in the long run.
Perhaps if the realist didn't believe in God you would have a point, but that would be the case for the optimist, the pessimist, and the idealist as well.
I came into the office today to do a little work for a couple of hours.
I am not confusing realist with pessimist. I am using your definitions of a realist.
you said: the realist would believe that the facts point to obeying God.
What are those facts? They are not tangible. Yes, you can see God's work in your life, but how do you quantify it. It is still all about Faith. I still believe a true realist would have to surrender that mindset when it comes to trusting in God, because the evidence of the real world may be saying "no."
I still think you need to come up with a new "word" to describe what you are.
And I still think that no one should want to fit into any category, because they are all flawed. Balance is the key. And I don't think anyone does fit into any one category!
Forrest, I think it is time to give it up, as this is going nowhere.
Your description of faith appears to be believing in something that the evidence says is false. I believe that is hope and not faith. I cannot debate this, because I do believe the evidence that I have accepted as factual in my life points to obeying God. In attempting to be a realist, I accept God's omnipotence and omniscience as real based on the facts that I see.
Looking through my life and observing others' lives, I see the evidence of how obeying God is easier in the long run than not obeying Him. I certainly don't always feel like He has my immediate happiness as a top priority. True realists accept long term rewards, though.
You don't have to use the word "realist" if you don't want. I don't really care. It is the word that best describes what I am trying to say, though. I am describing someone who is realistic about the situations in which they are placed. To me, a person who is being realistic is a realist. To to create a fake word to replace a word that means something different in art or philosophy seems pointless.
Anyway, you can respond to this if you feel I am throwing some unfair jabs, but if not we don't need to belabor this any more.
I'm coming into this really late. But here's my loose change. I had to work with a person who sounds like a version of an idealist. Creative yes. But no concept of actually doing and completing a project. It was nothing but frustrating. If Michalangelo was a total idealist there would still be a cool bunch of marble and a great plan to carve something beautiful but no David.
There has to be some realism mixed in or nothing is finished (it's often started but rarely finished). I like the concept of an idea-realist. They have ideas and are creative but have the wherewithal to figure out the steps and risks that need to be taken to make the thing reality.
I hate working with pure idealism. It usually has grand ideas, no plan, and also won't listen to the other people in the room who know what it's going to take and what is possible. It's painful and leaves others a lot of work.
I feel I'm opening a fresh can of worms....
Dust, I feel this is going somewhere. For me at least, because I never gave two hoots about this personality crap before and now I know a little bit about it.
Faith is defined as hope in things not seen as I said in my previous comments. Again, how does a realist have faith if they have to hope?? Just asking the question. I never said anything about the evidence being false, but rather how a realist makes decisions based on evidence that may seem contrary to what they know as true and right to follow God's will that doesn't make sense.
I am not asking you to come up with a fake word but one that fits the definition you are describing. T, gave us definitions of a realist and you didn't fully prescribe to them. So what you are describing isn't a true realist as you are coming up with a different difinition for realist. To create a fake definition for a realist seems pointless too, as I am talking and refering to the definition and you are talking about something else.
I too see the evidence in obeying God when I look back on my life and at others live, but God will still put you at odds with a realist mindset or any mindset. The Holy Spirit is transforming our minds to be more like Christ.
What I don't get is why you are attempting to be a realist when you are not? I would think you would be denying your true self or that everything you said or thought would have to be filtered through a "what would a realist say" sift. Then everything becomes calculated. Where does it leave room for one to be optimistic, pessimistic, or idealistic at any given point in time.
If you are attempting to be a realist doesn't that take a bit of idealism?
Just be you and do what you do!
Stayed at the office a while? :)
Faith is the evidence of things not seen. It's a little nitpicky, but the difference is key.
The only reason that the evidence would point against God's will is if all the evidence has not been tabulated. If a person does not accept God's call as being from an omniscient and omnipotent
Being, then the realistic thing is to ingore God. I have already stated these conditions, though, so I don't know whether I should continue on this vein.
Don't you believe that a person who is realistic is a realist? What would you call a realistic person?
As to why I would wish to be a realist, here's the short (by my definition) answer. A realist is the only one of the four types I described that actually values truth. An optimist would rather be deluded by what great things might happen, a pessimist writes things off as failures from the start, and an idealist sees reality only under the terms that make his or her ideals look positive. A realist cares for truth, and to me that is the highest ideal (because God is truth).
Is a liar denying himself because he chooses not to lie? I choose to seek a realistic truth because the other options are to lie to myself in one form or another.
Not to be nitpicky, but I believe (if my memory is correct) that faith is the substance of things HOPED for and the evidence of things not seen.
I don't think I need to explain this again. It is the "hoped for" and "things not seen" that have me questioning...
What would I call a realistic person? Just that, "Realistic." I would use an adjective that describes how a person reacts to as situation/issue at any given point in time. Also, I would call them, "level-headed," "balanced," "experienced" and maybe "honest." I would not use the noun "Realist" to label a person based on current thoughts. In my life, I see all four of those traits: I am realistic, I am optimistic, sometimes I am pessimistic, and living my chistianity makes me idealistic. (on earth as it is in heaven-that is a tough ideal to live up to.)
I think you are wrong on how you define the four types and also partly right. Yes, it is true sometimes what you said about the O,I, and P, but there must be a negative to the Realist too. Could not a Realist be deluded by the real and the tangible or literal to miss out on the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit?
I know what your answer is and I understand what you mean when the Realism is based on a Christian Context. So, what about the other 3 types when they are based within the christian context?
I see truth as the commonality to all four types. Once you have the truth what are you going to do with it?
The truth is we have 15 apple trees in our backyard (realist). An optimistic response is that I hope we have lots of apple pie this fall. An idealistic response might be that we could start a business and sell apple products. A pessimistic response will be that apples are a lot of work and they might get mushy and have a worm in them. Which one of those responses doesn't value truth?
-That's all for now!
This is my modification to your apple tree analogy to illustrate my point.
Optimist Response: Let's assume that we will get the maximum possible production out of our apple trees this year. Start the business!
Pessimist Response: Let's assume most of our trees will die this year. Bail out!
Idealist Response: We should sell granny smith apples. I like them the best so they will obviously sell well. It doesn't matter that our trees bear red delicious fruit.
Realist Response: Due to long-term weather predictions for the growing season and anticipated insect impacts, we should expect a crop of %60 to %80 capacity of our trees. Steps should be taken to ward off disease and bugs and a price point target should be set for what we expect a bushel of apples to sell for. If, once probable earnings and costs are tabulated, the apple business appears likely profitable enough to outweigh risks and effort required, we should pursue the apple business this year.
Nice!!, but your response was to the apple tree business and not to the apple tree itself.
You are also being unfair by putting the streetsmarts against the booksmarts. (We know who wins in the end.) It is obvious that the realist is the only one who got a business degree.
Are you saying that realist are usually educated and the others are just dumb? :)
I think I will now lay this to rest, unless we pick it up on a Thursday night.
-Good discussion!
Ps. I was also trying to give you the new "comment" record which was previously held by your wife.
Post a Comment