Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Negative aspects

Negative aspects refer to the disadvantages, risks, adverse consequences, or unfavorable characteristics inherent in or resulting from a subject, policy, decision, technology, or phenomenon. These elements contrast with positive attributes and must be evaluated to achieve a balanced understanding, as human cognition often exhibits a negativity bias where negative information exerts a stronger influence on judgments and behaviors than equivalent positive information.^[1] In decision-making processes, systematically identifying negative aspects enhances outcomes by promoting loss aversion and caution in uncertain environments, with empirical evidence indicating that implicit negativity bias correlates with reduced risk-taking in high-stakes scenarios.^[1] Failure to account for them, as seen in cases of inadequate planning or slips in execution, frequently precipitates errors and systemic breakdowns, such as those documented in healthcare where unaddressed potential mistakes amplify harm.^[2] Overemphasis on positive features without scrutiny of negatives can foster overconfidence, contributing to organizational and policy failures, though balanced analysis mitigates this by integrating verifiable data over anecdotal optimism.^[3] Notable controversies arise when negative aspects are systematically downplayed, particularly in institutionally influenced narratives from academia and media, where empirical scrutiny reveals selective reporting that prioritizes ideological alignment over comprehensive causal assessment; credible sources, including peer-reviewed studies, underscore the need for skepticism toward such omissions to preserve analytical integrity.^[1]^[3] Defining characteristics include their role in risk assessment frameworks, where quantification via probabilistic modeling reveals hidden costs, as opposed to qualitative dismissal that invites suboptimal choices.

Conceptual foundations

Definitions and etymology

The term "negative aspect" denotes a disadvantageous, harmful, or undesirable characteristic or feature of a phenomenon, object, idea, policy, or situation, often contrasted with positive aspects in balanced evaluations. In analytical frameworks, it refers specifically to elements involving potential losses, risks, ethical drawbacks, or unintended consequences, as seen in cost-benefit analyses where negative aspects quantify adverse outcomes such as economic costs or social harms.^[4]^[5] Etymologically, "negative" derives from Latin negātīvus ("that denies" or "negative"), the adjectival form of negāre ("to deny" or "to say no"), entering English via Old French negatif in the late 14th century to signify denial, refusal, or absence.^[6]^[7] This connotation of negation or opposition underlies its application to aspects involving prohibition, rejection, or counterproductive effects. "Aspect," by contrast, stems from Latin aspectus ("a looking at," "sight," or "appearance"), from aspicere ("to look at" or "behold"), composed of ad- ("to" or "at") and specere ("to look"), entering English in the 14th century to mean a particular view, facet, or angle of observation.^[8]^[4] The compound phrase "negative aspect" thus evokes a viewpoint emphasizing denial or detriment within a broader examination, a usage solidified in English by the 19th century in contexts like philosophical critique and scientific assessment.^[9] Considering negative aspects involves the objective identification and evaluation of potential drawbacks, risks, or limitations in a given situation, process, or entity, aimed at enhancing foresight and mitigation strategies. This approach contrasts with pessimism, defined as a cognitive bias or temperament that anticipates predominantly unfavorable outcomes and emphasizes probable failures, often resulting in reduced proactive engagement. Empirical studies indicate that pessimism correlates with heightened negative affect and lower resilience, whereas systematic scrutiny of negatives aligns with adaptive realism, enabling evidence-based adjustments without presuming inevitable defeat.^[10]^[11] It further differs from cynicism, which entails a generalized suspicion of others' motives as self-serving or insincere, fostering interpersonal distrust rather than neutral analysis of flaws. Cynicism manifests as scornful detachment, potentially overlooking redeemable elements due to assumed malice, in opposition to the impartial cataloging of negative aspects—such as inefficiencies or unintended consequences—that does not inherently impute ethical failings to actors involved. Psychological research links chronic cynicism to elevated stress and social withdrawal, underscoring its maladaptive nature compared to detached evaluation.^[12] Negative aspects assessment is also distinct from risk aversion, a behavioral preference for certain outcomes over probabilistic gains, even when the expected value favors the latter; this aversion primarily addresses uncertainty in decision-making under ambiguity, as quantified in prospect theory experiments where individuals weigh losses more heavily than equivalent gains. In contrast, evaluating negative aspects extends beyond stochastic risks to include non-probabilistic downsides, like systemic vulnerabilities or ethical trade-offs, promoting comprehensive due diligence irrespective of personal loss tolerance. Meta-analyses confirm risk aversion's domain-specific variability, but it does not equate to exhaustive flaw detection, which prioritizes causal identification over mere avoidance.^[13]^[14] Finally, unlike maladaptive negativity schemas—where individuals disproportionately amplify downsides while discounting positives, leading to distorted worldviews—this practice demands balanced integration of evidence, countering optimism biases that systematically undervalue threats. Such schemas, rooted in early attachment disruptions, impair functioning by fostering helplessness, whereas truth-oriented negative aspect review serves precautionary utility, as evidenced in decision sciences where preemptive flaw acknowledgment improves long-term outcomes without engendering defeatism.^[15]^[16]

Psychological perspectives

Negativity bias and cognitive processes

Negativity bias in cognitive processes refers to the disproportionate influence of negative stimuli on attention, memory encoding, learning, and decision-making, where adverse information elicits stronger neural and behavioral responses than equivalent positive information. Empirical evidence from developmental studies demonstrates this bias emerges early, with 7- to 12-month-old infants displaying prolonged visual fixation and larger Nc event-related potential amplitudes to negative emotional expressions like fear, compared to positive ones.^[17] Adults similarly exhibit faster detection of negative faces, such as anger, in visual search arrays, reflecting prioritized attentional capture by threats.^[18] This attentional asymmetry stems from evolutionary pressures, as negative events signal greater fitness costs under concave utility functions, where losses diminish state more than gains enhance it.^[19] In memory processes, negative stimuli are encoded and retrieved with superior accuracy and detail. Children aged 3 to 7 years recall stressful medical procedures more exhaustively and coherently than neutral events, indicating enhanced consolidation of adverse experiences.^[17] Neuroimaging reveals greater late positive potential (LPP) responses to negative valence, supporting deeper elaborative processing and stronger memorial traces for negatives over positives.^[17] This bias extends to learning, particularly in social referencing paradigms, where 12-month-olds generalize avoidance behaviors from negative emotional cues (e.g., fear or disgust toward a toy) more readily than from positive ones, reducing interaction by up to 100% in cliff-edge tasks under fearful modeling.^[17] Decision-making under negativity bias favors risk aversion toward losses, amplifying their subjective weight. In prospect theory, empirically validated through choice experiments, participants reject gambles with equal expected value if they involve potential loss, with loss aversion coefficients typically exceeding 2:1 (i.e., a $100 loss requires over $200 gain for indifference).^[20] Neural mechanisms involve hyperactivity in the bilateral pregenual anterior cingulate cortex (pgACC) and left putamen during perception of ambiguous negative facial expressions, correlating with interpretive bias strength (r = -0.84 to -0.90 for sadness judgments).^[21] Functional connectivity between pgACC and dorsal anterior cingulate further modulates this, linking negativity bias to heightened threat vigilance in cognitive appraisal.^[21] Such processes, while adaptive for survival, can distort balanced evaluation by overvaluing rare negatives.^[19]

Mental health implications

Excessive focus on negative aspects, facilitated by the negativity bias, is associated with heightened risk for mood and anxiety disorders through mechanisms like rumination, a form of repetitive negative thinking that sustains emotional distress. Empirical evidence indicates that rumination acts as a causal factor in the onset and persistence of depression and anxiety, as it interferes with problem-solving and amplifies perceived threats without resolution. For instance, longitudinal studies have identified rumination as a mediator between stressful life events and subsequent depressive episodes, with affected individuals showing prolonged engagement with negative self-referential thoughts.^[22]^[23] In depression, negativity bias manifests as selective attention to adverse information, which correlates with biased interpretation of ambiguous stimuli and impaired emotion regulation. Research demonstrates that individuals with depressive symptoms exhibit stronger neural responses to negative feedback, perpetuating a cycle where minor setbacks are magnified into pervasive hopelessness. This bias is not uniform across all depressive features; while it strongly links to attentional and interpretive negativities, core symptoms like anhedonia show weaker associations, suggesting specificity in cognitive pathways. Anxiety disorders similarly involve amplified sensitivity to errors and negative social cues, driven by the bias's role in threat detection, which can escalate into generalized worry or social avoidance.^[17]^[24]^[25] Therapeutic interventions targeting this bias, such as cognitive behavioral techniques, underscore its malleability and mental health costs; for example, reducing negative rumination via mindfulness or implementation intentions has been shown to alleviate depressive symptoms by balancing attentional focus. However, the bias's evolutionary roots imply that complete suppression may hinder adaptive vigilance, potentially leading to underestimation of real risks, though unchecked amplification predominantly correlates with poorer outcomes in clinical populations. Population-level data from meta-analyses confirm that higher negativity bias predicts greater symptom severity in both adolescents and adults, independent of baseline stress exposure.^[26]^[27]

Criticisms of suppressing negative focus

Effortful suppression of negative emotions or focus on adverse information often fails to eliminate underlying distress and can intensify it through rebound effects, where suppressed thoughts or feelings resurface more persistently. Psychological research demonstrates that such suppression preserves the subjective intensity of negative emotions while reducing the capacity to experience positive ones, thereby hindering overall emotional regulation.^[28] This aligns with ironic process theory, where attempts to inhibit unwanted mental content paradoxically increase its accessibility, as observed in experimental paradigms involving thought suppression.^[29] Longitudinal studies have linked habitual emotional suppression to adverse health outcomes, including a 35% higher risk of all-cause mortality over 12 years among frequent suppressors compared to non-suppressors, independent of demographics and baseline health.^[30] Physiologically, suppression elevates cardiovascular stress responses, such as increased blood pressure and cortisol levels during emotional provocation, contributing to chronic strain and conditions like hypertension.^[31] Critics argue this reflects a failure to process negatives adaptively, leading to somatization where unaddressed emotional tension manifests as physical symptoms, including persistent aches, fatigue, and heightened aggression.^[32]^[33] In mental health contexts, suppressing negative focus undermines therapeutic progress, particularly for individuals with high experiential avoidance, where suppression instructions amplify distress rather than alleviate it.^[34] Overreliance on positivity-oriented strategies, which implicitly suppress negatives, fosters "toxic positivity" that invalidates genuine emotional experiences, impairing resilience and interpersonal bonds by signaling inauthenticity.^[35] Socially, it erodes relationship quality, as suppressed expressivity reduces perceived closeness and support, with prospective data showing suppressors experience greater loneliness and relational dissatisfaction.^[36] Critics of positive psychology interventions highlight how de-emphasizing negatives promotes optimism bias, encouraging underestimation of risks and poor preparation for setbacks, as seen in studies where positive reframing delayed adaptive learning from failures.^[37]^[38] This suppression can sustain maladaptive habits by avoiding confrontation with their downsides, ultimately diminishing life satisfaction and problem-solving efficacy. Empirical reviews note that while short-term suppression may down-regulate overt expression, it fails to address root causes, yielding net costs in cognitive flexibility and well-being.^[39]^[40]

Philosophical and ethical frameworks

Negative utilitarianism

Negative utilitarianism holds that moral actions should primarily aim to minimize suffering or negative states of well-being, rather than maximizing positive states such as happiness or pleasure.^[41] This position treats the prevention of harm as asymmetrically more urgent than the promotion of benefits, positing that the disvalue of suffering outweighs equivalent positive experiences in ethical calculus. Unlike classical utilitarianism, which seeks the greatest net happiness, negative utilitarianism focuses on aggregate reduction of pain across sentient beings, potentially accepting a world with minimal or no positive utility if it eliminates suffering entirely.^[42] The concept emerged in mid-20th-century philosophical discourse, with Karl Popper articulating a "negative utilitarian" principle in his 1945 work The Open Society and Its Enemies, arguing that ethical policy should seek to minimize suffering to avoid the totalitarian risks inherent in pursuits of maximal happiness, which might justify coercive sacrifices.^[41] Popper contrasted this with positive utilitarianism's potential to endorse large-scale harms for supposed greater goods, emphasizing piecemeal social engineering to alleviate misery without utopian overreach.^[41] R. N. Smart formalized the term "negative utilitarianism" in his 1958 response, critiquing Popper by noting that a strict interpretation—minimizing total suffering—could rationally endorse the extinction of all sentient life, as no suffering occurs in non-existence, rendering the theory practically untenable.^[43] Proponents argue from an asymmetry thesis: pains are intrinsically worse than pleasures are good, supported by observations that humans evolved stronger aversion to losses than attraction to gains, as seen in prospect theory's empirical findings where losses loom larger than equivalent gains.^[44] This prioritizes interventions like poverty alleviation or animal welfare reforms that avert harm over expansive happiness-boosting projects, aligning with causal realism in targeting root causes of suffering such as disease or exploitation.^[45] However, critics contend that negative utilitarianism's focus invites repugnant conclusions, such as endorsing painless global annihilation to achieve zero suffering, which Popper himself acknowledged as a logical outcome he rejected in favor of moderated approaches.^[43] Toby Ord, in his 2013 analysis, argues it undervalues existence's potential for net positive value and risks moral paralysis by overemphasizing negatives without balancing creation of welfare.^[46] Empirical implications include policy preferences for harm reduction, such as strict regulations on high-risk industries or euthanasia debates, but the theory's radical edge—potentially devaluing pro-natalist or innovative pursuits—has limited adoption beyond niche effective altruism circles focused on suffering reduction.^[47] Philosophical treatments often highlight its tension with justice, as minimizing aggregate suffering might permit exploiting minorities if it averts greater harms elsewhere, echoing broader utilitarian critiques without resolving them through negative framing alone.^[48]

Historical philosophical treatments

In ancient Indian philosophy, Siddhartha Gautama, known as the Buddha (c. 563–483 BCE), articulated a foundational treatment of negative aspects through the concept of dukkha, the first of the Four Noble Truths, positing that suffering—encompassing physical pain, emotional dissatisfaction, and existential impermanence—is an intrinsic feature of conditioned existence.^[49] This diagnosis, drawn from empirical observation of human experience rather than abstract optimism, emphasized causality in suffering's origins (craving and attachment) and prescribed detachment as mitigation, influencing subsequent ethical frameworks by prioritizing realism over illusionary positivity.^[50] In the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Ecclesiastes (composed c. 3rd century BCE), attributed traditionally to King Solomon, presents a stark appraisal of life's negative dimensions, declaring "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity" to underscore the futility, transience, and inevitable toil of human endeavors under natural conditions, devoid of ultimate purpose absent divine orientation.^[51] This text critiques hedonistic pursuits and material accumulation as yielding only ephemeral satisfaction amid oppression, death, and injustice, advocating instead a measured enjoyment of the present while acknowledging pervasive meaninglessness, a view that anticipates secular pessimism by grounding negativity in observable outcomes rather than theological consolation alone.^[52] Hellenistic Stoicism, developed from the 3rd century BCE onward by thinkers like Seneca (c. 4 BCE–65 CE) and Epictetus (c. 50–135 CE), institutionalized the practice of premeditatio malorum—premeditation of evils—as a deliberate ethical exercise to confront potential adversities, such as loss, illness, or betrayal, thereby cultivating resilience and reducing the shock of actual negatives.^[53] Originating partly from earlier Cyrenaic influences, this method involved vivid mental rehearsal of worst-case scenarios not to induce despair but to affirm control over responses, aligning with causal realism by treating negative possibilities as probabilistically real rather than dismissible, and contrasting with Epicurean pleasure-seeking by foregrounding pain's inevitability in rational decision-making.^[54] Marcus Aurelius (121–180 CE), in his Meditations, exemplified this by routinely reflecting on mortality and misfortune to detach from externals, arguing that such focus prevents delusion and fosters virtue amid life's inherent hardships.^[55] In the 19th century, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) systematized a metaphysical pessimism, positing the world as manifestation of a blind, insatiable Will that perpetually generates desire, frustration, and suffering, rendering existence a cycle of striving without attainable fulfillment.^[56] Drawing from Kantian critiques of reason and Eastern influences like Buddhism, Schopenhauer contended in The World as Will and Representation (1818, expanded 1844) that positives are mere negations of pain, with compassion arising from recognition of shared negativity, thus framing ethical action as mitigation of harm over optimistic progressivism.^[57] This view sparked the European "pessimism controversy" (c. 1870–1890), where figures like Eduard von Hartmann adapted it into voluntary non-procreation ethics, prioritizing prevention of new suffering amid industrial-era disillusionment, though critiqued for underemphasizing human agency in transcending negatives.^[58]

Societal and policy applications

Role in realistic decision-making

Incorporating negative aspects into decision-making frameworks promotes realism by countering pervasive optimism biases, which empirical studies show lead to systematic underestimation of risks, costs, and timelines in projections. For instance, the planning fallacy, documented in multiple experiments, causes individuals and organizations to overlook potential downsides, resulting in frequent overruns; deliberate focus on adverse scenarios mitigates this by encouraging contingency planning and resource allocation based on probable failures rather than best-case assumptions.^[59]^[60] Defensive pessimism exemplifies this role, functioning as a self-regulatory strategy where decision-makers preemptively visualize negative outcomes to reduce anxiety and enhance preparation, leading to superior performance in uncertain environments. Research on this approach, originating from studies on goal-oriented behavior, demonstrates that it motivates proactive problem-solving—such as identifying 30% more obstacles than optimistic strategies—without the paralysis often associated with unmitigated negativity. In societal contexts, this translates to policy formulations that prioritize resilience, as seen in frameworks like scenario planning, where worst-case modeling has improved outcomes in fields from disaster response to economic forecasting by fostering adaptive measures over unchecked enthusiasm.^[61] The depressive realism hypothesis further underscores the value of negative focus, positing that individuals with subdued positive illusions provide more accurate self-assessments and predictions, particularly in controlled tasks measuring performance against reality. Applied to policy, this realism aids in avoiding overconfidence traps, such as those in international relations where negativity bias, while sometimes exaggerated, compels attention to threats that optimistic narratives dismiss, thereby informing robust deterrence and alliance strategies. Empirical data from political judgment studies indicate that conservative orientations, which exhibit stronger negativity processing, correlate with heightened vigilance toward systemic risks, contributing to decisions that prioritize long-term stability over short-term gains.^[59]^[62]^[63] In practice, tools like cost-benefit analyses and red-teaming exercises institutionalize negative scrutiny, ensuring policies account for unintended consequences and failure modes that pure positivity overlooks. For example, regulatory impact assessments mandated in jurisdictions like the European Union require explicit evaluation of downside risks, which has led to refined policies by revealing hidden costs in ambitious initiatives. This methodical negativity not only aligns decisions with causal realities—such as resource constraints and human error propensities—but also builds public trust through transparent acknowledgment of limitations, contrasting with histories of policy flops driven by unexamined upsides.^[60]^[64]

Case studies of ignored negative aspects

In the 2008 global financial crisis, U.S. regulators and policymakers underestimated the systemic risks from subprime mortgage expansion and securitization, fostering excessive leverage under the assumption of sustained housing price growth. Government policies, including incentives for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase homeownership among higher-risk borrowers, amplified lending to those with poor credit histories, with subprime loans rising from 8% of mortgages in 2003 to 20% by 2006.^[65] ^[66] When defaults surged after housing prices peaked in 2006, this triggered a credit market freeze, bank failures like Lehman Brothers' collapse on September 15, 2008, and a recession with U.S. GDP contracting 4.3% from peak to trough and unemployment reaching 10% in October 2009.^[67] ^[66] The 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster illustrates how organizational pressures in public programs can suppress warnings of technical failures. On January 28, 1986, the shuttle disintegrated 73 seconds after liftoff due to O-ring seal failure in the right solid rocket booster, caused by record-low temperatures stiffening the rubber components and preventing proper sealing against hot gases.^[68] Engineers at contractor Morton Thiokol had flagged risks in a January 27 teleconference, presenting data from prior missions showing O-ring erosion and recommending no launch below 53°F (12°C), but NASA managers, facing schedule delays and budget scrutiny, dismissed these as acceptable and pressured for approval.^[68] ^[69] The explosion killed all seven crew members, halted shuttle flights for 32 months, and prompted congressional reforms to NASA's risk management protocols.^[70] Germany's Energiewende energy transition policy provides a recent example of downplaying reliability risks in pursuit of decarbonization goals. Following the 2011 Fukushima accident, the government accelerated nuclear phase-out, shutting the last reactors on April 15, 2023, despite nuclear supplying over 20% of electricity capacity in 2010 with near-zero emissions.^[71] Policymakers overlooked the intermittency of wind and solar replacements, leading to greater dependence on coal and natural gas imports; by 2022, gas imports from Russia comprised 55% of supply, exposing vulnerabilities when flows halted amid the Ukraine conflict.^[72] This resulted in electricity prices spiking to €1,000/MWh in summer 2022—over ten times pre-crisis levels—industrial output falling 3.5% year-over-year, and temporary emissions rises from coal resurgence, undermining climate targets.^[73] ^[72] Academic analyses note that ideological aversion to nuclear, amplified by post-Fukushima public opinion, prioritized perceived safety over empirical data on nuclear's dispatchable low-carbon output relative to fossil backups.^[74]

Cultural and media representations

In literature and philosophy

In Stoic philosophy, practitioners employed premeditatio malorum, or negative visualization, to deliberately contemplate potential adversities such as loss, illness, or death, thereby fostering appreciation for the present and resilience against unforeseen negatives. Seneca, in his Letters to Lucilius (circa 65 CE), recommended imagining the death of loved ones or personal misfortunes to diminish their emotional impact if realized, arguing this counters the human tendency toward complacency and unpreparedness.^[53]^[75] Marcus Aurelius echoed this in Meditations (circa 170-180 CE), reflecting on mortality to prioritize virtue over fleeting pleasures.^[76] This practice aligns with recognizing inherent negatives in existence, training the mind to weigh risks realistically rather than succumbing to undue optimism. Arthur Schopenhauer's metaphysical pessimism, articulated in The World as Will and Representation (1818), posits that life is dominated by ceaseless striving driven by an irrational will, rendering suffering the default state while pleasure merely negates pain temporarily. He contended that empirical observation reveals more pain than joy, with happiness illusory and contingent, urging ascetic denial or aesthetic contemplation as escapes.^[57]^[56] Influenced by Eastern thought, Schopenhauer viewed existence as a cycle of desire and dissatisfaction, critiquing optimistic philosophies like Leibniz's for ignoring evident harms.^[77] In modern philosophy, David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been (2006) advances an asymmetry argument: the absence of pain is good even if unexperienced, whereas the absence of pleasure is neutral, making procreation inherently harmful as it risks imposing suffering without commensurate justification. Benatar supports this with psychological evidence of pervasive displeasure, including chronic pains and unfulfilled desires, outweighing sporadic joys.^[78]^[79] Literature frequently amplifies negative focus to expose societal vulnerabilities, as in dystopian works that extrapolate current trends into cautionary harms. George Orwell's 1984 (1949) depicts totalitarian surveillance and thought control eroding truth and autonomy, drawing from Stalinist purges (1930s) to warn of unchecked power's corrosive effects.^[80] Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932) illustrates hedonistic engineering suppressing individuality via genetic conditioning and soma-induced complacency, critiquing Ford-era mass production's dehumanizing trajectory.^[81] These narratives leverage negativity not for despair but to compel realistic appraisal of threats, mirroring philosophy's emphasis on confronting ills to avert them.^[82]

Modern media and popular discourse

In contemporary popular discourse, particularly within social media and the wellness industry, a phenomenon known as toxic positivity has gained prominence, characterized by the pervasive expectation to maintain an optimistic outlook while dismissing or suppressing acknowledgment of negative emotions or realities. This trend pressures individuals to frame experiences through unrelentingly positive lenses, often via platitudes like "good vibes only" or "choose happiness," which can invalidate genuine distress and hinder realistic processing of challenges.^[83] For instance, social media platforms amplify curated depictions of success and resilience, fostering an environment where expressing doubt or failure risks social ostracism, as evidenced by studies linking such suppression to increased emotional toxicity and reduced empathy.^[84] The self-help and wellness sectors, valued at billions annually, exemplify this bias by promoting unrealistic optimism as a panacea, frequently without empirical backing, which critics argue fosters self-blame when adverse outcomes occur despite adherence to positive-thinking regimens.^[85] Optimism bias, a cognitive tendency to underestimate personal risks, is routinely exploited in these narratives—such as motivational content downplaying health threats or financial pitfalls—leading to delayed protective actions, as seen in research on smokers or dieters who overestimate their invulnerability.^[86] While mainstream news media often exhibits a negativity bias, prioritizing sensational adverse events for higher engagement, popular discourse counters this with institutionalized positivity mandates in entertainment, advertising, and influencer culture, collectively marginalizing substantive engagement with negative aspects like systemic failures or personal limitations.^[87]^[88] This dynamic contributes to broader cultural repercussions, including eroded resilience against real threats; for example, during public health crises, wellness influencers have been observed reframing risks optimistically, potentially undermining precautionary behaviors rooted in evidence of downsides.^[89] Empirical analyses reveal that while negative content spreads rapidly on social platforms for its emotional salience, the dominant aspirational rhetoric enforces suppression of sustained negative focus, associating it with defeatism rather than prudent realism.^[90] Such patterns, amplified by algorithmic preferences for uplifting content in non-news feeds, distort public discourse away from balanced causal assessments toward superficial affirmation, often at the expense of learning from failures or anticipating harms.^[91]

Empirical evidence and controversies

Key studies and data

Prospect theory, developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in 1979, provides empirical evidence that losses have a greater psychological impact than equivalent gains, with individuals typically requiring gains approximately twice as large to offset the pain of a loss—a coefficient known as the loss aversion parameter, estimated at around 2.25 in their experiments.^[92] This asymmetry, demonstrated through controlled choice experiments involving monetary gambles, underscores the outsized role of negative outcomes in human decision-making, influencing risk assessment across domains from finance to policy.^[93] Meta-analyses confirm this effect persists in risky contexts, with loss aversion driving conservative behaviors that prioritize avoiding harm over pursuing uncertain benefits.^[92] In project planning and infrastructure, optimism bias— the tendency to underestimate risks and overestimate benefits—has been quantified in large-scale studies, leading to systemic failures. Bent Flyvbjerg's analysis of over 2,000 transportation projects worldwide revealed average cost overruns of 28% for rail and 20% for roads, with delays affecting nearly all megaprojects, attributing these to planners' inflated positive projections and downplayed negatives like regulatory hurdles and technical risks.^[94] A UK government review of behavioral biases similarly documented optimism bias inflating success probabilities by 20-30% in public sector forecasting, resulting in underprovision for contingencies and repeated fiscal shortfalls.^[95] These findings, drawn from longitudinal data on actual versus planned outcomes, highlight how neglecting negative aspects perpetuates inefficiency, with institutional incentives in academia and government often amplifying such biases through selective reporting.^[94] Empirical data from high-stakes policy domains further illustrate the consequences of sidelining negatives. In health interventions, randomized trials have shown that optimism in benefit projections often overlooks harms; for instance, early adoption of certain vaccines or therapies without rigorous adverse event tracking led to withdrawals like the 1976 swine flu vaccine after Guillain-Barré syndrome cases emerged at rates 7-10 times baseline expectations.^[96] Similarly, environmental policy analyses reveal that underweighting tail risks, such as rare but catastrophic events, correlates with inadequate preparedness, as seen in cost-benefit models for disaster infrastructure where probability discounting of negatives underestimated damages by factors of 2-5 in post-event audits.^[97] These cases, supported by retrospective econometric studies, emphasize causal links between harm minimization focus and resilient outcomes, contrasting with benefit-maximizing approaches prone to overreach.^[98]

Debates on pessimism versus realism

Critics of approaches emphasizing negative aspects, such as negative utilitarianism, frequently characterize them as pessimistic, contending that an overriding focus on minimizing suffering neglects opportunities for positive utility and risks fostering nihilistic conclusions, like prioritizing human extinction to avert future harms.^[47] For instance, philosopher Toby Ord has argued against negative utilitarianism on grounds that it implies morally obligatory world destruction to eliminate existing suffering, portraying the theory as excessively bleak and disconnected from balanced ethical reasoning.^[47] Such critiques often equate realism about prevalent suffering with an irrational bias toward negativity, suggesting it undermines motivation for constructive action.^[99] Proponents, however, maintain that prioritizing negatives reflects causal realism rather than pessimism, rooted in empirical asymmetries where suffering's intensity exceeds pleasure's hedonic equivalent, as evidenced by psychological research on loss aversion in prospect theory, where losses impact welfare approximately twice as much as equivalent gains.^[100] This view aligns with documented human tendencies toward optimism bias, a cognitive distortion wherein individuals underestimate negative probabilities—such as health risks or project failures—leading to suboptimal outcomes; meta-analyses confirm this bias persists across domains, with people judging their personal risk of adverse events like cancer or divorce as below population averages by 20-50%.^[101]^[102] Correcting for this requires deliberate attention to downside risks, framing negative focus as evidence-based prudence essential for effective decision-making, as seen in fields like effective altruism where assessments of existential threats (e.g., AI misalignment with median extinction probabilities estimated at 5-10% by 2100) are defended as probabilistic realism against accusations of undue gloom.^[103] Philosophically, the distinction hinges on whether negative emphasis derives from unbiased probabilistic assessment or preconceived defeatism; historical pessimists like Arthur Schopenhauer viewed existence as net suffering due to insatiable will, but modern defenders argue such positions anticipate empirical findings on hedonic adaptation, where positives fade faster than negatives endure.^[104] Empirical controversies arise in testing these claims: while pessimism correlates with accurate forecasting in controlled studies (e.g., better prediction of negative economic downturns), chronic pessimism can impair action, yet transient realism—balancing evidenced negatives without extrapolation to hopelessness—enhances resilience and policy efficacy, as in disaster preparedness where underemphasizing risks due to optimism leads to 30-50% higher unpreparedness rates.^[11]^[105] Thus, debates persist on calibrating focus: over-correction risks self-fulfilling negativity, but under-correction perpetuates bias-driven errors, underscoring the need for data-driven discernment over pejorative labeling.^[104]

References

[1]
Implicit Negativity Bias Leads to Greater Loss Aversion and ...
Dec 19, 2022 · Thus, regarding risky decision-making, results confirmed the hypothesis that negativity bias would be conducive to more biased decisions.
[2]
Why Do Errors Happen? - To Err is Human - NCBI - NIH
In a mistake, the original intention is inadequate; a failure of planning is involved. In medicine, slips, lapses, and mistakes are all serious and can ...
[3]
When good decisions have bad outcomes: The impact of affect on ...
Negative emotional reactions led many participants to abandon the option that they recalled as having been more successful overall in the past (Study 1) and ...
[4]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aspect
[5]
The Role of Positive and Negative Aspects of Life Events in ...
Sep 27, 2023 · Negative or stressful life events are robust risk factors for depression and anxiety. Less attention has been paid to positive aspects of ...
[6]
Negative - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Originating from Latin negativus via Old French and Anglo-French, "negative" means denial, prohibition, absence, or to reject/refuse acceptance.
[7]
negative, n. meanings, etymology and more
negative is of multiple origins. Partly a borrowing from French. Partly a borrowing from Latin. Etymons: French negative, negatif; Latin negativa, negativum, ...
[8]
Aspect - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Originating in late 14th-century Latin aspectus, meaning "a seeing or appearance," aspect refers to the relative position or way of viewing, especially in ...
[9]
aspect, n. meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English Dictionary
The word ' aspect ' is used as a technical term for the seasonal phases of vegetation. Thus we speak of the prevernal, vernal, æstival, autumnal and hiemal ...
[10]
The Neural Basis of Optimism and Pessimism - PMC - PubMed Central
The pessimist, on the other hand, observes mainly the negative aspects of everything around. Thinking of all the potential dangers and pitfalls on the way, the ...
[11]
Pessimism: Signs, Impact, Benefits, and Risks - Verywell Mind
May 30, 2025 · Pessimism is not a mental illness, but a personality trait in which someone has a more negative—or some might say, realistic—view of life.<|separator|>
[12]
The Difference Between Nihilism, Pessimism, Cynicism, and ...
Jan 20, 2020 · Pessimism is the lack of hope, the belief that bad things will happen, and that things will get worse. Importantly, this doesn't require ...
[13]
The Effect of Risk Aversion on Your Decision Making - InsideBE
Risk aversion is the preference for certain outcomes over uncertain ones, where people seek absolute certainty and dislike ambiguity.
[14]
Cognitive ability and risk aversion: A systematic review and meta ...
Results indicate that there exists a weak, but significant negative relationship between cognitive ability and risk aversion in the domain of gains. However, no ...<|separator|>
[15]
Negativity/ Pessimism Schema: Signs and Causes
People with this schema tend to exaggerate or dwell on the negative aspects of life while minimizing or ignoring the positive.
[16]
7 Myths About Optimism and Pessimism - Psychology Today
Apr 6, 2021 · The downside of optimism comes when you look at how people plan and anticipate future events. Pessimists are never surprised when things go ...
[17]
Not all emotions are created equal: The negativity bias in social ...
Negativity bias is the tendency to attend to, learn from, and use negative information more than positive information, seen in adults and early development.
[18]
https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300378996
[19]
Negativity bias: An evolutionary hypothesis and an empirical ...
Negativity bias evolves when fitness is a concave function of state. Threat explanation of negativity bias unsound if based on incommensurate stimuli.
[20]
[PDF] Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk - MIT
This paper presents a critique of expected utility theory as a descriptive model of decision making under risk, and develops an alternative model, called ...
[21]
Neural basis of negativity bias in the perception of ambiguous facial ...
Mar 24, 2017 · The current study used a data-driven approach to examine the neural circuitry underlying negativity bias while viewing ambiguous faces. There ...
[22]
Thinking too much: rumination and psychopathology - PMC - NIH
Sep 9, 2021 · Rumination, defined as a process of repetitive negative thinking, is a causal mechanism involved in the development and maintenance of psychopathology.
[23]
Rumination as a Mechanism Linking Stressful Life Events to ...
Rumination is a well-established risk factor for the onset of major depression and anxiety symptomatology in both adolescents and adults.
[24]
NEGATIVE BIASES AND RISK FOR DEPRESSION;... : Depression ...
The current study examined whether individuals at greater risk for depression (as determined by a high Negativity Bias) show increased reactivity in conscious ...
[25]
Association between negative cognitive bias and depression
This study finds that many symptoms of depression are not strongly associated with thinking negatively about oneself or attending to negative information.Missing: implications | Show results with:implications
[26]
Combatting negative bias: a mental contrasting and implementation ...
Mental contrasting and implementation intentions (MCII; a self-regulatory strategy) interventions have successfully influenced physical and mental health ...
[27]
Social connectedness and negative affect uniquely explain ...
Feb 16, 2021 · Negativity bias is not only central to mood and anxiety disorders, but can powerfully impact our decision-making across domains (e.g., ...<|separator|>
[28]
The Social Costs of Emotional Suppression: A Prospective Study of ...
Several studies have found that suppression leaves intact the subjective experience of negative emotion but decreases the experience of positive emotions (Gross ...
[29]
[PDF] Emotional Suppression: Physiology, Self-Report, and Expressive ...
This study examined the effects of emotional suppression. a form of emotion regulation defined as the conscious inhibition of emotional expressive behavior ...
[30]
Emotion Suppression and Mortality Risk Over a 12-Year Follow-up
Aug 6, 2013 · Suppression of emotion has long been suspected to have a role in health, but empirical work has yielded mixed findings.
[31]
[PDF] Physiological and cognitive consequences of suppressing and ...
Engaging in emotional suppression typically has negative consequences. However, relatively little is known about response-focused emotion regulation ...
[32]
The dangers of suppressing emotions | The CALDA Clinic
Jan 24, 2022 · Research shows that bottling up emotions can make people more aggressive. Studies also show that effortful suppression of negative emotion has ...
[33]
Pitfalls of Suppressing Emotions and Pros of Processing Them
Mar 5, 2024 · Built-up, suppressed emotion usually creates physical and emotional health problems in the body, like pains, aches, and frustration, and drains ...
[34]
Effects of suppression and acceptance on emotional responses of ...
One study further documented that instructing participants to suppress their emotions led to increased distress in individuals high on experiential avoidance, ...
[35]
Toxic positivity | Research Starters - EBSCO
A person engaging in toxic positivity strives to ignore or downplay emotions that are seen as negative, such as fear, disappointment, jealousy, or anger, even ...<|separator|>
[36]
Holding Back or Letting Go? The Effect of Emotion Suppression on ...
Apr 13, 2022 · Some studies found suppression to be costly in interpersonal relationships as it may lower social support, impair interpersonal closeness, ...
[37]
The downsides of positivity | BPS - British Psychological Society
Jan 9, 2017 · Positivity has clear downsides for preparation, prevention, relationships, and even mental health.
[38]
8 Negatives of Positive Thinking - Amen Clinics
Oct 12, 2022 · 1. Excessive risk-taking. · 2. Optimism bias. · 3. Engaging in bad habits. · 4. Not learning from mistakes. · 5. Inability to process emotions. · 6.
[39]
Consequences of Repression of Emotion: Physical Health, Mental ...
Feb 18, 2019 · Their study also found that suppression diminishes overall well-being, reducing life satisfaction and happiness while impairing relationship ...
[40]
The consequences of effortful emotion regulation when processing ...
These findings suggest, contrary to the current clinical zeitgeist, that emotion suppression can successfully lead to an ongoing down-regulation of emotion and ...
[41]
Negative utilitarians: Karl Popper (1902-93)
Popper's "negative utilitarian" principle is that we should act to minimise suffering rather than maximise pleasure.
[42]
History of Utilitarianism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
For this reason, the Epicurean view is similar to a version of utilitarianism sometimes known as negative utilitarianism, which claims that morality requires ...Precursors to Utilitarianism in... · Christian Utilitarianism · Classical Utilitarianism
[43]
Negative utilitarianism : R.N. Smart's reply to Popper
Professor Popper has proposed a negative formulation of the utilitarian principle, so that we should replace "Aim at the greatest amount of happiness for the ...
[44]
The History of Utilitarianism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Mar 27, 2009 · Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. The approach is a ...
[45]
Negative Utilitarianism and Justice - Socrethics
Negative utilitarianism (NU) is an umbrella term for ethics which models the asymmetry between suffering and happiness.
[46]
Why I'm Not a Negative Utilitarian - a mirror clear
Feb 28, 2013 · A thorough going Negative Utilitarian would support the destruction of the world (even by violent means) as the suffering involved would be ...
[47]
Point-by-point critique of Ord's “Why I'm Not a Negative Utilitarian”
but... · Arguing in good faith
[48]
Calculating Consequences:The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics
Perhaps the greatest difficulty with utilitarianism is that it fails to take into account considerations of justice. We can imagine instances where a certain ...
[49]
The Buddha's Four Noble Truths: the Cure for Suffering
from small everyday anxieties to ...
[50]
Lessons for the Health-care Practitioner from Buddhism - PMC
The Buddha's Four Noble Truths are a path toward healing, for in them lies the recognition of disease, its etiology, its prognosis, and the remedy. These four ...
[51]
What is the Book of Ecclesiastes all about? It seems so pessimistic ...
Aug 27, 2021 · Ecclesiastes is pessimistic, because the human condition without God is meaningless and even hopeless. Solomon tells us this. He should know.
[52]
Ecclesiastes: A Biblical Philosophy of Life | Countryside Bible Church
Jun 29, 2014 · This book is often accused of harboring and teaching the most extreme form of pessimism, but it is actually built, as Rome was, on seven great ...
[53]
The Stoic Art of Negative Visualization
Stoic negative visualization, or 'premeditatio malorum,' involves envisioning potential problems before starting, like Seneca's pre-trip planning, to prepare ...
[54]
A Pre-Stoic History To Premeditatio Malorum
Jan 9, 2025 · Premeditatio Malorum wasn't originally a Stoic practice, but one developed by the Cyrenaics, since Cicero attributes something like it to that earlier school.
[55]
Premeditatio Malorum: The Surprising Stoic Way of Meditation
Sep 29, 2020 · We rarely think of “Negative Thinking” or anticipating the worst when we think of Seneca, Epictus or Marcus Aurelius. In fact, we might even ...
[56]
Schopenhauer, Arthur | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Schopenhauer's pessimistic vision follows from his account of the inner nature of the world as aimless blind striving. Because the will has no goal or purpose, ...
[57]
Arthur Schopenhauer - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
May 12, 2003 · Arthur Schopenhauer was among the first 19th century philosophers to contend that at its core, the universe is not a rational place.
[58]
The Pessimism Controversy, 1870–1890 - Oxford Academic
This chapter attempts to describe the main episodes and issues of the pessimism controversy during its most active period, 1870–90.
[59]
Costs and benefits of realism and optimism - PMC - NIH
In sum, the assessment of people with depression is more accurate (compared to that of control groups) when the assessment concerns one's own, rather than ...
[60]
9 Positive Benefits of Negative Thinking | Psychology Today
Dec 13, 2019 · Negative thinking slows down your decision-making, allowing you to make more thoughtful choices. E-cigarettes were originally touted as a harm- ...
[61]
Defensive Pessimism: Positive Past, Anxious Present, and ...
Defensive pessimism is a strategy used by those who feel anxious and out of control in situations related to their personal goals.
[62]
The role of negativity bias in political judgment: A cultural ... - NIH
Negativity bias is a key dimension underlying political ideology across cultures. Conservatives demonstrate a stronger preference for processing negative ...
[63]
Bad World: The Negativity Bias In International Politics
Overall, the negativity bias is a potent force in human judgment and decisionmaking, with important implications for international relations theory and practice ...
[64]
Why Negative Thinking Can Help You Successfully Make Decisions
here's how ... thinking.
[65]
What Really Caused the Great Recession?
Sep 19, 2018 · The Great Recession that began in 2008 led to some of the highest recorded rates of unemployment and home foreclosures in the US since the Great Depression.
[66]
The Global Financial Crisis | Explainer | Education | RBA
1. Excessive risk-taking in a favourable macroeconomic environment · 2. Increased borrowing by banks and investors · 3. Regulation and policy errors.
[67]
The Financial Crisis: Lessons for the Next One
Oct 15, 2015 · Policymakers clearly made mistakes leading up to the financial crisis and Great Recession. They failed to prevent the housing and bond bubbles ...
[68]
v1ch5 - NASA
The decision to launch the Challenger was flawed. Those who made that decision were unaware of the recent history of problems concerning the O-rings and the ...
[69]
Ethical Lessons Learned from the Challenger Disaster
Jul 1, 2024 · If the O-rings failed, a jet of fiery gas could escape from an SRB and cause a catastrophic explosion of the rocket's huge external fuel tanks.
[70]
Viewpoint: Challenger and the misunderstanding of risk - BBC News
Feb 1, 2016 · The Challenger was lost because one small part - an O-ring seal - failed during a launch in cold weather. ... Nasa managers chose to ignore the ...
[71]
Nuclear Power in Germany
German support for nuclear energy was very strong in the 1970s following the oil price shock of 1974, and as in France, there was a perception of vulnerability ...
[72]
Germany's Energy Crisis: Europe's Leading Economy is Falling ...
May 30, 2024 · Germany's decision to phase out nuclear power was initially prompted by public concerns following nuclear accidents in the United States in ...
[73]
So Much for German Efficiency: A Warning for Green Policy ...
Aug 22, 2024 · Nuclear energy in Germany has an excellent safety record, and several of Germany's close neighbors have plans to pursue nuclear energy ...
[74]
What if Germany had invested in nuclear power? A comparison ...
Jun 2, 2024 · Germany has one of the most ambitious energy transition policies dubbed 'Die Energiewende' to replace nuclear- and fossil power with ...
[75]
How To Practice Stoic Negative Visualisation - What Is Stoicism?
Feb 9, 2018 · Negative visualisation is a technique that encourages us to regularly spend a short amount of time imagining the negative events that could befall us.
[76]
Visualize the Worst to Live the Best | Psychology Today
Jun 2, 2025 · Negative visualization. It's a Stoic philosophy known in Latin as premeditatio malorum—literally, “the premeditation of evils.” And while ...<|separator|>
[77]
The Schopenhauer Principle: How pessimism can help steer your life
Apr 9, 2025 · Pessimism, in Schopenhauer's philosophy, isn't a flaw but a lens to foster compassion for all beings who suffer. Aesthetic experiences like art ...
[78]
Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
This book argues for a number of related, highly provocative views: (i) coming into existence is always a serious harm; (ii) procreation is always wrong.
[79]
Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
Jun 9, 2007 · Benatar appears genuinely to believe that we are all harmed, and fairly seriously harmed, by being brought into existence and that it would really be better, ...
[80]
The Psychology of Dystopia and Resistance
May 4, 2020 · The vast majority of dystopian fiction focuses on the vital goal for oppressors to control not merely the actions of subjects, but their thoughts and, even ...
[81]
Are Dystopian Novels a Cautionary Warning?
Aug 9, 2021 · In dystopian novels, authors describe a world where certain trends in contemporary societies are taken to extremes exposing their underlying flaws.
[82]
Dystopian Fiction Key Elements That Mirror Our Darkest Fears
Sep 11, 2024 · Pessimistic Tone: The overall tone of dystopian fiction is often dark and pessimistic, highlighting the negative consequences of human behavior ...<|separator|>
[83]
Toxic Positivity
Sep 23, 2022 · Toxic positivity occurs when encouraging statements are expected to minimize or eliminate painful emotions, creating pressure to be unrealistically optimistic.Missing: modern discourse
[84]
Toxic positivity on social media: The drawbacks and benefits of ...
Dec 5, 2023 · more) toxicity—defined as the suppression of the negative aspects of one's perceived reality due to engagement with or sending a positive ...
[85]
The self-help industry is booming, but its advice is rarely based on ...
Mar 17, 2022 · When people try to follow the advice of the self-help industry, but do not achieve the results promised, it can lead to self-blame, and a ...
[86]
Optimism Bias: The Dark Side of Looking at the Bright Side
Jan 24, 2022 · Worse, the optimism bias can exert adverse individual health effects. One study found smokers more than twice as likely as nonsmokers to doubt ...
[87]
Negative online news articles are shared more to social media - PMC
Sep 16, 2024 · Prior research demonstrates that news-related social media posts using negative language are re-posted more, rewarding users who produce negative content.
[88]
Negativity and Positivity Biases in Economic News Coverage
Hypothesis 2: The tone of social media content will exhibit a positivity bias in its reaction to changes in the economy. Method. Our tests rely on a time-series ...<|separator|>
[89]
Full article: Optimism bias as a barrier to accessing mental health ...
Apr 16, 2024 · The existence of an optimism bias can mean that people are less likely to engage in self-protective behaviours, delay help seeking or fail to ...
[90]
Why social media users like sharing negative news - News & insight
Nov 25, 2024 · Research shows that users on Facebook and X are more likely to share negative news, which may encourage journalists to prioritise negative ...
[91]
Social media positivity bias - PCI Registered Reports
May 27, 2024 · If positivity bias manifests in this context, the social media posts should introduce more positive valence in comparison to offline sharing—and ...
[92]
A meta-analysis of loss aversion in risky contexts - ScienceDirect
Estimates of λ by Tversky and Kahneman (1992) found evidence for considerable overweighting of losses in risky choice (λ = 2.25). But others find very different ...
[93]
Prospect Theory in Psychology: Loss Aversion Bias
Oct 10, 2023 · Prospect theory suggests that people make decisions based on the perceived outcomes of those options rather than the actual utilities.
[94]
How Over-Optimism Leads to Project Failure - Procurement Office
The existence of optimism bias in planners and promoters would result in actual costs being higher and actual benefits being lower than those forecasted.
[95]
[PDF] A review of optimism bias, planning fallacy, sunk cost bias and ...
Optimism bias is a cognitive bias leading people to think they are more likely to succeed, or are less at risk of failure or of experiencing a negative event, ...
[96]
Beyond Sacrificial Harm: A Two-Dimensional Model of Utilitarian ...
Recent research has relied on trolley-type sacrificial moral dilemmas to study utilitarian versus nonutilitarian modes of moral decision-making.
[97]
Optimism Bias - The Decision Lab
Optimism Bias refers to the tendency for individuals to underestimate their probability of experiencing adverse effects despite the obvious.<|control11|><|separator|>
[98]
Daniel Kahneman: Four Keys to Better Decision Making
Jun 8, 2018 · As Kahneman's research on loss aversion has shown, we feel losses more acutely than gains. “Our estimate in many situations is 2 to 1,” he ...
[99]
(PDF) Negative Utilitarianism: A Pessimistic Approach to Ethics and ...
Negative utilitarianism is rooted in the view that suffering is far more intense and damaging than happiness, and therefore, the moral imperative is to reduce ...<|separator|>
[100]
Two Pessimisms in Mill | Utilitas | Cambridge Core
Jun 17, 2021 · He accepts, in other words, that pessimism really is entailed by the impoverished theory of life these critics attribute to utilitarianism. That ...
[101]
An Active Inference Model of the Optimism Bias - PMC - NIH
The optimism bias is a cognitive bias where individuals overestimate the likelihood of good outcomes and underestimate the likelihood of bad outcomes.
[102]
Optimistic Bias | Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences ...
Other studies have shown that optimistically biased individuals may have higher risk factors for disease such as smoking (Strecher, Kreuter, & Kobrin, 1995) and ...Definition and History · Measurement and... · Related Constructs
[103]
Existential risk pessimism and the time of perils — EA Forum
Aug 12, 2022 · Nothing to sneeze at, but hardly astronomical. That's not good for the Pessimist. She'd like to do better by challenging assumptions of the ...
[104]
9 pessimistic realism and realistic pessimism - Oxford Academic
Oct 31, 2023 · 'Pessimism' is an expression often deployed to denigrate realism. It functions as a term of abuse to transform the clear-eyed into the sour-faced.<|separator|>
[105]
Optimism bias leads to inconclusive results - an empirical study - PMC
Optimism bias refers to unwarranted belief in the efficacy of new therapies, and significantly contributes to inconclusive results.