Meanwhile, so many of those "true Aussies" are locked away, finishing up their MAFS watching session on their ego-stroke tv, having had just enough alcohol to numb the pain of their lifeless existence.
This is a big problem that many people in our country (the UK) don't seem to get. We'll happily berate foreigners who come over 'ere and don't make an effort to integrate into our society - but what do the natives do? They sit on their asses, watching films on Netflix instead of going to the Cinema, getting their takeaway delivered instead of going to a place and getting it, they're buying everything online instead of having to go to the shop, they're a slave to car ownership so they don't have to share public transport space with anybody, they're dating via app rather than social interaction... and when the do occasionally go to a public place where they may have human interaction, they complain it's all foreigners, Polish supermarkets and Turkish barbers.
Convenience is isolating people, and those people think it's other people not integrating.
Certainly the case in the UK. I've just been in France for a few days with friends and one of them, who is a dyed in the wool Conservative voting Brexiteer now wants to move to Europe because how much a of a **** hole he thinks the UK has become... yet it's the people he voted for that got us here.
It's fitting given that a not insignificant portion of the bitch's shtick is pandering to youth nostalgia and the perspective that society has declined, evinced by things seeming worse than narrowly focused childhood memory.
Oh I know some of my views are flawed so the response here hasn’t surprised me - whether that’s justified is up to you to decide but my dad has a dim view of the world and struggles to understand nuance. He sees things in black and white but as we all know, things aren’t always that simple.
I have noticed that, for whatever reason, I have less rose-colored glasses than the people around me. Rosy retrospective is a cognitive bias in which one remembers the past more fondly than it actually was. It is a cognitive bias that is on display in the last few pages of this thread, in which people lean on nostalgia, and transfer their own nostalgia to their children, all based on a known failing of the human brain - which is that we tend to remember the good stuff.
In many respects current politics in the US is full of taking advantage of rosy retrospective. MAGA harkens to a time that exists only in people's minds. And in some respects, the same is being used for the period just prior to the pandemic, to appeal to voters sense of having gone "in the wrong direction" when what actually happened was real hardship caused by a global pandemic.
Rosy retrospective is a cognitive bias that I don't like, because it clouds judgment. It leads people to make incorrect decisions today based on an incorrect memory of the past. I'm absolutely sure that I have this cognitive bias, but I also notice that I fight it more than a lot of other people. In consciously fight it, while many of the people around me consciously embrace it. It makes them delusional.... but also happier.
Lacking a rosy retrospective makes you less satisfied with your life, generally more cynical, and overall less social. The human brain most likely enjoys rosy retrospective bias because if you remember all the pain that you experience in your life, it makes you less able to cope with your current situation and makes you less likely to benefit from tribal cooperation. If you remember the pain of childbirth, you don't do it again (voluntarily). If you remember how awful that person was, you don't trade with them, or help them. To take this to a deeper level, this is an element of "forgiveness" that biases our "tit for tat" game theory into one of slightly more optimized cooperation. "Tit for tat" is a game theory that our genetics (and genetics in general in other species) seems to play. And introducing a level of forgiveness into the tit for tat back and forth breaks through blood feuds and enables cooperation with actors that can be cooperated with. It overcomes some noise in the tit for tat system that enables greater cooperation and leads to better overall outcomes than a strict tit for tat game theory. Rosy retrospective is a cognitive bias that seems to be aimed directly at addressing this goal.
So do I want to be delusional? Do I want this cognitive bias? I have to admit that the people around me who exhibit this bias the most seem to be a little happier, even if they can be mislead by it. I remember the bad times from vacations. I remember the hard work and annoyance that went into my wedding day, even though it was amazing. I remember the stress and irritation of my honeymoon, even though it was amazing. The very best times of my life, I can recall some negative or awful event. When we've been on a family cruise, I remember the sea sickness. I remember the lines. I remember the kid that interrupted my nice meal.
My life has been absolutely amazing by most standards. I have had what some have called, to my face, a "charmed" existence. I can recognize objectively that I have it better than a lot of people, and have a ton of reasons to be truly thankful and to pinch myself for my good fortune. I could, maybe should, be far happier than I am with the same set of experiences. But I'm low on rosy retrospective, and it think it brings me down.
I'm not looking to make changes. I think mostly I'll just embrace this aspect of my personality as something that makes me interesting and different. But I do slightly lament the decrease in overall happiness and satisfaction that my brain is causing by resisting the rose colored glasses that are built into humanity.
But I do slightly lament the decrease in overall happiness and satisfaction that my brain is causing by resisting the rose colored glasses that are built into humanity
Is this the case though? I would have thought people who remember the past as being better than it was will find less happiness now, because things feel worse, even though they may objectively not.
I'm naturally pessimistic, but I think part of nostalgia is simply redressing the worry, or the unknown element of past events while we were living them. Long lasting consequences (or even short term ones) are rarely as bad as we believe they could be before, or while they're happening. Once that element is known, and past, we can disregard it, or at least pare it down. You might remember it, but you know it didn't matter, so you place less importance on it.
To a certain degree I think this is true of good things too. I tend not to remember events with a fondness that matches the anticipation beforehand.
Is this the case though? I would have thought people who remember the past as being better than it was will find less happiness now, because things feel worse, even though they may objectively not.
This is a fair point, and one that I totally glossed over. I do think that I come into new events with better managed expectations and a lower general threshold for what I consider to be good or successful. Kids are the worst about this. You're heading to the water park for a day of fun, the kids are convinced this is going to be the single best and most important day of their lives and expectations are through the roof. If a unicorn showed up while they were on a water slide and flew off with them into a rainbow of candy, this would roughly match their level of expectation.
While you're at the water park, sunscreen is applied, the line is long, someone gets stung by a bee, and things generally just don't live up to expectations. As a result, tears ensue, this is the worst, everything is terrible. But if you ask them the next day, the waterpark trip was the best thing ever and they want to go back as soon as humanly possible.
I often find myself approaching such a situation with a clear memory of the previous trip, ready to work hard, knowing there will be tears, knowing that my disappointed children are going to tell me how awful this expensive and difficult outing is, and often end up somewhat pleasantly surprised at how well the trip went. That's because often in my projection of how the event is going to go, I fail to consider that they have aged and generally gained experience since last time, and are better prepared to manage themselves and have a good time.
So you're probably right about this leading to a better current mood, or a better mood in the face of adversity. I guess I was thinking of this more from the perspective of overall life satisfaction rather than in the moment.
I have noticed that, for whatever reason, I have less rose-colored glasses than the people around me. Rosy retrospective is a cognitive bias in which one remembers the past more fondly than it actually was. It is a cognitive bias that is on display in the last few pages of this thread, in which people lean on nostalgia, and transfer their own nostalgia to their children, all based on a known failing of the human brain - which is that we tend to remember the good stuff.
In many respects current politics in the US is full of taking advantage of rosy retrospective. MAGA harkens to a time that exists only in people's minds. And in some respects, the same is being used for the period just prior to the pandemic, to appeal to voters sense of having gone "in the wrong direction" when what actually happened was real hardship caused by a global pandemic.
Rosy retrospective is a cognitive bias that I don't like, because it clouds judgment. It leads people to make incorrect decisions today based on an incorrect memory of the past. I'm absolutely sure that I have this cognitive bias, but I also notice that I fight it more than a lot of other people. In consciously fight it, while many of the people around me consciously embrace it. It makes them delusional.... but also happier.
Lacking a rosy retrospective makes you less satisfied with your life, generally more cynical, and overall less social. The human brain most likely enjoys rosy retrospective bias because if you remember all the pain that you experience in your life, it makes you less able to cope with your current situation and makes you less likely to benefit from tribal cooperation. If you remember the pain of childbirth, you don't do it again (voluntarily). If you remember how awful that person was, you don't trade with them, or help them. To take this to a deeper level, this is an element of "forgiveness" that biases our "tit for tat" game theory into one of slightly more optimized cooperation. "Tit for tat" is a game theory that our genetics (and genetics in general in other species) seems to play. And introducing a level of forgiveness into the tit for tat back and forth breaks through blood feuds and enables cooperation with actors that can be cooperated with. It overcomes some noise in the tit for tat system that enables greater cooperation and leads to better overall outcomes than a strict tit for tat game theory. Rosy retrospective is a cognitive bias that seems to be aimed directly at addressing this goal.
So do I want to be delusional? Do I want this cognitive bias? I have to admit that the people around me who exhibit this bias the most seem to be a little happier, even if they can be mislead by it. I remember the bad times from vacations. I remember the hard work and annoyance that went into my wedding day, even though it was amazing. I remember the stress and irritation of my honeymoon, even though it was amazing. The very best times of my life, I can recall some negative or awful event. When we've been on a family cruise, I remember the sea sickness. I remember the lines. I remember the kid that interrupted my nice meal.
My life has been absolutely amazing by most standards. I have had what some have called, to my face, a "charmed" existence. I can recognize objectively that I have it better than a lot of people, and have a ton of reasons to be truly thankful and to pinch myself for my good fortune. I could, maybe should, be far happier than I am with the same set of experiences. But I'm low on rosy retrospective, and it think it brings me down.
I'm not looking to make changes. I think mostly I'll just embrace this aspect of my personality as something that makes me interesting and different. But I do slightly lament the decrease in overall happiness and satisfaction that my brain is causing by resisting the rose colored glasses that are built into humanity.
I know people that, for a time, have essentially forced themselves to act as if they truly believed in God, even though they ultimately never did. It was what they felt they needed to get through a tough time. That, and the rosy retrospective, are both examples of scientifically valid tools for happiness/solace/ healing. They just need to be used the right way, and I think that narcissism (or lack of) can play a pivotal role. The non-narcissist that has lived a good and interesting life can more readily look back at their placebo-infused good life and know that they can die happy at any moment - while for the narcissist that has lived the equivalent "good life", it's never enough.
It makes me think of the very wise attitude of Jason Alexander. I remember him saying words to the effect of: "I can expect that Seinfeld will be a once in a lifetime thing. I'm not going spend the rest of my life chasing a repeat of that experience. I'm just going to appreciate that I had that opportunity". The sentiment really stuck with me, and I'm sure that we can all think of many failed spin off series where actors just couldn't let go of trying to recapture a past glory.
I find it so strange that people can take a placebo drug, know that it's only a placebo, but still have the process have a positive effect. It tells me, though, that we can actually be in control and put some of our delusions to good use.
I'm a rosy retrospective kind of person, but I focus more on appreciating what I've lived than wanting/expecting/demanding that the future be like the positivity-warped version of my past.
They just need to be used the right way, and I think that narcissism (or lack of) can play a pivotal role. The non-narcissist that has lived a good and interesting life can more readily look back at their placebo-infused good life and know that they can die happy at any moment - while for the narcissist that has lived the equivalent "good life", it's never enough.
It makes me think of the very wise attitude of Jason Alexander. I remember him saying words to the effect of: "I can expect that Seinfeld will be a once in a lifetime thing. I'm not going spend the rest of my life chasing a repeat of that experience. I'm just going to appreciate that I had that opportunity". The sentiment really stuck with me, and I'm sure that we can all think of many failed spin off series where actors just couldn't let go of trying to recapture a past glory.
Narcissism is just bad on its own. It can combine with rosy retrospective to make someone hate the present because it doesn't live up to what didn't happen in the past (and the narcissist is always due the very best). Or it can make someone hate the present because the past sucks too and they're a perpetual victim. Rosy past or no, the narcissist is never satisfied.
I'm a rosy retrospective kind of person, but I focus more on appreciating what I've lived than wanting/expecting/demanding that the future be like the positivity-warped version of my past.
Regarding managed expectations, I recently went on a brief trip together with my sister, who definitely has rose colored glasses. I found that by the end of the trip I was in a better mood than she was. Her expectations were sky high (as always), and the experience didn't measure up (of course). I came in expecting a good bit of work and a few good moments. By the end of the trip I was pleasantly surprised, and she was a little worn out. Her patience with my kids had crumbled, and she needed a break. So my managed expectations landed me with greater happiness at the end.
That lasted about 2-3 days. She has way eclipsed me already in terms of how fondly she remembers the trip. The photos of the smiles have already started to take over her recollection. So my managed expectations might have given me the upper hand for a few days. Her rose-colored glasses will probably bring her a bit more happiness for years to come.
@Danoff, I think there's clearly more than one thing at play. I sound quite similar to your sister. Take the Goodwood Festival of Speed. I love it, I try to go every year, I spend months preparing for it, thinking about how great it was last time, and how I can make it better next time, and I spend a lot of money to facilitate it... However, for the 4 days I'm there, I'm tired, I physically hurt, I'm constantly complaining to myself about the cost of food, and how bad my photography is. I bemoan how busy it is, how I can never get a data signal, and sometimes have to force myself not to leave early.
I don't think this is an expectation thing though, the anticipation and the memory are part of what I value, and enduring any hardship in the moment is simply the price I pay. It doesn't degrade my post event happiness to acknowledge in advance that there's going to be aspects I don't enjoy. I remember sticking my face in the engine bay of a V12 LMR revving up, but I no longer care that my back was killing me at the time.
I think this a bit different to people having a rose tinted view of the past though. I think that leads to a generalised imaginary negative gradient between 'then' and 'now' that informs our outlook, rather than specific events.
I remember sticking my face in the engine bay of a V12 LMR revving up, but I no longer care that my back was killing me at the time.
I think this a bit different to people having a rose tinted view of the past though. I think that leads to a generalised imaginary negative gradient between 'then' and 'now' that informs our outlook, rather than specific events.
That you no longer care that your back was killing you at the time, because you're focused on the positive, leads you to ultimately forget that your back was killing you at the time. Now that might not happen in this case, because we're discussing it and that's cementing it in your mind, but if we hadn't your lack of care about the negative means you ultimately don't recall it. One day later you remember the bad food. Months later maybe you just remember the V12. That's rosy retrospective, filtering out the negative parts of the event and keeping the positive ones, coloring your view of the event as entirely good, and ultimately making you think it was far more amazing than it was.
I think this a bit different to people having a rose tinted view of the past though. I think that leads to a generalised imaginary negative gradient between 'then' and 'now' that informs our outlook, rather than specific events.
The rose-tinted view does lead to an imaginary negative gradient between then and now, but that's not the only effect of the rose-tinted view. It's just one of the many effects. It can lead to regret - because you feel that you didn't appreciate what you had, or take full advantage of what you had at the time. It can lead to incorrect advice "these are the best years of your life". I can lead to religious belief. And I think it can lead to increased satisfaction, or a feeling that you are indeed magically blessed. It can make you think that your life has been far more fortunate than it has been, and you've done far more good than you have. It can color how you think you're perceived by others. If you remember an event better than it was, you might think people think more highly of you than they do. All of this can lead to a delusional state of happiness, but it is real happiness even if it is based on poor memory.
That's rosy retrospective, filtering out the negative parts of the event and keeping the positive ones, coloring your view of the event as entirely good, and ultimately making you think it was far more amazing than it was.
Perhaps it just gets down to how people describe something, or what they're being prompted to describe. I've a lot of the same grumbles about going to the British Grand Prix, or to Le Mans, yet my memory of those is sufficient that I don't have any intention of doing those events again. What elements I relay in conversation is more likely dependent on context rather than a perspective shift.
I think as long as your cognisant of what you're ignoring it's not much of problem, and I'm not sure it's inherently bad to weight the bad thing that happened less strongly than enduring positive memories.
I'm trying to think of times I've been doing something and said to myself '**** me, I'd forgotten this bad thing about doing this good thing', earlier this year I went to a race at Silverstone for the first time in a long time, hoping rather than expecting to recapture the good times of previous visits... I had two day tickets and didn't bother to go on the second day, 'cus it's Silverstone, and it's garbage.
The rose-tinted view does lead to an imaginary negative gradient between then and now, but that's not the only effect of the rose-tinted view. It's just one of the many effects. It can lead to regret - because you feel that you didn't appreciate what you had, or take full advantage of what you had at the time. It can lead to incorrect advice "these are the best years of your life". I can lead to religious belief. And I think it can lead to increased satisfaction, or a feeling that you are indeed magically blessed. It can make you think that your life has been far more fortunate than it has been, and you've done far more good than you have. It can color how you think you're perceived by others. If you remember an event better than it was, you might think people think more highly of you than they do. All of this can lead to a delusional state of happiness, but it is real happiness even if it is based on poor memory.
Again, I can only really speak with personal experience in mind, but in those examples I don't think the nostalgic view is where those situations start, if specific personality traits or circumstances are present perhaps a rose tinted view of the past plays to them. How a person holds their own self-esteem would be significant in some examples, arrogance, gullibility, lack of situational awareness... I think the issues you identify are not those that arise from a rose-tinted perspective of the past.
I think this is a two or three axis scenario. Pragmatism versus Idealism, Optimism versus pessimism, positive current situation versus negative current situation... where you sit on those scales probably represents how a rose tinted perspective affects your view.
Ultimately I think I do value my view of positive past events, I acknowledge that I ignore some of the bad things once they cease to matter, but I don't think I arrive at any of the places you suggest mentally or emotionally.
Having said that, I think to a degree we're susceptible to nostalgic suggestion as a society, and that gets used to promote certain agendas.... e.g. Remember how everything was better before the migrant crisis, now being bad must be because of the migrants... the suggestion just has to be enough, even if individual experience doesn't support it. 'We just need a bit of that Blitz spirit', was mentioned in the Brexit debate, I can't think of a more egregious example in modern UK politics of leaning into a rose tinted view of the past to promote an ideal when those the statement was directed at basically had zero personal experience by which to judge how objectively terrible getting bombed to **** was.
When was the inflection point from which the West started to decline to the situation it finds itself presently in? A strong argument could be made for 2016 with the first election of Trump, but I see it as 2012....for the UK at least. We had the Olympics, were pre-UKIP and Brexit, and Pitch Perfect came out.
It's hard to understand without an understanding of what "The West" is, and what the "situation" is.
If I interpret this to be the authoritarian demise of the US, then I think it started around September 11th, 2001, when America was split into two groups - people who wanted to make things better, and people who were fine watching people die as long as nothing changed.
It's hard to understand without an understanding of what "The West" is, and what the "situation" is.
If I interpret this to be the authoritarian demise of the US, then I think it started around September 11th, 2001, when America was split into two groups - people who wanted to make things better, and people who were fine watching people die as long as nothing changed.
It's a general feeling or mood reflected in the recent slide to the right/rebelling against incumbent governments. 2012 is more specific to the UK since London 2012 happened.
I'm not sure I understand who the camps that you're referring to in the last sentence are. Who would be fine watching which people die?
Thoughts and prayers folks. People who lament all the deaths on 9/11 and in every school shooting and every covid death and yet won't lift a finger in any respect, won't change their behavior, won't support a restriction, won't do a damned thing while people die.
I think there's an argument to be made for when Reagan became president. There's certainly points after that where the trajectory accelerated and became more obvious, 9/11, 2008, 2016, 2020, and so on. But Reagan seems like the start of when selfish assholes really took root at the heart of US culture, and by extension the rest of the western world due to the US position as leader.
I suspect that had we not had the technological revolution of the internet and computers in general propping up the economic side of things through the 90s and 00s it all would have gone tits up much faster.
Then again, there's also a decent argument that the west has always been like this. It's just that only now it's being ****** in a more egalitarian way. Previously your class was largely determined at birth, if you weren't white or you had a vagina you were probably ****ed unless you got extremely lucky. But now anyone who isn't born with a few million dollars of silver spoons stashed in their rear end is gonna find it tough regardless. The unfairness was always there, it's just more obvious to the people with voices and platforms to talk about it now.
I think there's an argument to be made for when Reagan became president. There's certainly points after that where the trajectory accelerated and became more obvious, 9/11, 2008, 2016, 2020, and so on. But Reagan seems like the start of when selfish assholes really took root at the heart of US culture, and by extension the rest of the western world due to the US position as leader.
I suspect that had we not had the technological revolution of the internet and computers in general propping up the economic side of things through the 90s and 00s it all would have gone tits up much faster.
Then again, there's also a decent argument that the west has always been like this. It's just that only now it's being ****** in a more egalitarian way. Previously your class was largely determined at birth, if you weren't white or you had a vagina you were probably ****ed unless you got extremely lucky. But now anyone who isn't born with a few million dollars of silver spoons stashed in their rear end is gonna find it tough regardless. The unfairness was always there, it's just more obvious to the people with voices and platforms to talk about it now.
I think there's a stronger argument for Nixon than Reagan. But I wasn't an adult for either one, so it's difficult for me to make a really forceful argument about. I suppose you could say that the US civil war was over the same kind of thing. People who wanted to make things better vs. people who were fine watching people suffer as long as nothing changed. I guess your argument is that on 9/11 it was white men joining in the suffering, and yet people still couldn't stomach changes for the sake of others.
There were times when America seems as though it overcame this cultural cancer. WWII is one, where it seemed like the US actually cared about banding together to make sacrifices to ensure that society was better off. I'm not sure when this round truly started, my sense of it is 9/11, but that also makes sense based on my age.
