Optimism Isn't Easy

Many of my friends comment on how "positive" or "optimistic" I am. Well, good. I'm glad I've got you fooled. Optimism is work, my friends. Most of the time I have the energy to put in that work, but it is not easy, for several reasons:

Pessimism Runs in the Family
Not everyone has it, though I'm reasonably certain my father and his mother had it. Maybe it's an Irish thing--a strong belief in Murphy's Law.

Pessimism Can Be Learned Through Experience
I've written elsewhere on these pages about my experiences with bullies, their enablers, and others in my peer group who gave me some very sharp lessons in human relations in my first 20 years. Bullying creates a paranoid mentality in the victim wherein they think that any attempt at positive behavior is an innocent-seeming prelude to something bad happening. It is damned difficult to overcome this expectation.

Pessimism is Easy
Occasionally bits of actual wisdom fall out of Limbaugh's mouth; here's one: "Being pessimistic is the easiest thing in the world. There are no books on how to teach you negative thinking." The human brain, I think, is conditioned to expect a saber-toothed tiger to jump out or lightning to strike nearby at any minute. We're wired, to some extent, to be fearful as a way to keep us alert to our surroundings. But in the social realm, it takes a special sort of thinking mind to realize that you can plan for negative outcomes and actually turn them to your advantage.

Since high school (or so), I've had to at least put on the impression of a positive attitude, partly because negative Ned is no fun to hang around, and partly because it's good discipline for my mind: act positively and eventually you might start thinking that way. I read somewhere that just the act of smiling sets off certain chemicals in your brain--like it or not--that cause you to think positively. Okay, so I'll go with that. Smiling, optimism, and positive attitude are all things that can be forced at times, but they can be done. Do them enough times and you start to believe them.

That's not to say it happens all the time, but at least I'm trying. As those goofy cartoon characters in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? sang:

Smile, darn ya, smile!
You'll find the whole world
Is a great world
After all!



Here's hoping. If I can't manage that attitude today, I'll fake it 'til I make it.

Potpourri CLVIII


Tomorrow's my first day off (from the day job) since last Sunday. I know, I know, be happy you have a job...but jeez, since when is a proposal enough of an "emergency" to miss Da Bears in a championship game against the Packers? Sigh...just whining, don't mind me. There's still lots of interesting stuff going on out there in Cyberland, so I might as well share what bits of junk--er, important and interesting information, that is--I've found in my electronic travels. Enjoy if or as you see fit.

Starting from the top of the pile (most recent), and unfortunately it's a bummer: another warning from Norm Augustine that America is falling behind and in trouble in science and technology. I suppose we need a fire lit under us occasionally to get us moving; still, it'd be nice if Norm would offer more suggestions and fewer warnings, ya know?

From the Down Under Defense Expert (DUDE), a little humorous lesson on "things not to do."

My buddy Dar sat for a good interview on the origins of Science Cheerleader. Dar picked on her posture, I was ready to pick on the interviewer: for gosh sakes, if you're interested in your subject, put some effort into showing it! And if you're not interested in your subject, work doubly hard--or change your line of work. Or something. The interview is good from a content standpoint, as I learned a little bit more of the background to this epic I've signed up to do paperwork for, but sheesh, that interviewer could stand to learn a few things.

From Father Dan: a video about...Lala the Penguin? Yep. Also, an elderly married couple who've still "got it."

Here's something else that made me smile, though inexplicably: Sad Star Trek.

From Lin:

• A toy for...um, whoever feels like riding a unicycle but doesn't want to put in the work?
• An article on how more students are attending college, but fewer are seeing a benefit from it. The author suggests a couple of reasons for the hows and whys, most of which will probably annoy educators. But really: I had to go to grad school to get the credentials to convince employers that an English major could work in technical fields like defense or aerospace. A B.A. in English degree and a dozen years in the hospitality biz weren't going to do it: I had to prove myself by spending a serious sum. I did learn useful things, but I was essentially still the same person. Was the degree really NEEDED to work where I am now? Silly question now, as here I am. But I can't help wonder if there were other choices I could have made that might not have cost as much.

A blog by someone who didn't last very long as a food critic. A pity, really, but the writing is hilarioius.

Some of the usual back-and-forth continues in Chicago, as airlines that stand to benefit (in the long run) from an expansion at O'Hare International Airport are suing the city because they're trying to start funding and building NOW, when the economy sucks and no one's got any money. Bottom line? My guess: all the expenses, from construction to legal fees, will end up being paid in large part by those of us foolish or unlucky enough to have to travel through ORD.

I've probably posted this before, but it's still cool: a TED talk translated into a cartoon; this one is on where ideas come from.

From Martin, this is reportedly a good site on space exploration. Gotta confess, I haven't found time to visit it yet. There was a time when I did stuff for fun, not because it was my job or some sort of compulsion.

A rabbi on Sarah Palin and “blood libel.”

From Dar, a suggested method of clearing the system. Hm. Sounds like a science project...not something I'm going to try while I'm in the middle of running a conference.

From BoingBoing.net, Engadget, and other places:

• The life of a “missileer” in the ICBM trenches.
• Don’t count out the F-15 Eagle quite yet.
• Alternate universe movie posters? Why not? 
• A blog on how the states of California and Texas might deal with a coyote problem.
• What does it take to make a planet habitable? This site from JPL offers some interesting food for thought.
• Been awhile since I read Fred on Everything, but he has some thought-provoking prose here on how Americans spend.

This T-shirt crystallizes my thoughts on 2010 rather well:

From my NASA PAO feed: a story that the Fermi Space Telescope has detected antimatter over thunderstorms on Earth. And you wonder why you should be careful around lightning? SHAZAAAAM!!

On the NASA front, there are more layoffs coming, but you have to dig about three paragraphs into this story to learn that...and really, who has time to do that anymore?

So this TSA agent got convicted of planting some sort of malware into the administration's computer system. No telling what the malware DID or WILL DO, however...

My grandparents were Depression-era people, and they still advised me to buy stocks because they believed in the long-term growth of the United States. Younger folks’ pessimism is foolish, short-term and long-term because “buy low, sell high” has been an investment rule since stocks were first sold. And, again thinking long-term, you don't get a prosperous society by depending on the government to "create" prosperity. You get long-term prosperity when the government gets out of the way well enough that private individuals and companies can start enterprises that make a profit and create jobs. Do they teach that anymore?

Avoiding writer’s block by stopping while you’re ahead.Something fun for a change to end this segment: Disney short subject on musical instruments. This is actually really cool.


A skull made out of McDonald’s fries. Why?

Confessions of a Walt Disney World cast member (not me, I hasten to add: I wouldn't be stupid enough to say this sort of stuff on the internet).

A friend found a shirt that conveys my mixed duties at Science Cheerleader: half gofer (gopher), half ninja.


Peace and happy thoughts, y'all.

In Defense of Cheerleaders

This topic has been on my mind for awhile, especially since I started reading blogs reacting negatively against my friends the Science Cheerleaders. As usual, I'll be taking a different tack with this than some others like my e-buddy Andrea Kuszewski, who's an actual scientist. I'm the marketing guy/go-fer for SciCheer, an English major. This is my view from the gopher hole.

The title of this essay is likely to raise hackles with one or two of my readers (and I still love all 20 of you who take the time). After all, cheerleaders "have it all," as Science Cheerleader Summer put it to me: the looks and the brains.

My own contact with cheerleaders in high school was sporadic. I had a few in my classes over the years. And while they were easy on the eyes, I was hard on the ears, and therefore dated none of them. I didn't take it personally. I took bullying by the football players they were cheering on a little more personally, but I got over it. I was a member in good standing with the Last Kid Picked for Kickball Club, Local 708. That doesn't mean I couldn't respect what athletic or attractive people could do on the football field. I suspect some of that old high school resentment fuels much of the anti-SciCheer feeling.

And of course there's old-school feminism, which says that "Looks shouldn't matter. By focusing on their looks, you're objectifying women and setting unrealistic expectations for girls who are not similarly endowed." Okay, fine: the Good Lord didn't distribute symmetrical features, energetic metabolisms, excellent coordination, and the rest equally. But these women didn't HAVE to become cheerleaders. Given the course loads required for a lot of the subjects they're taking (or did take), cheerleading is probably more of a hassle than a benefit. I mentioned in a previous entry how many times these ladies work out during a season. They became cheerleaders because they liked to dance and perform. And yes, part of that performance often includes a little teasing of the males of the species. That is still legal, last time I looked.

I think some folks are missing the point of this exercise. The goal is not to make science-minded girls into cheerleaders (though they're most certainly welcome to try); the goal is to make scientists and engineers out of cheerleaders: get them thinking about more than just looking pretty and being in shape. Just as smart folks have some stereotypes about cheerleaders and athletes, so too do those folks have stereotypes about geeks (I know: you're utterly shocked). As Darlene noted, there's a perception among the general public that female scientists are "pale, frumpy lab rats" or just a drag at parties (I'm thinking Daria). Maybe these pretty ladies who dig science don't want to give up their mascara.

Another thing I like about cheerleaders is that they are optimists. They have to be, either by inclination or training (try being upbeat if your team is getting their butts kicked for four quarters). I read somewhere that anyone who was an optimist must be an idiot because the world is in such a sorry state, the optimist must not get it, is clueless, etc. That, too, strikes me as a very intellectual attitude. The assumption that optimism = cluelessness overlooks the emotional effort involved in keeping a positive attitude despite it all. Darlene, the original Science Cheerleader, is optimistic by nature, but she's taking on serious problems, like the lack of scientific literacy or public engagement in scientific or technical issues. Such problems have a long-term impact on the nation's educational and economic future, and yes, it's very easy to become pessimistic in the face of that. To which Dar, the optimist, would say, "Yes, BUT..." and then point to her Science Cheerleader web site and the performing team she's created and cheer, "Goooo, science!"

So it's not just a matter of Dar and the Science Cheerleaders "sexing up" science, but perhaps that they also are doing so happily, cheerfully, optimistically--and some folks just don't like that. They were pessimistic in their youth, and the relentless cheerfulness of cheerleaders bugged them back in the day. Now they're Serious Professionals, and the cheerleaders still bug them. And what's worse, now the cheerleaders want IN to their world (see also Legally Blonde with the delightful Reese Witherspoon). How dare they!?

Pessimism has infiltrated much of our scientific and technical culture, and I'm not immune by any means. Advances continue in this country, but they are often met with environmental or cultural doomsayers ("It will disrupt the habitat of the Lesser Patagonian Trivit!" "The government can do it better." "It costs too much!" "It has a .0000001% chance of causing cancer!" "The Chinese can do it cheaper!" "We don't have a procedure for that." "That's too far away!" "We already tried that, it will never work." "It will only benefit the rich." "It's too dangerous!" Et cetera). Optimists assume they can do things, play to win, and actively seek solutions to the "no-win scenario." 

I say let the optimists and the cheerleaders in. They could only brighten up the place.

Follow-Up, 11/22/10

Dar, being the optimist that she is, did point out to me that most of the articles and blogs we've seen re: the Science Cheerleaders have been overwhelmingly positive. And she is, of course, quite correct. Bad habit I picked up as a kid. Get four A's and a B on the report card and hear "What'd you get the B in, son?" enough, and these things happen. I'd have to dig around some more, but my guess is that the two negative posts Andrea found are among the rare few. And if you get an attaboy (or, I guess in the Science Cheerleaders' case, attagirls) from CNN, you must be doing something right. Far be it for me to rain on the parade.