Unrealistic Optimism: Good or Bad - Essay Example

Unrealistic Optimism: Good or Bad? The question, ‘Is Unrealistic Optimism Good or Bad for Your Health?’ admits of opposing viewpoints. Shelley E. Taylor argues that Unrealistic Optimism Can Be Good For Your Health, while Neil D. Weinstein contends that Unrealistic Optimism Can Be Bad For Your Health. Both writers advance arguments in favor of their respective positions. Each theory proposed, exhibits its own strong points and shortcomings, and both share some common ground. When both sides of the argument are carefully considered, and then viewed from a personal perspective, it appears that unrealistic optimism can be good for the health. Taylor concedes that the majority of people are unrealistically optimistic about their health. However, she asserts that such “unrealistic optimism may actually lead people to practice better health habits” (Taylor, Paragraph 2). She supports this claim by stating that such optimists are more aware of pertinent information regarding health. Taylor further bolsters her argument by citing studies which show that AIDS patients with unrealistically optimistic outlooks follow better health habits and have a longer lifespan than their more pessimistic fellow patients. This is also true in the case of cancer patients, where the optimists live longer. Likewise, in the case of heart transplant patients and those recovering from coronary artery by-pass surgery, unrealistic optimism is associated with faster, better quality recovery. Taylor also links optimism with “good coping strategies” (Taylor, P.5), which incorporate successful interpersonal relationships, which lead, in turn, to a beneficial social support mechanism in problem resolution. Taylor cites an interesting scientific study which associates optimism with higher immunity against illness and infection. She contends that there is no evidence showing unrealistic optimism to be the cause of smoking or its continuance. Finally, Taylor differentiates between ‘constructive optimists,’ who are proactive in matters of health, and ‘naïve optimists,’ who abdicate effort in the blind confidence that things will take care of themselves. It is the unrealistic optimism of the latter which is detrimental to health. Weinstein first establishes that the majority of people are unrealistically optimistic about their health and future health risks. This is particularly true regarding risks falling under the ambit of personal control, such as alcoholism, lung cancer and STDs. Weinstein then contends that unrealistic optimism engenders a “rosy interpretation” (Weinstein, P.4) of one’s lifestyle and health risks. This attitude, in which everything is assumed to be hunky-dory, preempts the need to take health precautions and make the necessary lifestyle changes for good health. He attributes the high incidence of STDs and alcohol-related automobile accidents among students to this attitude of unrealistic optimism, in which the individual is aware of the risks, but is supremely confident that he is immune to them. Weinstein asserts that it is unrealistic optimism which leads smokers to delude themselves about the consequences of their actions and lowers their risk perception through such justifications as the confidence that they are immune to nicotine addiction, smoke low tar cigarettes, abstain from inhaling and use exercise to offset the adverse effects of cigarettes. However, Weinstein admits that “unrealistic optimism has its advantages” (Weinstein, P.6). It helps people to cope with severe illness, such as cancer and AIDS, increases tolerance to painful treatment and strengthens resistance. Taylor is justified in drawing attention to the lack of substantiated evidence linking optimism to smoking. However, there is one flaw in her argument in this context. She unequivocally states that “smokers are well aware that they are more vulnerable to lung cancer than are non-smokers” (Taylor, P.7). If this is indeed true, does it not logically follow that the fact that smokers persist in their habit, despite being aware of the risks involved, can legitimately be attributed to their unrealistic optimism? Taylor falls short of decisively proving her point by failing to advance any other ground for smokers persisting in their habit. This, by default, leaves unrealistic optimism as the cause of risk-taking indulgence in cigarettes. Likewise, Taylor cites a study finding unrealistically optimistic people to be more interested in health risk-related information. However, whether this interest actually translates into preventive action remains a moot point: “apparently” (Taylor, P.2) is rather inconclusive. It must be conceded that Taylor marshals an impressive array of scientific studies in support of her stand that unrealistic optimism can be good for the health. The findings reported in the studies of HIV affected gays, of patients recovering from illnesses and surgery, and of law students under stress, are particularly strong in bolstering her case. A very appealing part of Taylor’s argument is her differentiation of unrealistic optimists into “constructive optimist” and “naïve optimists.” Her admission that the unrealistic optimism of the latter is undisputedly the cause of health risks, makes room in her argument for those exceptions in her studies who contradict her position. This makes her argument rounded and gives it more weightage. All in all, Taylor postulates a convincing argument in defense of unrealistic optimism and advances ample evidence in support of her view. Weinstein’s argument that unrestricted optimism is detrimental to the health is almost totally based on the attitudes and lifestyles of college students. Due to this limited, narrow term of reference, his argument lacks conviction. Even in this restricted milieu, Weinstein further narrows his parameters and confines himself to a general analysis of student behavior related to alcohol, cigarettes and sexual habits. Weinstein’s article comes across more as an expostulation on the nature and characteristics of unrealistic optimism, than as a definite proposition backed by strong evidence. In this context, Weinstein’s failure to cite pertinent psychological studies and scientific findings to reinforce his argument is a major shortcoming. This lack of concrete evidence weakens his argument. His position is further weakened by his own admission that unrealistic optimism does indeed have its advantages regarding health issues, such as coping with serious illness and increasing the body’s immunity to disease. This certainly seems to merit greater consideration than smoking or alcohol! Finally, Weinstein can be said to give a clear picture of unrealistic optimism, but falls far short of proving that it is bad for the health. Both Taylor and Weinstein agree that the majority of people are unrealistically optimistic about their health. This makes unrealistic optimism quite the norm and an acceptable part of the human psyche. They also agree that optimism is a major factor which contributes to coping positively with serious illnesses and improves the body’s resistance to disease. Anything which helps an individual to cope with traumatic experiences such as chemotherapy in the treatment of cancer, or the stigma and debilitation of AIDS, can only be considered a boon to health and an indispensable part of mans’ armor against poor health. When it is acknowledged that unrealistic optimism about health actually increases the lifespan of terminally ill patients, no other endorsement for the positive effects of optimism is necessary. Obviously, unrealistic optimism is the foundation of a ‘never-say-die’ attitude, with which half the battle against disease can be won. An attitude which protects against disease, increases the lifespan and “keeps people happier, healthier and more likely to recover from illness” (Taylor, P.9) can unequivocally be declared to be good for the health. Even if one concedes that optimism increases risk-taking behavior, in this age of stress and the myriad difficulties, ranging from social to economic, which an individual is expected to cope with, a positive mind-set can only be considered an asset under any circumstances. It cannot be denied that optimism is a definite contributor to a healthy frame of mind and is a safeguard against the depression which is becoming increasingly commonplace in today’s world. After all, it is obviously better to go through life with the ‘glass is half full,’ attitude of the optimist, as opposed to’ the glass is half empty’ whining of the pessimist. Wearing rose-tinted spectacles does make life more colorful! In the final analysis, it can be strongly asserted that unrealistic optimism can be good for physical and mental health. Read More