Assumptions

There’s a reason I’ve been writing about optimism.

Optimists are more motivated to succeed and are therefore more likely achieve something than someone with a more pessimistic outlook.

Makes sense, doesn’t it?  That’s the kind of statement that we think is pretty obviously true and you’re not alone if that’s what you think.  Most people believe it.

But it’s not actually true.

In 2015 the Washington Post reported Don Moore’s research on optimism:

“What they found are essentially three things.

The first is that people tend to believe that optimism boosts the likelihood of success. Not only were participants more likely to say that positive thinking helps boost motivation—they also associate the mentality with positive outcomes.

The second is that when people believe that they can do something—rightly or wrongly—they tend to try harder, or at least for longer, to accomplish it. In one experiment, for instance, participants spent a good deal longer looking for Waldo in Where’s Waldo when they were convinced they would find him.

The third and most sobering of the three findings is that in every case optimism didn’t produce any measurable improvement in performance. Those people who kept their head up and spirits high, looking longer and more intently for Waldo, still didn’t find him. Nor did those who took part in two other experiments which tested how optimism affects outcome show any tangible improvement in performance.”

Such counter-intuitive ideas are difficult for all of us to accept, especially when other research shows us that optimists have better health, less stress, better mental wellbeing…

What helps even less is that others define ‘optimism’ differently and so the voice in your head currently shouting at me might be absolutely right because we might actually be talking about different things or using the same word differently.  I notice that what Stockdale called optimism others call positivity and vice versa.  Seligman suggests optimism “is the cognitive ability to understand the current situation as it is and work to change things in our favor” (Buchanan & Seligman, 1995), almost completely opposite to Stockdale’s experience.

So, now what?  Why have I brought this up at all?  And where does all this muddiness leave us?

I think we need to constantly challenge our assumptions. They say ‘to assume makes an ass of me and u…’

Received wisdom, common sense and what seems to be the blindingly obvious, sometimes isn’t.  That matters, especially when we are trying to make big decisions about something, like how we organise church.

We should be very wary about all the things we take for granted.  

Perhaps as someone with an interest in research I’m more bothered by that than most, but the questions ‘how do we know that?’ and ‘what do you mean by that?’ are two of the most important questions to ask… and to ask especially before we make decisions about things.

It seems to me that much of the reorganisation of the Church of Scotland at the moment makes several assumptions about the way things are or should be, like:

There has been very little conversation about what ministers are for, what are the essential elements of church, and what the impact of reorganisation will be?

I wonder, what assumptions do you make?  And where do they come from?