Depressive Realism

And we'll accept the things we cannot avoid, for now
For now, for now, for now
But only for now (for now)
Only for now (for now)
Only for now (for now)
Only for now
Only for now (for now there's life)
Only for now (for now there's love)
Only for now (for now there's work)
For now there's happiness
But only for now (for now discomfort)
But only for now (but now there's friendship)
Only for now (for now)
Only for now, only for now
Sex is only for now
Your hair is only for now
George Bush is only for now
Don't stress, relax
Let life roll off your backs
Except for death and paying taxes
Everything in life is only for now
Each time you smile (only for now)
It'll only last a while (only for now)
Life may be scary (only for now)
But it's only temporary
Everything in life is only for now

-- Avenue Q Soundtrack

There is a theory, criticisms of which I will set aside for the sake of discussion here, that depressed people make more accurate appraisals of the world than non-depressed people do. This "depressive realism" may be the one thing that depression has going for it.

A positive mental attitude. Always looking on the bright side. A sunny disposition. Seeing the best in people. Wearing rose-colored glasses. With the possible exception of the last term, these are descriptions of behaviors of people who see reality with a good but nevertheless biased worldview. But reality is good and bad. And everything between. So consciously or subconsciously focusing on any part more than the rest of reality can understandably lead to inaccurate appraisals and memories.

So is an angsty teenager, listening to morose music and moping around, a trustworthy judge of how the world works? Probably not, particularly if this hypothetical teen has never left the area where she was raised. But anyone, anywhere, of any age or angstiness or worldliness can work to recognize one's biases and minimize their effects or correct for them. The resource lesswrong.com has some insights to get one started.

When I am depressed and see some aspect of reality differently than a family member with rose-colored glasses strapped to his head, reconciling that is challenging. I see a potential problem as something to be nipped in the bud while he sees the same problem as something that might not happen or resolve on its own. I see bad weather as a reason to delay a non-essential family get-together while he sees bad weather as a challenge to be conquered. I see a store's half-full parking lot as an opportunity to park far from other vehicles, all too often operated by clumsy or oblivious people, while he sees it as a competition with incoming vehicles that must be raced to the closest parking spot (the bit of extra exercise I get is a bonus). I expect the worst and am rarely surprised while he expects the best as is often disappointed (I can't help but hear the refrain from Mad TV's bit "Lowered Expectations" sung in the background). I see an unfair situation as something that could, should, and if it is in my power will be improved while he sees it as part of life and may even think my suggestion to improve it is naive, gotta pick your battles yada yada yada.

Maybe that is the ultimate point. To improve something in this world it first must be recognized as lacking in some way. Then the options for improvement are weighed looking at their pros and cons, their benefits and costs. Sure there is a role for generally positive people in this process but it stands to reason that generally negative people are frequently the agents of lasting change because they would find more cons and more costs and, if the kernel of depressive realism has some merit, they would estimate cons and costs more accurately. Generally negative people would likely better navigate the minefield of unintended consequences beforehand. It seems to me that whenever a government project is over budget or a law does not work as intended, the committees involved could have used some realism...perhaps some depressive realism to bring the overwhelmingly egotist politicians and their appointees back down to earth.

I recall naysayers raising the alarm when O-rings had not been cleared for a low temperature launch while managers wearing rose-colored glasses insisted on hitting the launch window. There was also the joke, whispered out of earshot of polite company, that as a result NASA then stood for Need Another Seven Astronauts. The joke elicited uncomfortable laughs followed by the insistence that the joke was in poor taste -- at least according to those who were busy looking on the sunny side -- while those of us in the gloom saw it as a memento mori as we wept for the dead, sneered at those in charge, and lamented the damage done to the space program, to the world's reverence for engineering, and to the faith placed in technology as a safe stepping stone for our evolution.