Regardless of your current health, wealth,
or intelligence, you will die. Not a particularly pleasant or reassuring
thought, but one that incontestably is true. Dwelling about one's mortality is enough to drive anybody insane.
The tendency to anticipate our
own demise is merely one example of what psychologists call prospective forecasting. That is, our natural human proclivity to imagine what the future has in
store for us. Prospective forecasting is the proverbial double-edged
sword - great when it predicts the positive, and dreadful when it does the
opposite. Even when imagining circumstances far less dire than death,
negative prospective forecasting poisons our current experiences and
aspirations.
We all fall victim to negative
prospective forecasting at times. While awaiting the results of a medical blood workup, most people recall some recently experienced minor or
major ailment, wondering whether it signals an impending medical crisis. After submitting the competed exam for a professional license, we
remember all the "tough questions" that we fear we answered incorrectly, and forget all the ones we answered confidently.
Psychologists assert that "bad"
expectations and perceptions generally are stronger than good ones (Baumeister, et al., 2001),
meaning that we usually ascribe greater significance to negative feelings and
thoughts. Evolution theorists believe that the natural human tendency toward
pessimism kept our ancestors alert to potential dangers and, therefore,
promoted their survival. So, we descendants of survivors all inherited
that pessimistic mindset. As the old saying goes, however, "better
safe than sorry."
The negative prospective
forecasting bias is burdensome enough. Unfortunately, it is made more
onerous due to counterfactual reasoning, another common thinking style.
This is the "what if" aspect of reflection. After
receiving upsetting news regarding your blood work or licensing exam, you
ruminate about what you could have done differently to avoid the outcome you
just experienced. Had you eaten more sensibly or studied more diligently, you
reason, you would not be in your current predicament.
Counterfactual reasoning
focuses us on the past and prospective forecasting focuses us on the future.
Together they distract us from the present, and it is only in the present that
we can act to remedy past deficiencies and to avoid future ones. Almost
everyone by now is familiar with "mindfulness," a mental state in
which we focus on the present to the exclusion of all else. As you
probably know, mindfulness typically promotes relaxation and clarity of thought.
There are a host of psychological and medical therapeutic modalities that
employ mindfulness as a central curative element.
What healthful insights can we
glean by integrating the notions of prospective forecasting, counterfactual
reasoning, and mindfulness? First, be aware that your mind frequently is pulled
by one or more of the three. and, second, consider whether you are more vulnerable to
one or another. Prospective forecasting, counterfactual reasoning, and
mindfulness can have helpful or detrimental effects, depending on how and how
often they are employed.
Because the future is
extraordinarily difficult to predict and the past cannot be changed, too much
prospective forecasting and counterfactual reasoning usually predisposes us
to problems. Handled properly, however, both can be positive forces. Prospective forecasting and counterfactual reasoning can inform us about ways to change our current thoughts, feelings, or behaviors,
thus promoting proactive mindfulness. In such cases, the result most
likely will be health-inducing when we not only realistically assess past and
current weaknesses and strengths, but also act decisively in the present to
make best use of the obtained information.
Although we all will die, we have the potential to live better day to day. Rather than driving yourself crazy, drive yourself healthy.
Reference
Baumeister, Roy F.;
Bratslavsky, Ellen; Finkenauer, Catrin; Vohs, Kathleen D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, Vol 5(4),
December, 323-370. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
No comments:
Post a Comment