What does it mean to be realistic vs. cynical vs. pessimistic

[Trifoilum]

edit because i want to revise my answer.

realistic is seeing things as they are
cynical is doubting things as they are
pessimism is worrying things will get worse than they are

I can relate to this. The lines between these concepts are pretty vague. I think that one's perception of reality has a lot to do with one's motivation, attitude and locus of control.

Pessimists tend to motivated more by safety and security- The glass is half empty
Cynics tend to have more of an external locus of control- The glass is always half empty because thats the way it is
Optimists tend to be motivated by growth- The glass is half full
Realism is motivated by the desire for truth. Realism is trying to be objective, pretty damn difficult, as everone is inherently biased and subject to process information through their schemas.

Realistic - judgement clear of naive idealism and expectations
Cynical - projecting a negative past onto an uncreated future
Pessimistic - expecting the worst of everything, learned helplessness

Cynicism, Realism and Pessimism aren't mutually exclusive. Cynicism has to do with doubt, Realism has to with odds, and pessimism and optimism have do with how you react o those odds.

That's a fairly simple question to answer, a realist is someone who gauges the world by some standard and then interacts with the world based on the data he/she receives from that standard. A good example and then one your probably already thinking of uses statistics as standard to make decisions with the expectation of that the greater side of the percentage will hold true.

A Cynical person is someone who views the world through a lens of suspicion, constantly doubting his/her surroundings even when they are favorable.

Pessimist is someone who views the world as a set of pros vs cons, with the majority of things weighing heavily on the con side of things.

Oh so agreed to all of these. (...I might be taking them all into my blog. Thanks!). It's all facets of the truth, methinks.

Also, adding;

Realistic relates to what things you're seeing and the values concerning the objects; their being, so to speak.
Cynical relates to the values around the objects and the 'origins', so to speak.
Pessimism relates to the values before / after the objects and the directions, so to speak.

So on a general statement of 'this is love':
Realistic : "This is lust / dependence / admiration."
Cynical : "This is just physiological reaction based on hormonal surges."
Pessimism : "This will all end in tears."

Ended to:
"Why bother?"

The lines are drawn on whether they are hindering / preventing any growth from happening. Or when they are causing more pain that its worth; when they are being too much.

 

[technics]

What does it mean to be realistic vs. cynical vs. pessimistic. These terms seem to be often confused. Where is the line drawn between too realistic or not realistic enough.

1. Realistic means you know what is possible and what is not possible. You are realistic when your plans translate into reality.
2. Cynical means that you know what reality looks like, but you make fun of it.
3. Pessimistic means that you only see the negative possibilities, not the positive ones.

 

[MisterNi]

edit because i want to revise my answer.

realistic is seeing things as they are
cynical is doubting things as they are
pessimism is worrying things will get worse than they are

Perfectly stated, imo.

I actually watched a documentary (wish I could find it now) where people focused on the concept of love while water was being examined through a super powerful microscope and then did the same thing with focusing on hatred. Focusing on the concept of love changed the cells shapes to a more rounded and larger patterns while focus on hate turned them static and rigid. It was very interesting especially when you consider our bodies are largely made of water.

Um, what? lol Is this some kind of silly parable or are you leaving out some important detail to this making any sense?

 

[Jexocuha]

What does it mean to be realistic vs. cynical vs. pessimistic. These terms seem to be often confused.

Where is the line drawn between too realistic or not realistic enough.

All of "being realistic", "being cynical", and "being pessimistic" are all personal judgments to define an attitude within the context of a relationship nested within the boundaries of limitation within an environment. The meaning of these judgments is highly dependent on the person expressing them, the other interpreting them, the context of the situation, and how effective this relationship is to responding adequately to the external stimuli. One is "realistic" when they are acknowledging limitations and adequately making decisions. Even if one were to fail in meeting expectations, their attitude is "realistic" when their expressions provoke an acknowledgment of 'acceptance' from another party. Their decisions and responses to stimuli are also accepted and acknowledged as within range of the expectations of others and are followed more often by positive or neutral interpersonal feedback. Cynicism and pessimism are related; and are interpreted as expressing an attitude of "distrust" or "non-acceptance" from another party or in reaction to the environment. Cynicism, just like "being realistic", is an attitude and an expression, but instead of inciting neutral or positive emotional or social feedback, it tends to be interpreted as having a "negative" or "negating" character to it. It stirs doubt, lack of trust, and an overall state of being "unacceptable" but either "tolerated" or "not tolerated". Tolerant negativity is often perceived as "cynical". Intolerant negativity is often perceived as "pessimistic". But overall, these are describing a personal attitude and how the expression of that attitude impacts another party. Without a social context, who is to say one is being "cynical" or "pessimistic" in their approach to challenges in their environment, if their negative and distrusting attitude was learned out of necessity for their survival? It's only when someone is around others, and if others don't like the person's attitude or the person's expressions, if the person is interpreted a certain way, that these kind of definitions are applied and can have meaning. Most people don't like expressions of negativity(unless meant for humor), even if what is being expressed is true. Not only is it generally non-preferential, but it can be a liability if it's passive effects impact the flow of communication, preventing progress in meeting challenges or finding wanted or needed benefits. Where it gets tricky though, is that all of this is a two-way street. Just because one's expression can be interpreted as "negating", doesn't mean that the expression reflects their motivations.Context is everything in these matters. It's just as likely a person to be misinterpreted as it is for an individual to be disingenuous, especially if the style of the expression of one party is more or less agreeable than the style of another. But the style of expression of personal attitude, and even admission of a personal attitude, still doesn't say anything about the truth of the person's purpose within the context of relationship, nor does it say anything provable about the truth of their intent. All it says is what and how a person is expressing an attitude and how another party interprets and judges this attitude and it's overall acceptance or non-acceptance as an asset or liability. The line is drawn only when an attitude has resulted in an actual demonstrable personal or social benefit.

In an extreme and short example of how this is most affective, is in context or situations where there are no individual expectations. No one can do anything about their current predicament, but they are in the same environment and context. Even if the situation is difficult and everyone is powerless, the person who expresses a "realistic attitude", they are neither trying to instigate positive emotions by dismissing the severity of the situation, nor are they expressing doubt and discouraging alternate points-of-view out of fear and lack-of-trust. A realistic attitude acknowledges the good and the bad, but expresses a more sober, neutral, or even hopeful attitude. Even though this is not enough to change the circumstances or the environment, it can keep a person more focused and engaged in communication; it also helps others be more open to communication with the person who can "be realistic".

But it is still all about perception. If one is being realistic, but it is perceived by another party as "cynical" moreso because they don't like the way the person is expressing themself rather than actually knowing where they are coming from, the onus is on the other party's false or inadequate interpretation if they use that excuse for truncating communication with the other.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

What does it mean to be realistic vs. cynical vs. pessimistic. These terms seem to be often confused.

Where is the line drawn between too realistic or not realistic enough.

Being cynical as first developed the cynics of the ancient Greeks is the philosophical school of thought to live vitreously is to accept and model in concert with nature and your nature rejecting convention in valuing material possessions and status or the cliche or typical roads towards success, happiness, and fulfillment of the masses, choosing instead a simpler life in alignment with your own nature and values as a person. Now, cynicism as an attitude it to reject, be skeptical, and critical of all things traditional and conventional. A philosophical cynic isn't necessarily a "cynical" person a cynic philosopher is an ascetic rationalist as its teachings are inspired by the philosophy of Socrates and in Rome and Hellenistic Judea went on to influence the asceticism of the Christians in particular the Hellenistic Jew, Jesus of Nazareth that was later taken to its zenith by Paul and many other early church fathers that rejected material comfort and luxury for a life of basic poverty. Most modern "cynical" people are not rejecting their middle-class comforts, pursing rationality and a life of near poverty, they are typically just critical of politics, society, and the human condition.

Pessimism as a school of philosophical thought is essentially the affirmation that life is inherently inhospitable to lasting happiness and unbearable without meaning and purpose that existence is fundamentally in opposition to human happiness and well-being in particular nature as tragedy, pain, suffering, dread, regret, and misery are normal features to the human drama and given this it would have been best for many to never have born at all, because life is a special kind of hell and as stated by Sarte people are hell. Pessimistic thought can be found in Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity, and Philosophy. A pessimistic attitude is basically the mindset that looks to see the possible problems, errors, shortcomings, potential pitfalls, and failures in a situation and life, what's the worst possible scenario and Murphy's Law Anything that can go wrong can and will go wrong.

Philosophical Realism is the school of thought that there are objects and a world independent of human thought and perception and true thinking is to have the most accurate and full understanding of these things as they exist in themselves independent of human subjectivity. Someone with a realistic attitude just accepts whatever life is independent of idealisms, they tend to stick to facts, research, and logic.