Are depressed people more realistic?

[Silver]

Yes. War is way more predictable than you might think.

Not according to this:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18389_the...it_p2.html

Allegedly President Franklin D. Roosevelt had advance knowledge about the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor, and deliberately let it happen so that Congress would declare war against Japan and Germany. In short, FDR on December 6, 1941 was like Vizzini from The Princess Bride, deeply engaged in a roundabout battle of wits with unsuspecting American lives.

First of all, the only reason why this rumor exists is because it was a smear used against FDR by his political opponents. The 1944 Republican nominee for president, Thomas E. Dewey, nearly made it an issue in his campaign. It was only after Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall explained what a dick move that would be that Dewey abandoned it.

But besides that (and the complete lack of evidence for it), the whole scenario just doesn't make sense. It'd be like FDR crashing a biplane into the Hindenburg just so he could light a cigarette he had no intention of smoking.

Truth be told, had Hitler not declared war on the U.S. four days later, FDR would have had one hell of an uphill fight getting Americans to fight, even with Pearl Harbor.

So to recap, America, the hero (actually Pippen, or possibly Rodman to Russia's Jordan) of the war, might not have joined the beloved (reviled drunk) Churchill, had it not been for the maverick decision (one of countless tactical errors) by the diabolical (borderline retarded) Hitler. Bang up job, History Channel!

[Something completely different]

All I meant to say, is that he is thinking of a different term by "realism". Realism in political science means something else. I think this is why he is talking about politics.

I don't believe in realism in the political science sense. It's a gross oversimplification of the world.

When I think of the term "realism" used in politics, then I think of Charle de Gaule and how he gave up colonial rule over Tunisia, Indochina, Mali and Ivory Coast against popular protest at home because it was the right decision. I think of Gerhard Schröder who although being a social democrat cut social spending because it was the right thing to do.

Realism in politics means - seeng things as they are and being very analytic - and out of making a realistic assesment of the situation, concluding to do the right thing for that situation.

Making weiro prophecies over how WW3 will come, and how everyone will be judged and whatever the fuck without giving any examples out of which the subject draws those conclusions is anything but realistic.

It is nothing else but pathetic and useless gibberish.

[Shell B]

Firstly, Cracked, while an excellent entertainment website, is obscenely poorly-cited. That being said, whether Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen (I actually believe he did not have specific knowledge of any attack) is irrelevant as to whether the war itself was predictable for the world or even just for the U.S. In fact, I would call that as shitty an example as could be, given that the war had already started by the time the incident you cite occurred. That means, you are saying they couldn't "predict" the war by the time it had been raging for years.

[Mystic]

All I meant to say, is that he is thinking of a different term by "realism". Realism in political science means something else. I think this is why he is talking about politics.

I don't believe in realism in the political science sense. It's a gross oversimplification of the world.

When I think of the term "realism" used in politics, then I think of Charle de Gaule and how he gave up colonial rule over Tunisia, Indochina, Mali and Ivory Coast against popular protest at home because it was the right decision. I think of Gerhard Schröder who although being a social democrat cut social spending because it was the right thing to do.

Realism in politics means - seeng things as they are and being very analytic - and out of making a realistic assesment of the situation, concluding to do the right thing for that situation.

Making weiro prophecies over how WW3 will come, and how everyone will be judged and whatever the fuck without giving any examples out of which the subject draws those conclusions is anything but realistic.

It is nothing else but pathetic and useless gibberish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(in...relations)

That's what I'm talking about and something tells me our friend is talking about the same thing, which would explain a lot.

[Something completely different]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(in...relations)

That's what I'm talking about and something tells me our friend is talking about the same thing, which would explain a lot.

That has even less to do with junkyardhobos preachings of doom.

[Silver]

That has even less to do with junkyardhobos preachings of doom.

I jumped the gun on that article. Still, for some reason I have it in my head that most people did not see the war coming. Perhaps it has to do with what I have learned in relation to the concentration camps through movies related to the war. Too many Jews were captured for them to have known the war was coming.

Anyway, doing some research into it, but unable to find anything because search engines are crap, I did stumble onto something interesting.

Russian Family So Isolated for 40 Years They Hadn’t Even Heard of WWII

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/...d-of-wwii/

[Something completely different]

Not according to this:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18389_the...it_p2.html

Allegedly President Franklin D. Roosevelt had advance knowledge about the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor, and deliberately let it happen so that Congress would declare war against Japan and Germany. In short, FDR on December 6, 1941 was like Vizzini from The Princess Bride, deeply engaged in a roundabout battle of wits with unsuspecting American lives.

First of all, the only reason why this rumor exists is because it was a smear used against FDR by his political opponents. The 1944 Republican nominee for president, Thomas E. Dewey, nearly made it an issue in his campaign. It was only after Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall explained what a dick move that would be that Dewey abandoned it.

But besides that (and the complete lack of evidence for it), the whole scenario just doesn't make sense. It'd be like FDR crashing a biplane into the Hindenburg just so he could light a cigarette he had no intention of smoking.

Truth be told, had Hitler not declared war on the U.S. four days later, FDR would have had one hell of an uphill fight getting Americans to fight, even with Pearl Harbor.

So to recap, America, the hero (actually Pippen, or possibly Rodman to Russia's Jordan) of the war, might not have joined the beloved (reviled drunk) Churchill, had it not been for the maverick decision (one of countless tactical errors) by the diabolical (borderline retarded) Hitler. Bang up job, History Channel!

Just in case you didnt notice:

WW2 had been going on for almoust 3 years when the US entered it.

Hitler had invaded Poland in 1939, taken France in 1940, marched through the Blakans into Greece in 1940, invaded the Soviet union in the summer of 1941 and sent troops to invade egypt in February 1941.

The US joined in December of 1941.

And the war in the pacific had already started in 1931, when imperial Japan invaded China and anexed Manchuria.



So, predicting a war which had already started 3 or 10 years ago, isnt exactly a grand prediction.

---

That has even less to do with junkyardhobos preachings of doom.

I jumped the gun on that article. Still, for some reason I have it in my head that most people did not see the war coming. Perhaps it has to do with what I have learned in relation to the concentration camps through movies related to the war. Too many Jews were captured for them to have known the war was coming.

Anyway, doing some research into it, but unable to find anything because search engines are crap, I did stumble onto something interesting.

Everyone saw it coming, the Polish were anxious as hell and tried to gear up desperatly, the French built up a massive (but useless) defencive line.

The thing is, almoust every western nation hoped that nazi germany would invade the soviet union first and would destroy communism in Russia.

Or at least stop communism from spreading further into Europe.

[Mystic]

If realism is true, then I would say a lot more war is inevitable and nothing can stop it. Moreover, perhaps he was arguing of wars of the past and a war he thinks is coming, to emphasize realism is true. I am not sure. Let's wait and let him clarify what he was discussing by "Realism".

[Tonus]

I jumped the gun on that article. Still, for some reason I have it in my head that most people did not see the war coming.

That may be from the way the war in Europe began (with a surprise attack) and the way the USA was drawn in (with a surprise attack). Specific attacks can certainly come as a surprise, particularly to the public, which doesn't have the kind of information that government officials do. The situation in both Europe and in the Pacific had gotten to the point where it was understood that war was inevitable, but attempts to stave it off had to be made nonetheless.

Edit to add: the bit about FDR and the Pearl Harbor attack is to promote the idea that Roosevelt had knowledge of the attack but allowed it to happen in order to force the USA into war. There was a strong anti-war sentiment in the US, and FDR was itching to help the allies. But the argument that he would allow the Pearl Harbor attack is simply not logical. The loss of men and materiel in the attack took months to make up. An early warning and effective defense would not have prevented the USA's entry into the war, but would have left it in much better shape to fight back. And it could have been done without tipping off the Japanese to the progress that US code breakers had made.

[Angrboda]

A person determined to succeed will also often take imprudent steps. History is full of such people, determined to storm the castle, for instance.

Give and take. A realistic person would be somewhere in the middle, wouldn't they? Determined to succeed, acutely aware of what may aid them in failure, weighing both before action? For example, it isn't pessimistic to conclude that you are likely to fail at a task due to your lack of skill, opportunity, and planning...lol is it? Wouldn't optimism or pessimism be the appropriate appraisal of a situation (and your relation to it) based upon the circumstances? If a person is being optimistic despite staring at the gaping maw, as it were, are they actually being optimistic, or are they simply being foolish? The same for the reverse.

I think perhaps what is meant is optimistic or realistic "given the facts of the matter," or in other words, whether one has greater confidence in their abilities, or in the situation's liabilities, than is warranted. This brings up several questions. First, related to the nature of reason and what is an appropriate or ideal appraisal of the world. Historically, models of such have focused on optimization under constraint, that we seek the ideal compromise of all values. However, proponents of the bounded rationality model since Herbert Simon have suggested that, not only is this an inaccurate model of human problem solving, it may blind us to the virtues and vices of the heuristics we do use. Second, for whom is the result being generated? Self-image and belief are remarkably perseverant in the face of dissonant facts, and one has to ask, if the optimist doesn't realize any subjective disadvantages to her optimism, as a consequence of bias or delusion, then shouldn't the gauge for "too optimistic" be that person's own experience of the results, not some "objectively valid" assessment? And the third question has to do with teleology, meaning, and the goals of behavior. If instrumental utility is the yardstick, perhaps people who aren't depressed are too optimistic for their own good. However, this is not the only perspective from which to view the question. If the goal of behavior is subjective pleasure, then the remarks made under my second objection apply. If the goal is reproduction, it's not clear that the hypothetical "more realistic outlook" is in fact more useful than one infected by optimism. And if life is meaningless, the question of what we're measuring that realism against becomes very problematic. What is instrumental utility if instrumental utility is without value. Perhaps it's better to be deluded and wrong if it's all going to amount to the same in the end.