Is positive thinking dangerous? Did it cause the financial crisis?

A new book is getting a lot of media attention. For example, just today Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America was reviewed by the Boston Globe and Times (UK). Friday it was reviewed by the New York Times. The publicity seems to be working; the book is at #154 on Amazon even though not being released until Tuesday.

The articles today both had "danger" in the titles. Is positive thinking dangerous? From "Accentuating the positive can be dangerous— what really helps is being lucky" (Times):

An attack on the cult of positivity is much overdue, given that it now pervades life not only in the US but across the globe. It is detectable in everything from political discourse, for example Obama’s campaign of “hope” and the consistent reluctance of British political parties to give the public bad news, to television and radio (Oprah probably being its most famous proponent), sport (it’s impossible to read an interview with any player or manager without the phrase “you’ve got to be positive” being used at some point), medicine (“you’ve got to be positive” has become the default thing to say to anyone diagnosed with cancer), self-help literature (Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret argues you can obtain everything from a lover to a parking space by just imagining it) and business (according to Ehrenreich, who had the idea

for the book when she was being treated for breast cancer and became irritated with being told to embrace the experience as a gift, the cult began with salespeople, before becoming generalised in corporations).

"Enough with the bright side: Positive thinking can be dangerous, says Barbara Ehrenreich" (Boston Globe) includes an interview of Ehrenreich. I believe in the merits of laughter and of gratitude, as well as of skilled and realistic applications of appreciative intelligence and appreciative inquiry. I am not a supporter of any mindless "be happy" notions or movements. However, after reading this interview, I am not sure I will appreciate the book. The author seems, well, too negative. Nevertheless, I am sure she will make some good points.

But, by blaming the financial crisis on postive thinking, she may be pushing her point off a cliff. From "Author’s Personal Forecast: Not Always Sunny, but Pleasantly Skeptical" (New York Times):

Then the financial crisis hit. “Wham,” [Ehrenreich] said. “It was so clear to me that it was connected.” The relentlessly optimistic forecasts about subprime mortgages and endless increases in real estate values were the product of the positive-thinking culture. One of the fundamental tenets of the literature, Ms. Ehrenreich said, is to surround yourself with other positive thinkers and “get rid of negative people.”

That's what I call over the top. But good for my health because it made me laugh, right?

Note added about an hour after this post was published: I never know when a post is going to cause an immediate reaction. I feel that I need to clarify. In talking about the media coverage of this book, I quoted the Times. I was not presenting the quote as my opinion.

I am asking readers a couple of questions as seen in the post title. I am not criticizing positive thinking; I am blogging about a book that does so, and about the media coverage of the book.

Do I think positive thinking caused the financial crisis? I think there were many, many factors involved and to isolate any one is too simplistic. Positive thinking one of them? I will read the book to see her reasons for saying so.

Comments

[Dennis baird]

Why do people who want to make a point (or gain a larger audience?) seem to, so frequently, exaggerate in extremis and then attack their definition. Positivism is not Pollyana-ism. Read Barbara Fredrickson's book called "Positivism".

[Stephanie West Allen]

Hi, Dennis, and thanks for your comment. I am not sure I follow. Where does she attack her definition? I wasn't aware that she did but may have missed it. Are you talking about the Times writer exaggerating? But then I don't see where Sanghera attacked any definition either. Help me out here.

I think all book authors "want to gain a larger audience" so I don't fault her for that. I just think her portrayal of positive thinking may be a bit off. But then neither of us have read the book so can't say for sure.

It may be that Ehrenreich has already read the Fredrickson book. If you want to recommend it to her, maybe you can find an e-mail address on the 'net.

[twitter.com/jpbauer]

Hello Stephanie
I hope all is well with you.
I read something in the print media very similar to Ehrenreich's thesis several months ago, and have been pondering and reflecting on whether there is a direct correlation, that is a causal connection in cause and effect, and if so, to what extent.

I have concluded that in certain situations, any thinking has the potential for leading to dangerous results, postive, negative and everything kind of thinking in between.

I am presently reading the book "Positivitism" written by Barbara Fredrickson and I personally find her reasons for thinking positive far outweigh any other kinds of thinking.

I look forward to your blogs and remain,
Yours very truly,

John Eric Pollabauer