I've just read a thumbnail article in last week's New York Times Magazine about how hope is actually poison that can make us unhappy. That's good news, because I'm still single.
It's not even that there's anything wrong with the men. True, many of them are staggeringly boring. Ladies, the Manhattan-as-male-habitat that you see in the movies is, honest to God, more fictional than most fictional locations (more fictional than Narnia, for example). There really are some snore-inducing conversationalists here--and I'm a gal who can find a spreadsheet interesting, so my standards are not superhuman. So I'll admit, I've rejected a bore or two--I'd rather be lonely than bored to death one agonizing millisecond at a time. I've had one date that ended in that amiable mutual impasse of not calling--not a rejection so much as respectful recognition of a colleague who's pursuing a different line of research. And as for the ones I like who don't fancy me, well, when you come right down to it, guys want what they want, and what's the point of reprimanding them just because it isn't me?
Still, being single is easier here. Partly because I live in a city teeming with small charms and wacky characters--it's a lot easier to be single-for-life in a city where not everyone is a cookie-cutter mom (and the fact that I can say this from Park Slope is truly an indication of the suburban hell that I've escaped--sometimes I have the sensation that I must have absentmindedly misplaced my stroller). Partly because I am, for once, making decent money, and it turns out that money may not buy happiness, but it does make loneliness a hell of a lot more enjoyable.
I still hold out a little hope for the old folks home. I think it's possible that if I hang on to all my teeth, the tide might turn in my favor after I hit eighty or ninety. I suppose that hope is toxic, too, but I have a few years to nip it in the bud before it gets really dangerous.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Not to get all methodological on you here, but the study they talked about doesn't really address if "hope" is toxic or if the effect is due to any other things that may vary with the two conditions (permanent versus temporary colostomies). One concept that could also explain the findings would be the idea of "ambiguous loss" which someone with a possibly temporary condition may experience - you've lost something important, you're not sure if you've lost it forever, and so it's hard to grieve it but also hard not to notice it. You could say that's just another way of discussing hope, but I think there is a difference. Other differences that could account for the findings could be differences in social support, mental health services received, causes of the medical condition... I'm not saying those all did vary by condition and account for the findings, but they could, and if they did they could account for the findings.
Hope, as a more general concept, is often associated with enhanced resilience rather than decreased resilience. At least as much as hope relates to feelings of optimism, a sense of control over one's future, and a sense that events in one's life are challenges rather than travails. All of which certainly smack of hope to an extent. Which makes me wonder what they NYT reporter was doing when he didn't think of or at least mention these things.
Wow, that was geeky *belch*. On the other hand, if the thought that hope is toxic is somehow encouraging, and gives you a sense of hope, well then go with it!
That must explain why hope came and took me out to dinner to celebrate passing my PMP exam!
Oh, wait. No, it didn't.
But surely it'll be there to hold me and tell me everything will be okay when I'm all worried about my dad's failing health at 2:00 in the morning? Oh, no, at that point hope has usually found that it has something better to do (presumably washing its hair).
Maybe it thought that Sound Research Methodology had those things covered...
Hmmm, if you're looking for hope to take you to dinner or comfort you late at night, it does seem a safe bet that it will be quite disappointing and even toxic. I suppose Sound Research Methodology can only address general trends as opposed to specific cases. As the NYT article appeared to be talking about general trends, it seemed appropriate to discuss methodology. However, I suppose I should have clarified more carefully in my reply above that I was talking about general trends and interpretation of findings and not any specific cases. My apologies.
Post a Comment