Literary Insights

BOOK LINK:

The author stumbled upon research on optimism accidentally while studying memory of 9/11 attacks. This led her to question how memories are formed and reconstructed.
Research showed the same brain regions are activated for remembering the past and imagining the future. This means memory involves reconstruction rather than perfect replay.
In asking people to imagine future events, the author found they envisioned even mundane events in an unrealistically positive light. This prompted further investigation into the cognitive and neural basis of optimism bias.
The book explores how optimism is hardwired in the brain across species and contexts. It affects expectations, interpretation of events, memory, decision-making and more. Both benefits and costs of optimism are discussed.
The author began her optimism research while working at the Weizmann Institute in Israel, using the backdrop to introduce some context about the setting and implications of political tensions for scientific work.
The passage describes a flight from Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt to Paris that crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all 148 passengers and crew aboard.
The pilot was a decorated Egyptian war veteran but had limited experience flying the Boeing 737 aircraft.
Two minutes after takeoff, the plane descended rapidly into the Red Sea in an almost upside down spiral.
Initial theories of a terrorist bomb were ruled out as wreckage was found intact and close together, not scattered as an explosion would cause.
Finding the flight data recorder (black box) was key to solving the mystery of what caused the sudden descent.
The passage introduces the crash case study to set up exploring how illusions can impact judgments and decisions, even for trained pilots, leading to crashes. It leaves the cause unresolved to pique the reader’s interest in further exploring human perceptual illusions.

In summary, the passage describes an unsolved aircraft crash case that occurred shortly after takeoff in Egypt, killing all aboard, and sets it up as an example to investigate how human perceptual illusions can impact judgments and lead to accidents.

The black box of the crashed EgyptAir Flight 804 plane was located 2 weeks into the search, as it was buried 1,000 meters deep in the Mediterranean Sea, making it difficult to detect. The black box’s battery only lasts 30 days.
Investigators examined over 50 scenarios but could not find any evidence of mechanical failure. Only one scenario remained consistent with the data - that the pilot experienced spatial disorientation (vertigo) in the middle of the night flight with no visual cues.
Vertigo occurs when a pilot’s brain becomes confused about the plane’s position relative to the ground due to lack of visual cues and signals from the inner ear not matching up with fast changes in position. This can cause a pilot to think they are flying level when actually banked.
The experienced EgyptAir pilot was likely affected by vertigo due to the gradual bank in position over the dark Red Sea with no visual cues. Evidence suggests he was not constantly monitoring the plane’s navigation instruments, relying only on his confused internal senses. This led to the catastrophic crash.
The summary discusses how visual and navigational illusions are a result of the brain developing shortcuts based on regular environments, which can cause errors in unusual situations like flying at night.

The passage discusses cognitive illusions, specifically the tendency for people to perceive themselves as above average. It notes that most people rate themselves higher than the average person on positive attributes like honesty, ability to get along with others, leadership skills, driving ability, etc. However, statistically it is impossible for a majority of people to be above average, as averages are defined.

To illustrate this phenomenon, the passage describes studies where large percentages of respondents rated themselves in the top 50th percentile or higher for things like ability to get along with others (85% ranked themselves top 50%), leadership skills (70% top 50%), and driving ability (93% top 50%). This reveals a cognitive bias, as it defies logical statistics for a majority to be truly above average. The passage argues this cognitive illusion is difficult for people to accept, as biases in our perceptions feel very real to us even if contradicted by objective data. Cognitive illusions provide insights into the adaptive but occasionally fallible nature of the human brain.

Most people overestimate their own abilities and qualities compared to others, known as the superiority illusion or bias. However, mathematically half of people must be below average.
We are often better at detecting biases in others than in ourselves, believing we are less susceptible to biases. This is known as the bias blind spot.
An incident involving a plane pilot experiencing spatial disorientation and his first officer illustrates how people can perceive illusions differently depending on their perspective.
Justice Scalia likely experienced confirmation bias when ruling on a case involving Dick Cheney after they went duck hunting together. Scalia claimed his impartiality could not be questioned, showing the bias blind spot.
Studies on “choice blindness” and “jam blindness” show that people construct rationalizations for choices they didn’t actually make and are unaware of internal mental processes, displaying the introspection illusion. We have limited access to our own intentions and decision-making abilities.

The passage describes research on a scrub-jay named Jay and her ability to plan for the future. Some key points:

Jay lives at Cambridge University with other scrub-jays. She hides her food in different locations to prevent it from being stolen by other jays.
Before sleeping in a new room, Jay will hide some breakfast food there so she has food available no matter where she wakes up.
Jay varies what types of food she caches (hides) so she doesn’t get bored eating the same thing. This shows an ability to plan to have a diverse selection of foods available.
Jay’s behaviors were originally observed in the 1990s by researcher Nicky Clayton. Clayton noticed scrub-jays in California would cache food and later re-cache it in new locations. This demonstrated planning and remembering locations over time.
Jay and other jays were brought to Cambridge University to study their long-term caching and planning abilities, which set them apart from other animals thought to live mostly in the present moment.

So in summary, the passage describes research on a scrub-jay named Jay that exhibits behaviors like caching and re-caching food, which provides evidence the jay can plan for future needs and events.

Nicky Clayton conducted experiments in the 2000s that provided evidence that western scrub-jays can plan for the future and remember the past. Their caching behaviors suggested anticipation of future needs and consideration of factors like where food would be scarce tomorrow.
Her observations challenged the prominent hypothesis at the time, called the Bischof-Köhler hypothesis, which held that only humans could imagine future scenarios and mentally re-experience past events (mental time travel).
Behaviors like seasonal migration or food storing in animals were not necessarily evidence of future planning ability, as they could be genetically pre-programmed responses to environmental cues rather than envisioning future states.
Clayton’s scrub-jays, on the other hand, exhibited caching behaviors that reflected flexible planning based on specific conditions, like storing food in a room where they knew no breakfast would be served the next day. This suggested a level of future thinking beyond stimulus-response associations.
The jays also understood concepts like differing decay rates of foods and prioritized retrieving faster-spoiling foods first, demonstrating an ability to track the passage of time - a key aspect of mental time travel.
While birds likely don’t plan as complexly as humans, Clayton’s work provided strong evidence they are not confined to the present moment and can envision different future scenarios and draw on memories of the past.
Several experiments have failed to demonstrate future planning abilities in non-human primates like monkeys. When given food, monkeys will eat until full and discard the rest, even if they know they will be hungry later. They also don’t always choose the largest food amount when given options.
Training has allowed some monkeys to display behaviors indicating a basic understanding of future time, like picking less food now to get more later. But monkeys generally don’t seem to have a well-developed sense of future planning.
The hippocampus region of the brain appears to play an important role in mental time travel abilities. It allows remembering the past and imagining the future.
London taxi drivers need extensive spatial memory skills to navigate London’s complex streets. Studies found their hippocampi enlarge with years of experience due to intensive training demands. This suggests the hippocampus is plastic and can change based on memory needs.
Similar hippocampus changes linked to memory demands are seen in food-storing birds and socially monogamous/polygamous voles. Their hippocampi respond to seasonal food caching needs or number of sex partners requiring memory.

So in summary, the experiments presented challenges to future planning abilities in monkeys, while the hippocampus appears key to mental time travel and responds plastically to memory demands in humans, birds and other animals.

In 1987, the LA Lakers won the NBA championship, defeating the Boston Celtics. Their head coach Pat Riley was asked by a reporter if the Lakers could repeat as champions the following year.
Without hesitation, Riley declared “I guarantee it.” He continued guaranteeing a repeat championship throughout the summer and following season.
The next year, the 1988 finals pits the Lakers against the Detroit Pistons. The series goes to a deciding Game 7.
In Game 7, the Lakers come from behind to defeat the Pistons 108-105, fulfilling Riley’s guarantee. They successfully repeat as NBA champions.
As reporters ask Riley if the Lakers could achieve a “threepeat” by winning again the following year, star player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar jokingly covers Riley’s mouth, preventing him from making another bold guarantee.

The summary captures that Pat Riley boldly guaranteed the Lakers would repeat as NBA champions the following year after their 1987 title, and that they were indeed able to fulfill this guarantee by defeating the Pistons in Game 7 of the 1988 finals.

In 1987-88, Pat Riley promised the LA Lakers would repeat as NBA champions. This put extra pressure on the team but may have served as a self-fulfilling prophecy that motivated them to work harder and fulfill Riley’s promise.
In 1988-89, Riley did not make a similar guarantee. The Lakers went on to lose the title series to the Detroit Pistons, who swept them 4-0.
The concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy is when a prediction causes itself to become true through influencing behavior and expectations. Riley’s 1987 guarantee likely motivated the Lakers to train harder and achieve the repeat win.
Famous horse Clever Hans appeared to solve math problems but was actually cuing off subtle body language cues from his trainer, not truly solving them. This demonstrated the power of expectations to shape outcomes, even unintentionally.
Teachers’ expectations can also shape student performance through a self-fulfilling prophecy effect, as demonstrated in a famous Harvard study where students were falsely labeled as intellectual bloomers.

In summary, Riley’s championship guarantee in 1987 may have served as a self-fulfilling prophecy that motivated the Lakers, while the lack of a similar promise in 1988 removed that additional pressure and motivation factor. The passage discusses how predictions and expectations can shape realities and outcomes.

Rosenthal and Jacobson conducted a famous study called the Pygmalion effect, where they randomly told teachers some students had high potential even though these students did not actually differ in ability from others.
Over the course of the year, the students singled out by the teachers as having high potential ended up improving more and scoring higher on IQ tests than similar students who weren’t singled out.
This showed that teachers’ expectations of students influenced how the students actually performed - the students lived up to the expectations placed on them.
Teachers spent more time, encouragement, and feedback on the “talented” students, treating them differently and enhancing their performance.
Stereotypes are also powerful self-fulfilling prophecies that shape how people interact with and treat individuals, influencing their behavior and performance.
Jane Elliott’s famous classroom experiment demonstrated that even children immediately conform to expectations placed on them regarding their intelligence and abilities based on perceived traits.
Adults are also strongly influenced by stereotypes and expectations, unconsciously altering their own performance on tasks depending on irrelevant information that primes them.
A study by Bengtsson found enhanced activity in the medial prefrontal cortex when participants made an error after being primed with the word “clever.” This suggested their brain was detecting a mismatch between their expectation of doing well and the incorrect answer.
When primed with “stupid,” participants did not show this heightened activity after errors since they expected to do poorly. This meant they did not learn as well from their mistakes.
The frontal cortex is involved in executive functions like planning, goal-setting, and inhibiting undesirable behaviors. It helps resolve conflicts between different desires.
Holding positive expectations, even if unrealistic, can motivate behaviors that lead to better outcomes due to error signaling in the brain. Negative expectations fail to generate this learning signal and result in worse performance.
Optimism is associated with better health outcomes like living longer after a heart attack, while pessimism can be self-fulfilling and lead to riskier behaviors and poorer health. Positive expectations promote behaviors that fulfill those expectations.
In late 2008, optimism peaked around the world, with surveys reporting high levels of optimism in the U.S. and other countries about the future. This occurred despite a major global recession and other challenges.
Much of this widespread optimism was attributed to the election of Barack Obama as the first African American U.S. president. His message of change and new leadership inspired hope.
However, people’s need for good news and optimism was likely amplified by the difficult economic times. There was a strong desire to believe that things would improve. Obama provided reassurance and a vision of a better future.
Optimism about new leaders is common, but the levels seen with Obama may have been greater due to the crisis context. People felt the world depended on him to turn things around.
The article discusses physiological reactions like feelings of “elevation” that people experienced when listening to Obama’s speeches, which scientists believe are linked to the release of oxytocin and optimism.
In summary, Obama provided a source of hope and positive expectations around the world during a period of high uncertainty, but the crisis environment also inflated people’s need for optimism and willingness to believe in change.
Oxytocin is a hormone released when bonding with others through physical contact like hugging, kissing or sex. It reduces social anxiety and promotes trust.
Studies gave oxytocin to participants before a “trust game” where they had to send money to an anonymous partner. Those who took oxytocin sent more money, showing increased trust.
During difficult times like the Great Depression, people relied on optimistic messages and symbols to lift their spirits. Child actress Shirley Temple’s happy films in the 1930s promised better times ahead and boosted people’s mood.
Similarly, Barack Obama’s hopeful speeches during the 2008 recession mirrored the challenges of that era while offering a vision of positive change. This inspired widespread trust and optimism in his leadership.
However, public optimism is generally rare. Most people are privately optimistic about their own futures but pessimistic about the overall direction of their country.
For example, British people in 2007 believed crime was rising nationally even as crime rates actually fell. But their perceived personal risk of victimization was close to actual statistics.
Optimism during crises like the Great Depression and 2008 recession contrast with more common societal pessimism and suggests messages of hope can temporarily increase widespread trust.
People tend to be overly optimistic about what will make them happy and underestimate their ability to adapt to life’s difficulties.
Surveys show common beliefs about factors that increase happiness like more money, time with family/friends, health, and travel. But personal experiences vary greatly with age.
It is difficult to accurately predict what will truly enhance well-being. While certain factors like exercise, marriage, and education are positively correlated with happiness, the relationships are complex.
Some evidence suggests simple activities like gardening or having plants may boost happiness more than assumed. Taking care of plants was linked to happier office workers.
The traditional saying that gardening leads to lifelong happiness captures this idea, though the relationships are not necessarily causal. Happiness and life satisfaction are influenced by many interconnected factors that people have trouble estimating in advance.

In summary, optimism bias causes people to overestimate how much major life changes will affect their well-being while underestimating the impact of small daily activities and experiences. Accurately predicting happiness is challenging.

Here are some key points about factors related to happiness based on the surveys and studies discussed:

Having more free time, good relationships, and decorating one’s work space with plants are correlated with higher well-being, though causation cannot be determined. Other factors like education level, religious participation, and physical activity are also positively correlated with happiness.
Having children is generally negatively correlated with happiness and life satisfaction. People report fewer joyful moments interacting with kids than during other daily activities. Happiness levels tend to be lowest when kids are teenagers and highest when young/older without children.
Marriage itself may not increase happiness long-term, but feeling loved and secure in a relationship can. Singles report slightly lower happiness than married or cohabitating individuals.
While wealthier individuals report higher average happiness, the relationship becomes unclear past a certain income/wealth level. Additional income does not necessarily translate to greater experienced well-being or reduced negative emotions like anger. People continue striving for more money despite its limited effect on happiness.
Non-economic factors like relationships, purpose/meaning, and health seem to have a greater impact on happiness and life satisfaction than concrete measures of success or wealth. Experienced well-being is also shaped more by daily emotions than overall life evaluations.
Memories are influenced by emotion - strong emotional experiences tend to be remembered vividly while mundane everyday events fade over time.
The author conducted memory experiments at UC Davis, noting the town’s sleepy, peaceful atmosphere was a sharp contrast from New York City.
According to dual-process theory, there are two components of memory retrieval - familiarity and recollection. Familiarity is a sense that someone/something is known without recalling details, while recollection involves recalling specific episodic context/details of a past experience.
Different brain regions support these processes - the hippocampus supports recollection but not familiarity, while the perirhinal cortex signals familiarity. Damage to the hippocampus impairs recollection but spares familiarity.
Vivid childhood memories tend to involve strong emotions like birthday parties or punishments, while routine events are less memorable over time. Emotion plays a key role in which memories are retained in vivid detail.
Emotion strongly enhances recollection of episodic memories. However, this enhancement takes time - around 24 hours for highly emotional photos compared to neutral ones.
We tend to have very vivid memories of emotionally exciting past events but weaker memories of everyday, less exciting events. This leads to a biased view of the past focused on highlights.
Two factors contribute to inaccurate predictions of what will make us happy - underestimating rapid adaptation to new circumstances and focusing just on one change while disregarding others.
Actual factors strongly linked to a nation’s well-being include political stability, human rights, divorce rates and life expectancy - not just things like income or leisure.
The optimism bias, where we imagine future positive events in more vivid detail, plays a key role in keeping most people happy. Two brain regions linked to both optimism and depression are involved.
Clinically depressed individuals have abnormal function between these two regions, impairing their ability to envision positive futures - a contrast to healthy, optimistic individuals who show enhanced activity in these regions for positive scenarios.
Shawn and Fred are corporate lawyers who live successful lives with their wives/partners.
While on a business trip to Paris, their wives unexpectedly leave them - Phoebe takes her things and leaves Shawn, Sabrina leaves Fred a farewell letter.
They are both distraught by the abandonment and experience depression-like symptoms like lack of appetite, sleep issues, inability to work, rumination.
Their reactions of sadness and hopelessness are normal after such a significant loss/rejection. However, some people are prone to prolonged negative mental states like clinical depression.
How someone interprets and explains negative events is important - those with a “pessimistic explanatory style” who see failures as their own fault, permanent, and globally impacting their life are more at risk for depression.
Shawn has an optimistic explanatory style - he sees Phoebe’s leaving as her own weakness and temporary, believing he can find a better partner. Fred has a pessimistic view, blaming himself and thinking all his relationships are “doomed.”
Research shows a pessimistic style increases the risk of developing depression, as it fosters more negative expectations for the future. Shawn is thus more likely to recover, while Fred may struggle more.
Seligman conducted an experiment where dogs received shocks they could not escape (harnessed). Later, when given the chance to escape, some dogs did not try and acted helpless, like they had learned to be passive in negative situations.
This sparked Seligman’s idea of “learned helplessness theory” which became a dominant model of depression. He hypothesized that depression stems from perceiving a lack of control over outcomes, which leads people to behave helplessly even when escape is possible.
Not all dogs learned helplessness - some overcame it. Just like some humans are resilient to adversity while others develop depression. Cognitive behavioral therapy aims to teach optimistic thinking to overcome learned helplessness.
Antidepressants work similarly by altering cognitive biases. Depressed people negatively interpret events due to biases toward negative stimuli and ambiguous memories. Antidepressants reinstate positive biases over weeks, indirectly enhancing mood by changing perception rather than directly affecting it.
Seligman’s work linked depression to perceptions of control and helplessness from experience, pioneered cognitive behavioral therapy, and showed how antidepressants similarly work by altering thought patterns rather than immediately affecting mood. This was influential in establishing biological and psychological models of depression.
Studies have found a genetic link between serotonin function and depression. Specifically, a gene coding for the serotonin transporter predicts susceptibility to depression.
This gene has two alleles - long and short versions. The short version results in less efficient serotonin transport, making individuals twice as likely to experience depression after a stressful life event.
This genetic link between serotonin function and depression is seen not just in humans, but also in other animals like mice through studies using genetically engineered “knockout” mice.
In mice with disrupted serotonin transporter genes, they showed enhanced stress responses both behaviorally and physiologically after being in a stressful environment.
Similarly in humans with the short allele, brain imaging found increased amygdala activation in response to fearful or negative stimuli, likely due to reduced connectivity between the amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex which regulates amygdala activity.
This impaired regulation of amygdala activity makes short allele carriers less able to extinguish fears, maintaining high anxiety and increasing depression risk.
Deep brain stimulation targeting the subgenual cingulate cortex, part of the anterior cingulate cortex, has shown promise in treating severe treatment-resistant depression by modifying brain regions involved.
Anticipation, or the pleasure of looking forward to something good in the future, is a significant part of the human experience that we often overlook. Examples are enjoying daydreaming about an upcoming vacation or getting excited for a date in the coming days.
The double-pour technique used when serving Guinness generates anticipation as the beer settles. Guinness recognized this in a successful ad campaign emphasizing “the joy of savoring.”
Studies show people are willing to pay more for an experience if it is further in the future rather than immediate, as they get value from the anticipation. For example, most would rather go to a concert later in the week than immediately.
Despite being a workday, people often rate Fridays higher than Sundays as Fridays bring the promise and anticipation of the fun weekend ahead, while Sundays are marred by anticipating the workweek to come. The pleasure of anticipation influences our preferences and decisions.
Our emotional state is determined both by current feelings and expectations of the future. Anticipating negative events like pain or adversity can generate dread that negatively impacts well-being.
Studies show people are willing to pay more to avoid negative events like electric shocks in the future rather than immediately, to avoid the cost of dread from anticipating it. This is rational even if the expected intensity is the same.
Anticipating job loss due to plant closures caused workers more illness before the closures than during actual unemployment, when uncertainty was lifted.
The author’s experience skydiving revealed that three days of dread beforehand impacted the experience more than if it was a surprise. Information gathering reduced fear.
Neuroimaging research shows those who dread an upcoming pain find the actual pain worse if they have to wait longer. Dread enhances attention to the anticipated physical sensation.
Anticipating events activates the same brain regions involved in the actual experience, so dread mimics and negatively impacts well-being similar to experiencing the event itself.
Anticipation of future rewards and aversive events plays a significant role in our pleasure and well-being. Factors like how good/bad we expect something to be, how vividly we can imagine it, its probability, and timing influence how pleasurable/aversive anticipation is.
Optimists anticipate rewards more positively due to imagining them as more likely, vivid, and imminent. This enhances the pleasure of anticipation. Pessimists anticipate rewards and aversive events more negatively.
However, our tendency to value the present over the future (temporal discounting) pushes us to consume rewards sooner for instant gratification rather than prolonging anticipation.
The balance between these two factors - anticipation enhancing delay and temporal discounting favoring immediacy - determines when we indulge. We delay more for infrequent or valuable rewards that maintain value over time.
Survivor contestants face this dilemma over limited rice - eat now for energy or save longer to preserve food supply despite increasing hunger. Their decision relies on predicting future food availability and needs.
The study tested whether optimism alters discounting rates by asking participants to choose between raises that would take effect immediately versus later. Many chose the immediate raise, expecting further gains in the future.
When the future was presented as more constrained without potential for further gains, more participants chose the larger delayed raise.
Another experiment offered choosing between immediate versus delayed salary cuts when losses. More chose delayed cuts when the future was uncertain but immediate cuts when the future was certain.
This suggests temporal discounting is partially due to optimistic beliefs that gains will continue and losses can be avoided in the future.
People perceive near-future selves as similar to their current self but distant futures selves as strangers. This makes them prioritize present gains over future and push losses to the distant future.
fMRI studies linked greater differences in brain activity evaluating current versus future selves with stronger temporal discounting or prioritizing immediate rewards.
Michael Jackson’s lavish spending despite financial success was driven by lack of savings planning and spending whatever he wanted immediately rather than budgeting for the future, putting him in debt.
Americans’ negative savings rate in the 2000s was partially due to overoptimism about continually rising home prices, leading to more spending than income after taxes.
The passage discusses how people tend to like and value an option more after choosing it over other options, even if they were indifferent between the options before choosing.
This phenomenon, known as choice-induced preference change, was first discovered by psychologist Jack Brehm in an experiment where he had women choose between household items like toasters and coffeemakers. After choosing, they rated the selected item more favorably.
Studies with capuchin monkeys also found choice-induced preference change. Monkeys initially valued colors of M&Ms equally but preferred the color they chose over the rejected color after being made to choose.
This suggests preference change is mediated by relatively automatic low-level processes rather than complex rationalization, as monkeys don’t rationalize like humans but still alter preferences based on choices.
The passage uses examples like vacations, jobs, and household items to illustrate how people commonly experience preference change after making difficult decisions between initially similarly valued options.

The passage discusses an experiment that examines whether meaningful choices can influence preferences even without conscious recollection of the choice. Psychologists presented amnesiac patients with abstract paintings to rank and choose between. Later, when patients no longer remembered the experiment, they still ranked the painting they had chosen higher than initially.

Neuroscientists then conducted an fMRI study where participants rated holiday destinations and later chose between equally rated options. After choosing, participants rated the chosen option higher. The brain data showed this preference change correlated with increased activity in the caudate nucleus, an area involved in processing rewards.

Importantly, this reevaluation effect only occurs when people believe they made the choice themselves. Studies with monkeys showed no preference change when the researcher simply gave them one option rather than letting them choose. However, monkeys did reevaluate when tricked into thinking they chose.

The passage concludes by discussing an experiment where researchers falsely told students they were subliminally choosing between vacation spots. When revealed one option was “chosen,” students rated it higher, showing choices can influence preferences even without true agency as long as the individual believes the choice was theirs.

Experiments show that when people make a choice, even a hypothetical one, they tend to value the chosen option more and devalue unchosen alternatives. This occurs even if nothing about the options themselves has changed.
This phenomenon has implications in many areas like business, relationships, and personal decision making. For example, reminding employees or customers of their choice can increase commitment and satisfaction.
Cognitive dissonance theory and self-perception theory attempt to explain why choices alter preferences. Cognitive dissonance theory argues it is to reduce psychological discomfort from conflicting thoughts, while self-perception theory says people infer preferences from their own choices.
Evidence supports cognitive dissonance theory, showing preference changes only occur when a choice causes negative arousal, not if arousal is attributed to another source.
Making difficult decisions can cause people to analyze options more deeply and highlight unique pros and cons, influencing preferences even before a final choice is made. Small preexisting differences may tip decisions, even if options seem equally attractive.

This passage is describing the memories and experiences of someone who lived through the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865. Some key points:

It provides historical context about the assassination, describing that Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth at Ford’s Theater on April 14, 1865 while watching a play.
It notes how without modern technology, news traveled much more slowly in 1865 compared to today. There would have been no immediate images or video coverage of the assassination.
The passage then shifts to recalling a first-hand memory. The narrator says they were on a road trip with their father to Augusta, Maine at the time. They recall feeling something was wrong when driving into the city, with people looking sad and in terrible excitement.
The father stopped the carriage to ask what happened, and was told they hadn’t heard that President Lincoln had been assassinated.

So in summary, the passage uses a personal anecdote and memory to help convey what it was like learning about and experiencing such a significant historical event in real-time, before the modern age of instant communication and media coverage of news. It provides context about how shockingly fast or slow information could spread in 1865.

The passage recounts the author’s experience of learning about and witnessing the events of September 11, 2001 in New York City.
In the morning, they learned from a friend that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. They turned on the TV to see images of smoke coming from one tower.
As they continued watching TV, a second plane hit the South Tower. They were horrified to see the South Tower collapsing live on television shortly after.
Going outside, they found streets full of people covered in dust, evacuating away from the towers. Phone lines were down.
They watched in surprise as the North Tower then collapsed as well, even though logically they knew it was likely after the first tower fell. The experience stayed vividly in their memory.

In summary, the passage provides a first-hand account of someone in New York witnessing the unfolding events of 9/11 through TV and by going outside, and expresses how shocking and memorable the experience was.

Here are the key points of the passage:

Psychologists conducted studies showing that memories of traumatic events like 9/11 are not necessarily more accurate than everyday memories, even though people have more confidence in them. Flashbulb memories can be inaccurate or forget details over time similarly to regular memories.
However, memories of traumatic events do tend to feel more vivid and emotionally arousing when recalled compared to memories of normal everyday events from around the same time period.
The researchers conducted an fMRI study scanning people’s brains while recalling 9/11 memories versus summer 2001 memories from before. They found only half the participants reported 9/11 memories feeling more vivid/emotional - the other half were similar to normal memories.
What differentiated the two groups was how close they were physically to Ground Zero on 9/11. Those around 2 miles away had flashbulb-like 9/11 memories, while those 4.5+ miles away did not differentiate 9/11 memories from normal ones. Proximity to the trauma seemed to impact memory qualities like confidence and vividness.

So in summary, it highlights the human tendency to overestimate memory accuracy for traumatic events, but also that physical proximity plays a role in whether those memories take on exaggerated, flashbulb-like qualities years later or remain similar to normal memories.

The key differences in experiences and resulting memories between those close to the World Trade Center collapse on 9/11 and those farther away were:

Those downtown directly witnessed the planes hitting the towers, the towers burning and collapsing, saw people jumping from the buildings, heard explosions, smelled the smoke, and were in immediate danger/flight or fight response mode as they fled the falling debris.
Those farther away, like in midtown Manhattan, only learned about the attacks secondhand from the news or others and watched coverage on TV. They did not directly see or experience the events.
Those close by had much stronger amygdala (emotional memory center of the brain) responses due to the extreme danger and stress of the situation. Their stress hormone levels were very high.
Memories of those downtown were much more vivid, emotional, and detailed. They conveyed more details when recounting them.
Memories of those farther away, while still vivid, were more similar to memories of everyday events rather than highly traumatic experiences.
Distance from the towers was correlated with differences in later amygdala brain activation when recalling the events, indicating the level of direct experience was reflected in the brain.
Lance Armstrong was asked which he would prefer - winning the Tour de France multiple times or being a cancer survivor. Most people would think winning the Tour is better, but Armstrong disagrees.
Armstrong got cancer in 1996 after showing early success in cycling. He had testicular cancer that spread to his brain and lungs. He underwent intensive treatment.
Against all odds, Armstrong returned to cycling in 1999 and won the Tour de France that year, then went on to win it 6 more times consecutively.
Armstrong believes that going through cancer gave him unexpected strengths and a new outlook that helped him achieve his professional goals in cycling.
While others see cancer only negatively, Armstrong and other survivors see gains from what others view as misfortune.
The brain has the ability to turn adversity into opportunity, similar to the mythical “philosopher’s stone” of alchemy that was believed to turn lead into gold. Facing challenges can lead to personal growth and achievement.

In summary, the article discusses how Lance Armstrong believes that surviving cancer helped shape him into the exceptionally successful cyclist who won the Tour de France multiple times, more than he would have achieved without facing that adversity. It’s an example of how the brain can reframe negative experiences into opportunities.

The human brain has an amazing ability to adapt to and find positives in difficult situations. Though we dread hardships like illness, divorce or unemployment, research shows people typically report returning to normal levels of well-being within a few years.
However, when asked to predict how they would feel in such situations, people vastly overestimate the negativity and length of emotional impact. They fail to consider aspects of life that don’t change or their ability to adapt.
One example given is Matt Hampson, who became paralyzed from the neck down after a rugby accident. Though most people pity his situation, he says life is just different now, not necessarily worse, as he has gained new skills and pursuits.
This mismatch between prediction and reality is known as the “impact bias.” The brain focuses only on changes rather than things that stay the same when predicting hardship. It also fails to account for its remarkable ability to adjust and compensate through new capabilities.
Imagining potential hardships in advance can actually help reframe them positively and prepare people emotionally through mental simulations of adaptation. The brain is highly adaptive through imagination as well as real experience.
Imagining future events activates our emotions and allows us to feel the pleasures or pains associated with those events. For example, imagining losing one’s eyesight triggers feelings of fear and sadness.
Researchers had volunteers imagine various negative medical conditions while scanning their brains with fMRI. After choosing which condition they’d prefer to have out of pairs, volunteers’ perceptions changed - they rated the chosen condition as less severe.
Brain scans showed enhanced activity in areas involved in reward (caudate nucleus) and regulating emotional responses (rACC) when imagining the chosen condition compared to the rejected one. This suggests our perceptions can change after making hypothetical choices.
The neural mechanisms are similar to how fear responses are extinguished through learning safety. Areas like the rACC help inhibit fear responses from the amygdala when threats are no longer present.
Research shows our desires can influence our visual perception, like perceiving water when thirsty. One study found wearing an embarrassing costume altered students’ perceptions of how far they had to walk. Together this implies our emotions and goals can literally change how we see the world.
Leopold Trepper was a Soviet spy operating in Europe prior to World War II under the cover of running an export business.
As a spy, he provided important intelligence to the Soviets that could alter the course of major battles.
However, the intelligence he provided warning of troubling information was ignored and dismissed by the Soviets, likely costing them significant casualties.
Trepper was a Polish Jew who grew up poor and had a lifelong commitment to political causes. He fought in left-wing movements in Poland, Palestine, and France before becoming a Soviet spy.
Despite providing accurate intelligence under his code name, his warnings prior to World War II were not heeded, showing how threats can be underestimated even when the information comes from a trusted source.
This story illustrates how optimism and disbelief can cause risks to be overlooked, just as the Soviets dismissed Trepper’s warnings due to not wanting to believe the threats he presented.
Richard Trepper was a Soviet spy who ran a spy network called the Red Orchestra in Nazi-occupied Europe.
In early 1941, Trepper warned Stalin that Germany was planning to invade the Soviet Union based on intelligence from his spy network. He provided details on German troop movements and predicted the invasion would occur in May or June.
Another Soviet spy, Richard Sorge, also warned Stalin of the imminent German invasion and provided the exact date of June 22, 1941. However, Stalin ignored these warnings, believing Germany would not attack due to their non-aggression pact.
When Germany did invade on June 22 with over 4 million troops, it showed Stalin’s failure to heed clear warnings from his own intelligence sources. Other warnings from Western leaders were also ignored.
The passage suggests people tend to be overoptimistic and underestimate risks, like the likelihood of negative life events. They believe risks are lower for themselves than average. This is called the optimism bias.
Examples are given of people underestimating divorce rates and health risks. Even when provided statistics, people tend to believe their own situations will be different.
Stalin and Hitler both ignored warnings and were overconfident in their predictions, which had major negative impacts for their countries in WWII.
Researchers studied whether people are overly optimistic in predicting positive events in their upcoming month. They found people overestimated the likelihood of positive events like enjoyable parties or sexual encounters by about 20%.
Even though people have a lifetime of past experiences to learn from, they are still unrealistically optimistic in their predictions. To make accurate predictions, people should look back at past events and use that information, rather than being overly optimistic.
The researchers, Christoph Korn and Daniel Kahneman, wanted to understand why unrealistic views persist even when past information contradicts those views. They hypothesized the brain selectively processes information in a biased way that allows optimism.
In an fMRI study, participants estimated likelihoods of negative events and were given statistical probabilities. They learned equally from positive and negative information but only updated predictions upward when information was better than expected, not when it was worse.
The brain tracks errors between predictions and outcomes, but only does so reliably for positive information. This leads to continued and increased optimism as people learn more.
While optimism can have benefits like better health outcomes, it can also lead to riskier behaviors by underestimating true risks. The brain seems wired for optimism in a way that hinders fully accurate learning about the future.
Researchers used people’s underestimation of their life expectancy as a measure of trait optimism. Those who overestimated their life expectancy by about 20 years were labeled “extreme optimists”, while most people who overestimated by only a few years were “moderates”. Those who underestimated were “pessimists”.
Optimism was found to correlate with working longer hours, expecting later retirement, saving more money, and smoking less (for moderate optimists). Extreme optimists worked less hours, saved less, and smoked more.
Moderate optimism correlated with sensible decisions, while extreme optimism correlated with seemingly irrational decisions. Moderation seemed best.
A certain level of optimism allows us to take on challenges, but extreme optimism can lead to ignoring risks and being unprepared for difficulties. Like red wine, optimism is good in moderation but too much can be hazardous.
The passage discusses the optimism bias, which is the tendency for people’s expectations to be slightly better than what the actual future holds. Research shows optimists live longer, are healthier and happier.
The brain has evolved to overpredict future happiness and success because optimism makes health and progress more likely. Positive predictions can create positive outcomes through feedback loops between higher and lower brain regions.
When imagining the future, the frontal cortex biases subcortical regions like the amygdala and hippocampus to enhance positive emotions and memories. Feedback strengthens initial expectations.
Optimism biases our perception of reality by altering how we interpret people and events, focusing more on potential positives. It also affects our actions, making optimistic predictions self-fulfilling through behaviors that increase the chances of those outcomes occurring.
Even in difficult situations like delays or misfortunes, the brain seeks evidence to confirm expectations by perceiving upsides, maintaining beliefs that things will work out for the best. This involves brain regions processing value and emotional reactions.
In summary, the passage argues optimism evolves and persists because it improves both subjective experience and objective success by changing how we perceive and act upon the world.
The passage discusses the optimism bias, which is the tendency for people to be overly optimistic and underestimate risks. This bias can be advantageous by motivating behavior, but also has downsides.
At an individual level, optimism is linked to better health and longevity. However, when many optimistic biases are combined in a market, it can lead to problems like the 2008 credit crunch.
The construction of the Sydney Opera House was delayed due to accumulated underestimations from various team members over tasks that were done sequentially.
Extreme optimism may outweigh benefits for some individuals and lead to unwanted outcomes. But with awareness of cognitive biases, people can still benefit from optimism while guarding against unrealistic optimism.
The brain provides a distorted view of reality through biases and illusions, but it also allows awareness of those biases. Being aware of phenomena like optimism bias is important, similarly to pilots being aware of cognitive phenomena like vertigo.

Here is a summary of the key points from Weinstein, “Unrealistic Optimism”:

People tend to view themselves as less likely than others to experience negative events like accidents, health problems, etc. This is known as unrealistic optimism.
Factors that may contribute to unrealistic optimism include motivational biases that serve an adaptive function (e.g. promoting persistence despite risks) and cognitive biases due to limitations in processing probability information.
Studies show people see themselves as less likely than peers to experience a range of negative life events like having an automobile accident, divorce, health problems. This effect is seen across cultures.
Unrealistic optimism may lead people to engage in more risk-taking behaviors than warranted by objective risks. However, it also serves adaptive functions like promoting persistence in pursing goals.
The bias tends to be greater for controllable events than uncontrollable ones, and greater for near-future events than distant-future. It also varies by domain - people are more optimistic about their health than driving skills, for example.
Factors like control, experience, and focus of comparison affect levels of unrealistic optimism observed in different situations and domains. The bias suggests limits to people’s ability to accurately assess their risks.

Here is a summary of the key points about bid:

Bid refers to a price offered to purchase or sell a good, asset, or service in an auction or tendering process. It is the maximum price a bidder is willing to pay.
In an auction, bidders submit confidential bids specifying the price they are willing to pay. The auction is then awarded to the highest bidder, who pays the price they bid.
Sealed or closed bids are submitted confidentially in writing. Open or ascending bids are made publicly and bidders can successively raise their price until no one bids higher.
Competitive bidding aims to obtain the best price through competition between multiple potential buyers or suppliers. It seeks to obtain fair market value and avoid negotiation.
Factors a bidder considers include their valuation or budget for the item, competition from other bidders, and reserve price or minimum acceptable bid set by the auctioneer or seller.
In government and corporate procurement, bids are typically evaluated not only on price but also non-price factors like experience, technical compliance, delivery time etc. to identify the most advantageous proposal overall.

That covers the key points about the meaning and process of submitting a bid in an auction or tender. Let me know if you need any clarification or have additional questions.

Here are summaries of the sources:

Martin Seligman and J.D. Teasdale (1978) presented a critique and reformulation of learned helplessness theory in humans. They discussed issues with the original theory and proposed revisions.
In Learned Optimism (2006), Martin Seligman discussed how to change one’s mindset from pessimism to a more optimistic outlook. He outlined the benefits of an optimistic explanatory style.
In Learned Helplessness (1995), Peterson, Maier, and Seligman provided an in-depth analysis of learned helplessness theory, reviewing evidence from animal and human studies from its origins to the 1990s.
Seligman, Maier, and Geer (1968) demonstrated learned helplessness in dogs by exposing them to inescapable shocks.
Peterson, Maier, and Seligman (1995) discussed cognitive, motivational, and emotional components of learned helplessness.
Buchanan et al. (1999) found that a cognitive-behavioral intervention improved physical health outcomes.
Olfson and Marcus (2009) reviewed national trends in antidepressant use in the U.S.
Harmer (2008) discussed how serotonin may explain the mechanism of action of antidepressant drugs through its role in emotional processing.

The remaining sources concern research on the relationship between genes, especially genes involved in serotonin signaling, life stress, and depression. They present evidence from both animal and human studies.

Here is a summary of the citations provided:

1-3. Review studies examining people’s ability to predict their emotional adaptation to disability or illness, and whether drawing attention to focusing illusions or emotional adaptation can improve predictions.

Refers back to citation 3.
Newspaper interview with spinal injury survivor Matt Hampson discussing adapting to disability.
Study on how people reconstruct uncontrollable negative events in anticipatory vs. post-event ways.
Research on how experience and choice shape expected aversive outcomes.

8-9. Studies examining the role of the amygdala in emotion processing and how thirst modulates perception.

10-11. Work analyzing cognitive dissonance and perception of natural environments, and a classic book on prophecy and failure.

The citations then shift to Chapter 11 and discuss various historical sources and studies relating to unrealistic optimism, expectations, risk perceptions, and how optimism can impact health and economic outcomes. The epilogue and author biography section cite additional research on neuroscientific underpinnings of optimism and memory.

#book-summary

Optimism Bias A Tour of the Irrationally Positive Brain, The - Tali Sharot