Optimism, Pessimism, Realism, Don't Carism (also known under the colloquialism "apathy")

The distances between the above perspectives can wax or wane depending on your context and location, as well as the audience. Speaking with one person, you can get an overwhelming degree of optimism about a situation, and from another you can get a high dose of pessimism about the same situation, and then another will give a more tempered position on the exact same scenario. Meaning what? Meaning our perspectives our perspectives matter in how we do (and how hard we do) what we do. But does it change the outcome? That is a tough question. I have gotten all three perspectives on the mediation program that I am working with here in Kampala. And intuitively you would think that the optimist would be most effective, the pessimist least, and the realist somewhere in the middle. But perspectives don't fully dictate our effectiveness apparently, as the pessimist and realist in my case are the most effective (hard to determine which is more so) and the optimist is not ineffective, but is not as effective as the other two.

Why do I go into this? Really, I don't know. Isn't that what a blog is for, to blog up all your thoughts onto the interweb? Actually, this post is just a machination on how perspectives can affect the effect of your work. I go through each of these perspectives multiple times every day. But today, as I was getting a very healthy dose of the pessimism (who considered himself a realist), and he was still extremely effective, I began to wonder whether my initial optimism was serving me well. I want to come in an change the world, and convince all the lawyers in Uganda that mediation is a great idea and they should take it seriously and put forth a good effort and show up when they are scheduled and bring their clients so that mediation can actually take place with decision makers and not to argue like they were in court and to trust me as an impartial third party and think a little bit out of the box. And that is still my goal. But is it better to shoot for the moon, get frustrated and end up in apathy land, or to have lesser goals and see them achieved and be more satisfied and fulfilled and have greater stamina? The old proverb goes: How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. But what happens when the elephant is trying to eat you too? You run? You try to bullet in its peanut sized brain (please no PETA responses on this, it is a proverb and has no bearing on real animals--and it also is not advocating violence against humans--the elephant is the problem, people, the problem *Marx Brothers aside here, while the action pauses and Groucho turns to the camera to say: And there I go again, dying the death of a thousand qualifications. Such a pitiful little figure, these statements with their immense qualified statements behind them.*).

So the pessimist is incredibly effective, the optimist not nearly as much, and the realist sits in the balance. I guess my goal is to eat the elephant as much as possible over the next year. . . and not be afraid to crack off a couple of warning shots over its head to keep it in line. . . while I am eating it. Man, this metaphor is falling apart. Anyway, if you can make sense of my ramblings feel free to comment. Otherwise, flee.

If you want to comment, it would be interesting to hear where optimism has failed for you and succeeded, and what perspective you find most helpful. Like the horse of a different color in OZ, I turn multiple shades in a days ride. But I continue to be hopeful I can make a difference, realistic about the methods, and pessimistic about the ability to "fool" all the people all the time, i.e., it will never be the case that everyone is on board.

Enough. I am done. Comment or don't. Read or don't. Satirize or (please) don't. Make fun or else.

Peace to you all.

(This is my office where I think, progress through these perspectives daily, and take my tea--the white covered tray you see. Oh yeah, I do mediations in their as well.)