Two stars for two brilliant viewpoints the author makes: 1) the learned helplessness theory, which is well-grounded in biology, experiments and simply fascinating; 2) the good advice that we should teach kids in an optimistic way. Deducting three stars for 1) the book slips from lab controlled animal experiments to causation to prediction....and eventually to correlation 2) based on the study-based conclusions, which are only valid within the study contexts, the author gave disturbing overarching advice to organizations 3) the last section talking about tactics really is not useful. It's a very basic run-down of CBT. Maybe it was useful when the book was published, but for 2020, any good CBT workbook beats this brief section by miles.
The author makes two claims: 1) pessimism causes depression, while optimism immunes people from depression. 2) pessimism causes failure, while optimism causes success. The first claim is convincing and intuitive, especially with the studies on clinical depression. The second claim is repulsive and I believe inaccurate. For me, the accurate depiction of what the author finds should be: 1) pessimism leads to learned helplessness in some people 2) pessimism, even without learned helplessness, can cause depression or lower mood in general 3) learned helplessness causes failure, but pessimism does not *cause* failure other than through its relation to helplessness. After reading the entire book, I cannot find any study that proves why pessimistic people who are persistent and motivated cannot succeed as much as optimistic people.
Before I go on, I must admit that I am taking it personally because I am a pessimist - both self-perceived before reading this book and unequivocally self-diagnosed by the test of this book. However, I think of myself as a very persistent and motivated pessimist. In fact, much of my persistence is caused by my pessimism. For example, I know that I (personal) am less talented (permanent) in most sports (pervasiveness) than most people. This is why I try four or five times harder before I even start to evaluate my performance as a success or a failure. I am equally, if not more, pessimistic on good events. I believe that many of my successes are the results of good luck. That is why even facing a challenge that I have succeeded in before, I put in as much effort as the first time. For me, pessimism is a personality trait that can be used for or against you, and this book mostly asserts one way without any justification.
The most repulsive part of the book is how the author recommends using his optimism test in hiring decisions and college admissions. Specifically, he recommends that we hire unqualified optimists over qualified pessimists because unqualified optimists are predicted to perform better than qualified pessimists. Now, the statistical claim, that on average, optimists are predicted to perform better than pessimists, is probably true. But by the same logic, men are predicted to perform better than women, whites are predicted to perform better than blacks, and people with high SES background are predicted to perform better than low SES background. Why is that true? Well, men are more optimistic than women, and I will put my bet on whites are more optimistic than blacks, and high SES people are more optimistic than low SES people. Oh and by the way, even the author points out that people might be pessimistic *because* they grew up with unfortunate life events, in poverty, or are discriminated against. So when people grow up in unfortunate circumstances, they learn to be pessimistic, and then we are justified to not hire/admit them even when they manage to become as qualified as people who grow up in more fortunate circumstances?
Another baffling part of this discussion is that, when faced with high dropout/quit rates, or lower than academic successes, instead of looking for ways the program can help those qualified people realize their own potential, the CEOs and deans of colleges prefer to discard them and instead have optimistic people who won't quit as a replacement.
In contrast, I take the first part of the book, where the author argues that pessimism causes depression, seriously. I think this is a much more accurate claim, but even this claim makes me uneasy. Specifically, the author argues that the downsides of pessimism are many, while the upside of pessimism is only that pessimistic people are more objectively correct and wiser. For the author, this means that optimism clearly wins in this cost-benefit analysis. I find this hard to swallow - especially because as academic researchers, we are devoting our career to advance the scientific understanding of the world, so being correct and wise seems like a noble goal, not a nuisance. Even when I believe the author's argument that pessimism leads to depression, I would personally be okay with average or mild depression if it comes with knowing the truth and being wise, rather than being an ignorant optimist.
In all, I am disappointed after reading this book. I had high hopes for it because I am a firm believer in CBT and I thought this book would help me understand how and why CBT works effectively, and how we can use similar principles to live a happier life for healthy people. The reason I like CBT is that CBT persuades one to see the truth by discarding their biases. At first glance, the author seems to agree with me by advocating "flexible optimism" in the last section of the book. However, this is directly at odds with the rest of the book. The optimism test classifies someone who is completely objective (G-B score of 0) as a pessimist, if not a depressive. Therefore, the optimism test implies that to reap the benefits of optimism, one must deviate from the truth. This is a conclusion I am not willing to swallow - so, for now, I will choose to keep my pessimism and mild depression tendencies.