The psychology of doommongering

[BlueBlancmange]

Following on from the thread about the motives of people who doom monger about the future, I have been thinking about why those who engage feel confident it will work.

To be clear, just as on the other thread, I am not talking about people who, for example, realistically state that we likely won't just be totally back to normal by next autumn. While not ideal, this is a perfectly reasonable outlook. I am talking about people who post things like 'People need to accept that this is the way we live now. Anyone who thinks the vaccines won't be rendered totally redundant within 6 months due to the new variants is quite frankly delusional. I'm afraid we need to get used to the idea that we will need to socially distance forever and that life as we knew it is gone'.

This is not the general scientific consensus, yet they post these alarming prognoses in tones of authority and utter certainty.

I assume their underlying thinking is that no normal person would possibly want the future to be like that. Therefore, when people read it, they will assume that someone would only post something that dire if they have carefully weighed up the evidence and been forced to conclude it's the case (sadly). Also, anyone who would not doom monger with the motive to simply upset others (as in most people) is likely to find it hard to imagine that could possible be the motive of anyone else.

Just wondering what others think.

I just think the phrase “misery likes company” sums it up really. And at the moment there are a LOT of miserable people around. Some react by desperately trying to find the positive but others want to bring the normal folk down to their level.

One poster on a thread yesterday was trying to convince everyone that they were selfish for wanting their dc’s back in school - she was sure the government were moving towards home schooling for the whole year - after all she home schools her children so why shouldn’t everyone else? It’s like wanting everyone else to be in your club so you don’t feel so alone maybe? Or something like that!

I really wonder this too. I've come to the conclusion that it's a combination of "misery loves company" and "pissing on someone else's chips". I think covid has allowed unhappy, negative people the opportunity to foist that on other people and they are doing it either because they are irredeemable miserable fuckers who enjoy it, or, they are unhappy in their misery and are attempting to drag other down with them to try and feel more normal, less other.

Perfect example of this is my local Facebook site. About 40 posts today saying oh isn't the snow great? Lifted the spirits, how lovely for the kids to be able to get outside in the fresh air with their families, where the risk of covid transmission is very low, and do a bit of sledging. Another 50 odd posting photos of snowmen.

And

One post from someone saying I'm disgusted to see all these peiple out, spreading covid. And one saying I'm disgusted to see these people playing in the snow, sacring the wildlife.

Those aren't normal reactions right? Even if the thought crossed your mind, you have to be a serious, serious misanthrope to go to the effort of posting such a negative and pointless post.

I know someone like this IRL. She is.a really nice woman in normal circumstances but I really struggle.to want.to listen to her atm.

I dont know why she does it

Aren't you doom mongering yourself by constantly starting threads about why others doom monger?

@lovelemoncurd

Aren't you doom mongering yourself by constantly starting threads about why others doom monger?

Yes this! I am tired of seeing threads that are basically 'how dare other people respond to this enormous world event differently to me'.

Newsflash: people are different.

I think pessimists and optimists are mostly just good people trying to make sense of a massive event.

Calling them 'doom mongers' is unhelpful, I could just as easily call optimists 'unicorn believers'.

@YourVagesty

Because they are cunts.

I agree. I don't think most of them even believe what they're saying, they just enjoy depressing other people.

To be fair a lot of people posted that this could go on for a year or more and vaccines might not work and they were utterly slated for it. So one person’s doom is another’s reality.

We all cope differently. I’m a realist and find that more comforting than those who breezily say we will be back to normal in few months. I leave them and the prophets of doom to their thoughts and focus on my realistic expectations. We are all coping as we can

I think you’re over thinking this.

There are posters on here who post what you call “doom mongering” posts, but there are just as many posts from the opposite group, people who are adamant that everything is going to be ok and criticise/ be nasty about anyone who dares to have a different opinion.

If you want to psychoanalyse (and criticise) the character of the “doom mongers” then perhaps you should do the same to other group too?

*Surely some are just trying to provoke a reaction?

Same as at the opposite end of the scale there are posters who announce that from 15th February or whenever they will no longer follow any of the rules...*

I agree with you. I think most conspiracy theorists must be seriously lacking attention at home, and there are many. You only need to see Spotted Top Fan comments to know that.

I also agree that I've seen a lot more deniers that doom merchants. I've only seen one person on here who seemed to be revelling in the situation. Very bizarre, but perhaps that in itself is a state of denial? Possibly turning it into some sort of game as the reality is too scary? Like people driving round all the local supermarkets and stockpiling right at the start? I'm guessing if they ever saw the inside of an ICU ward it might not seem so much fun.

I'm just keeping my head down and getting on with it. If this has taught me anything, it's that nothing is a given. Things can change overnight, for worse or for better.

@inquietant

I'm not talking about people like you though, who seem cautiously realistic that we can't just expect a total return to pre 2020 life any time soon.

I am talking about people who pronounce with utter conviction and authority that how we are living now, with lockdowns and no normal social interaction, is how we will live forever more. And that any one who can't accept that the future consists of a disease-ridden, socially distanced nightmare for as long as humanity remains, is a delusional fool.

I am not a Covid denier by any means. I understand what a terrible disease it is and am taking the restrictions very seriously. However from what I have read, even with the emergence of the new strains, science is advanced enough for us to still have hope that we will eventually get this under control. I know scientists are expressing concern about the mutations, but I have heard almost none express the kind of dire prognoses some people decide to post on here.

@ThornAmongstRoses

I think you’re over thinking this.

There are posters on here who post what you call “doom mongering” posts, but there are just as many posts from the opposite group, people who are adamant that everything is going to be ok and criticise/ be nasty about anyone who dares to have a different opinion.

If you want to psychoanalyse (and criticise) the character of the “doom mongers” then perhaps you should do the same to other group too?

Posts predicting doom and gloom have the potential to drag other people down and increase their anxiety. The positive ones aren't likely to do that. It's pretty much agreed that optimism and a positive outlook are better for wellbeing than the opposite.

Flaxmeadow - reasoned debate is not always required or useful. People are allowed to criticise others or use 'ad hominem attacks', especially if they feel that the other person is unnecessarily spreading doom and gloom to stir things up and spread misery and discord.

I can see that the 'call out the behaviour, not the person' idea is appropriate when dealing with children, who might interpret 'You bit Henry, you naughty boy' as a permanent label of 'naughty', but I hardly think it's necessary with fully-grown adults to suggest saying 'Your opinion is doom-laden' rather than calling them a doom-monger, as if the latter is deeply offensive and risks labelling them for life. We all know we are talking about what they are currently saying, not making a psychological evaluation of their character!

Posts predicting doom and gloom have the potential to drag other people down and increase their anxiety

But they are mostly not intentionally dragging others down. They are commenting on events, not people.

Whereas name calling, eg "doom monger" "dementor" etc, actually is dragging someone down. It's a personal attack.

But they are mostly not intentionally dragging others down. They are commenting on events, not people.

I totally disagree with this. They are not merely commenting on events. They are trying to paint things in the most pessimistic and bleak terms, artificially, to suit their own agenda.

This is not only worrying to some people and possibly damaging in some cases, it's also a bit silly - as these are the LEAST likely outcomes.

eg consider which statements are MOST LIKELY to be true:

We will never get rid of covid, people will continue dying all the time, getting younger and younger, we will never have a vaccine that works, the vaccines won't stop transmission and anyway they will most likely have hideous side effect in years to come

Vs

Ok things will take awhile to get back to normal, and possibly some things won't be exactly the same, which is probably no bad thing in terms of work-life balance, but the vaccines will bring it under control, they will eventually have the desired effect of stopping this virus being in wide circulation and therefore will more of less get rid of community transmission (like every other successful vaccine, ever), people will mostly stop dying and covid will become another tricky winter respiratory virus that we will have to take measures to protect elderly and vulnerable people from, like flu and like every other virus that has ever caused a pandemic (or even an epidemic).

Which is the most likely? Really?

(and remember, these doom mongerers were the same people who a few months ago were saying they'll never develop a vaccine! It's too hard, the virus will mutate, the vaccine will kill people who are allergic etc etc)

Flaxmeadow - reasoned debate is not always required or useful. People are allowed to criticise others or use 'ad hominem attacks', especially if they feel that the other person is unnecessarily spreading doom and gloom to stir things up and spread misery and discord.

I disagree. Attacking someones opinion is one thing, but name calling or attacking them personally is wrong

The "feeling" that someone is posting pessimistic outlooks on events to "stir things up" or "spread misery and discord" is just that, a feeling, not a fact

So someone might post a fact, for example that the chief medical officer said that a new strain of the virus might be/probably is more deadly. That might upset someone, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't change the fact and should not mean that a person cannot discuss it, politely.

I can see that the 'call out the behaviour, not the person' idea is appropriate when dealing with children, who might interpret 'You bit Henry, you naughty boy' as a permanent label of 'naughty', but I hardly think it's necessary with fully-grown adults to suggest saying 'Your opinion is doom-laden' rather than calling them a doom-monger, as if the latter is deeply offensive and risks labelling them for life. We all know we are talking about what they are currently saying, not making a psychological evaluation of their character!

No it's a way of debating. There are actually rules about this on most debating forums. Name calling is not valid debate because
1 Its a personal attack
2 it's an attempt to shut the other person down. Cancel them if you like

So
Person 1 "The end is nigh, we're all doomed!"
To say "shut up doom monger" is not an argument, leaves the other person having to defend themselves and the debate cannot proceed because how do you answer it anyway, other than denying it. Ot then its turns into a slanging match and becomes tedious discussion.

An argument or debate would be "You're wrong, the end is not nigh, show me the evidence that we are all doomed". So you've called them out on their opinion, without childish name calling, and the discussion continues

Posts predicting doom and gloom have the potential to drag other people down and increase their anxiety. The positive ones aren't likely to do that. It's pretty much agreed that optimism and a positive outlook are better for wellbeing than the opposite.

So basically, people who don’t think life is going to magically return to normal in 3 months time should just shut up?

So much for freedom of speech I guess.

@lazylinguist

Flaxmeadow - reasoned debate is not always required or useful. People are allowed to criticise others or use 'ad hominem attacks', especially if they feel that the other person is unnecessarily spreading doom and gloom to stir things up and spread misery and discord.

I can see that the 'call out the behaviour, not the person' idea is appropriate when dealing with children, who might interpret 'You bit Henry, you naughty boy' as a permanent label of 'naughty', but I hardly think it's necessary with fully-grown adults to suggest saying 'Your opinion is doom-laden' rather than calling them a doom-monger, as if the latter is deeply offensive and risks labelling them for life. We all know we are talking about what they are currently saying, not making a psychological evaluation of their character!

Literally every single scholar since the time of the Ancient Greeks An Ad Hominem Attack is an example of a logical fallacy.

Random on MN Bollocks.

I don't recognise the phenomenon the OP describes at all.

In my experience (and certainly reading MN) the side more prone to insist they're right and to stamp their foot are the ones who demand that everyone is positive and filled with hope. Calling pessimists "doom-mongers" as an insult bears this out.

Personally over the past year I've found wildly optimistic opinions much harder to read than pessimistic ones, which just strike me as more realistic. For me I've found my own healthy pessimism has been a massive aid to getting through this all - I assume and prepare for the worst and then if it's any better than that it feels like a bonus. I really can't imagine constantly expecting pie-in-the-sky scenarios only to be repeatedly disappointed, how do you people even cope with that?

The other reason the mandatory optimism crew annoy me is because their outlook and suggestions have frequently gone against sensible public health precautions - constantly saying that things will be open, schools won't close, masks won't be mandatory, life will be normal.

So basically, people who don’t think life is going to magically return to normal in 3 months time should just shut up? So much for freedom of speech I guess.

Where did I say the doommongers shouldn't have freedom of speech? They can say "We're all doomed!" if they like, and others can call them doommongers if they like. Freedom of speech. (Incidentally, fwiw, I have never called somebody a doommonger, or been accused of a personal attack on MN or anywhere else, and I've never even opened one of those dementor threads.)

But they are mostly not intentionally dragging others down. They are commenting on events, not people. Whereas name calling, eg "doom monger" "dementor" etc, actually is dragging someone down. It's a personal attack.

You are welcome to state what drags you down. Others may be dragged down by different things.

No it's a way of debating. There are actually rules about this on most debating forums. Name calling is not valid debate because 1 Its a personal attack
2 it's an attempt to shut the other person down.

Interesting. I guess MN must not consider calling someone a doommonger a personal attack then? Of course, I wouldn't call MN a debating forum, and would not expect MNers in general to be particularly interested in, or bound by, the rules of debate.

Literally every single scholar since the time of the Ancient Greeks: An Ad Hominem Attack is an example of a logical fallacy. Random on MN: Bollocks.

Nope. I'm not saying that an ad hominem argument is a logical or useful way of debating. I'm saying that it's a mistake to think that the purpose of MN or its members is logical debate. It's a chat forum, not a courtroom. People can and will make remarks based on how they feel. Sometimes that strays into genuinely personal attacks, using pejorative language. Personally, I don't think 'Don't be such a doommonger' falls into that category.

Incidentally, the one time I did unintentionally offend someone on MN was by saying something about 'the opinions of randoms (in general, not directed at her) on a forum'. Apparently calling people 'randoms' is offensive. Don't worry though - I don't consider it a personal attack.

I totally disagree with this. They are not merely commenting on events. They are trying to paint things in the most pessimistic and bleak terms, artificially, to suit their own agenda.

This is an opinion on the other persons motives and an accusation that they have an agenda. If someone, in your opinion and your opinion might be wrong, is spreading fear or has an agenda, call the opinion out, but calling them a doom monger is not doing that is it. It's just name calling with no purpose

This is not only worrying to some people and possibly damaging in some cases, it's also a bit silly - as these are the LEAST likely outcomes.

Yes worrying for some, but then that's not the "doom" persons problem. The "doom monger", or pessimist, is not there to nanny other people along and make some random person reading it feel better, they are expressing an opinion on a discussion forum. It might be a pessimistic opinion, it might be hard to read for some but if someone is upset by pessimism then they should avoid it by not engaging in hard talk, or even by blocking subjects or threads they might be upset by. For example some people avoid upsetting news stories when they see a headline, I do this myself sometimes, because they know that it might trigger them. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported in the press. I do think trigger warnings can be useful in that regard though

eg consider which statements are MOST LIKELY to be true:

We will never get rid of covid, people will continue dying all the time, getting younger and younger, we will never have a vaccine that works, the vaccines won't stop transmission and anyway they will most likely have hideous side effect in years to come

Vs

Ok things will take awhile to get back to normal, and possibly some things won't be exactly the same, which is probably no bad thing in terms of work-life balance, but the vaccines will bring it under control, they will eventually have the desired effect of stopping this virus being in wide circulation and therefore will more of less get rid of community transmission (like every other successful vaccine, ever), people will mostly stop dying and covid will become another tricky winter respiratory virus that we will have to take measures to protect elderly and vulnerable people from, like flu and like every other virus that has ever caused a pandemic (or even an epidemic).

The both might "likely" be true or both "likely" not true. That's my point. Both have a right to post there opinions without ad hominem attack. There is nothing wrong with the way either comment is approaching it. It's just their own opinion. One has a pessimistic outlook, the other optimistic and neither should be disallowed just because someone else sees one or the other as an invalid opinion. They are not calling each other names or making personal accusations about motives

(and remember, these doom mongerers were the same people who a few months ago were saying they'll never develop a vaccine! It's too hard, the virus will mutate, the vaccine will kill people who are allergic etc etc)

I dont remember that, but it's just an opinion anyway.

Firstly, the virus itself will never go away. It will be here now forever. Spanish Flu (H1N1) is the most common flu variant we have. It has killed billions of people over the past 100 years. Back in 1918 it was deadly pandemic, but the children of that time developed immunity to it, and passed that immunity on to their children, and so on, and now what was the most deadly flu pandemic in history is something many people get every year and no-one cares about.

As a virus it has been studied for over a hundred years, and we have no cure for it. We cannot stop you catching it. We cannot stop you passing to other people. All we can do is lower the risk of a severe attack.

So while this virus might be dangerous to some, I think for our children and their children and everyone in the future, this is probably a non-event.

.

From an economic point of view, with huge turmoil comes great opportunity. How I wish I had bought a share or two in Amazon and Zoom a year ago. But I hadn't thought ahead. I'm sure lots of people had. So there is a lot of opportunity in the future for people to really do well.

And maybe the greatest depression in recorded history for those who want to be doomygloomy about things.

Both have a right to post there opinions without ad hominem attack.

They don't though. Where is that written? MN's guidelines prohibit personal attacks, not ad hominem arguments. I mean... you could try and argue that any ad hominem argument is by definition a personal attack, but I really don't think that's the definition of 'personal attack' that MN uses, based on what I've seen of what they delete and what they let stand.

They both might "likely" be true or both "likely" not true.

They are NOT equally likely in any shape or form - medically, scientifically or against the entirety of human history. Do you know how many viruses and pandemics there have been? Half our DNA originated in viruses.

"Literally every single scholar since the time of the Ancient Greeks "An Ad Hominem Attack is an example of a logical fallacy."

Random on MN "Bollocks"

Hahaha yes