I don’t get it.
It’s probably obvious that I always want reality. But some people may think I’m a pessimist or always negative. Of course, I disagree. But I can be melancholy. However, when it comes to FACTS, I want an unbiased answer. Always.
Sometimes reality is positive and sometimes it’s negative.
That is what some people don’t understand. If reality is positive, I’m going to say something positive. If it’s negative…guess what? Look at what’s going on in the world. Some positive things are happening (as always) but when it comes to big things, I would say more negative. Some things are neutral.
It drives me nuts when people can’t accept that simple thought (above in obnoxious font). Why is that hard? I have my theories including most people only think in the binary. Men/women. Right/wrong. Gay/straight. Negative/positive. Black/white.
I don’t understand it because I don’t think like that. It’s hard communicating with someone who talks as if there’s always an either/or. Where is the gray? Why isn’t that called a deficit when it’s so obviously not the way the world works?? (Because so many people think that way…which doesn’t make sense, but it’s the answer.)
I can’t even argue with people who think like this. But it’s good if you want to know someone’s response. “Oh, they are a binary thinker. Been there, done that.” There’s no point in saying anything. You aren’t going to get anywhere.
Oops, off topic. This isn’t mainly about binary thinking, this is supposed to be about REALITY. I’m amazed at how uncomfortable people are with reality. I guess it’s nice to only see things positively or negatively. Maybe they have more energy because it involves less thinking or less stress??? I wouldn’t know.
REALITY isn’t always negative.
Unless it is. The reality is the economy is bad. But it’s not always so cut and dry. (When I talk about the economy, I’m only referring to how it is affecting individuals and maybe small businesses like solopreneurs and mom and pop stores. NOT a billion-dollar company like Aetna, Starbucks or Coca Cola).
Some reality:
- It’s April of 2025 as I type this.
- German chocolate has nothing to do with Germany.
- Ben Affleck was born in California.
- Ricky Gervais sign is Cancer.
- Twitter was started in 2006.
Are those facts okay? Should people tread lightly when stating things like this? Should I start those off with “in my opinion” so it doesn’t bother anyone??? Is that reality negative? Sorry, for being real.
Side note: If you want to or need to be right about something being a realist is often more right. In psychology, it’s called ‘depressed realist’. It doesn’t surprise me, of course. I think a realist doesn’t waste time with filters and see things as they are so they will be more right about a future event than wrong.
Depressed judgments of contingency were surprisingly accurate in all 4 experiments.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-3445.108.4.441
In that study the depressed participants were 100% right while the nondepressed people were wrong or off on by a considerable amount of time, but depressed people aren’t always right, of course. That study was in 1979 and only had 4 situations. More studies have been done and yes, depressed people are usually more right. Just nowhere near 100%. But 60 – 70%. Depends on the study.
But this isn’t about being right about future events. At all. I’m talking about what’s happening RIGHT NOW. Or in the past. Back to the real topic:
Most things are neutral, and I don’t mean that in a spiritual bypass or even Buddhist way. I like the rain (unless I’m driving and can’t see), but some people hate the rain so I wouldn’t put that and most weather in a category. But I’m not going to tell you that your house burning down is neutral.
Reality definitely isn’t always positive. For the love of all things holy. WAKE UP. On paper, most people agree, but then they speak…
The book’s treatment of Neptune was disappointingly unbalanced, focusing heavily on negative aspects without offering meaningful insights into transformation or positive characteristics. The author’s scattered writing style made it difficult to follow his interpretations of Neptune, Pisces, and the 12th house. The disorganized presentation and overwhelming focus on negativity ultimately left me frustrated and unsatisfied with the reading experience.
This is reworded because I’m not trying to quote an exact review of the book. But the words positive and negative were used. That paragraph has the same meaning of what was said. I am only using this as an example because it was the only one-star review, and I started to LOL when I saw the complaint was…wait for it….that the author said negative things.
WHY DOES AN AUTHOR have to be positive? I need to calm down, but these people are everywhere and only noticed by people who see things differently and it drives me nuts. Back to the quote…
The author isn’t being negative. (From what I’ve read so far. I’m not done with the book, but it’s easier to debunk that after a few chapters)
The author is explaining Neptune as he sees it. This isn’t a factual thing, btw. I can’t help people who don’t understand FACTS so need to even discuss it.
Some might say Neptune is neutral. I guess that’s possible. Don’t ask me. I’ve studied astrology for about 7 years, and I find Neptune confusing more than anything. I tend to ignore Neptune because it’s a newer planet and I’m into classic planets. But an unbiased person would probably describe Neptune as 75/25. Negative/positive.
If a person describes Neptune as only positive…wow, they are probably leaving stuff out. If all the unbiased stuff is mostly “negative” and Polly is saying how great Neptune is, how is that helpful?? Why does everything have to be positive Polly? She can’t take a planet being negative. What about neutral?
(By the way, this isn’t about toxic positivity since it’s about a planet…)
If I want to learn about Neptune, I want to know EVERYTHING. The same about Vietnam or MLK Jr. What is the point of only teaching or saying one side? If it’s a book and it’s in the first few pages that this is only a positive view, fine. I won’t read it. Same for negative. Unless something is 100% negative, if you only say the negative you are leaving stuff out (which isn’t illegal but definitely biased.)
This can’t be hard to understand. But apparently…
I don’t want stuff watered down. If it’s a textbook it can’t be only one point of view. Does anyone care about reality? I don’t see many people caring. I feel like everyone else is in a dream and only a few can see an unbiased view. I don’t think the unbiased person should be cast out, but maybe I’m biased.
I have a bias for the truth. Who would make that wrong?
I know I should try to be succinct but it’s way too late for me to be clear (10 PM). I tried to highlight some of the points.