Apart from the odd blip of black despair, mostly I regard myself as an optimist.
As optimists do, I tend most of the time to wander round in some chirpy denial of the sort of dreadful things that might possibly be just about to happen, whether they be my young son accidentally savaging himself with the potato peeler or a sudden major volcanic eruption of the type we have not seen for countless milliennia.
But when it comes to people I like to spend time with, there's nothing like a good doom and gloom pessimist. In spite of my natural tendency toward optimism, I can think of nothing worse than spending time with others of the relentlessly perky, positive-thinking persuasion.
No, what I crave for my private and personal entertainment is a bleak conspiracy theorist, or someone who excels in a rant of dark foreboding of the type my husband is particularly expert in.
My appreciation of the finer points of the pessimist has been increased still further by the news this week that pessimists are more likely to live longer. A study into 40,000 people found that those with low expectations for a "satisfying future" led healthier lives, and that those who were "overly optimistic" tended to experience a greater risk of disability and death.
Oliver Burkeman writes in The Antidote: Happiness For People Who Can't Stand Positive Thinking: "In recent years, some psychologists have reached the conclusion that pessimism may be as healthy and productive as optimism."
I, being a dyed in the wool optimist, can't resist the bright side in this latest news story. It means my husband may well outlive me and will be burbling on about floods and pandemics long after I've passed away.
No need to worry about him, then. Not that I would. Worrying? That's his job, and I intend to leave him to it.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article