Semi-OT: The Meaning of Real, Realistic, Realist

[diggerfoot]

The recent poll with reference to realism, a recurring concept among fans, prompts these reflections. Before becoming focused on brain health, my research hobby included studying how the meaning of words become distorted and/or diluted. Both have consequences, as in leading one to believe and behave the opposite of what one might intend, or to dilute their behavior when a concept has so many meanings as to become meaningless. Concepts such as freedom, community, free market, democracy, altruism and others have fell victim to this distortion or dilution.

Which leads me to the BY view on being realistic, or a realist. Being realistic is to base one's judgement on the realm of what is real or possible. Being real is not the same as being certain. In fact, to be certain about any projected loss number is to be unreal about one's ability. There is a realistic probability that UConn could lose anywhere from 0-3 games in the regular season. Both 0 and 3 may be unlikely, but still a possibility with some supporting evidence based on past performances of UConn and other programs. I suggest that 4 losses gets into the realm of unreal pessimism for this program, given the regular season schedule. While this is not apparent from the poll, an expectation that this coming year's team will be the best ever in the annals of UConn basketball would be an example of unreal optimism.

Our fan base is likely to constrain the meaning of realistic towards the pessimistic end. The supporting evidence is that programs who did better than us last year either lose less or about the same amount as us. I would bet anyone an extra large pizza that the fan base of most other schools would constrain realistic towards their pessimistic end as well, believing that we lose no more than one game during the regular season. Why? Because past history reveals that whenever we have a lot of AA talent on a team we do not ever rebuild, we reload. The most striking example is when we lost the Big Three but did not have a single loss in the regular season, despite a tough OOC schedule. I'll admit, that year I was one of those "realists" that proved to be too pessimistic in my expectations.

A silly musing? Perhaps. But I think what goes on here in our little fandom has broader societal implications. Realism has gravitated towards pessimism in our society, or at least towards the realistic side of pessimism. Equating realism with pessimism has consequences not just for society but for brain health as well, partially contributing to why our society is 43rd in health adjusted life expectancy, the lowest of "first world" countries.

 

[eebmg]

I see no advantage to being on the 'optimistic' realistic portion of the fan spectrum.

For me, if my teams do not live up to even a loosely optimistic goal, I am not a happy camper but if my teams outperforms expectations, I am ecstatic. The example of the post big three regular season is a fantastic example. I was very very proud of their accomplishments. No (lasting?) disappointment.

Of course, there is no level of reasonable expectations when it comes to my NY Liberty. I began by not expecting too much, got caught in mid season thinking they might be a playoff team and then have been completely miserable as they find new levels of poor (and poorly coached) games.

And no level of reducing expectations helps as the Liberty continue to under-perform my continually lower standards.

Regarding UConn, I never assume a NC but believe the correct level of expectation is the FF. Once there, anything can (and often does) happen and I do not feel letdown if we do not win (especially on crazy last second shots or better / deeper teams)

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Too much here for me to comment on all at once, so two things:
1. In addition to the low(er) expectation for team accomplishment when the "Big Three" went pro was what Taurasi and the four "who?" did after TASS graduated.
2. I think our society's diversity and rate and sources of population growth have a lot to do with our (perhaps) lower than expected life expectance.

 

[diggerfoot]

You both bring up some good points, thanks for that! As for eebmg's pessimism, lowering expectations for the sake of being pleasantly surprised, one might view that as a form of optimism. Even if it is true pessimism driving the lowered expectations, that is not the same as my point of equating pessimism with realism.

I should have pointed out that health adjusted life expectancy means how long we live with vibrant brain and emotional health, not simply how long we live, though it happens to be true that our average lifespan has decreased in recent years as well. Via artificial means, medical treatments or nursing homes we can live long lives, but not always with vibrant health. Direct factors influencing HALE are hormonal influences such as being positive, social and active. Diversity or population growth might have an indirect factor, but do not directly influence people as much as we are led to believe by authorities. For example, my town had a population of 1600 in the year 1800 and has a population of 1700 now. I guarantee nothing about population growth has directly affected us. However, the cultivated perception nationally of what a problem population growth and other societal issues are does impact brain health, including in this town.

 

[eebmg]

HALE == GENO.

 

[JordyG]

So what's your point, really?

 

[Triad]

The recent poll with reference to realism, a recurring concept among fans, prompts these reflections. Before becoming focused on brain health, my research hobby included studying how the meaning of words become distorted and/or diluted. Both have consequences, as in leading one to believe and behave the opposite of what one might intend, or to dilute their behavior when a concept has so many meanings as to become meaningless. Concepts such as freedom, community, free market, democracy, altruism and others have fell victim to this distortion or dilution.

Which leads me to the BY view on being realistic, or a realist. Being realistic is to base one's judgement on the realm of what is real or possible. Being real is not the same as being certain. In fact, to be certain about any projected loss number is to be unreal about one's ability. There is a realistic probability that UConn could lose anywhere from 0-3 games in the regular season. Both 0 and 3 may be unlikely, but still a possibility with some supporting evidence based on past performances of UConn and other programs. I suggest that 4 losses gets into the realm of unreal pessimism for this program, given the regular season schedule. While this is not apparent from the poll, an expectation that this coming year's team will be the best ever in the annals of UConn basketball would be an example of unreal optimism.

Our fan base is likely to constrain the meaning of realistic towards the pessimistic end. The supporting evidence is that programs who did better than us last year either lose less or about the same amount as us. I would bet anyone an extra large pizza that the fan base of most other schools would constrain realistic towards their pessimistic end as well, believing that we lose no more than one game during the regular season. Why? Because past history reveals that whenever we have a lot of AA talent on a team we do not ever rebuild, we reload. The most striking example is when we lost the Big Three but did not have a single loss in the regular season, despite a tough OOC schedule. I'll admit, that year I was one of those "realists" that proved to be too pessimistic in my expectations.

A silly musing? Perhaps. But I think what goes on here in our little fandom has broader societal implications. Realism has gravitated towards pessimism in our society, or at least towards the realistic side of pessimism. Equating realism with pessimism has consequences not just for society but for brain health as well, partially contributing to why our society is 43rd in health adjusted life expectancy, the lowest of "first world" countries.

While one may be Certain that too may be real. A realist shall see that immediately, I would think realistically that is a true ism.
I suggest you are treading in the area most believe, realistically, belongs to KIB who appear to have nearly 80 years or so studying words, applications, etc as a hobby.
Realistic it seems humans are never truly certain. To me that is real. Realistically, my cardiologist recently informed me I outlived all of my peers. His announcement was un-real. My peers are those closest to me and they NOW exceed my life, not the expectancy, by 10 or more years. I wonde his REAL motive for speaking those Peer words?
Your propensity for speaking in round terms, i.e circles, as a realist says you are related to that Cardioligist. The wonderful thing about Life-expectancy charts is the way they were arrived at. The life expectancy for males in 1900 was about 38. The thousands of ancestors I investigated lived nearly 40 years beyond those numbers. That number works when you take all deaths from all conditions, accidents, wars etc they become truer. Then there is the group that says: The longer you have lived the longer you may live which by it's very nature has flaws.

 

[JavaMan]

The recent poll with reference to realism, a recurring concept among fans, prompts these reflections. Before becoming focused on brain health, my research hobby included studying how the meaning of words become distorted and/or diluted. Both have consequences, as in leading one to believe and behave the opposite of what one might intend, or to dilute their behavior when a concept has so many meanings as to become meaningless. Concepts such as freedom, community, free market, democracy, altruism and others have fell victim to this distortion or dilution...

@diggerfoot, I have always enjoyed reading your posts, but I must admit this one confuses me a bit. I am still uncertain about your purpose or intention. Seeing as you referenced the verbiage or word usage in my thread, I read yours carefully. I thought for sure that by the time I reached the end of your post, you would have addressed my usage of the word "realist." It read like this: "Optimists, pessimists, and so-called realists are welcome to participate."

I try to write every post in a manner that would not intentionally offend anyone. If this is one of the instances in which I have unintentionally offended you, or anyone, I sincerely apologize.

However, I must say though, that I remain optimistically hopeful that all future posts on the Boneyard need not be written in a format such as those required for publication in highly regarded medical or academic journals.

I shall continue to read your posts, Digger, as I usually find them quite insightful.
.

 

[diggerfoot]

@diggerfoot, I have always enjoyed reading your posts, but I must admit this one confuses me a bit. I am still uncertain about your purpose or intention. Seeing as you referenced the verbiage or word usage in my thread, I read yours carefully. I thought for sure that by the time I reached the end of your post, you would have addressed my usage of the word "realist." It read like this: "Optimists, pessimists, and so-called realists are welcome to participate."

I try to write every post in a manner that would not intentionally offend anyone. If this is one of the instances in which I have unintentionally offended you, or anyone, I sincerely apologize.

However, I must say though, that I remain optimistically hopeful that all future posts on the Boneyard need not be written in a format such as those required for publication in highly regarded medical or academic journals.

I shall continue to read your posts, Digger, as I usually find them quite insightful.
.

Oh, boy. Between JordyG's, Bellemere's and your comments I can see I was being quite obtuse. First off, I was not responding to your words at all. To confirm your intent, you are one of the least offensive folks on here. There was a reference to realist in the body of the thread and it often has been employed by people in reference to a pessimistic outlook in the realm of possibility. I was not going to respond to the other two, figuring I just might be more obtuse in the process, but if you thought my comments were prompted by you I know I owe you some clarification.

I stand by my faulting of pessimism being equated with realism comment. By itself this is not a new bone of contention. Optimists have challenged pessimists and vice-versa for time everlasting. My new spin is making a correlation to the poor health adjusted life expectancy in our society.

I understand this may not be the proper place for such tangential tie-ins; here is why I do so. When my wife Cindy finally was diagnosed with Alzheimer's (after four years, five doctors and seven tests worth of denial because she was "too young"), we wanted our tragic circumstance to yet provide some benefit to others. We have done that by living as well as possible no matter the circumstance and reporting on both this and on what I have learned about brain health and caregiving in the process.

Mostly I do this by my own social media outlets; perhaps that is where my comments should be confined. Yet I have extended this purpose in two ways. My exploration into brain health reveals several correlations with my previous exploration into how our social systems work. In many ways, doing what is good for you is right for society and doing what is right for society is good for you. I include that extended perspective in our outreach. In this case, being a pessimist likely is not doing your brain any favors; equating it with realism definitely is not.

I also extend outreach by occasionally making observations on the Boneyard, since I belong to this community and it has a broader reach than my humble social media outlets. My participation on the Boneyard started in the mid-nineties, when it was administrated by the Courant. I was very active in the nineties and early millenia as Mapper. Now I am less active as Diggerfoot, as I have far greater priorities. Believe it or not, I always have some doubts about my "preachy" posts on here. I acknowledge that perhaps I should not do that. However, our agreed mission since Cindy's diagnosis leads me to err on the side of being preachy in the hope it benefits a few people.

Absolutely none of that preachiness was directed at you.

 

[JavaMan]

Oh, boy. Between JordyG's, Bellemere's and your comments I can see I was being quite obtuse. First off, I was not responding to your words at all. To confirm your intent, you are one of the least offensive folks on here. There was a reference to realist in the body of the thread and it often has been employed by people in reference to a pessimistic outlook in the realm of possibility. I was not going to respond to the other two, figuring I just might be more obtuse in the process, but if you thought my comments were prompted by you I know I owe you some clarification.

I stand by my faulting of pessimism being equated with realism comment. By itself this is not a new bone of contention. Optimists have challenged pessimists and vice-versa for time everlasting. My new spin is making a correlation to the poor health adjusted life expectancy in our society.

I understand this may not be the proper place for such tangential tie-ins; here is why I do so. When my wife Cindy finally was diagnosed with Alzheimer's (after four years, five doctors and seven tests worth of denial because she was "too young"), we wanted our tragic circumstance to yet provide some benefit to others. We have done that by living as well as possible no matter the circumstance and reporting on both this and on what I have learned about brain health and caregiving in the process.

Mostly I do this by my own social media outlets; perhaps that is where my comments should be confined. Yet I have extended this purpose in two ways. My exploration into brain health reveals several correlations with my previous exploration into how our social systems work. In many ways, doing what is good for you is right for society and doing what is right for society is good for you. I include that extended perspective in our outreach. In this case, being a pessimist likely is not doing your brain any favors; equating it with realism definitely is not.

I also extend outreach by occasionally making observations on the Boneyard, since I belong to this community and it has a broader reach than my humble social media outlets. My participation on the Boneyard started in the mid-nineties, when it was administrated by the Courant. I was very active in the nineties and early millenia as Mapper. Now I am less active as Diggerfoot, as I have far greater priorities. Believe it or not, I always have some doubts about my "preachy" posts on here. I acknowledge that perhaps I should not do that. However, our agreed mission since Cindy's diagnosis leads me to err on the side of being preachy in the hope it benefits a few people.

Absolutely none of that preachiness was directed at you.

@diggerfoot, Now I understand your "purpose or intention." However, I didn't at first. Maybe I should have put two and two together. I didn't ...sorry about that. I have much empathy and compassion for you. I watched and helped my father deal with a similar situation as yours. My Mom died from Alzheimer's complications 15 years ago. Her last seven were pretty rough ...on my Dad especially. Unlike you though, he just kept everything bottled up.

Let us get back to basketball.