How "contagious" would you say negative people are?

[Junkhead]

Topic title, yeah.

[Soledai]

The world thrives on it, my friend.

[Makaze]

Pretty damn contagious.

Humans have a thing called negativity bias. It's a cognitive bias that affects our decisions with or without us being aware of it. It makes us pay more more attention to negative things than positive things, remember negative things more clearly than positive things, and store negative things in long term memory with less time spent thinking about them than positive things. It's a well-known phenomenon.

It's unfortunate but I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Makaze

[Ansem]

Pretty damn contagious.

Humans have a thing called negativity bias. It's a cognitive bias that affects our decisions with or without us being aware of it. It makes us pay more more attention to negative things than positive things, remember negative things more clearly than positive things, and store negative things in long term memory with less time spent thinking about them than positive things. It's a well-known phenomenon.

It's unfortunate but I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon.

I never knew there was a term for it. In the past, I recall attempting to cheer up my friends by presenting the argument that good times exist just as bad times do to no avail. I remember growing frustrated, but I ultimately accepted it. Does this have to do with the magnitude of feeling? Psychological pain can be argued to be similar to physical pain, and I do not think there is an equivalent psychical sensation I can compare to euphoria. Reading your article as I type at the moment, I'll probably catch something in this read.

[AMCC4728]

Pretty damn contagious.Humans have a thing called negativity bias. It's a cognitive bias that affects our decisions with or without us being aware of it. It makes us pay more more attention to negative things than positive things, remember negative things more clearly than positive things, and store negative things in long term memory with less time spent thinking about them than positive things. It's a well-known phenomenon.It's unfortunate but I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon.

This is technically not confirmed. Wiki states that that article still needs to be validated by a psychological expert. Also, while the above statment MIGHT be true, it has been proven that positive memories fade more slowly than negative ones.

I would say that the reason that people are more negative is partly due to the internet.

The internet reasoning is backed by a concept called group polarization. Basically, people who associate with a group that agrees with their viewpoint tend to have a viewpoint more extreme than others. An example can be seen in active republicans/democrats. The process I've seen that makes this happen is person #1 says world sucks, person #2,3,4,etc. agrees, they all become validated because other people share in their viewpoint.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Obese Sonic

[Carter]

VERY. I'm pretty pessimistic myself, so I would know.

But besides that, I really do think that a negative person's bad mood can greatly, and easily affect someone else's too.

[Makaze]

This is technically not confirmed. Wiki states that that article still needs to be validated by a psychological expert. Also, while the above statment MIGHT be true, it has been proven that positive memories fade more slowly than negative ones.

I would say that the reason that people are more negative is partly due to the internet.

The internet reasoning is backed by a concept called group polarization. Basically, people who associate with a group that agrees with their viewpoint tend to have a viewpoint more extreme than others. An example can be seen in active republicans/democrats. The process I've seen that makes this happen is person #1 says world sucks, person #2,3,4,etc. agrees, they all become validated because other people share in their viewpoint.

It has enough evidence behind it to make it a good rule of thumb. One can easily apply it to experiments on groups. I wouldn't use it to predict an individual's behavior, though.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Makaze

[deleted35362]

all i can really say is, it's disheartening to see negativity in people i care about, in someone i don't care about well...too bad so sad. it's great to see someone i care about being positive, but if it's someone i don't care for i just want to say "fuck you" and duct tape their mouth shut.

...or at least that's what makes sense to me...my thoughts and emotions like to conflict each other all the time. i guess it's just too situational to sum up. *shrug*

i think negativity is just more or less contagious depending on how much influence the person in question actually has on their peers at a given time.

Humans have a thing called negativity bias. It's a cognitive bias that affects our decisions with or without us being aware of it. It makes us pay more more attention to negative things than positive things, remember negative things more clearly than positive things, and store negative things in long term memory with less time spent thinking about them than positive things. It's a well-known phenomenon.

...that statement there sounds WAY too fricken blanketed for you to declare it as true like this, and i'm not so sure about the underlined text either...i could have sworn that good memories make us perceive our lives as longer because we have an easier time remembering those events.

[Makaze]

all i can really say is, it's disheartening to see negativity in people i care about, in someone i don't care about well...too bad so sad. it's great to see someone i care about being positive, but if it's someone i don't care for i just want to say "fuck you" and duct tape their mouth shut.

...or at least that's what makes sense to me...my thoughts and emotions like to conflict each other all the time. i guess it's just too situational to sum up. *shrug*

i think negativity is just more or less contagious depending on how much influence the person in question actually has on their peers at a given time.

...that statement there sounds WAY too fricken blanketed for you to declare it as true like this, and i'm not so sure about the underlined text either...i could have sworn that good memories make us perceive our lives as longer because we have an easier time remembering those events.

Read my later post:

It has enough evidence behind it to make it a good rule of thumb. One can easily apply it to experiments on groups. I wouldn't use it to predict an individual's behavior, though.

There are always exceptions, even to genetic traits that apply to a majority.

The bit about memories being clearer refers to accessibility. We can recall details about negative experiences more easily than positive experiences. We would have to think carefully about our positive experiences to keep them fresh in our memories. Negative experiences are on a lower shelf, so to speak.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Makaze

[AMCC4728]

Read my later post: There are always exceptions, even to genetic traits that apply to a majority.The bit about memories being clearer refers to accessibility. We can recall details about negative experiences more easily than positive experiences. We would have to think carefully about our positive experiences to keep them fresh in our memories. Negative experiences are on a lower shelf, so to speak.

This entire statement is wrong.

article from the apa(american psychological association):

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2003/06/happy-memory.aspx

[Makaze]

This entire statement is wrong.

article from the apa(american psychological association):

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2003/06/happy-memory.aspx

It's not 'wrong' so much as it lacks perspective. (See what I did there?)

While negative memories may fade faster, that does not contradict what I said. It is a fact that if I asked you about something bad that happened this week, you would be able to recount something in detail. If I asked you about something good, you would have to think longer on it. It does (seem to) take us longer to get positive memories into our long-term memory. How long negative memories stay in our long term memory is irrelevant to how easy it is to get them there.

Easy come, easy go, if you must.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Makaze

[Makaze]

There is also this:

"The research shows that this fading affect bias represents genuine emotional fading rather than a retrospective error in memory, and it should be viewed as evidence of healthy coping processes operating in memory, according to the authors. They add that this should not be confused with repression, a theory proposed by Sigmund Freud. This research suggests that people do remember negative events; they just remember them less negatively."

Edited June 8, 2014 by Makaze

[AMCC4728]

It's not 'wrong' so much as it lacks perspective. (See what I did there?)While negative memories may fade faster, that does not contradict what I said.

It contradicts several things you have said. Such as "(We)store negative things in long term memory with less time spent thinking about them than positive things." and "We can recall details about negative experiences more easily than positive experiences. We would have to think carefully about our positive experiences to keep them fresh in our memories."

It is a fact that if I asked you about something bad that happened this week, you would be able to recount something in detail. If I asked you about something good, you would have to think longer on it. It does (seem to) take us longer to get positive memories into our long-term memory.

I did, in fact, try this and I can't really think of anything negative. I can think of plenty of positive things but not any negative. Nevermind this point is purely personal experience and not scientific at all.

How long negative memories stay in our long term memory is irrelevant to how easy it is to get them there.Easy come, easy go, if you must.

Evidence? The "research" tab in the wiki you linked states nothing about this. I think you are taking a very plausible concept and running away with it on your hypotheses.

Also pleasant experiences are more detailed than negative ones: http://www.memory-key.com/memory/emotion

There is also this:"The research shows that this fading affect bias represents genuine emotional fading rather than a retrospective error in memory, and it should be viewed as evidence of healthy coping processes operating in memory, according to the authors. They add that this should not be confused with repression, a theory proposed by Sigmund Freud. This research suggests that people do remember negative events; they just remember them less negatively."

This doesn't help your argument. You are stating that positive events outright fade more qquickly than negative, which besides being wrong, has nothing to do with this quote.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Obese Sonic

[Makaze]

It contradicts several things you have said. Such as "(We)store negative things in long term memory with less time spent thinking about them than positive things." and "We can recall details about negative experiences more easily than positive experiences. We would have to think carefully about our positive experiences to keep them fresh in our memories."

I did, in fact, try this and I can't really think of anything negative. I can think of plenty of positive things but not any negative. Nevermind this point is purely personal experience and not scientific at all.

Evidence? The "research" tab in the wiki you linked states nothing about this. I think you are taking a very plausible concepts and running away with it on your hypothesi.

Also pleasant experiences are more detailed than negative ones: http://www.memory-key.com/memory/emotion

Bold is true, but it also follows from my own study. I am no recognized scientist, but I can certainly run tests on my hypotheses by testing other individuals' reactions to stimulus over time.

It does not contradict either of those things. I've read over it carefully twice now. The study clearly states that the evidence does not show that memories themselves fade. It explicitly states that there is a difference and that memory itself is not lost. It is the emotional attachment that is lost.

I'm far more ready to trust the first source than this second one.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Makaze

[AMCC4728]

Blah Blah Blah...I'm far more ready to trust the first source than this second one.

Your sources are wikipedia and your personal experiences and you distrust a page that list several references and cites its information? I can't take you seriously anymore. I see no point to this conversation because you obviously don't know how psychology works and I refuse to converse with someone who fails to realize what the concepts they are debating actually mean.

[Makaze]

Your sources are wikipedia and your personal experiences and you distrust a page that list several references and cites its information? I can't take you seriously anymore. I see no point to this conversation because you obviously don't know how psychology works and I refuse to converse with someone who fails to realize what the concepts they are debating actually mean.

Actually, my evidence against your second source is your own first source. The second one implies that emotions have a direct effect on memory, which is either intentionally or unintentionally misleading. Contrast the bold statements. One of them makes the difference clear. The other pointedly does not.

First source:

"The research shows that this fading affect bias represents genuine emotional fading rather than a retrospective error in memory, and it should be viewed as evidence of healthy coping processes operating in memory, according to the authors. They add that this should not be confused with repression, a theory proposed by Sigmund Freud. This research suggests that people do remember negative events; they just remember them less negatively."

Second source:

"It does seem that memories are treated differently depending on whether they are associated with pleasant emotions or unpleasant ones, and that this general rule appears to be affected by age and other individual factors. Specifically, pleasant emotions appear to fade more slowly from our memory than unpleasant emotions, but among those with mild depression, unpleasant and pleasant emotions tend to fade evenly, while older adults seem to regulate their emotions better than younger people, and may encode less information that is negative."

Notice the change in word use while implying that it's an extension of the same point.

I trust the first source because it doesn't mince words. It knows what it means and it what it doesn't and it says so.

I'll take that over vague equivocation every time.

On a side note, you shouldn't need to take me completely seriously to at least hear out my points. Psychology is hardly a reliably mapped out field.

It's a fact that your reliable source does not contradict what I said. That does not make what I said true, it just makes your source irrelevant. There's also the point that your two sources contradict. It doesn't make sense to ignore flaws in your own argument even if mine isn't confirmed.

No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Makaze

[eclipse]

Your sources are wikipedia and your personal experiences and you distrust a page that list several references and cites its information? I can't take you seriously anymore. I see no point to this conversation because you obviously don't know how psychology works and I refuse to converse with someone who fails to realize what the concepts they are debating actually mean.

No need to insult the person you're talking to.

[Phoenix Wright]

It's not 'wrong' so much as it lacks perspective. (See what I did there?)

While negative memories may fade faster, that does not contradict what I said. It is a fact that if I asked you about something bad that happened this week, you would be able to recount something in detail. If I asked you about something good, you would have to think longer on it. It does (seem to) take us longer to get positive memories into our long-term memory. How long negative memories stay in our long term memory is irrelevant to how easy it is to get them there.

Easy come, easy go, if you must.

which citation gives proof of this?

Edited June 8, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

Read my later post:

There are always exceptions, even to genetic traits that apply to a majority.

The bit about memories being clearer refers to accessibility. We can recall details about negative experiences more easily than positive experiences. We would have to think carefully about our positive experiences to keep them fresh in our memories. Negative experiences are on a lower shelf, so to speak.

It's not 'wrong' so much as it lacks perspective. (See what I did there?)

While negative memories may fade faster, that does not contradict what I said. It is a fact that if I asked you about something bad that happened this week, you would be able to recount something in detail. If I asked you about something good, you would have to think longer on it. It does (seem to) take us longer to get positive memories into our long-term memory. How long negative memories stay in our long term memory is irrelevant to how easy it is to get them there.

Easy come, easy go, if you must.

This isn't even pop psychology; you're just making up "empirical" facts to suit your own argument.

I'd suggest ignoring him. He tends to make things up and then act as if he knows better than actual PhDs on the subject matter. It's happened many times before.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47555&p=3076672

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47956&p=3116173

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47156&p=3030572

Edited June 8, 2014 by Chiki

[LunaSaint]

Let's see.

I have been a regular on ipchat, which is known for having sad stories.

I am a tremendous sucker for wanting to hear out/help someone who is feeling down.

Getting too involved tends to leave me feeling physically sick from stress.

Now, the original question was about how contagious negative people are.

Given how people hate to stick to sad topics in ipchat, I would say that yes, negative people ARE contagious. However, my personal experience is that unless you have a vested interest in that person, that negativity won't linger very long. In fact, I'd say with strangers, positivity is far more likely to linger.

When someone you know is feeling really down, or causing a lot of frustration though, yeah - it's hard to shake. These last couple of weeks, I've had a lot of personal progress overshadowed by worry about others. It's not healthy, and I've been actively working to keep it at bay.

[euklyd]

From ~personal experience~ I'd say that toxic behavior and/or toxic people can do wonders for making everyone else much more negative.

And by "wonders for" I mean things that are not, in fact, wonderful, by any stretch of the word's meaning.

This isn't even pop psychology; you're just making up "empirical" facts to suit your own argument.

I'd suggest ignoring him. He tends to make things up and then act as if he knows better than actual PhDs on the subject matter. It's happened many times before.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47555&p=3076672

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47956&p=3116173

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47156&p=3030572

I'm feeling more negative already you are doing a very good job of proving OP's point.

[Chiki]

From ~personal experience~ I'd say that toxic behavior and/or toxic people can do wonders for making everyone else much more negative.

And by "wonders for" I mean things that are not, in fact, wonderful, by any stretch of the word's meaning.

I'm feeling more negative already you are doing a very good job of proving OP's point.

My pleasure.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Chiki

[Freohr Datia]

All I can say is that it varies between people. Some people are better at shrugging it off than others.

I'm super vulnerable to negativity and positivity. So pretty much just... emotions.

Overall? I'm really not sure. I think I've seen it have a strong effect more than not so far, though... That or I only notice it when it has a strong effect~

[Makaze]

which citation gives proof of this?

I clarified later that I was referring to accessibility. Citation eleven of the article supports it, but... Upon further inspection, the citation of that point points to 'psychology.about.com'. Not exactly reliable.

I acknowledged in an earlier post that I cannot say with confidence that these things have been measured sufficiently to be accepted by the scientific community. What it says allows me to accurately predict the tendencies of people around me, but that's all I have to go on for study, for now.

This is not to you in particular, but to Chiki, Obese Sonic or anyone else who wants to dismiss people like me.

I think something needs to be said about scientific experimentation. The only difference between independent experimentation and a 'true' study is scale. The people who did this study have likely done the same things I have done to test their hypotheses; they simply did it to a larger group. I believe that the size of our samples is the primary difference. There is nothing more scientific about testing on more people. Their results will be more reliable. I won't deny that. But two scientists working with drastically different scales can apply the scientific method to their samples just the same.

As it stands, this scientist must operate on what allows them to successfully operate on their material even if they are alone in doing so. If you can successfully refute my findings or make my predictions more accurate by adding to what I said, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, saying that I can't "prove" them to you (general) does not change the fact that I have gotten these findings and that I can use these concepts to predict outcomes to specifics ends. I'm not going to stop using something that is helpful to me because your standards for proof apply only to the academic world. I'm not going to because I don't profit from it. All that leaving experimentation up to others does is waste my time. I don't even know that people will do studies on these subjects in the next decade.

Should I not answer the OP's question and ignore my findings given this 'lack of proof'? I don't think that's the right answer.

This thread is not a debate. It's not about discussion. I am not here to convince the bystander. I am here to answer Soul's question. I can do that so long as it gives them insight, regardless of what you, the third party reader, are willing to accept.

Please remember where you are, and please lose your entitlement. It does not help answer the question.

I've said my piece and answered Soul's question. If you have a problem with this, want to come to an understanding, and don't want to cause a spectacle, please PM me. I won't reply to anything here if it will derail this thread further.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Makaze

[Chiki]

The only difference between independent experimentation and a 'true' study is scale. The people who did this study have likely done the same things I have done to test their hypotheses; they simply did it to a larger group.

Wow. The amount of delusion in this sentence is stunning. I've never seen such arrogance in my life. And people think I'm elitist..

There are many reasons why one should prefer empirical studies over "individual" studies, apart from the "sample size" difference you pointed out.

1. Individual studies are often victims of biases, such as the confirmation bias. Empirical studies do their best to avoid these problems.

2. Empirical studies can study the hidden nature of things (such as the molecule movements responsible for a certain disease) to figure out the cause of something, which gives them predictive power, unlike you do. All you do is just report your findings. Individuals do not use electron microscopes and have advanced technologies to study things. So, what scientists have to offer is far more reliable than the pop-science you have to offer.

3. Empirical studies are far more in depth than any sort of half-assed "study" you conduct. Data is recorded, probabilities are measured, etc.

4. Empirical studies can be replicated to prove results again. Your personal experiences can't be relived.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Chiki