Glass half-full.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I’ve always thought that the so-called “psychological questions” are kinda unreasonable to use to judge the “personality” (psychological make-up) of a person.

Consider the question: “Is the glass half-full, or half-empty?” A respondent is presented a picture of a, or an actual, half-glass of water.

If the person answered “Half-full”, he is generally an optimist. If the answer is “Half-empty”, he is a pessimist. That simple?

I imagine that one can have things running in his or her mind while looking at the picture, or the actual object, in front of him. And he can’t help but be literal in looking at the object and the situation he is in. Without prior prepping, a person can be more or less analytical, and more or less literal, in his answer. (Just a caution: this is not overanalyzing the situation, though it sounds like overanalysis, but rather thoughts/beliefs are already entangled with each other that, it seems, there is not much effort on our part to come up with a scenario when we are thinking through a situation.)

So, I think it is reasonable to posit something like this:

Why, first of all, the content is only half? Did someone drink from it? or did someone fill it? If the first is the case, then he might likely say “The glass might have been full, and someone drank from it, so I’d say the glass is half-empty. Which is a good thing really if it helped someone quench his thirst.” If the second is the case, then he might say “Someone filled it only half-way, hence, the glass is half-full. Maybe half was all he needed and didn’t want to be wasteful.”

So, you see, there is this dialogue going on in our mind anytime we are perceiving and thinking.

The point is, I think, it is this association of action and perceptible object that we cannot avoid making when looking at something. So, how much of our “personality” really shows in our answer to such questions? The way I see it, our answer to questions like this is always a combination of contextual, psychological, inferential (a priori), and empirical (a posteriori) judgments. And these factors work in such a way that they act as constraints against each other.

If the respondent is sitting in a mess hall, a restaurant, or a cafe, for example, and I pop up that question “Do you see that glass on the table? Describe what you see.” I think the answer would most likely be “There is a glass (of water or juice or wine) that’s half-empty” or some variation of it whose meaning and presupposition amount to “someone drank it and did not finish it.”

Another example: “If there is at least one thing you could change about yourself, what would it be?”

The (possible) answers associated with this question are:

  1. Nothing. There is nothing I’d like to change about myself.
  2. Yeah, a thing or two…etc.

Anyone who wants to explain, err…provide a wacky analysis of this question? I’d like to hear it. The wackiest the better.

2

It also depends on what’s in the glass. If it is castor oil than the glass is still half full making me pessimistic. If it is good scotch, then it is half empty which is a shame also making me pessimistic.

However, once the glass of castor oil is empty and the scotch glass has been refilled, I’m optimistic again in both cases.

3

Well, in terms of analysis of your post, I’d say you’re essentially right. Answering a question like that is simply a window into the supposedly personality you’re reflecting in the first place. And as the hours in the day go by, there’s different things to be seen out of the window.

Now, if I elaborate a bit on that, it’s funny because our personality isn’t something that can be summed up in a single word, let alone a single concept really. Everything we do, just like with the cup analysis, is based on a specific function. For the cup of water, the function is to decide whether it’s half full or empty, for going to the fridge for a drink, it would be a)Thirst b)Boredom maybe both, but the imporant thing to keep in mind is that it’s never ALL of your functions. You don’t utilize the differential equations part of your knowledge to go to the fridge (although I’m sure you could argue that it applies in some way)

Personality is this elusive thing, it never actualizes in complete form, it just sort of sits underwater like some metaphysical crocadile.

4

Glass half full=when it’s at half and you are filling it.
Glass half empty=when it’s at half and you are emptying it.

5

I’ve always said the glass is both half-empty and half-full, hence the use of the word ‘half’ in the question: simple deduction. I’m not much into the academics of psychology, so I have no idea what the ‘professional’ view on this question is; but I find it more of a cliche than anything.

6

I look at it as halfway to a goal, and if the goal is empty, it’s half empty, and if the goal is full, it’s half full.

7

Quite fair, pxc.

8

.

Thank you.

And it is a pretty lame cliche anyway. It doesn’t even specify what is filling it. Half full of water could be the same as half empty of air.

9

That’s really funny: I was gonna say that too!

10

Of course when you ask in the first place ‘is the glass half full or half empty?’ one sets up only these two possible answers. So, regardless of whether or not they go through the sort of process so lucidly explained by arendt (thanks for that) they might give an answer because they want to appear a given way in the language game, regardless of any feelings of optimism or pessimism.

One should call into question whether or not such tests display anything beyond the rhetorical, whether any proper psychology is taking place at all. As part of this I’d like to point out that someone’s reaction in a limited test such as this (where the terms of the answer are set not by the subject but by the one doing the testing) potentially demonstrates precisely nothing about how they might react in any other given circumstance.

Good post, Arendt. I’ll write some more if anyone else responds…

11

Yes, yes, you guys get the gist of what I’m trying to say. Thanks.

Nick— :smiley: Isn’t it the case? Yes. It also depends on what’s in it. Can you imagine a patient in a hospital having to drink bitter concoction of medicine–or a glass of martini or scotch? haha. We react to the “filling” and “emptying” depending, again, on the “object”.

It is pretty obvious from the responses that action is pretty much associated with objects. ( I hope this is not an empty generalization).

At least, it seems, we cannot talk about cup, cup with water, or ball, ball in the yard without at the same time thinking of function and/or action associated with the meaning of the object we see. OG posits cup analysis with “function”–deciding whether cup is half-empty or half-full, and “drink” for bodily needs. And the empirical implication of this is, spacetime theory never allow us to have all of the functions at once, as OG says, and so we are limited or constraint internally (psychologically) and externally (object causation).

pxc—yes, you have the right idea of “goal” being something we cannot divorce from object: what is it for? Hence, the action-object identification. The acts of “emptying” and “filling” are something we cannot think of outside a “glass of water” (we can further say, because, water do not naturally come already in the object “drinking glass”).

SIATD----good point: someone sets up one scenario, out of many, and we are asked to answer. Of course, we will–as you have pointed out: it is in our nature to play the language game–that’s one constraint. And the “circumstances” is another constraint. So, our reaction will have varying degrees of analysis, introspection, and the kind of “mood” we have at the time.

12

I could also see it sort of implied like saying it was already half empty, or only half full, etc.

13

Yes—it is already implied.

14

I meant that it would imply which the goal was.

15

arendt,

Hum, how about be happy you have a glass to fill?

16

First of all, every characteristic of your response is supposed to tell the listener–the person who origionally asked the question–something about the person. The fact that all of you are actually writing about a question as simple (in some people’s eyes, at least) as this tells me that you all love to over anylyze, and since this discussion continues, it also tells me that everyone hates to be anylyzed.

The question can also be turned inside out. Asking it of yourself and letting your gut response come out would do for some mighty useful intraspective views. Example (hypothetical):
I’m having a session with a shrink mainly because I’d like to know more about myself (the fact that I’m making up this situation makes the gut-response impossible, because If I were to actually be asked this in real life, I would immediately think back to this scenario)

Dr.Quack: Half empty or full, Plubius?
Yours, Truly: ::since I despise being anylyzed and summed up, I imagine I’d blurt out something that would actually sound meaningful to the doctor, just to throw him off:: Half full, but whatever does this have to do with me, Doctor? DUUUUHHHH.
Doctor:Don’t worry, if you knew this experiment would be void of any meaning.

17

The glass is half-full AND half-empty.

Meaning the part with water is called half-full
Meaning the part with air is half-empty

get it.

it is not half full OR half-empty

is it half-full AND half empty

18

The debate is supposed to be about a glass that is found with water in it without the finder knowing if the quantity was added to an empty glass or removed from a full glass. This way the point of the inventor of the question is supposed to be proven. Can it be proven? meaning, is the question really a way of determining if someone is an optimist or a pessimist? maybe sometimes. But nobody is ALWAYS an optimist or ALWAYS a pessimist? I mean, certainly there is not someone out there ( dear lord I hope not… ) who wakes up every morning and says: I am going to die today or my feet are going to fall off if a exit this bed or that porridge is going to poison me or… Get what i am saying? On a bad day you might say: " half empty, Johnny, that @%$#ing glass is @$#%ing half empty now get the%$#@ away from me I am working". Optimistic moods and pessimistic moods just come and go. anyway, the question is stupid. It’s like asking if a sick fish is living or dying. :unamused:

19

You got it wrong, Plubius. I explained the question in terms of philosophy: episteme/perception/beliefs/object/causation/psyche/contextual. Each one constraints the others such that we don’t look at things, at the objective world, with always our emotions/moods as the prominent figure in what we say/decide/think. It cannot be always about the person, he is restricted or limited to make decisions, or to think, based solely on his emotional make-up.

And the fact that people responded in such a way as they did, tells me that overanalyzing something such as this is not the case. It is not overanalysis: their thoughts come packaged, not as single thought that gradually expands as the conversation continues, but rather as a natural response to questions as “simple” as this. Their answers reveal more of the philosophical, rather than the psychological (at least to me, this is the case).

There is no question so simple as to be a poor candidate for reasonable, logical thought. But you seem to confuse "reasonable, logical " thought with overanalysis. This is too bad. They say, exercise of the mind is necessary in old age, at any age, so wouldn’t you want to use this opportunity to discuss something as “simple” as this?. If to you this is overanalysis, then I feel concern for your well-being. As far as I can see, the responses came with no effort at all from the respondents. Did you know how long it took me to write that opening post? 20 minutes—give or take ten minutes for revision and correction. The thoughts I post here at ILP (philosophy forum) come to me like rain pouring on the roof. It feels so great, it makes me feel so alive. Do you ever have those moments when you have these thoughts running like nascar in your head and you’ve just got to write, and write it?

It feels wonderful to think and write, Plubius. I like your name, btw, it makes me feel like I am talking to Marcus’s friend. But, I don’t want to think that simple things like this has no value.

Okay, so once again, you seem to agree with what has been talked about in this thread. You give a situation in which you are asking yourself this question. Surely, since this is a different circumstance, a different way of thinking, hence a different asnwer, would ensue.

20

Aspacia, I’m not sure how to put this within the context of the topic at hand, since it is not about a person’s situation per se, rather, what really happens to our beliefs or thoughts if there is this external constraint in front of us.