Defensive Pessimism

First of all, psychologists have a spiffy name for worriers. It’s “deffensive pessimist”.

Ok.

Are you a worrier? Here are some of the benefits:

1. Anxiety as Motivation Psychologists say people who set low expectations for themselves use anxiety as fuel for preparation. Unlike complacent individuals who may under-prepare worriers channel their nervous energy to get ready.
2. Superior Preparation
   Defensive pessimists tend to engage in more thorough mental rehearsal and contingency planning. By imagining what could go wrong they develop backup plans and are less likely to be caught off-guard. Studies show that interfering with this strategy (by forcing positive thinking) actually decreases their performance .
3. Maintained Focus Under Pressure
   Research comparing defensive pessimists to “strategic optimists” found that while optimists perform best when they distract themselves or relax before tasks, defensive pessimists actually perform worse when forced to relax or think positively. Worrying keeps them alert and focused. As I said before, worriers are supposed to be worried.
4. Protection Against Complacency
   The complacent may have overconfidence bias meaning underestimating challenges and under-preparing. “Defensive pessimists” avoid this trap by assuming things will be difficult, which drives them to work harder .

Drawbacks to Worrying

Unmanaged anxiety is different from defensive pessimism used strategically. There is productive worry (used for preparation) and debilitating anxiety that paralyzes action .

Self-handicapping vs. defensive pessimism: There’s a crucial distinction between defensive pessimism (which doesn’t harm performance) and self-handicapping (creating excuses for your performance or lack thereof) which causes you to fall short.

Context: Defensive pessimism works best in achievement contexts where preparation pays off. It may not be adaptive in situations requiring creativity or social risk-taking .While defensive pessimism can boost short-term performance, some research suggests it may lead to decreased life satisfaction and emotional instability.

It’s not about being a “worrier” versus being “positive”—it’s about whether your mindset drives effective preparation. Defensive pessimists perform well not because anxiety is inherently good, but because they’ve learned to harness it productively .

Strategic Optimism

As you might expect, there’s a term for those who are “positive”. I fall into this category oftentimes and have attracted a fair amount of attention for it unintentionally. Once upon a time I was so difficult to rattle that people would literally give Me trouble or throw problems in My way just to watch how I would handle it.

These people are called “strategic optimists” for their belief that there’s always a way to solve a problem.

Benefits:

1. Emotional Resilience & Well-being
   Strategic optimists generally experience less pre-performance anxiety and emotional volatility. They don’t need to catastrophize to get motivated, which means less psychological wear and tear .
2. Quick Recovery from Setbacks
   Because they expect positive outcomes, strategic optimists tend to bounce back faster from failures. They don’t ruminate as much on what went wrong and are more likely to view setbacks as temporary.
3. Better Performance in Certain Domains
   Optimists often excel in situations requiring:

• Creativity and innovation (where anxiety can narrow thinking)
• Social risk-taking (networking, public speaking, leadership)
• Physical performance (sports, where relaxation aids execution)

1. Efficient Energy Use
   They focus attention on success strategies and positive outcomes, which can be more efficient when risks are low .
2. Health Benefits
   Research outside the defensive pessimism literature consistently links optimism to better physical health outcomes, stronger immune function, and longer lifespan .

1. Vulnerability to Complacency This connects to your original research point. Strategic optimists may under-prepare because they assume things will work out. Without the “productive anxiety” that drives defensive pessimists to rehearse and plan, they can be caught off-guard .

2. Poor Performance When Forced to Worry Interestingly, when strategic optimists were forced to engage in defensive pessimism strategies (dwelling on worst-case scenarios), their performance actually decreased. Their natural coping style is disrupted by worry .

3. Blindsided by Real Risks Because they don’t habitually scan for threats, strategic optimists may miss warning signs that defensive pessimists would catch. They can fall victim to overconfidence.

4. Difficulty in High-Stakes/Unfamiliar Situations When facing genuinely difficult or novel challenges where preparation is critical, strategic optimists may lack the detailed contingency planning that defensive pessimists automatically generate.

5. Potential for Self-Handicapping (in some forms) While distinct from defensive pessimism, some optimistic strategies can border on self-deception—minimizing real problems to protect mood, which can lead to poor decisions.

I’m guilty of number 4 and 5 at times when preparing for court cases. I have a lot of success in My field and i have intimidated some very experienced and tenured people in My time from politics and law. However, success in one area doesn’t necessarily mean success in another and I still find Myself preparing to go to court just days before a trial is scheduled.

The healthiest approach may be situational flexibility—being able to deploy strategic optimism when it’s adaptive, but borrowing from defensive pessimism when preparation and risk-analysis are needed .

The Point of This is a Bonus

Now that you’ve familiarized yourself with the two different personality styles and likely identified yourself–which is beneficial–we come to the reason I made this foray into this subject to begin with.

It seems to me that in society that those who engage in crime, worry. And they have a lot to worry for: Being identified. Who the boss is. Where security is located. When they make their rounds. Who the mayor is. Who the Chief of Police is. Who’s moving in next door. Where to hide and how to hide all sorts of things from stolen cars to unreported income.

On the other hand, those who are honorable have “trust bias”. That is, they oftentimes assume that others are like they are. Or they assume that they meet a baseline of integrity which is acceptable. You see, those who have done no wrong have nothing to worry for. The sirens go by but their ears do not tense in response. Whereas the crook’s ears and eyes look in the direction of the sirens.

What the naive don’t realize is that a game is always in play. That is means that just because the statutes have been passed for our civil rights–to use an example–does not mean that their isn’t still an engagement going on. There is.

On a larger scale you have the sacking of the United States by it’s own police. A “police-state” is a direct affront to the government proper. But they don’t stop it from happening because those who would were removed a long time ago. That means an engagement was always happening although the voters and the statutes had decided the matter a long time ago.

So it seemed to Me that those who have no crime in their background would be those caught by surprise the most. And that looks to be true. Here’s the skinny on those with criminal intent and the subject of worry; I think it’s worth the post in it’s entirety:

Research on white-collar criminals and criminal networks shows that they often exhibit:

1. Extensive scenario planning for detection and evasion.

2. Paranoia about operational security. Meaning where to meet, if communications are secure, where vulnerabilities lie.

3. System-gaming expertise. That means learning where systemic vulnerabilities lie in the entity that they seek to exploit.

Functionally they are “defensive pessimists” about operational security but they are “strategic optimists” about their ability to exploit the people or the system.

It is for this reason that I have found in My research time and time again, examples of those formally charged with a task, such as the policing of trafficking, only to find that those charged with this vigilance were actually complicit in it. I’ve found examples of children’s charities run by pedophiles. And in Los Angeles citizens and gang-members literally roam the streets with invisible police-tech on their persons that allows them to see through walls and read minds. Police gift this to them to create a symbiotic relationship where they enable one another to steal and even murder (ask Me how I know) for profit.

Well, if the tech is invisible and can be replicated infinitely and can’t be detected by anyone–what the hell were we thinking–of course the #USAisOver. It was always just a matter of time.

In institutional contexts the predators are the corrupt actors who “prey” upon the systems while the citizens are the actual prey who assume the rule of law (the zookeeper) will maintain order. But what if he doesn’t? What if he’s been replaced by the corrupt state? After all, you can’t have a police-state without a corrupt judiciary. Otherwise anytime someone took the police to court the cops would have to return whatever they have lost and then penalties. That’s not going to work.

If My observations hold and are actually backed by science and not just anecdotal there would be three key categories:

1. Corruption exists because it is investing in intelligence and behavior that integrity is not.
2. Democratic oversight fails because citizens don’t worry enough about the right things–loopholes, anticipating corruption or decay, making contingencies.
3. The complacent are informationally disadvantaged by their own optimism. To assume that everyone else has integrity as you do is to overlook potential crime.

The bottom line is that ethical people and ethical systems have structural flawsand hence vulnerabilities. They don’t outsource “defensive pessimism” and a corrupt system will be quick to accuse ethical people of paranoia thus punishing vigilance.

I hope this post is a good source of thought and information and reasons for taking action.

Copyrigjht 2026 Sovrumano All Rights Reserved

Sovrumano has no partners, representatives, managers or authorized representatives. Sovrumano is not an employee or agent of any military or government. Any contradictive intimations are fraudulent. Sovrumano is the sole property of Christ Titus Anderson. Any augmentation is forbidden by law.