Is the glass half-full or half-empty? It isn’t really a conundrum so much as it’s a rhetorical question designed to analyze a person’s worldview, which, in turn would help predict how they respond to adversity, good fortune, etc.
I feel that the entire thing is stupid, and doesn’t take into account actual human nature.
The answer to the question is where the problem lies. If one answers that the glass is half-full, they are said to be an optimist. If one answers that the glass is half-empty, they are said to be a pessimist. All other conclusions are drawn from this static dichotomy.
Where the experiment fails is in considering other parameters. It’s a half-assed attempt at profiling an individual, yet, depending on the circumstances, the same individual’s answers might differ.
If I approach the glass while simultaneously knowing there is unlimited water available to me, the answer changes from if I approach the glass during a drought. If I haven’t had water for two days, the glass is going to certainly be half-full. Or if I approach the glass expecting it to be nearly empty, only to find that it is half-full, then my answer is seasoned with optimism, elation. If I expected the glass to be full, only to find that it is not, the response might be more visceral. In my disappointment, I would then say the glass is only half-full.
I might not even like water. A person who loves water more than anything might see the glass as being half-empty, as they unconsciously wish for more water. Because to them, there may never be enough water. Whereas that same person, who couldn’t care less about whiskey, might view the glass as having plenty of whiskey, and therefore, it is half-full.
As you can see, the same person can have a variance of responses depending on the circumstances. Like the young man who cordially approaches the woman at the bar, only to be met with animosity; he doesn’t see that she may have had an awful day, or that he is the tenth person to attempt conversation. He only sees that she is rude. Thus, this experiment is flawed when used in a broad sense. just like how one might perceive another person as being either nice or not nice based on limited observation.
It is too boolean. One must be careful not to allow the answer from one glass to affect the answers one would get from other glasses. Each glass must be treated separately. All parameters must be taken into account. One needs to consider the frame of reference under which a person approaches the glass, and realize that frames are dynamic, not static.
The person who supplies the pessimistic answer might not be pessimistic at all, just like the woman at the bar might not be a bitch.