Talk:Is the glass half empty or half full?

For riveting arguments regarding whether the glass is half full or half empty, please see the archive:

• /Archive

Significance

Is there at all any history on this question? And does it really have any significance to philosophy at all, or even a glimpse of a relation to non-trivial philosophy?

No, it doesn't. So I removed the philosophy tags. (Alas, your link doesn't work - I was very curious!) Thomas Ash 00:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added a history page, as this article is rather old, and some people would like history on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AppleyOfficial (talk • contribs) 21:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

No It's a wonderful example of false dichotomy often used by people practicing sophistry. Why? When crafting a well constructed question to delve into how others think, one poses a question that allows for more that just two answers completely independent of context, where the situation itself demands context. (i.e. What are we doing with the glass, filling or emptying? Why not allow for both as a valid answer? Neither of which are entertained as valid responses by the typical questioners. See the 2002 study referenced below as to why this is important.)

McKenzie & Nelson (2002) published experiments showing that preferences for using "half empty" or "half full" depended on what state the glass originally had been into (empty or full). In general, "empty" lead to "half full" and "full" lead to "half empty". - Anonymous

Now that's the most helpful thing that's been said on this talk page. Thanks! Melchoir 04:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We went thru this in the archive material. The question has nothing to do with glasses of liquid. It applies philosophically to questions of whether a situation or event is an advantage or a disadvantage. --Tysto 18:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The question itself, posed as you have, is a matter of simple sophistry and false dichotomy that disavows the context. Fact: Context rules all. This is why it deserves no place in philosophy, psychology, or linguistics.

Speculation is bad. Find sources. Melchoir 18:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Who's speculating? Try googling "glass half empty" or "glass half full" and you'll finds dozens of articles with that kind of title and none of them have anything to do with actual liquid in a glass except when they treat the idea as a joke. --Tysto (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've run those searches, and there's nothing there. If I missed an article that actually has something to say about the phrase or the thought experiment in relation to psychology, philosophy, linguistics, or the history of these fields, please don't hesitate to bring it up here. Is there, in fact, any reason to believe that people who say the glass is half full are more optimistic or are more likely to find advantages in ambiguous situations? Melchoir (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dropping my 2024 comment here.

I think, the saying is not just about pessimism versus optimism. It's about temperament, to me. Four temperaments' divided in one line. *be happy to enjoy your drink* (fleg versus *be disgrunted over the fact your 6oz drink came in a 12oz mug instead of a fancy cup for 6oz drinks*. A sanguine or phlegmatic person would enjoy their drinks. A choleric or melancholic would be so full of bile they would be disgrunted over that fact their fancy 6oz drinks come in mugs for 12oz beer bottles, ugh! Regards, a choleric full of coffee. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Question mark?

Shouldn't the title have one? Thomas Ash 19:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Question mark ~ Oni Lukos _ct 15:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah right, couldn't we use % 3 F ? Thomas Ash 01:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up a little

I made a few minor changes and removed the following from the article:

"If this page hasn't helped enough, check out an example video of the common expression:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hpJYeVvyBs0"

MastaFighta 19:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

When did this become a common statement?

I am wondering because I am watching the TV series Mad Men. It is a TV series set in 1960 for the first season. One of the characters states that she is a "glass half full" type of person. I don't recall this being a common method of referring to pessimism or optimism in the 60s. For example, I have never heard, in a movie or TV series prior to the TV series "Get Smart," the phrase "Sorry about that". It is amusing to see some period type of performance where that phrase pops up. Corollaryone (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're more likely to get a response at the reference desks. This talk page is reserved for discussions on the article itself, and the desks are far more heavily trafficked. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I would ask if the Mad Men series includes scenes in bars or cafeterias, but I see I am late for ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.57.107 (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll bet he's right. I would love to have an origin added to the article if there's been research done to cite. Thmazing (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Same. I would love to learn whether the prase comes from either a poem or a TV show or a radio broadcast or somewhere else. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Variations Section

The section was just a variation of the standard Physicist/Engineer/Biologist etc jokes, which can be extended ad infinitum. It is unlikely that all of these can be listed, so it is better to list none. SiegeLord (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Further Reading section

I'm not sure why the tokengeek reference was removed. It clearly demonstrates a literal, or alternate view on the problem and raises a good point. It certainly more relevant than the entry from "Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10". I've replaced it and invite a discussion on the issue. --Drphallus (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever your feelings may be re a literal or alternative view, the "External links" section is for sites that cannot be included as sources for reasons unrelated to their reliability. In other words, one of the primary criteria is that the site theoretically could be a reliable source. However tokengeek is a blog, which is virtually never a reliable source. For a simpler approach, we have a list of Links normally to be avoided. #11 is, "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." This particular blog entry is written by "Stefan". Honestly, I can't say that I know anything about Stefan, but I see nothing to indicate ze is a "recognized authority". So far, the blog has all of 8 entries. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Collapse chat
Engineer's response to Is the glass half empty or half full? Question: Is the glass half empty or half full? Engineer: The glass is twice the volume necessary to hold the liquid. Septagram (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC) This talk page is for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Veracity of sources

• I would like to challenge the veracity of the following sources:
  • Stephanie Stokes Oliver (2001-11-27). Seven Soulful Secrets for Finding Your Purpose and Minding Your Mission
  • Terry Bookman (December 2004). A Soul's Journey: Meditations on the Five Stages of Spiritual Growth.
    • Both on the grounds of a) lack of credentials in the fields of psychology, linguistics, and philosophy, and b) lack of ability to put forward logically sound statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.76.99 (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Extended content
Solution Isn't it both half empty and half full at the same time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.156.139 (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

How relevant should things be?

I recently posted a picture to this article, a cup that had a positive reference to the glass half full, advertisers seeking the positive side. I also posted an external link to an old Peace Corps ad that showed a glass half filled, with a voice saying that if you think of this as half full, we can use you. Again, focusing on the positive, half full side. I had thought these relevant, but another editor thought they were not and deleted them. As a newcomer to this page, I will revert it without support from others. If no support, I will let it be. Opinions? Pete unseth (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Currently, we have a very brief article about a common idiom/rhetorical device/whatever. We have an illustrative photo.

The phrase/concept, obviously, is widely used in popular culture, advertising, politics, literature, etc. (Side note: We do not need a list here of such uses. Please see WP:IPC.)

The question here is utility. IMO, additional images do not further reader understanding of the concept. Rather, they show one person or entity's use of it. Additionally, we might consider their addition here to be primarily decorative, which is a bit out of our goal (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images).

By way of example, consider the images at Paper clip, a far longer article about a common object. We have a simple image of some paper clips in the lead. Next, in a section about shape and construction, we have a photo for scale. In "History", we have an image of the patent for paper clips (who knew?). In a section on the claimed origin, we have a photo of the claimant. In the section on its use as a national symbol, we have images relevant to that.

IMO, if the article were expanded with reliably sourced info about the concept's use in advertising/marketing/popular culture/whatever, images relevant to that might be useful. Please note before building such a section that we would need sources discussing the use of the concept, not merely examples. (For instance, stating that it was used in a Peace Corps PSA is trivial if sourced to the PSA or the Peace Corps. We'd be looking for, perhaps, a magazine article discussing how the concept became linked to the Peace Corps or something similar.)

Hope that helps clarify. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Extended content

Possible social pressure hidden in phrase Full glass idea is always an obvious social construct. Not much people would call a glass, filled to its edges or the point it cannot be filled with a single more drop just full, you would have to say filled to its edges, therefore refusing to call it regular full glass. In many languages there is a phrase tha mya sound like an oxymoron: "too full glass". Unfortunately, when it comes to idioma "is the glass is half full or half empty" -- people socially are forced to think of a misconception, a lie that the glass with half of emptiness and more, than half of its socially accepted volume filled is to be said to be half full, while it isn't. People, who disagree are welcome to fill a glass of something, what won't ruin your clothes and try to drink it: the Q, the amount of space left to call glass or mug full is always different. However, particular glass in this very artice has 50% space empty yet it's filled with 50+½Q of space filled with liquid, and it looks, in face, almost ⅔ full for a regular person who has experience of operating many glasses on regular basis. Interestingly, from the point of physics, it is possible to full a glass over 100% of its edge-based volume: Normally, surface tension of water may make a completely full glass or mug or cup have little chance to not spill water yet it is uncomfortable and requires a certain luck to not spill anything on oneself. However, this hidden gap is a bait is not the case, yet unfortunately is constantly mistaken as one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.57.107 (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Interspersed edits

The following edits were added in the middle of other users' comments. Do not do this, it makes it rather difficult to figure out who said what. I have moved those comment here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The glass looks like it's even slightly overfilled for half this or half that? proportia. Can we store some free illustrations here? I mean, some shapes of glasses are misleading.

Would be happy to see "early appearance" section or "evolution of meaning"

I believe the one we have is simply a bit off and an illustration should be re-chosen.

Point is, I wanted to add two my cents about significance of the article, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.57.107 (talk • contribs) 11:46, October 11, 2016 (UTC)

If you believe you have a better free image for this article, please upload it and discuss it here. IMO, the image shows a glass that is roughly half full and is fine.

If you would like a section on earlier uses/evolution, feel free to research it and add it.

This article is for verifiable, relevant information about the phrase. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Neither one is for your thoughts and opinions on the significance. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

New sources are needed

The current source, Seven Soulful Secrets: For Finding Your Purpose and Minding Your Mission is written by someone without expertise in psychology or linguistics, or anything like that. Mucube (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree—the cited source hardly shows much, just that there is at least one drugstore self-help book which says this phrase is "like the litmus test for how you see the world." That tells you...something...but it doesn't even really support what the existing article says. I looked around and it's honestly pretty hard to find decent sources that address the idiom directly, but the OED and the Quote Investigator do have entries on it that cite primary sources, so I think we could at least apply those here in place of the Soulful Secrets book. I'll edit the article to that effect. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 17:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Y'know, as a piece of original research, I would like to add, that they use the idiom in Russian periodics as well. Here, a random example retrieved via a simple "стакан наполовину пуст pdf" query. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)