People who tend to be optimistic are likelier to live to 85 or more: study

I agree things are better than even, but let's not forget that's on average.

Many people still suffer, and even the luckiest of us can see it.

People just aren't wired to think about things in terms of population statistics.

> people talk of the current world and time in negative tones

Are you sure they aren't also considering the trend that we're on?

Things are good overall, but China and Russia are not functioning democracies, and most powerful countries are trending away from democracy.

> it is cool to think negatively of the world

It is cool to be concerned about others who are suffering (and maybe even a status symbol for some), and that concern leads to negative feelings.

No one complains about the state of the world insincerely...

> it is cool to think negatively of the world it seems to me.

This is one of these temporary fashions, with several factors at play such as Trump rising to power and climate change. But if you take many other into account, such as violent crime from the 80s/90s, we're living in a paradise. As a human, you can handle a limited number of factors. So it really boils down to a personal choice at this point.

I'm sure it would seem like there is a link between the two somewhere, even if it is very threadbare or even spurious for that matter.

More principally, these things just seem very believable because being optimistic is just a positive attribute that society rewards and approves of much more than it does pessimism (some would say being pessimistic is almost an universal negative, some outlier societies notwithstanding).

This imparts a definite bias in the believability of the study, no matter what the findings of the study actually are - even if the study were to only indicate a mild association between being optimistic and longevity.

Just consider the findings of a study from some years ago:

  "High social status has its privileges ­­when it comes to 
   aging – even in wild animals."

  ...

  “High-ranking members in hyena clans reproduce more, they
  live longer and appear to be in better overall health,” said
  Nora Lewin, MSU doctoral student of zoology and co-lead 
  author. “If you want to see the hierarchy of spotted hyenas, 
  throw down some fresh meat near them. It’s quickly apparent 
  who’s dominant and who’s not.”

  ...

  Lewin and her teammates focused on telomeres, caps at the end
  of each strand of DNA that protect chromosomes from 
  deterioration. These biomarkers are regarded as important signs
  of aging and stress in many species, including humans. Shrinking
  telomeres are a signal that cells are sliding into defensive 
  mode, stressful actions that could soon lead to cells’ – and 
  to the organism’s – death.

  “This work shows, for the first time, the effects of social 
   rank on telomere length in wild mammals,” Lewin said. “This enhances 
   our understanding of how social and ecological variables may 
   contribute to age-related declines of hyenas, and in organisms
   in general.”[1]

High social status humans live longer lives is the natural assumption here even if the suggestion is only mild.

Such stuff seems more believable due to a chain of assumptions about - low status mammals, stress levels, food security, likelihood of physical harm etc.

Its safe to assume those, it would seem - however light the actual evidence for it.

There are scores of studies like this with very light suggestive conclusions yet the believability is high.

I just wish these things are fleshed out with a lot more rigor and thoroughness by the science journalists or journalists at large. This isn't trivial, easily ignored stuff. These things have real world consequences if true.

Very palpable, sizable and profound consequences on people's lives.

[1]

Social Status Has Impact On Overall Health of Mammals

https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2015/social-status-has-impact-...

Sure. But every single study like this goes to an RCT finds causation runs the other way.

I briefly read some "good news" sites years ago, but stopped because they started to depress me as I looked deeper into the individual reports. Most of the stories I've read were of the pattern of, "an inspiring but meaningless TED talk", or "an individual doing something completely inconsequential, but positively-looking", or "an individual or a small group working hard on a project that's completely bogus, but of course it's going to save the world!" (see e.g. solar roadways, uBeam). Note the focus on individuals, and bogus or unimportant work used to generate good feelings.

Trust is a finite resource. When constantly abused like this, it's bound to get depleted, and optimism goes down the drain along with it. Personally, I'd like to see some good news reporting, but not like the above. I'd like to see stories about organizations over individuals - about government bureaucracies doing a competent job, about NGOs making an impact. About technology that incrementally progresses and yields results. About actual, not potential or imagined breakthroughs. Something that would stand up to the most basic fact checking, most brief critical skimming; something that would demonstrate that actual good things are being done, that some parts of the system work.