[arn3n]

I think there's a pretty simple explanation for this: It's hard to admit when we're not doing well. It's easy to say that the world is getting worse, that you're worried for the future, but to admit that you personally are having trouble is depressing and a little humiliating. I'm guilty of this -- even when times are really bad for me personally, I try to be optimistic and consider my current misery as a temporary misfortune. It helps to keep moving forwards.

[darth_avocado]

It’s also possible that what affects you personally is actually going well, but what affects everyone indirectly is not going well. Rivers of plastic may be flowing in the ocean, but your local trash collector collects “recyclables” weekly for no additional charge and you feel good about sorting the trash.

[isk517]

A person is also more in control of what's going on around them personally, the larger that scope increases the less any normal individual has any effect. The ant can be optimistic about it's chances of surviving the winter while still pessimistic about what the fate of all of the grasshoppers.

[LorenPechtel]

Yup. Long range it looks dire. But things haven't fallen apart *yet*. I don't see why these are supposedly contradictory. The altimeter unwinding at a dizzying pace inflicts no harm on the occupants. But it's an awful lot easier to say "this time it's different" than admit what it says.

[willis936]

This framing seems like justification of the assumption that "how the world is doing is the equal average of how everyone is individually doing". Quite simply the "direction of things" is either completely uncontrolled or controlled by a small group of people with incentives misaligned with the rest of the world. Everyone can be doing fine despite losing a war against them.

[greygoo222]

This can't explain the data in the article, such as the fact that people underestimate the rate at which other survey responders will report being happy.