Perhaps because I am descendant from deeply pessimistic southern Italian peasants I have always believed that "positive illusions" and the extremes of "positive paranoia" (a belief that the world is constructed "for you") often leads to "social advantage," but surely this depends on the society.
I have also thought that "illusions" of some kind (perhaps the mental attitude of "optimism", perhaps the illusion of "free will"?) must be evolutionary trade offs leading to some advantages.
But it is precisely this kind of thinking, as exhibited in the New Scientist writer's paragraph, that gives "evolutionary psychology" a bad name.
In other words, the idea that mental health is a "positive illusion" appeals to me because I like to flatter myself that my slightly depressive personality leaves me without illusions. But this is just personal self-flattery for me and when translated into evolutionary terms it is a representative just-so story. There is no real historical evidence and very little current empirical verification for this. (How are we to measure Alexander's "optimism" or Gaius Julius Caesar's "positive illusions?) It may be true. It may lead to a decent hypothesis. But please...... popular science writers should avoid such pop evo-psycho conclusory statements, without many more conditionals than this writer's one simple conditional clause -- "may have offered an evolutionary advantage"....
I do like the idea that "optimism" may provide individual "advantage' but may be maladaptive when used to move huge human institutions and organzations, such as predatory organizations like corporations and nation-states,
Jerry
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/