The exception proves the rule?
GMU's Robin Hanson has posted a thoughtful short essay on cynics. After surveying common definitions of cynic, he writes that a cynic combines cynical beliefs (that people's true motivations very often are different from their professed motivations) with cynical moods (unhappy and complaining).
Hanson concludes the piece:
Thus while hypocrisy and low motives probably are in fact much more widespread than most people acknowledge, most people are well-advised to pretend that they believe otherwise.
There seems to be an implicit suggestion here that it is impossible to hold cynical (i.e., accurate) beliefs while remaining generally upbeat; in other words, you can't be both happy and a consistently good judge of character.
If true, that would be a real downer -- but I have a hard time believing that's what he meant.
(via Marginal Revolution)
Sometimes cynics are still good at leading others to drink from the same
well of subversion. This gives them an inclusive role, and functions like
a subculture. Are these cynics the ones that we would like to see more of,
meaning are they isolating the positive properties of healthy cynisism
without being "loosers?" This case would flesh out a different
perspective.
No, that is not what I meant. I just meant that since people dislike
associating with cynics, you should try not to appear to be a cynic.
But there are two ways to avoid the appearance of being a cynic: appear
not to have cynical beliefs, or appear not to have cynical moods. In your
closing sentence, you advocate for cynics specifically to disavow the
beliefs. I would argue that people dislike associating with cynics not
because of the beliefs, but because of the moods.