Frequently asked questions

Biology is an overpowering force, greater than any practice we do. If a person were injected with a high dose of cortisone, they would inevitably become depressed, since cortisone causes that. And if someone is in pain all the time, the hormones and substances the body produces to cope with pain cannot be countered except by a similar weapon. Attempts to plant optimism through thoughts can work when thoughts are the problem, but they are not entirely useless even for someone suffering pain, and there is scientific evidence for this. Antidepressants — or the medications that cause depression — remain higher in standing and stronger in effect than the means that act on thoughts, but the pathways of thought are not to be underestimated, for they are a principal trigger of emotions.

Psychotherapy, with everything it involves, surpasses the writing method in its dimensions and in what it can address — we are social creatures, and an exchange with a person has far wider reach than a sheet of paper. I do not propose writing as a substitute for psychotherapy; it can sit alongside it, and may even include some of its benefits. But psychotherapy remains unavailable to most people, is costly, and is divided among many approaches — while writing is a simple practice anyone can begin.

What if reality is wretched and there are steps required to change it? For this reason, I call mainly for writing on a daily basis and for writing about days, but not for planning life as a whole. I call for establishing new pathways at the level of the day's events and the weekly or monthly crises. I also call for, and emphasize, writing based on facts, not lying to oneself; and I say that every person has positives that can be focused on, but I do not call for painting the black white — just as I say that every person who breathes undoubtedly has something positive. Do not polish an oppressor or a bully, and do not write about others at all except about their interactions with you.

Optimistic writing is one practice with a specific, narrow aim: to shape your attention toward more positive things, so you simply notice the nice things more. That doesn't make it the only practice you need, or even the only one you should follow. The expressive writing we discuss on the science page might be more useful to you as a parallel practice — or even as the only one you keep.

This method aims to enlarge the space given to good, colourful memories, not to pretend there's no room for worry, fear, or sadness. Most suffering is genuine, and nothing here asks anyone to look away from it. The aim is only to give positive moments a slightly bigger area, in a life that will always have its share of pale and dark ones too.

There's almost always a redirection, even for a running worry. Someone who still worries about coming home late, for instance, can write about the world as safe rather than list the fear itself: that they get home late and nothing happens, that whoever's waiting for them meets them with warmth rather than worry. You're not required to have already solved the worry — writing toward a safer version of it is itself the exercise, in line with the reframing rule.

Self-help (human development) and neuro-linguistic programming contain threads that could be promising if presented correctly. Many scientific matters and principles resemble false theories — this is why it is called pseudoscience, since at first glance it looks like science. NLP offers a pairing between words or songs or actions and a particular mood, but this has no basis when it amounts to bolting a slogan onto your life at random, with no practice or habit behind it, and no real relationship between the emotional concept and whatever you're hoping to adopt. On the other hand, NLP offers the concept of reframing, but it does not come as an exercise and may not suit the nature of the incident or situation to be reframed. A large part of NLP is based on re-modeling behavior by imitating the behavior of successful people, imitating their movements, and performing certain movements of the body or face, or patterns of speech, that have no scientific connection to the mood or state one wishes to reach. All of that is entirely far from this method.

Reframing is a widely known human technique, not limited to any psychological field or a pseudoscientific domain.

And as I mentioned, science has backed psychotherapy with much evidence, and this method is nothing before psychotherapy.

I do not promise everyone who writes success, nor do I believe this method works for everyone. What about those who cannot write, or who do not possess an advanced writing skill? There are many people who do not read books, for whom written texts mean nothing and for whom writing is, at most, a means of reminder. And just as some people may not laugh when they read a joke, and are not aroused when they read about sex, perhaps there are some people for whom the writing method may not work at all.

It's worth mentioning that no psychologically effective practice or substance works the same way for everyone — even hormones like cortisol or serotonin affect people's mood and thinking differently.

The goals overlap — both practices turn your attention toward the good — and a gratitude list can certainly be part of what you write. But gratitude journaling, as it is usually practiced and studied, means periodically listing a few things you are thankful for, with gratitude as the target emotion. This method asks for something different in its mechanics: writing every day, for at least ten minutes, in detailed narrative, about true moments you actually lived in the last 24 hours — ideally by hand — because the elaboration itself is what trains attention and memory.

It also comes with explicit boundaries and a wider range. You do not write about anything neutral or negative, and you do not write baseless affirmations — only facts you experienced. And thankfulness is only one direction among many — the method doesn't fix a list of themes; anything you genuinely find soothing is fair game, as long as it's true and good. Gratitude journaling can be one flavor of optimistic writing; the method itself is broader and more structured.

Totally fine — that's encouraged. We say ten minutes because many people can't commit to more, and ten minutes is enough for the practice to work. If the writing pulls you along for twenty or thirty minutes, follow it.

Up to you. You can cover the last 24 hours — from right now back to this same time yesterday — whenever you sit down to write, or you can keep it simple and do it nightly, covering your day before bed. Pick whichever rhythm you'll actually keep up.

We encourage writing with pen and paper, or on a computer if that's easier. Engaging the fine motor system to produce letters by hand has positive effects on learning and memory, but the real reason we favor either over a phone is coverage: a keyboard or a pen can get through far more of your moments in ten minutes than a thumb typing on a small screen.

If pen and paper or a computer aren't an option, your phone still works. Use its speech-to-text feature — speaking lets you say more, so you cover more of your day — or just type if you'd rather. If you do end up typing on your phone, we'd recommend at least fifteen minutes rather than the usual ten, since a phone keyboard simply covers less ground per minute.

You can. Research comparing writing, talking into a recorder, and just thinking something through privately found writing and talking had a similar impact on well-being — for both negative and positive life events. So if speaking suits you better, recording yourself talking through a moment should work about as well as writing it down.