Are you a direct, or an indirect, realist, and why?

Realism is a good approach to understanding the world. It is highly informal and indirect, however in practice. Congitive science shows how easily our capacity for recovering perceived events vary. Rather than assuming some perfect, "Direct realism", I think it is safer bet to assume that the 'sense' that ontical entities themselves have is destroyed as we apprehend them. What we do with the residue, what we call their "representations" is then a free choice, or else a matter of habit. The "order", we attribute to reality is thus, while based in experience, our own mind's construct.

P.S. If you don't see my references to "direct" vs "indirect" realism above, I suppose that means you have some blinders there, huh?

I consider myself to be a 'realist with a little consideration'. What it means is that I view things as they are, but I also consider the things that can go astray. I see the chance of inaccuracy in my predictions. I consider this good, because if I be too direct, I often be too confident too soon and miss too many opportunities. But if I became too indirect, I will also miss too many opportunities.

But this is just my view. Of course, I can be horribly wrong, but that is the interesting part about life. Whether my view is wrong or not, and is the most effective or not, all road leads to Rome; eventually we will get there.

:)

More of a realist, and definitely pragmatic. In different situations, I can be all of those things. It all boils down to what works. And as far as the 'why' aspect, I really do not know except that it seems to work for me and the people that I work with and associate with.

I think, It Depends On My "UNDERSTANDING" of the Things and the Situations.