About seven and a half minutes in Seligman starts talking about how sad people and happy people are different than the norm. He says that one way happy people differ from others is that they are extremely social, in romantic relationships and have a lot of friends, but later says that it is merely correlative data. If those things are very commonly found in happy people how can we say that it isn't the answer to happiness? -Brandon Dion
Engagement as an actual type of a Happy Person, that was mind opening. I never thought to interpret the times I am happy to the time I am "engaged" in an activity. I always just credited my happiness (of the I think I am happy kind) to what ever particular activity I was involved in at that moment. While I am sure you need the enjoyable interest you also need the time stopping focus. Does this come with practice of the task or does there need to be a strong a strong competitor's nature? I ask because the two examples given both seemed extremely competitive.
I liked Seligman's point about positive psychology, and how it is equally important to use psychology to improve/better people's lives who are average and don't necessarily have a mental illness of any sort. It's good that psychology is taking a positive turn and people are less skeptical about the use of psychology to help people, and that many people are starting to see it as a good thing rather than a negative thing.
I think this is great and not just for the reasons he spoke about but for a person who is depressed or has another diagnosis, when they see people who are happy, they might think they are full of crap, but to have scientific evidence that happiness does exist, may give them a bit of motivation to work on themselves, get past their symptoms and get to an even better way of being.
I am also glad that he "owns" the fact that the disease model can give a sick person license to be a victim and also, in a way, to actually enable negative/destructive behavior. At the same time he stated that in the past couple of decades alot of these diagnosis are now treatable, if not curable. I think that psychology should "own" this too and help the people they treat to understand that, yes they are sick but it is also treatable and that the client has an obligation to own their disease and a responsibility in taking part in actively treating it.People are not broken if there are ways they can be repaired. -Jim Morrissey
As Seligman mentions, while social interaction plays a key component in our individual levels of happiness, we can heighten our feelings of happiness by partaking in activities that reflect our strengths. Although I believe personal relationships are a fundamental component to a positive sense of well being, the ladder seems like a more effective strategy for maintaining long withstanding happiness. In my opinion, when we create happiness within ourselves - by utilizing our strengths and partaking in them - we build a a 'toolbox' worth of devices that can provide sustainable feelings. On the contrary, if we vest our happiness primarily in social relationships and social interactions, we put ourselves at risk for becoming dependent on others to fulfill our feelings of joy and satisfaction.
I agree that investing too much in social interactions leaves a person somehwat depressed when with-drawn from the social cirlce. Len is very interesting as Seligman brings up a wealthy, bridge and football playing "cold fish." I'm not sure he ever relayed why exactly Len was an "abismal failure" in this third arena. I would very much like to know if this was because he wsa so introverted and what course of action would be if he has so much positive action (FLow).
I really enjoyed his presentation and completely agree. I thought the three aims of positive psychology were right on the money. I feel that psychology has spent too much time looking at what is wrong with people rather than building up the good and positive things in peoples lives. Helping those who have psychological problems but also showing them how to be positive and happy with in themselves could make a huge difference. Also practicing this with normal people. He makes a great point about happiness not being based on just pleasure, which is what I think most people believe. Humans have an innate need to belong and have purpose, which is where life meaning would come in. Its important for people to be happy with themselves but also to unite and feel positive with others of their community. This is what I feel most are lacking, the connecting and sense of self. Jacqueline Nizer
Martin Seligman addressed several interesting aspects about the field of psychology. I think it is great that he speaks about positive psychology because it is an area that many prominent psychologists are skeptical about.The horizons of psychology need to be broadened. I believe that Seligman addressed an important point when he mentioned that psychology and psychiatry's focus got lost in the disease model. Whereas the focus of psychology should be on ones strengths and extends those strengths to others. Why is it that something as easy as lending a hand and focusing on our strengths has become merely nonexistent in our society? As a society if we worked towards focusing on the "we" and not the "me" I think our quality of life would improve.
I am curious to see what the future holds for positive psychology and to read about new data that would call into play some of the basic assumptions that Seligman addressed. -Lauren Goudreau
What I enjoyed about Martin Seligman's talk was that positive psychology focuses on a persons strengths, not just their weaknesses. I feel that psychology as a whole has a bad reputation for only helping sick people and fixing their flaws. With this perspective, people with relatively good mental health, can still be assisted by psychologists to improve their mental health even more. Positive psychology is a growing field and I will be interested to see what they discover next.
I, too, loved the emphasis on personal strengths. What a concept, to examine your own strengths and build a life around them! I wish I could shove that little gem down a few friends' throats. I see a lot of people striving for what they think everyone else expects of them. Is there research on how difficult the journey is for people, of rejecting external values and living selectively for their strengths? I suppose we'll each learn that for ourselves, in our Pos Psy interventions.
I really enjoyed what Martin Seligman had to say. I like that he spoke about the problems with psychology using the disease model and how it has led psychologists to pathologize people.
I also liked how he talked about how positive psychology is concerned with building a person's strengths rather then pointing out their weaknesses. This would seem much more effective for long term behavior change because it would be using reinforcement rather then punishment as a means for shaping behavior. It would also cause less anxiety in people because we would not be pointing out their weaknesses overtly.
Lastly I liked that he spoke about how the interventions used in positive psychology are all based on scientific research. So instead of just some person coming up with a therapy idea, like Freud, positive psychologists instead using an arsenal of tested scientific interventions.
I think that Martin Seligman made a good point to get people to see that psychology has not always been seen as a good thing. Doing so by talking about his example of sitting on the plane and when telling people what he did for a living they would move away. Then to go on to say that with time people began to move closer instead of move away shows the shift in our society on the viewpoint of how our society looks at psychology. That over time psychology has become more of an interest to people.
The part that I liked most was when he talks about how positive psychology is not just about fixing problems but improving the lives of those who are normal and that we need to place positive interventions out there to stop people from falling back into having those sort of negative life issues or feelings about the things going om in their lives. This matched up very well with a talk given at the summer psychology institute by Robert Emmons who talked about this same idea that positive psychology was not just something that wanted to replace psychology but build upon it. That it did not want to just help by giving praise to peoples strengths but understand that once issues were dealt with that it was extra steps to push people from languishing in life to being people who were flourishing.
Toward the middle he talks about the three types of happy lives and during his talk about the good life he mentions Len and using him as an example of someone who has flow versus pleasure. He states that flow is a state where you cant feel anything and its as if time stops. It's a type of absorption and that this is better than just having many pleasures. I wonder though if that can be said. If flow is a time stopping thing and a state in which you don't feel anything, then how can that be considered to be a positive state or an optimal place. That type of state to be in would seem like a more focused or neutral state, though that is just my thought.
Overall he put forth some great ideas and statements about positive psychology and really tried to push people to see that it was a good and upcoming thing.
Seligman makes some extremely vaild points when he compares what psychology's strengths have been and where there needs to be improvement; positive psychology and the disease model. He also highlights the importance of fostering the individual and their strengths. There seems to be a deeper understanding and respect of individuality in positive psychology.
Seligman then goes on to talk about the "3 happy lives" which I think again he makes some really good and interesting points. I like how he talks about happiness and pleasure and those emotions relating differently to engagement and meaningfulness in life. I am not sure if I agree fully with the idea of there being distinct categories of different lives and levels of happiness and meaning. I think I understand the path he is on with that train of thought, but it's definitely not that simple. I have a hard time placing different types of happiness or pleasure in hierarchical form. I think they all have value in different ways whether some relate to meaningfulness more or not. I think all forms of happiness and pleasure have value, not necessarily better than another. I do agree that having more engagement in life and more altruistic behavior seem to contribute to a more meaningful life. I think in a lot of ways we have to understand and make our own meaning in life.
I love the principles that Seligman touches on and what positive psychology is all about in essence. I think it is a field that will prove to have a lot of value in human life in the coming years especially in relation to happiness, health and well being.
I really like the whole concept of positive psychology and how it focuses on building happiness rather than on a patient's issues. I believe that Seligman is absolutely correct when he says that psychologists had become victimologists and pathologizers. They constantly focus on the negative aspects in a person's life, trying to relieve misery, when that may in fact end up disparaging the patient even further. By focusing on a persons strengths and building up their best attributes, positive psychology can help a person realize that there is good in their lives and they don't have to revolve around their misery and downfalls.
I also found the three happy lives to be very interesting. It seems that they all cover the basics when it comes to having a successful, productive and meaningful life. Building on pleasure, engagement with others and compassion are definitely good first steps to a positive state of mind.
"a science that makes life worth living" Is how Seligman described positive psychology. How could this not be the best most beneficial of all sciences?
Although there are some mental illnesses that need to be treated with medicine, depression could perhaps be avoided/treated with positive psychology, by making the most out of the life we are given. Its not surprising that one of the biggest influences on happiness is socialization. People need to feel loved, cared about and know they are important.
I also found it interesting how originally psychology was obsessed with illness and problems and with positive psychology we realize its just as important, if not more, to study happy, satisfied people. Happiness comes and goes at different times throughout life but to make those happy times significantly more frequent than the negative times, well isnt that the point of living? This, in my opinion, is more beneficial and relevant than any religious belief.
I am interested to see how positive psych will influence peoples lives in the future after more research and knowledge of the subject is introduced to the public.
First of all I think the study of positive psychology is awesome. It seems way more proactive than using the disease model.
Anyway, one part of Seligman’s speech that I found interesting was when he talked about the experience of positive emotion being heritable and not very modifiable. I’m wondering how it was determined that positive affect is heritable. Did they have a newborn baby fill out a questionnaire? Can the level of functioning in the specific brain areas associated with happiness be measured prior to earthly experience? I must admit that I am a little biased. I would prefer if happiness had the ability to be increased through experience. Still, I cannot overlook the fact that anyone being measured for happiness has already existed in an environment that has influenced their susceptibility to either experiencing positive emotion or not. Happy parents may be correlated with happy children but is it due to genetics or experience? How would one go about testing that? Twin studies?
18 comments:
About seven and a half minutes in Seligman starts talking about how sad people and happy people are different than the norm. He says that one way happy people differ from others is that they are extremely social, in romantic relationships and have a lot of friends, but later says that it is merely correlative data. If those things are very commonly found in happy people how can we say that it isn't the answer to happiness?
-Brandon Dion
Engagement as an actual type of a Happy Person, that was mind opening. I never thought to interpret the times I am happy to the time I am "engaged" in an activity. I always just credited my happiness (of the I think I am happy kind) to what ever particular activity I was involved in at that moment. While I am sure you need the enjoyable interest you also need the time stopping focus. Does this come with practice of the task or does there need to be a strong a strong competitor's nature? I ask because the two examples given both seemed extremely competitive.
Jonathan Bellino
I liked Seligman's point about positive psychology, and how it is equally important to use psychology to improve/better people's lives who are average and don't necessarily have a mental illness of any sort. It's good that psychology is taking a positive turn and people are less skeptical about the use of psychology to help people, and that many people are starting to see it as a good thing rather than a negative thing.
I think this is great and not just for the reasons he spoke about but for a person who is depressed or has another diagnosis, when they see people who are happy, they might think they are full of crap, but to have scientific evidence that happiness does exist, may give them a bit of motivation to work on themselves, get past their symptoms and get to an even better way of being.
I am also glad that he "owns" the fact that the disease model can give a sick person license to be a victim and also, in a way, to actually enable negative/destructive behavior. At the same time he stated that in the past couple of decades alot of these diagnosis are now treatable, if not curable. I think that psychology should "own" this too and help the people they treat to understand that, yes they are sick but it is also treatable and that the client has an obligation to own their disease and a responsibility in taking part in actively treating it.People are not broken if there are ways they can be repaired.
-Jim Morrissey
As Seligman mentions, while social interaction plays a key component in our individual levels of happiness, we can heighten our feelings of happiness by partaking in activities that reflect our strengths. Although I believe personal relationships are a fundamental component to a positive sense of well being, the ladder seems like a more effective strategy for maintaining long withstanding happiness. In my opinion, when we create happiness within ourselves - by utilizing our strengths and partaking in them - we build a a 'toolbox' worth of devices that can provide sustainable feelings. On the contrary, if we vest our happiness primarily in social relationships and social interactions, we put ourselves at risk for becoming dependent on others to fulfill our feelings of joy and satisfaction.
-Bianca Sturchio
I agree that investing too much in social interactions leaves a person somehwat depressed when with-drawn from the social cirlce. Len is very interesting as Seligman brings up a wealthy, bridge and football playing "cold fish." I'm not sure he ever relayed why exactly Len was an "abismal failure" in this third arena. I would very much like to know if this was because he wsa so introverted and what course of action would be if he has so much positive action (FLow).
meant positive-affect
I really enjoyed his presentation and completely agree. I thought the three aims of positive psychology were right on the money. I feel that psychology has spent too much time looking at what is wrong with people rather than building up the good and positive things in peoples lives. Helping those who have psychological problems but also showing them how to be positive and happy with in themselves could make a huge difference. Also practicing this with normal people. He makes a great point about happiness not being based on just pleasure, which is what I think most people believe. Humans have an innate need to belong and have purpose, which is where life meaning would come in. Its important for people to be happy with themselves but also to unite and feel positive with others of their community. This is what I feel most are lacking, the connecting and sense of self.
Jacqueline Nizer
Martin Seligman addressed several interesting aspects about the field of psychology. I think it is great that he speaks about positive psychology because it is an area that many prominent psychologists are skeptical about.The horizons of psychology need to be broadened. I believe that Seligman addressed an important point when he mentioned that psychology and psychiatry's focus got lost in the disease model. Whereas the focus of psychology should be on ones strengths and extends those strengths to others. Why is it that something as easy as lending a hand and focusing on our strengths has become merely nonexistent in our society? As a society if we worked towards focusing on the "we" and not the "me" I think our quality of life would improve.
I am curious to see what the future holds for positive psychology and to read about new data that would call into play some of the basic assumptions that Seligman addressed.
-Lauren Goudreau
What I enjoyed about Martin Seligman's talk was that positive psychology focuses on a persons strengths, not just their weaknesses. I feel that psychology as a whole has a bad reputation for only helping sick people and fixing their flaws. With this perspective, people with relatively good mental health, can still be assisted by psychologists to improve their mental health even more. Positive psychology is a growing field and I will be interested to see what they discover next.
Chelsea Craig
I, too, loved the emphasis on personal strengths. What a concept, to examine your own strengths and build a life around them! I wish I could shove that little gem down a few friends' throats. I see a lot of people striving for what they think everyone else expects of them. Is there research on how difficult the journey is for people, of rejecting external values and living selectively for their strengths? I suppose we'll each learn that for ourselves, in our Pos Psy interventions.
I really enjoyed what Martin Seligman had to say. I like that he spoke about the problems with psychology using the disease model and how it has led psychologists to pathologize people.
I also liked how he talked about how positive psychology is concerned with building a person's strengths rather then pointing out their weaknesses. This would seem much more effective for long term behavior change because it would be using reinforcement rather then punishment as a means for shaping behavior. It would also cause less anxiety in people because we would not be pointing out their weaknesses overtly.
Lastly I liked that he spoke about how the interventions used in positive psychology are all based on scientific research. So instead of just some person coming up with a therapy idea, like Freud, positive psychologists instead using an arsenal of tested scientific interventions.
-Justin Roux
I think that Martin Seligman made a good point to get people to see that psychology has not always been seen as a good thing. Doing so by talking about his example of sitting on the plane and when telling people what he did for a living they would move away. Then to go on to say that with time people began to move closer instead of move away shows the shift in our society on the viewpoint of how our society looks at psychology. That over time psychology has become more of an interest to people.
The part that I liked most was when he talks about how positive psychology is not just about fixing problems but improving the lives of those who are normal and that we need to place positive interventions out there to stop people from falling back into having those sort of negative life issues or feelings about the things going om in their lives. This matched up very well with a talk given at the summer psychology institute by Robert Emmons who talked about this same idea that positive psychology was not just something that wanted to replace psychology but build upon it. That it did not want to just help by giving praise to peoples strengths but understand that once issues were dealt with that it was extra steps to push people from languishing in life to being people who were flourishing.
Toward the middle he talks about the three types of happy lives and during his talk about the good life he mentions Len and using him as an example of someone who has flow versus pleasure. He states that flow is a state where you cant feel anything and its as if time stops. It's a type of absorption and that this is better than just having many pleasures. I wonder though if that can be said. If flow is a time stopping thing and a state in which you don't feel anything, then how can that be considered to be a positive state or an optimal place. That type of state to be in would seem like a more focused or neutral state, though that is just my thought.
Overall he put forth some great ideas and statements about positive psychology and really tried to push people to see that it was a good and upcoming thing.
-Christina Valeriani
Seligman makes some extremely vaild points when he compares what psychology's strengths have been and where there needs to be improvement; positive psychology and the disease model. He also highlights the importance of fostering the individual and their strengths. There seems to be a deeper understanding and respect of individuality in positive psychology.
Seligman then goes on to talk about the "3 happy lives" which I think again he makes some really good and interesting points. I like how he talks about happiness and pleasure and those emotions relating differently to engagement and meaningfulness in life. I am not sure if I agree fully with the idea of there being distinct categories of different lives and levels of happiness and meaning. I think I understand the path he is on with that train of thought, but it's definitely not that simple. I have a hard time placing different types of happiness or pleasure in hierarchical form. I think they all have value in different ways whether some relate to meaningfulness more or not. I think all forms of happiness and pleasure have value, not necessarily better than another. I do agree that having more engagement in life and more altruistic behavior seem to contribute to a more meaningful life. I think in a lot of ways we have to understand and make our own meaning in life.
I love the principles that Seligman touches on and what positive psychology is all about in essence. I think it is a field that will prove to have a lot of value in human life in the coming years especially in relation to happiness, health and well being.
Jessica Hews
I really like the whole concept of positive psychology and how it focuses on building happiness rather than on a patient's issues. I believe that Seligman is absolutely correct when he says that psychologists had become victimologists and pathologizers. They constantly focus on the negative aspects in a person's life, trying to relieve misery, when that may in fact end up disparaging the patient even further. By focusing on a persons strengths and building up their best attributes, positive psychology can help a person realize that there is good in their lives and they don't have to revolve around their misery and downfalls.
I also found the three happy lives to be very interesting. It seems that they all cover the basics when it comes to having a successful, productive and meaningful life. Building on pleasure, engagement with others and compassion are definitely good first steps to a positive state of mind.
Christi Ledwith
"a science that makes life worth living" Is how Seligman described positive psychology. How could this not be the best most beneficial of all sciences?
Although there are some mental illnesses that need to be treated with medicine, depression could perhaps be avoided/treated with positive psychology, by making the most out of the life we are given. Its not surprising that one of the biggest influences on happiness is socialization. People need to feel loved, cared about and know they are important.
I also found it interesting how originally psychology was obsessed with illness and problems and with positive psychology we realize its just as important, if not more, to study happy, satisfied people. Happiness comes and goes at different times throughout life but to make those happy times significantly more frequent than the negative times, well isnt that the point of living? This, in my opinion, is more beneficial and relevant than any religious belief.
I am interested to see how positive psych will influence peoples lives in the future after more research and knowledge of the subject is introduced to the public.
Gina Marmanik
First of all I think the study of positive psychology is awesome. It seems way more proactive than using the disease model.
Anyway, one part of Seligman’s speech that I found interesting was when he talked about the experience of positive emotion being heritable and not very modifiable. I’m wondering how it was determined that positive affect is heritable. Did they have a newborn baby fill out a questionnaire? Can the level of functioning in the specific brain areas associated with happiness be measured prior to earthly experience? I must admit that I am a little biased. I would prefer if happiness had the ability to be increased through experience. Still, I cannot overlook the fact that anyone being measured for happiness has already existed in an environment that has influenced their susceptibility to either experiencing positive emotion or not. Happy parents may be correlated with happy children but is it due to genetics or experience? How would one go about testing that? Twin studies?
-Jesse Miller
Post a Comment