In one article it states that evolution doesn't want us to get to happy to quick. I think evolution also doesn't want us to be too optimistic. I found while doing the interventions there wasn't a markedly increase in my happiness. While this is only ancedotal evidence I still question the current findings. I like the study that said people who looked at all the outcomes were better prepared to deal with their normal outlook on life.
One overlooked point by positive psychologists is differences amongst people. No we are not snowflakes but in general psychologists study what makes us the same.
I think that positive psychology is a great thing; with proper interpretation and applications of research findings in the field, positive psychology can have a great impact on people trying to better their lives. However, when research is misinterpreted or ignored and people and corporations use ideas from positive psychology just to make money, the field is given a bad name. I think this article makes some great points about these issues, and we need to remember that positive psychology can't always be the only "treatment" or help for individuals seeking to better their mental and physical health. Interventions and other practices can certainly do well for people, but only if they are practices proven by research and are used correctly.
It's as if Positive Psychology has sold us some dystopian vision straight from Nineteen Eighty-Four: if we drink the happiness Kool-Aid, we get to float around in a spaceship of bliss, courtesy of the Power of Positive Thinking (copyright 2001, registered trademark, all rights reserved). The lure is that the payoff is so attractive. Who doesn't want to be happy? I think the most powerful statement in this article was Norem's comment that "...you have the responsibility to search out other points of view and consider them." It is tempting to drink the Kool-Aid, both for researchers and the general public, but it rests in the hands of scientists and researchers - namely, us (hopefully, someday) - to use and apply the research in a rational, reasonable, and responsible way.
I thought this article was very interesting. I had my mom read it out loud in the car on our way back from RI over break. My mom is currently in the Army National Guard so it was nice to have her read it and be able to explain things that they are working on in the guard. She is currently being trained to help facilitate the groups that they are going to be forming for the army in order to help with their mental. She talked about how it is a great idea what they are doing but she feels like it wont be complete because they wont be able to afford the real time that will be needed to really help these soldiers. She believes the groups will help a lot though because they will be able to figure out how to help each other and skills that will help them to be able to help themselves. Also this will help to de-stigmatize mental health in the army.
This article addresses the idea that we(a society) can be given the tools on how to improve our own lives, but there is a fine line between improvement and miracles. The research addresses concepts on well being, pride, forgiveness, happiness, mindfulness, and strengths. My question is where is the research on purpose/meaning?
Also I thought it was great to point out that positive psychology doesn't need to be its own school. Why can't positive psychology be integrated with the umbrella term psychology?
I appreciate that the article offers several viewpoints on the current status of the field of Positive Psychology. I enjoyed hearing about some of the ways that positive psych research has been applied within our society and workplace. I agree that the field is still young and there is definitely room for more research. I especially think there are subjects besides happiness that the field can focus on studying. I think it would be beneficial to learn more of about locus of control and how they relates to optimism/positive thinking and I would like to see more research linking the benefits between happiness/positivity to physical health and wellness.
I also wanted to poke at the comment in the article that claims positive psych's basic model is; that if a person can embrace positive thinking they will be happy, if not if it is their fault. I think positive psych does ask the individual to take more responsibility for their well-being and happiness, but clearly it is far-fetched to say if someone is not happy it's all their fault. I believe there are just so many variables that contribute to living a "happy" and full life. Certainly bad things happen to good people and happy people, but at the same time we assume we are less resilient than we are. I believe positive psych challenges the mode of thinking and challenges people to be more resilient and to fight back against the bumps on the road in life.
I also agree with John that psychology could focus more on individual differences or maybe find better ways we could actually adapt to individual differences and learn to help people better who not fall along the normal curve.
I really enjoyed reading this article. I think it is important to understand the criticisms made against positive psychology. First of all, the idea that positive psychology is "saccharine terrorism" is a bit of an overstatement. Also, it was said that positivity and optimism, in the Army, may not be beneficial for everyone, and I agree. I also know that anti-derpressants and anti-anxiety medications such as Zoloft, or Xanax are not for everyone either, however they are both over-perscribed in the US, today.
In the beginning stages of any proposal, there will always be rough edges to smooth. The idea of positive psychology is a great one, and studies have shown significant findings to support the field does help all kinds of people. I think there is a future in this field.
People who are disappointed with the results of positive psychology probably aren’t taking everything into consideration. Just because someone may count their blessings every day for 1 week and not see positive results does not mean that the behavior doesn’t work. That person could also be taking part in countless other behaviors that are influencing their total well-being. Positive psychology is not magic and people shouldn’t think of it that way. I believe that healthy personal practices can increase our well-being, but they need to be incorporated into our lifestyle. If we exercise every day for 1 week, the positive effects on our health will only last for so long. I think the same can be said for practices in positive psychology.
I really want to read some of Seligman’s latest work. I think the word Flourish, one he uses in the title of his latest book, is a perfect word to describe what many people want to do in their lives. Personally, I believe that flourishing could be the purpose of life. When I see or hear the word flourish, I tend to think of plants. This to me is fitting whenever I attempt to derive meaning in life.
I think this article hits home with a great issue that faces the field of positive psychology and that is whether or not it should be considered separate from psychology. It touches base on the surface issues that positive psychology has been publicized and glamorized as the "just be happy and life will be better" field. The self-help books and publicity that the field has gotten has not all been for the best. It did allow the field to be recognized but not always in the best ways.
I personally think this field has shown it has a lot to offer and if you go through the research their are studies that show correlations and prove useful information. It is not all a gimmick as the article would have the readers believe.
There are sides that show that positive psychologists don't like that type of publicity as you see with Lisa Aspinwall who calls the overbearing claims "saccharine terrorism." It just shows that people need to look beyond what is posted on the front of magazines to get peoples attentions or on the new books list at local book stores. People need to look into the research that is being done.
I enjoyed how the article addressed aspects of positive psychology possibly leaving out the individual. Each person has their own personal coping skills in dealing with life’s various anxieties and stresses. The article addressed this specifically with the concept of defensive pessimism. However, I believe that a person, if they so choose, can go quite a bit deeper in consciousness.
I know in my own life, years ago, that I dealt with anxiety and various problems with the defensive pessimism. I believed that it worked very well for me. Now I see that time as an unhappy time.
In the last 4-5 years I have spent much of my person/inner work looking at the all the stories that I have identified with throughout my life. Now I lose identification with such stories. For example, I see the past as something that happened, of course, but I don’t identify myself with any of the stories of who I thought I was growing up, how my parents treated me, how a romantic relationship ended, etc., etc. Therefore, I have nothing to protect. On my best days, I have no story to defend. Defensive pessimism is, of course, a defense mechanism that requires pain and, in my opinion, identification with a story about how the past was and/or how the future will be.
I don’t think a person can think himself or herself into positivity, not on a sustainable level. What I do believe is that a person can identify with the only thing that is true, that they are a living being. The various problems that people experience are experienced in the mind and not in the awareness of being. It is only when the mind identifies with some mental concept of what it is or how it is defined that mental suffering occurs.
What I have notice in my own life after approaching the past, present, and future in this way is that I have little to defend. What I thought worked for me, defensive pessimism, did in fact work, but to a limited degree. What I was really doing was boxing myself in to not be jarred by anything unexpected. I am fairly sure that I don’t ever want to live in that way again. If I get defensive now, I gently look at what it is I am identifying with and quickly realized that it cannot define me. The mind has a difficult time accurately defining it’s own emotional state, so why try that method? I understand the thinking mind as something that is constantly looking to identify. That is it’s nature, thus I accept that aspect of its nature and I don’t identify with what it comes up with. I have found that it is generally not true.
It is interesting to see the new schools of thought surrounding positive psychology, in especial regard to using it in 'practical applications.' The article argues that the effectiveness of positive psychology may not be as great as it is made out to be. One of the largest contestations is that "positive psychology can provide a psychological inoculation to protect from later adversity," which is a claim I am also weary about. If I take into account the intervention assignments I implemented and results I experienced, I can easily believe that positive psychology can in fact boost positive well-being, because I experienced it for myself. Thus, the effectiveness of positive psychology as a whole is a point I wouldn't contest. However, given what we've learned about the problems with affective forecasting, I'd say it is difficult to stand by the notion that positive psychology can serve as a "inoculation" which such certainty. I then jump to the possibility that the extent in which positive psychology can impact one's life may simply be a marketing scheme. Positive psychology has been an emerging tool within the occupational sector, and companies are paying big bucks to have their employees meet with happiness coaches--but the falsifiable evidence and empirical information demonstrating surges in happiness (assuming they exist)may be significantly misleading.
Aspinwall makes the comment that "books like The Secret] are dangerous" because they misrepresent positive psychology in a way that it seems appealing, while skewing the realities for the purpose of monetary gain. I think while it could be dangerous for some, it is also our duty to take responsibility for the information we choose to believe in. Rather than taking books like The Secret with an all or nothing attitude, perhaps we can use it as a general framework, accepting the information that is substantiated by empirical findings and discarding what seems iffy. It can be dangerous, but only if we let it.
Positive psychology as a mood enhancing tool for those serving in the Army is great for lessening symptoms of anxiety, but I do not think using it as a shield against negative emotions -- which in an Army setting is perfectly reasonable and expected -- is a healthy way to go about things. Our bodies are designed to respond to situations in particular ways that help us cope and deal with traumatic experiences (such as with defensive pessimism), and I think if you mask those feelings, they have a chance of reappearing with a vengeance later on in life. And as much as positive psychology can serve an effective treatment method--as numerous studies have shown, I believe it is only effective up until a particular point. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to use positive psychology as a supplemental resource in combination with other treatment modalities, and not as the main treatment. -Bianca Sturchio
I agree with what Lauren said about positive psychology being integrated within all of psychology. I think that these concepts would be beneficial for all of psychology. I believe that positive psychology is a great thing, but the public often blows some of the concepts out of proportion, usually in order to make money. I think that the "self help" books for everything gives positive psychology a bad name. There are perfectly legitimate research studies and experimental data related to positive psychology, which is often ignored by the public.
A week or two ago in the paper a veteran from the war in Iraq, who was reported to have PTSD and some other problems related, was shot by a cop. His girlfriend said he may have planned to have "committed suicide by cop" My thoughts were if the military could only put the same amount of effort turning these guys back into civilians as they do turning them into soldiers, this guy's sad fate could have been avoided. So I think that it is a wonderful thing that the Army has taken an interest in positive psychology.
Some smarty pants PhD. was quoted; “Books like that are incredibly dangerous,” and “we can’t control what people will do with the research once it exists.” Now, if you think books that use information from positive psychology are dangerous you must live in a very, very safe world. I would say to some of these critics why don't you spend a substantial amount of time with someone who is deeply suffering or maybe with that vet who was shot, even that guys family and then redefine what you mean by "books being dangeous".
It gives me the impression that positive psychology is being held back by researchers who want to keep this information to themselves instead of helping people who really need it. Positive psychology is nothing new, it is just rewording and researching what is already there.
I agree that positive psychology should be integrated in the subject of psychology and doesn't necessarily need to be isolated. I don't understand how thinking positively, appreciating life, savoring the pleasant moments could be harmful to anyone. I think we cant rely on positive psychology as a solution to problems, and illnesses but it could help, or at least temporarily make the person feel better. You cant just tell someone, to think a certain way and expect dramatic results. After taking the class and completing the interventions i feel like you need to be totally susceptible and open to these idea for them to have any affect. It is strange that some people are so critical and skeptical. Positive psychology is basically just optimism, a way to relieve stress, and appreciation for life. I think it has a bad reputation because of its association with pop psych, and our obsessive self help culture. Gina Marmanik
This article definitely makes you think about whether positive psychology has moved too fast to become their own separate entity away from every other branch of psychology. In my opinion it should be integrated into psychology as a whole. Instead of constantly looking at the bad and mental illness, and why people are depressed and what not, we should also be able to look into happiness and the effects of happiness without having to make it its own separate thing. This is what may make positive psychology look like a "popular trend" or like we are trying to oversell, but under deliver.
I found it interesting that the Army uses positive psychology in their training, I never really thought that they gave any consideration as to how their recruits feel or deal with emotions, but clearly we have become more aware and sort of kinder/ gentler in that aspect. Mental health is very important for success and happiness helps with a healthy mind. I like how they bring up that there are individual differences, and that what makes one person happy may not help the next. Like the "defensive pessimists" may actually be harmed by positive affirmations, along with people with low self esteem. If you do not believe in the positive affirmations you are forced to repeat how is it supposed to make you feel better? In my opinion it wouldn't, it would actually be detrimental because it would make that person feel even more like they cannot achieve happiness, or whatever goal they are trying to accomplish. I believe that positive psychology is a good thing, but it should be practiced in every area of psychology, and should be its own entity just to expand on it.
I thought it was interesting that they construe positive psychological interventions as "psychological inoculation". I don't think of them at all as that. Instead i think that positive psychological interventions give people tools to use to increase their well being when they need it. I also thought the defensive pessimist idea was interesting. I kind of reminds me of Mastery-avoidance within achievement motivation whereby someone is trying to avoid a negative outcome by learning new knowledge and skills.
17 comments:
In one article it states that evolution doesn't want us to get to happy to quick. I think evolution also doesn't want us to be too optimistic. I found while doing the interventions there wasn't a markedly increase in my happiness. While this is only ancedotal evidence I still question the current findings. I like the study that said people who looked at all the outcomes were better prepared to deal with their normal outlook on life.
One overlooked point by positive psychologists is differences amongst people. No we are not snowflakes but in general psychologists study what makes us the same.
Howabout what makes us different.
Jonathan Bellino
I think that positive psychology is a great thing; with proper interpretation and applications of research findings in the field, positive psychology can have a great impact on people trying to better their lives. However, when research is misinterpreted or ignored and people and corporations use ideas from positive psychology just to make money, the field is given a bad name. I think this article makes some great points about these issues, and we need to remember that positive psychology can't always be the only "treatment" or help for individuals seeking to better their mental and physical health. Interventions and other practices can certainly do well for people, but only if they are practices proven by research and are used correctly.
It's as if Positive Psychology has sold us some dystopian vision straight from Nineteen Eighty-Four: if we drink the happiness Kool-Aid, we get to float around in a spaceship of bliss, courtesy of the Power of Positive Thinking (copyright 2001, registered trademark, all rights reserved). The lure is that the payoff is so attractive. Who doesn't want to be happy? I think the most powerful statement in this article was Norem's comment that "...you have the responsibility to search out other points of view and consider them." It is tempting to drink the Kool-Aid, both for researchers and the general public, but it rests in the hands of scientists and researchers - namely, us (hopefully, someday) - to use and apply the research in a rational, reasonable, and responsible way.
I thought this article was very interesting. I had my mom read it out loud in the car on our way back from RI over break. My mom is currently in the Army National Guard so it was nice to have her read it and be able to explain things that they are working on in the guard. She is currently being trained to help facilitate the groups that they are going to be forming for the army in order to help with their mental. She talked about how it is a great idea what they are doing but she feels like it wont be complete because they wont be able to afford the real time that will be needed to really help these soldiers. She believes the groups will help a lot though because they will be able to figure out how to help each other and skills that will help them to be able to help themselves. Also this will help to de-stigmatize mental health in the army.
Jacqueline Nizer
This article addresses the idea that we(a society) can be given the tools on how to improve our own lives, but there is a fine line between improvement and miracles. The research addresses concepts on well being, pride, forgiveness, happiness, mindfulness, and strengths. My question is where is the research on purpose/meaning?
Also I thought it was great to point out that positive psychology doesn't need to be its own school. Why can't positive psychology be integrated with the umbrella term psychology?
-Lauren Goudreau
I appreciate that the article offers several viewpoints on the current status of the field of Positive Psychology. I enjoyed hearing about some of the ways that positive psych research has been applied within our society and workplace. I agree that the field is still young and there is definitely room for more research. I especially think there are subjects besides happiness that the field can focus on studying. I think it would be beneficial to learn more of about locus of control and how they relates to optimism/positive thinking and I would like to see more research linking the benefits between happiness/positivity to physical health and wellness.
I also wanted to poke at the comment in the article that claims positive psych's basic model is; that if a person can embrace positive thinking they will be happy, if not if it is their fault. I think positive psych does ask the individual to take more responsibility for their well-being and happiness, but clearly it is far-fetched to say if someone is not happy it's all their fault. I believe there are just so many variables that contribute to living a "happy" and full life. Certainly bad things happen to good people and happy people, but at the same time we assume we are less resilient than we are. I believe positive psych challenges the mode of thinking and challenges people to be more resilient and to fight back against the bumps on the road in life.
I also agree with John that psychology could focus more on individual differences or maybe find better ways we could actually adapt to individual differences and learn to help people better who not fall along the normal curve.
Jessica Hews
I really enjoyed reading this article. I think it is important to understand the criticisms made against positive psychology. First of all, the idea that positive psychology is "saccharine terrorism" is a bit of an overstatement. Also, it was said that positivity and optimism, in the Army, may not be beneficial for everyone, and I agree. I also know that anti-derpressants and anti-anxiety medications such as Zoloft, or Xanax are not for everyone either, however they are both over-perscribed in the US, today.
In the beginning stages of any proposal, there will always be rough edges to smooth. The idea of positive psychology is a great one, and studies have shown significant findings to support the field does help all kinds of people. I think there is a future in this field.
-Nick Randall
People who are disappointed with the results of positive psychology probably aren’t taking everything into consideration. Just because someone may count their blessings every day for 1 week and not see positive results does not mean that the behavior doesn’t work. That person could also be taking part in countless other behaviors that are influencing their total well-being. Positive psychology is not magic and people shouldn’t think of it that way. I believe that healthy personal practices can increase our well-being, but they need to be incorporated into our lifestyle. If we exercise every day for 1 week, the positive effects on our health will only last for so long. I think the same can be said for practices in positive psychology.
I really want to read some of Seligman’s latest work. I think the word Flourish, one he uses in the title of his latest book, is a perfect word to describe what many people want to do in their lives. Personally, I believe that flourishing could be the purpose of life. When I see or hear the word flourish, I tend to think of plants. This to me is fitting whenever I attempt to derive meaning in life.
- Jesse Miller
I think this article hits home with a great issue that faces the field of positive psychology and that is whether or not it should be considered separate from psychology. It touches base on the surface issues that positive psychology has been publicized and glamorized as the "just be happy and life will be better" field. The self-help books and publicity that the field has gotten has not all been for the best. It did allow the field to be recognized but not always in the best ways.
I personally think this field has shown it has a lot to offer and if you go through the research their are studies that show correlations and prove useful information. It is not all a gimmick as the article would have the readers believe.
There are sides that show that positive psychologists don't like that type of publicity as you see with Lisa Aspinwall who calls the overbearing claims "saccharine terrorism." It just shows that people need to look beyond what is posted on the front of magazines to get peoples attentions or on the new books list at local book stores. People need to look into the research that is being done.
-Christina Valeriani
Paul Bavineau
I enjoyed how the article addressed aspects of positive psychology possibly leaving out the individual. Each person has their own personal coping skills in dealing with life’s various anxieties and stresses. The article addressed this specifically with the concept of defensive pessimism. However, I believe that a person, if they so choose, can go quite a bit deeper in consciousness.
I know in my own life, years ago, that I dealt with anxiety and various problems with the defensive pessimism. I believed that it worked very well for me. Now I see that time as an unhappy time.
In the last 4-5 years I have spent much of my person/inner work looking at the all the stories that I have identified with throughout my life. Now I lose identification with such stories. For example, I see the past as something that happened, of course, but I don’t identify myself with any of the stories of who I thought I was growing up, how my parents treated me, how a romantic relationship ended, etc., etc. Therefore, I have nothing to protect. On my best days, I have no story to defend. Defensive pessimism is, of course, a defense mechanism that requires pain and, in my opinion, identification with a story about how the past was and/or how the future will be.
I don’t think a person can think himself or herself into positivity, not on a sustainable level. What I do believe is that a person can identify with the only thing that is true, that they are a living being. The various problems that people experience are experienced in the mind and not in the awareness of being. It is only when the mind identifies with some mental concept of what it is or how it is defined that mental suffering occurs.
What I have notice in my own life after approaching the past, present, and future in this way is that I have little to defend. What I thought worked for me, defensive pessimism, did in fact work, but to a limited degree. What I was really doing was boxing myself in to not be jarred by anything unexpected. I am fairly sure that I don’t ever want to live in that way again. If I get defensive now, I gently look at what it is I am identifying with and quickly realized that it cannot define me. The mind has a difficult time accurately defining it’s own emotional state, so why try that method? I understand the thinking mind as something that is constantly looking to identify. That is it’s nature, thus I accept that aspect of its nature and I don’t identify with what it comes up with. I have found that it is generally not true.
It is interesting to see the new schools of thought surrounding positive psychology, in especial regard to using it in 'practical applications.' The article argues that the effectiveness of positive psychology may not be as great as it is made out to be. One of the largest contestations is that "positive psychology can provide a psychological inoculation to protect from later adversity," which is a claim I am also weary about. If I take into account the intervention assignments I implemented and results I experienced, I can easily believe that positive psychology can in fact boost positive well-being, because I experienced it for myself. Thus, the effectiveness of positive psychology as a whole is a point I wouldn't contest. However, given what we've learned about the problems with affective forecasting, I'd say it is difficult to stand by the notion that positive psychology can serve as a "inoculation" which such certainty. I then jump to the possibility that the extent in which positive psychology can impact one's life may simply be a marketing scheme. Positive psychology has been an emerging tool within the occupational sector, and companies are paying big bucks to have their employees meet with happiness coaches--but the falsifiable evidence and empirical information demonstrating surges in happiness (assuming they exist)may be significantly misleading.
Aspinwall makes the comment that "books like The Secret] are dangerous" because they misrepresent positive psychology in a way that it seems appealing, while skewing the realities for the purpose of monetary gain. I think while it could be dangerous for some, it is also our duty to take responsibility for the information we choose to believe in. Rather than taking books like The Secret with an all or nothing attitude, perhaps we can use it as a general framework, accepting the information that is substantiated by empirical findings and discarding what seems iffy. It can be dangerous, but only if we let it.
Positive psychology as a mood enhancing tool for those serving in the Army is great for lessening symptoms of anxiety, but I do not think using it as a shield against negative emotions -- which in an Army setting is perfectly reasonable and expected -- is a healthy way to go about things. Our bodies are designed to respond to situations in particular ways that help us cope and deal with traumatic experiences (such as with defensive pessimism), and I think if you mask those feelings, they have a chance of reappearing with a vengeance later on in life. And as much as positive psychology can serve an effective treatment method--as numerous studies have shown, I believe it is only effective up until a particular point. Perhaps it would be more beneficial to use positive psychology as a supplemental resource in combination with other treatment modalities, and not as the main treatment.
-Bianca Sturchio
I agree with what Lauren said about positive psychology being integrated within all of psychology. I think that these concepts would be beneficial for all of psychology. I believe that positive psychology is a great thing, but the public often blows some of the concepts out of proportion, usually in order to make money. I think that the "self help" books for everything gives positive psychology a bad name. There are perfectly legitimate research studies and experimental data related to positive psychology, which is often ignored by the public.
-Chelsea Craig
A week or two ago in the paper a veteran from the war in Iraq, who was reported to have PTSD and some other problems related, was shot by a cop. His girlfriend said he may have planned to have "committed suicide by cop" My thoughts were if the military could only put the same amount of effort turning these guys back into civilians as they do turning them into soldiers, this guy's sad fate could have been avoided. So I think that it is a wonderful thing that the Army has taken an interest in positive psychology.
Some smarty pants PhD. was quoted; “Books like that are incredibly dangerous,” and “we can’t control what people will do with the research once it exists.”
Now, if you think books that use information from positive psychology are dangerous you must live in a very, very safe world. I would say to some of these critics why don't you spend a substantial amount of time with someone who is deeply suffering or maybe with that vet who was shot, even that guys family and then redefine what you mean by "books being dangeous".
It gives me the impression that positive psychology is being held back by researchers who want to keep this information to themselves instead of helping people who really need it. Positive psychology is nothing new, it is just rewording and researching what is already there.
I agree that positive psychology should be integrated in the subject of psychology and doesn't necessarily need to be isolated. I don't understand how thinking positively, appreciating life, savoring the pleasant moments could be harmful to anyone. I think we cant rely on positive psychology as a solution to problems, and illnesses but it could help, or at least temporarily make the person feel better.
You cant just tell someone, to think a certain way and expect dramatic results. After taking the class and completing the interventions i feel like you need to be totally susceptible and open to these idea for them to have any affect.
It is strange that some people are so critical and skeptical. Positive psychology is basically just optimism, a way to relieve stress, and appreciation for life. I think it has a bad reputation because of its association with pop psych, and our obsessive self help culture.
Gina Marmanik
This article definitely makes you think about whether positive psychology has moved too fast to become their own separate entity away from every other branch of psychology. In my opinion it should be integrated into psychology as a whole. Instead of constantly looking at the bad and mental illness, and why people are depressed and what not, we should also be able to look into happiness and the effects of happiness without having to make it its own separate thing. This is what may make positive psychology look like a "popular trend" or like we are trying to oversell, but under deliver.
I found it interesting that the Army uses positive psychology in their training, I never really thought that they gave any consideration as to how their recruits feel or deal with emotions, but clearly we have become more aware and sort of kinder/ gentler in that aspect. Mental health is very important for success and happiness helps with a healthy mind. I like how they bring up that there are individual differences, and that what makes one person happy may not help the next. Like the "defensive pessimists" may actually be harmed by positive affirmations, along with people with low self esteem. If you do not believe in the positive affirmations you are forced to repeat how is it supposed to make you feel better? In my opinion it wouldn't, it would actually be detrimental because it would make that person feel even more like they cannot achieve happiness, or whatever goal they are trying to accomplish. I believe that positive psychology is a good thing, but it should be practiced in every area of psychology, and should be its own entity just to expand on it.
Christi Ledwith
I thought it was interesting that they construe positive psychological interventions as "psychological inoculation". I don't think of them at all as that. Instead i think that positive psychological interventions give people tools to use to increase their well being when they need it.
I also thought the defensive pessimist idea was interesting. I kind of reminds me of Mastery-avoidance within achievement motivation whereby someone is trying to avoid a negative outcome by learning new knowledge and skills.
Post a Comment