I'm curious to see how many people have actually heard of positive psychology, and if you have, what do you think about it?
For those that don't know, in the past 7 or 8 years psychology has been shifting its focus away from fixing people with various mental problems like depression, social anxiety, etc.. and focusing more on a lot of the questions that those of us interested in personal development ask, like how to set effective goals or how to be happy. This new area of psychology is called positive psychology.
Personally, I think that positive psychology is going to change personal development and self-help in a big way, and I've started up a blog (in the sig) to follow its development. I think that it's going to:
1. Re-brand self-help so that it has a more legitimate, scientific image. Just about anyone here on this website knows that self-help works, but I think most of us know too that it's a tricky subject to bring up with friends and family because most people have negative feelings about self-help. I think when most people hear self-help they think of psychiatrists and something wrong with themselves.
2. I know from all my reading in positive psychology that it has a lot more to offer than a lot of the self-help stuff thats out there now. I think the application of scientific methods to self-help questions is providing a lot of very in-depth and precise answers to questions like 'How can I be happier?'
One example of this is a study I recently wrote about in my post Is Happiness Contagious? (the answer is yes :) ) The researchers in this study tracked obesity in social networks and pinpointed to exact percentages how likely someone was to get obese if a friend, spouse, or sibling became obese, and the researchers are applying this same research to things like happiness and depression and finding that these things spread in social networks as well.
My point with the obesity study is that there are many self-help authors out there who will tell you that you are the product of your environment, and that being around happy people will rub off on you (just like being around obese people will rub off on you). The difference is that unlike psychologists, most self-help authors can't tell you why that is, they can't explain the details of it, and they can't give precise figures, all they can say is that the happiness will 'rub off'. I think this is a really key difference and I think as more and more of this research makes its way out to the general public there's going to be a lot more interest in self-help because most people want to be happier but they also want to know precisely how and why self-help techniques will make them happier.
Ultimately, I think positive psychology is going to revolutionize self-help.
+0
permalink
... coberst? Is that you? No, can't be, because this was only posted in one other place, whereas coberst posts in twenty different places. You're a coberst wannabe.
+0
permalink
You're right, I'm not coberst, but I'm guessing being a coberst wannabe is a bad thing? (I'm new here, I don't really know)
And I'm sorry if posting roughly the same content in two different places on the internet is frowned upon, (I've been doing this internet thing for awhile now and that's a new one to me) but you're astute googling skills should have told you that my other thread over at steve's forums got no replies and so I brought my soapbox here, hoping for some opinions on a topic I feel strongly about.
And I'm sorry if posting roughly the same content in two different places on the internet is frowned upon, (I've been doing this internet thing for awhile now and that's a new one to me) but you're astute googling skills should have told you that my other thread over at steve's forums got no replies and so I brought my soapbox here, hoping for some opinions on a topic I feel strongly about.
+0
permalink
To brief you: coberst is a guy who recently came through here pasting (mostly spamming) articles he'd already posted in twenty different places. See this thread for most of it. I didn't really mean to scare him off, but merely to get him to actually talk to us, rather than spam us. I now uncleverly think of his technique as 'cobersting'.
I guess reposting is alright when done in a limited fashion (and especially since your first attempt got no replies, unlike coberst's, which usually had several). However, I think the problem with both your attempts (here and on the Steve Pavlina board) is that it's pre-written. I mean, which would you rather: A speaker comes up on stage and drones out a pre-written speech from a document on the podium, or a speaker comes up on stage and wings it, using his few notes as a general outline for his thoughts? It's not so much that you pasted as that you didn't actually talk to us. As I told coberst, it's like having someone promise to explain something to you, and then they hand you a pamphlet instead.
You could probably mimic the same effect by making your article a lot shorter, or else short-circuit all the annoyance by prefacing the entire thing with something like 'I know this is pasted, but I put a lot of work into it, so please forgive me, and I promise I'll answer all comments/questions with unpasted replies'. Humility is the best way to head-club people like me.
Another idea: You seem to already have a site of your own. Why not paste this as an article on it (as I encouraged coberst to do), and then invite us to read and discuss it? Then again, that sort of slides into another category of spamming: self-promotion. Huh, now I'm encouraging people to break my own rules. I seriously need to come up with a hard-and-fast but reasonable suggestion for those like yourself and coberst, who want to bring up topics but don't want to earn my pernicious, persnickety wrath.
I guess reposting is alright when done in a limited fashion (and especially since your first attempt got no replies, unlike coberst's, which usually had several). However, I think the problem with both your attempts (here and on the Steve Pavlina board) is that it's pre-written. I mean, which would you rather: A speaker comes up on stage and drones out a pre-written speech from a document on the podium, or a speaker comes up on stage and wings it, using his few notes as a general outline for his thoughts? It's not so much that you pasted as that you didn't actually talk to us. As I told coberst, it's like having someone promise to explain something to you, and then they hand you a pamphlet instead.
You could probably mimic the same effect by making your article a lot shorter, or else short-circuit all the annoyance by prefacing the entire thing with something like 'I know this is pasted, but I put a lot of work into it, so please forgive me, and I promise I'll answer all comments/questions with unpasted replies'. Humility is the best way to head-club people like me.
Another idea: You seem to already have a site of your own. Why not paste this as an article on it (as I encouraged coberst to do), and then invite us to read and discuss it? Then again, that sort of slides into another category of spamming: self-promotion. Huh, now I'm encouraging people to break my own rules. I seriously need to come up with a hard-and-fast but reasonable suggestion for those like yourself and coberst, who want to bring up topics but don't want to earn my pernicious, persnickety wrath.
+0
permalink
Hmm thankyou for the criticism. I think after 5 years of writing essays in university I need to learn to write like a normal person again.
And I've never been a fan of the spamming / self-promotion avenue either. (I was an admin on steve's forums once upon a time, I never liked people who did it) I think you should encourage coberst to work on his forum writing skills, which is what I'm going to do I think.
And I've never been a fan of the spamming / self-promotion avenue either. (I was an admin on steve's forums once upon a time, I never liked people who did it) I think you should encourage coberst to work on his forum writing skills, which is what I'm going to do I think.
+0
permalink
(side note: As you can see from the comments I left, I checked out your blog. Very cool stuff! I totally grabbed the RSS feed.)
I LOL'd at 'I need to learn to write like a normal person again'. As a novelist, I get that sometimes, too: I'll be working on a particularly stupid stretch of flowery prose, and then start pontificating in that manner to my acquaintances. Gah!
What did you study at university? Psychology seems the obvious answer, but for all I know, it was philosophy, education, or engineering (which were coberst's fortes, I think).
I took a glance at your post above, and something immediately jumped to my mind when you mentioned 'scientific methods' was Scientology, mostly because of the near-homonym. Lots of people like to mention Dr Phil (whom I actually like a little bit) when they complain about mainstream self-help, but I think a lot of blame falls on Hubbard's phony 'Dianetics' and the follow-up scam-disguised-as-cult-disguised-as-medical-help organization. I don't know much about the timeline of psychology (perhaps you can enlighten me there), but it seems to me that Dianetics jumped on the scene just as most of the established hidden-in-shadows psychological techniques where fading, replaced with self-help in general. Therefore, Dianetics would have tainted public approval of the self-help movement. Tell me if I'm crazy, though.
I LOL'd at 'I need to learn to write like a normal person again'. As a novelist, I get that sometimes, too: I'll be working on a particularly stupid stretch of flowery prose, and then start pontificating in that manner to my acquaintances. Gah!
What did you study at university? Psychology seems the obvious answer, but for all I know, it was philosophy, education, or engineering (which were coberst's fortes, I think).
I took a glance at your post above, and something immediately jumped to my mind when you mentioned 'scientific methods' was Scientology, mostly because of the near-homonym. Lots of people like to mention Dr Phil (whom I actually like a little bit) when they complain about mainstream self-help, but I think a lot of blame falls on Hubbard's phony 'Dianetics' and the follow-up scam-disguised-as-cult-disguised-as-medical-help organization. I don't know much about the timeline of psychology (perhaps you can enlighten me there), but it seems to me that Dianetics jumped on the scene just as most of the established hidden-in-shadows psychological techniques where fading, replaced with self-help in general. Therefore, Dianetics would have tainted public approval of the self-help movement. Tell me if I'm crazy, though.
+0
permalink
I studied political science actually, but I definitely have a soft spot for psychology. If I ever get really desperately bored I'll go back and get a PhD in psychology. What kind of novels do you write?
I think dianetics shares part of the blame for the public's low opinion of mainstream self-help but to me dianetics is just one of the many scams that are out there. (Dianetics is probably one of the most successful ones though) The self-help industry is rife with pseudoscience, cheap marketing, unfounded theories, and a hundred other problems. With so many scams out there, self-help is pretty easy to dismiss, which is too bad because there are some really good books out there.
That's why I like psychology so much, it's a lot harder to dismiss thorough results and scientific methods. Of course no one ever gets a chance to see any of it. I just graduated so the university hasn't cut off my access to the journal and research databases yet, but I don't know what I'm going to do when they finally get around to that.
I think dianetics shares part of the blame for the public's low opinion of mainstream self-help but to me dianetics is just one of the many scams that are out there. (Dianetics is probably one of the most successful ones though) The self-help industry is rife with pseudoscience, cheap marketing, unfounded theories, and a hundred other problems. With so many scams out there, self-help is pretty easy to dismiss, which is too bad because there are some really good books out there.
That's why I like psychology so much, it's a lot harder to dismiss thorough results and scientific methods. Of course no one ever gets a chance to see any of it. I just graduated so the university hasn't cut off my access to the journal and research databases yet, but I don't know what I'm going to do when they finally get around to that.
+0
permalink
I studied political science actually, but I definitely have a soft spot for psychology. If I ever get really desperately bored I'll go back and get a PhD in psychology. What kind of novels do you write?-"Stu"
Protip: You should put different topics and questions into different paragraphs. I like strawberries.
It's hard for me to pigeonhole exactly what I write. It's all fiction (I'm terrible at research, and don't know enough about anything to write a nonfiction book about it). As for genre, I'm eclectic to the point of being all over the board (my current five-year project is a novel that has spanned everything from fantasy to horror to romance to spirituality to surreal humor, and topped out at about 225,000 words).
Maybe the solution to self-help's bad rap is to call it something new (while we're at it, let's invent a word for doing that).
Are you allowed to still get membership to those journals/research databases after you graduate, maybe through a paid membership? It seems stupid of them to limit the information to only students.
+0
permalink
Haha thanks, I like strawberries too.
I think that's already called rebranding (too bad, I like making up words), and I came to that conclusion too, hence positive psychology.
And of course you can always buy membership, but your average journal subscription usually runs about $100-200 a year, and any decent database has hundreds of journals. It would probably be cheaper to bribe someone to let me have access. In fact...
I think that's already called rebranding (too bad, I like making up words), and I came to that conclusion too, hence positive psychology.
And of course you can always buy membership, but your average journal subscription usually runs about $100-200 a year, and any decent database has hundreds of journals. It would probably be cheaper to bribe someone to let me have access. In fact...
+0
permalink
I keep coming across this "JSTOR" site that seems to want paid membership in order to view its tons of materials. Maybe you should try to find an online source like that.
I'm still taking all these Authentic Happiness tests, and all this introspection is really starting to make me think. Probably the most surprising discovery is that I'm not nearly as religious and pious as I like to think I am. I'm also lethargic (knew that), coarse (everybody I've chastised/edited/kicked/banned here and on IRC knows that), and full of myself (suspected that). I guess I need to start working on these things.
I'm still taking all these Authentic Happiness tests, and all this introspection is really starting to make me think. Probably the most surprising discovery is that I'm not nearly as religious and pious as I like to think I am. I'm also lethargic (knew that), coarse (everybody I've chastised/edited/kicked/banned here and on IRC knows that), and full of myself (suspected that). I guess I need to start working on these things.
+0
permalink
Ya I like JSTOR but the one I really want is informaworld.com, they have all the best psychology stuff. I'm just complaining though, it's not a secret club or something, there's bound to be a cheap way of doing it, I just haven't bothered to look very hard yet.
Those tests are awesome! I'm still working my way through them too but I know what you mean, they give you a lot to think about. Apparently I need to work on my work ethic and my capacity to love and be loved.
My favorite so far is the VIA signature strengths, how about you?
Those tests are awesome! I'm still working my way through them too but I know what you mean, they give you a lot to think about. Apparently I need to work on my work ethic and my capacity to love and be loved.
My favorite so far is the VIA signature strengths, how about you?
+0
permalink
I just finished the gigantic VIA Signature Strengths test. My top five strengths:
Appreciation of beauty and excellence
Humor and playfulness
Capacity to love and be loved
Leadership
Social intelligence
[Edit] Here's the rest of the list, for anybody who cares, from #6 to #19:
Spirituality, sense of purpose, and faith
Citizenship, teamwork, and loyalty
Perspective (wisdom)
Bravery and valor
Creativity, ingenuity, and originality
Fairness, equity, and justice
Kindness and generosity
Curiosity and interest in the world
Zest, enthusiasm, and energy
Hope, optimism, and future-mindedness
Love of learning
Caution, prudence, and discretion
Judgment, critical thinking, and open-mindedness
Forgiveness and mercy
[/Edit]
My bottom five strengths, from #20 to #24:
Gratitude
Honesty, authenticity, and genuineness
Modesty and humility
Industry, diligence, and perseverance
Self-control and self-regulation
Wow. I dunno so much about the strengths, but it sure pinpointed my weaknesses with a Batsignal-like beam of piercing light.
Appreciation of beauty and excellence
Humor and playfulness
Capacity to love and be loved
Leadership
Social intelligence
[Edit] Here's the rest of the list, for anybody who cares, from #6 to #19:
Spirituality, sense of purpose, and faith
Citizenship, teamwork, and loyalty
Perspective (wisdom)
Bravery and valor
Creativity, ingenuity, and originality
Fairness, equity, and justice
Kindness and generosity
Curiosity and interest in the world
Zest, enthusiasm, and energy
Hope, optimism, and future-mindedness
Love of learning
Caution, prudence, and discretion
Judgment, critical thinking, and open-mindedness
Forgiveness and mercy
[/Edit]
My bottom five strengths, from #20 to #24:
Gratitude
Honesty, authenticity, and genuineness
Modesty and humility
Industry, diligence, and perseverance
Self-control and self-regulation
Wow. I dunno so much about the strengths, but it sure pinpointed my weaknesses with a Batsignal-like beam of piercing light.
+0
permalink
Sounds like cognitive behavioral therapy. That was a new one to me until a few weeks ago. It was suggested I look it up to deal with some health anxiety problems I've been having recently. A sort of post traumatic stress syndrome after being sick. They say that it is being used for depression and similar maladies as well. The basic premise is 'think positively'.
+0
permalink
I dunno about cognitive behavioral therapy; it strikes me as The Secret-esque 'you can fix all your problems with the power of your MIND' junk. I mean, sure, optimists seem to be happier people (or, judging from both my parents, pessimists seem to be miserable people), but I get suspicious when someone says that the problem is all in your head and just requires an attitude change to fix. As David Wong said, "The world cannot be made simple. Anyone who tries to paint a picture of the world in basic comic book colors is most likely trying to use you as a pawn."
Tell me if I've got the wrong idea of CBT, though.
Tell me if I've got the wrong idea of CBT, though.
+0
permalink
I don't believe it's intended to be the solution to everything by any means. What I was reading up about specifically related to anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and depression. An example was someone was so afraid of doing something because they didn't think they could, then they try to do that thing, do poorly, and it provides negative reinforcement making them 'right'. Instead, cognitive behavioral therapy would have that person recognize the negative thoughts and try to turn them around. Like "so what if I can't do it, I should try anyways, maybe I'll like it."
In my case I went through some serious stomach problems, only to get over that and find out that I have diabetes. So this caused some subconscious anxiety which has now risen to the conscious, and has been giving me problems. I looked at the cognitive behavioral therapy wikipedia entry and realized I was so worried about getting more sick that I was giving myself panic attacks, and what I needed to do was remind myself mentally that I'm perfectly healthy, all the doctors say so, what am I worrying about. That sort of thing.
In my case I went through some serious stomach problems, only to get over that and find out that I have diabetes. So this caused some subconscious anxiety which has now risen to the conscious, and has been giving me problems. I looked at the cognitive behavioral therapy wikipedia entry and realized I was so worried about getting more sick that I was giving myself panic attacks, and what I needed to do was remind myself mentally that I'm perfectly healthy, all the doctors say so, what am I worrying about. That sort of thing.
+0
permalink
CBT and humanistic psychology in particular do have some things in common with positive psychology. The thing is, positive psychology isn't a new field of psychology, it's more an attempt within the psychology community to point out what's wrong with psychology, which is that it focuses on helping people with problems too much.
The analogy I've always really liked is to think about everyone's mental health on a scale between -10 and +10, and the average person is a 0. Most psychology (like CBT) focuses on getting people in the negatives up to 0, but doesn't do much to get people past 0. I don't have it handy but someone took a survey of all the psychology research that had been published within a given time frame and the amount of research done on fixing people with problems was (if I remember correctly) about 10 times the amount of research that had been done on personal growth topics.
So positive psychology is just a movement to get that ratio balanced out, because theres no real reason for it to be that lopsided.
The analogy I've always really liked is to think about everyone's mental health on a scale between -10 and +10, and the average person is a 0. Most psychology (like CBT) focuses on getting people in the negatives up to 0, but doesn't do much to get people past 0. I don't have it handy but someone took a survey of all the psychology research that had been published within a given time frame and the amount of research done on fixing people with problems was (if I remember correctly) about 10 times the amount of research that had been done on personal growth topics.
So positive psychology is just a movement to get that ratio balanced out, because theres no real reason for it to be that lopsided.
+0
permalink
Whooo, dizzy from smacking into the word 'humanistic'. Reminds me too much of secular humanism. I know you mean it in a different context, but gah. *goes to rewire brain*
As for the field being unbalanced, 'the empty can rattles the most'. Most cases of mental unhealth (a word?) draw attention to themselves, whereas, other than general emotional malaise, the population of averages don't usually see a need to rise.
One exception I've noticed is in my church life, where people talk constantly about striving to be a better person and hence a good witness. There's actually a lot of talk in that setting that I come home and see in self-help articles. I wouldn't know about the secular motivations (other than the sheer pleasure one gets from realizing that they've worked hard and become a better person for it), but I can attest to this particular slice of religious ones.
As for the field being unbalanced, 'the empty can rattles the most'. Most cases of mental unhealth (a word?) draw attention to themselves, whereas, other than general emotional malaise, the population of averages don't usually see a need to rise.
One exception I've noticed is in my church life, where people talk constantly about striving to be a better person and hence a good witness. There's actually a lot of talk in that setting that I come home and see in self-help articles. I wouldn't know about the secular motivations (other than the sheer pleasure one gets from realizing that they've worked hard and become a better person for it), but I can attest to this particular slice of religious ones.
+0
permalink
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on secular humanism Fekket :wink:
That's interesting that you find a lot of similarities between self-help and church though. Does it work, or rather do you think church goers are happier, more satisfied, more emotionally satisfied, etc than the average joe?
Actually that reminds me, there are a few interesting psychological studies on nuns, maybe ill do a series of posts on nuns on the blog.
That's interesting that you find a lot of similarities between self-help and church though. Does it work, or rather do you think church goers are happier, more satisfied, more emotionally satisfied, etc than the average joe?
Actually that reminds me, there are a few interesting psychological studies on nuns, maybe ill do a series of posts on nuns on the blog.
+0
permalink
Agreeing to disagree: Well, apparently, considering the very mention of it brings a surge of loathing into my gut.
The effectiveness of church: First off, my church is just a very happy place. I'm pretty good at reading people's emotions, and I almost never detect malcontent, anger, or depression there. Second of all, I know a few of them outside church, and they seem to be pretty happy people overall. One even told me explicitly that before she and her husband started attending church regularly, they were much unhappier people.
Ha, can't wait for the nuns thing, both because it's a novelty and because it's partly relevant to my interests (though I'm not Catholic).
The effectiveness of church: First off, my church is just a very happy place. I'm pretty good at reading people's emotions, and I almost never detect malcontent, anger, or depression there. Second of all, I know a few of them outside church, and they seem to be pretty happy people overall. One even told me explicitly that before she and her husband started attending church regularly, they were much unhappier people.
Ha, can't wait for the nuns thing, both because it's a novelty and because it's partly relevant to my interests (though I'm not Catholic).
This Topic Is Locked To Guest Posts
It's been a while since this topic was active, if you'd like to get it going again, please post as a registered member
