Talk:Positive psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents

[edit] Harvard Negotiation Project

Dear JCL, I have no doubt that the research of Fisher and Shapiro relates to Positive Psychology, but without context, it is a bit tenuous -- and smacks a little of advertising. I've taken HNP training and have read Getting To Yes, so I'm not uninformed on the subject. Why not write a section on positive emotion and negotiation in the PP entry and we'll debate it's fit? Or, you could make a direct entry for HNP in Wikipedia since there doesn't appear to be one already. Start here: Havard Negotiation Project. Cheers, RaymondV 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)RTV233

[edit] Positive Psychology as a serious and substantial field of research

Is this page serious, or is it just a plug for Dr. Seligman's website? And what about that bashing of moral relativism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoehorn (talk • contribs)

Sounds like someone is not well-informed about this subject. You might want to go to Amazon.com, go to a book written by academics in "positive psychology" such as Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well-Lived by Corey L. M. Keyes and Jonathan Haidt, and look at the books it links to (A Psychology of Human Strengths: Fundamental Questions and Future Directions for a Positive Psychology by Lisa G. Aspinwall; Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification by Christopher Peterson; Handbook of Positive Psychology by C. R. Snyder; Positive Psychology in Practice by Martin E. P. Seligman). If you check the bibliographies of these books you'll see that not only is positive psychology a serious and substantial field of research, but delving deeper (by reading, for example, Chris Peterson's Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification, you'll discover that this area of psychology is pursuing issues arguably more important than most in psychology, with an unusual degree of thoroughness, thoughtfulness, and care, especially given the epistemological difficulties of the subject matter. -DoctorW 23:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abstract

This abstract makes me think there is much validity to positive psychology

Very Happy People VHP

  • VHP are near a third happier as viewed by others
  • VHP are 230 pt happier with their lives that is daily affect balance
  • VHP have double the number of positive memories per time period

Psychological Science Jan 2002 Ed Diener

A sample of 222 undergraduates was screened for high happiness using multiple confirming assessment filters. We compared the upper 10% of consistently very happy people to average and very unhappy people. The very happy people are highly social, with strong romantic and other social relationships compared to less happy groups. They are more extraverted, more agreeable, less neurotic, and lower on several MMPI psychopathology scales. The happiest respondents did not exercise significantly more, participate in religious activities significantly more, or experience more objectively defined good events. No variable was sufficient for happiness, but good social relations were necessary. The happiest group experienced positive, but not ecstatic feelings, most of the time, and they did report occasional negative moods. This suggests that very happy people do have a functioning emotion system that can react appropriately to life events.

  • VHP are near a third happier as viewed by others
  • VHP are 230 pt happier with their lives that is daily affect balance
  • VHP have double the number of positive memories per time period.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.160.160 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Relativism

An important feature of Positive Psychology is its rejection of moral relativism. This is based on the observation that certain character traits and ways of acting are considered good by the vast majority of cultures. It is also observed that these traits lead to increased happiness when practiced. In its rejection of Cultural Relativism, Positive Psychology challenges us to accept Universal Values as applicable to all societies.

I removed this for now. You can't say that flourishing is related to something so specific as rejecting a moral philosophy or accepting other ideas. That's not what is meant here at all; and this paragraph doesn't make any sense. --DanielCD 15:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to call myself an expert in Positive Psychology, though I haven't followed research developments for about the last 12 months. I can see why readers might feel that the claim above is a strong one, and, because it is philosophical in nature it is not what researchers focus on, but I can't really find fault with it. Shoehorn above confuses an argument based on empirical evidence with "bashing." DanielCD seems not to understand at all what is being said in the statement he removed, even though the statement is extremely clear and unambiguous. He seems to take it to mean something quite different, though the wording of his critique (ironically) is muddled. He goes on to demonstrate that he is not familiar with the field, and implies that he is familiar only with this article. The claims in the statement he deleted are strong, and the wording is more direct and blunt than I would use in an academic paper, but I can't improve on it at the moment. The conclusions mentioned do logically follow from the research findings. Anyway, it certainly needs to be put back; others may want to try to make the wording more palatable to moral relativists, but perhaps a better solution is to add similar (but converse) statements to articles where scientific findings seem to support moral relativism (rather than altering the conclusion here because you don't like where the evidence points). -DoctorW 03:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I too thought the moral relativism section was largely irrelevant. The claimed connection with moral relativism seems spurious to me, and unless this claim is a significant aspect of positive psychology (rather than an unsourced observation about it) I think it should be omitted. Ben Finn 17:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I've read just about everything to be read on positive psychology; I do empirical research in positive psychology. I have never read an argument explicitly against moral relativism. The blurb really doesn't fit. Brobbins 19:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems the issue has been resolved very nicely. Rtv233 has toned down the overdone comment about moral relativism, provided proper sourcing, mentioned the numerous cautions and caveats, and pointed out that the statement sourced was cautiously suggesting cultural universality and hinting at rejection of moral relativism. This material was also relegated to an endnote - also appropriate. Good job. In fact, the main reason I came to the talk page today was to compliment Rtv233 on the outstanding contributions, this being just one of many fine additions to this article. Excellent work; Wikipedia needs more editors like you! -DoctorW 04:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words, DoctorW. Best Regards, Rtv233
I meant to start a discussion, not attack anyone. I never understand why everyone interprets everything here as an attack. If there's a misunderstanding, just point it out to me. After looking at it again I can see what my misunderstanding was now and it was a misunderstanding. I can admit that I was confused. You could have pointed it out a lot more politely and accomplished the same thing. --DanielCD 06:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you made the right call in removing it until we figured it out, Daniel. The posting in its original form didn't work for me either. By the same token, I appreciated DoctorW's pressure to keep the moral relativism element included. So, dialectically speaking, we're right on track! -Rtv233
Thank you. Rtv233, I think your touch here has been positive across the board. --DanielCD 17:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I am usually very careful to avoid the inconsiderate tone so prevalent on the internet, but I apologize to DanielCD, because I didn't do that in my comment this last time. I was annoyed at the outspoken ignorance of a different commentator, and also at an editor on an unrelated page who had just done something that soured my enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia. Nevertheless, DanielCD, you misunderstood me. I didn't think you were attacking anyone, and I didn't think you had an agenda. My point about how to deal with the POV (that we all have to some extent) was a more general one meant to address the subtle bias so prevalent on many Wikipedia pages. You were right, though, that I could have pointed out your initial misunderstanding more politely, which would have been my normal style; in fact, I have sometimes gone a bit overboard in doing so (with very good results). -DoctorW 01:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The undo Effect

The paragraph under this title doesn't make it at all clear why this title was chosen. Anyone care to expand? ChrisHibbert 04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "scientific" research

Rather than simply listing the areas of research, I'd like to hear more about the scientific methods being used to explore those areas, as well as some information on what rigorous logic was used to determine those three areas. Shoehorn 19:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be something more pointing out (if true) that this is actually a respected and serious field of research, unlike so many other related subjects - for example in the New Age vein, or much of the self-help litterature. Narssarssuaq 22:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
There's an unusually high degree of skepticism on this page, but it would be very easy to assuage some of your doubts by doing a little reading, some of which you can do right on the web by following the links from the article. -DoctorW 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is about 2400 years old

It's very strange to me that nowhere is Stoicism, Epictetus, Zeno, Marcus Aurellius, or even Socrates mentioned in all this. Do the actual "creators" and writers of Positive Psychology similarly omit any mention of what must be its original inspiration? The article reads like a re-wording of a large portion of Stoicism and other ancient philosophies, almost verbatim.--Daniel 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A fuller discussion of this subject would include such historical references. In my experience, psychologists seldom try to tackle setting their ideas properly in the context of intellectual history. I was actually impressed, however, that more so than any psychology discussion I remember hearing on any subtopic, Christopher Peterson, in the seminal Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification, which he researched for 3 years before completing (I think I remember hearing), shows an awareness of the history of ideas to quite a laudable extent. Remember to keep in mind that encyclopedia articles are normally superficial. -DoctorW 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's good to know. I also found on the Positive Psychology Center's website (http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu) that they do indeed say, "Positive psychology has many distinguished ancestors. Since at least the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the 'good life' has been the subject of philosophical and religious inquiry." and "Positive psychology acknowledges a debt to humanistic psychology...".--Daniel 07:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better research coverage

This article does not describe any of the "content" of positive psychology - what researchers have actually found out about what makes people happy. It also only discusses one book, Character Strengths and Virtues. It's unclear whether this book contains any information about empirical studies. Some detail about what empirical questions have actually been asked and answered in this field would be very helpful. -- Beland 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I may not have time to do it myself, however. Help would be appreciated. -DoctorW 19:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Question 4 of http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/faqs.htm might be a good place to start. -- Beland 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

One of the guests on the On Point program said that the modern field of "positive psychology" was founded in 1998 by a group of researchers that felt that psychology too often focused on pathology. The intro to the article mentions that idea, but doesn't attribute it to anyone. It also mentions a list of researchers; perhaps these are the "founders"? More informaton about this foundational period would help straighten things out. Is there a manifesto? Was there a founding conference or journal? -- Beland 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Dr.enh (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] People have been discussing the question of human happiness since at least Ancient Greece.

The second sentence in the article ("People have been discussing the question of human happiness since at least Ancient Greece.") doesn't flow from the opening sentence (I changed the first sentence but it didn't flow before either).

There had been no prior mention of happiness in the article. And, as the cited FAQ points out, Positive Psychology is about more than just happiness - it's "the scientific study of the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive".

It's an okay sentence and there's probably a place for it in the article, but it doesn't belong in the general description. --irrevenant [ talk ] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about the Application of Positive Psychology

I hate to be the Dr. Phil here, but this "Positive Psychology" is for people with serious mental illness right? Because either you have a psychological disorder to need psychological help or you do not? I see nowhere in the article describing who these unhappy people are; is taking anti-depressants a part of this positive psychology concept?--Recovery Psychology (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. I have rewritten the intro to address your question. --Dr.enh (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)