I’m not much of a believer of panaceas. For one thing, people are very different — so what works for one may not work for another. There’s an ongoing discussion in applied positive psychology about how to find a good fit between person and positive intervention.

Sonja Lyubomirsky in her book, The How of Happiness: The Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want, has a chapter on figuring out which of the 12 avenues to greater happiness are the best fit for the reader — the ones the reader is most likely to pursue consistently enough for it to become a habit. That makes sense to me.

Both Amy and Scott,

I’m glad you found the talk helpful. I certainly enjoyed being interviewed about these topics.

Kathryn

I found this episode particularly helpful. Thank you!

I just found your podcast via iTunes. I am finding it so helpful to me right now and wanted to personally thank you. I look forward to future episodes.

I appreciate the balance in both your talk and in your response. I’ll look into the resources you suggest which I’m sure are of better quality than some of those that I’ve seen that paint either side of the issue as a panacea.

Thanks again. Scott

http://pos-psych.com/news/admin/20080725907

These images have live links to articles to the subjects mentioned. They show one way of organizing one’s thinking about the field, and they point to articles and books on subjects such as Gratitude, Hope and Optimism, Managing Mood, The Meaningful Life, and about 20 other topics, with more to come later.

For example, the following article includes a link to a YouTube of Martin Seligman talking about the “active constructive responding” - a topic that I mentioned in Karel’s interview.

http://pos-psych.com/image-maps/positive-emotions/love-and-acr#goodnews

Enjoy clicking around.

Kathryn Britton

Thanks for your interest. You took some time over this comment. As you may imagine, there were lots of details and qualifications I would like to have added … but time didn’t allow.

There’s an interesting YouTube where Dr. Seligman discusses the balance between positive psychology and more traditional psychology:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology.html

Here’s what I captured in my notes:

Psychology should be

* just as concerned with strength as with weakness, * just as interested in building the best things in life as repairing the worst * just as concerned with making the lives of normal people fulfilling and with nurturing high talent as with fixing pathology.

Thus both are necessary and have their roles.

There is a tendency for humans to start moving toward change by figuring out what’s wrong and needs fixing. Gap analysis. Root cause analysis. Appreciative Inquiry is an interesting movement these days that focuses on using the best of what is and what has been as the starting point for change. The leaders of the field comment that focusing on problems drains the energy for change out of the system.

As for your second point, I’m not sure that there’s a conflict. Positive psychology is not really geared toward producing inflated egos. We are hive animals, so how can we learn to give and get feedback in ways that make us more effective and fulfilled creatures? An area for research, of which Carol Dweck’s Mindset work is a good step.

Thanks again for responding. Your comment is stimulating to think about.

Kathryn

As a lay-person interested in this subject area, I found this podcast very interesting.

The traditional approaches to dealing with personal issues often tend towards seeking out and dealing with events or feelings that are at an issue’s root. Though this may deal with a particular issue, it my not help with one’s lingering negative thought processes.

On the other hand, simply applying positive thinking (and I know this is not what Kathryn was saying) may not deal with deep issues that a person needs to lay to rest before moving forward.

I’d love to hear discussion one two related subject areas:

1) The dispassionate, analytical and balanced (neither positive nor negative) approach offered by cognitive behavioral therapy which seems to me presents a happy middle-ground. Interestingly, some of what Kathryn talks about speaks to this approach.

2) The notion recently offered up by Eckhart Tolle that the ego is not the self which, I think, challenges both traditional therapy and the recent positive psychology movement. For example, the discussion around the effects of constructive and destructive feedback on the well-being of a person I think misses an important point. Both effect the person’s ego either by building it up or tearing it down. Tolle, I think, would point out that an inflated ego does not equate to a person’s well-being; it may have a contrary effect in fact. The later discussion of “person praise” would support Tolle’s views.

Great podcast Karel and Kathryn.

Regards, Scott Lewis

I just discovered your podcast on iTunes. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate it and it sounds very professional. Keep up the good work.

Cheers!

Eric

I particularly resonated with the discussion about limits … the point about “I’ll be the parent and you be the kid” (to quote a book title) is key, I think. I see an awful lot of “best friend”parenting styles where kids — including toddlers — run the whole show. Those situations seem to lead to lots of stress and anxiety all around. I agree that kids appreciate and thrive with age-appropriate limits.

On the topic of parenting … one very helpful audiobook I listened to recently that I think has helped with my parenting style is “Screamfree Parenting” by Hal Runkel. The book advocates “cool parenting” — keeping your cool rather than constantly resorting to yelling and knee-jerk reactions — through the insight that you, the parent, are not responsible for making your children consistently behave in a certain way and that you’re better off learning to focus on your reactions to your children instead. I think the cool parenting approach is a good enabler for many of the habits you outlined.

Thanks for this podcast … I look forward to putting a couple of ideas into practice.