s1k3sT Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Positive psychology is a recent branch of psychology whose purpose was summed up in 1998 by Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi: "We believe that a psychology of positive human functioning will arise that achieves a scientific understanding and effective interventions to build thriving in individuals, families, and communities."[1] Positive psychologists seek "to find and nurture genius and talent", and "to make normal life more fulfilling",[2] not simply to treat mental illness. The field is intended to complement, not to replace traditional psychology.Seligman pointed out that for the half century clinical psychology "has been consumed by a single topic only - mental illness",[8] echoing Maslow?s comments.[9] He urged psychologists to continue the earlier missions of psychology of nurturing talent and improving normal life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK_nX63ApLc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHH17laYTs0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FTTrMIUGOo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asCymiCXvuc Some people will probably complain that 30 hours is too much time; personally, I'm extremely grateful to even have the possibility to watch Harvard lectures... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Repackaged self-help Moonies :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 Repackaged self-help Moonies :p Actually the dude giving the lecture is Jewish, not Christian, but nice try @ ad hominem ;) :sleep: :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 More speaking to the iWhole dea of self-help gurus that their particular philosophical leaning. FYI the term "Moonie" is often used to denote a group-think mentality rather than his specific followerss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 More speaking to the idea of self-help gurus that their particular philosophical leaning. Yeah seriously, what kinda moron would try improving themselves? :rolleyes: I suppose you're perfect... :whistle: FYI the term "Moonie" is often used to denote a group-think mentality rather than his specific followerss. group think mentality?! why do you think that applies to positive psychology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 No, but after seeing these movements rise & fall for 40+ years you realize that the pig is just getting new lipstick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 No, but after seeing these movements rise & fall for 40+ years you realize that the pig is just getting new lipstick. define "these movements"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted June 6, 2011 Veteran Share Posted June 6, 2011 Yeah seriously, what kinda moron would try improving themselves? :rolleyes: I suppose you're perfect... :whistle: Self-improvement is masturbation. I always wanted to use that quote. Now, in a serious note. Self-improvement is nothing more than a Judeo-Christian concept rooted on strict morality. Its basically a negation of every flaws, ergo its antihuman. The biggest problem with self-improvement its non acceptance of our nature, as a species and as individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 Self-improvement is nothing more than a Judeo-Christian concept rooted on strict morality. Its basically a negation of every flaws, ergo its antihuman. The biggest problem with self-improvement its non acceptance of our nature, as a species and as individuals. If you actually watched the videos you would understand that's not at all what this is about. For example, instead of repressing "negative" emotions like most "self-improvement" programs, positive psychology teaches that we need to experience the negative to also experience the positive. The dude giving these lectures calls it "allowing ourselves to be human" which basically means to experience all human emotions, yes even the "negative" ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted June 6, 2011 Veteran Share Posted June 6, 2011 If you actually watched the videos you would understand that's not at all what this is about. For example, instead of repressing "negative" emotions like most "self-improvement" programs, positive psychology teaches that we need to experience the negative to also experience the positive. The dude giving these lectures calls it "allowing ourselves to be human" which basically means to experience all human emotions, yes even the "negative" ones. Im not dissing the videos, just replying to your statement. If what you say, its true then the guy its only stating the obvious, unfortnately the obvious is often ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 It started thousands of years ago with Hesiod's Works and Days, then Zeno of Citium founding Stoicism, Dale Carnegie's How To Win Friends and Influence People and later movements like that of Dr. Neville Yeomans of Australia. In the 70's and 80's it morphed into (Werner) Erhard Seminars Training (EST) and other movements and now they're all over PBS and late night TV. Pfffttttt.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 It started thousands of years ago with Hesiod's Works and Days, then Zeno of Citium founding Stoicism, Dale Carnegie's How To Win Friends and Influence People and later movements like that of Dr. Neville Yeomans of Australia. In the 70's and 80's it morphed into (Werner) Erhard Seminars Training (EST) and other movements and now they're all over PBS and late night TV. why do you think those are related at all to positive psychology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 "[1] Positive psychologists seek "to find and nurture genius and talent", and "to make normal life more fulfilling",[2] not simply to treat mental illness. All very general, and common to all self-help movements. Nothing new here. The field is intended to complement, not to replace traditional psychology. One more opportunity to bill for treating the same problem or seminar fees instead of submitting the method for peer review & possible incorporation into standard treatments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 All very general, and common to all self-help movements. Nothing new here. So, in your opinion, anything that tries "to find and nurture genius and talent" and "to make normal life more fulfilling" is bad?! One more opportunity to bill for treating the same problem or seminar fees instead of submitting the method for peer review & possible incorporation into standard treatments. Honestly, I'm not even sure what you meant here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 WRT to paragraph one; not bad, just nothing new to make this "special" As to the second paragraph, do you really they're not charging for these seminars/treatments etc? Speaking fees, books, tapes/CD's etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 WRT to paragraph one; not bad, just nothing new to make this "special" you know this because you've studied it throughly? btw, when have those other things you mentioned been taught at Harvard? As to the second paragraph, do you really they're not charging for these seminars/treatments etc? Speaking fees, books, tapes/CD's etc? guess the whole secondary education system is ****ed then, because they rarely do anything for free... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Honestly yes, Due to the high costs and questionable quality of today's canned, propriatory curricula a lot of secondary education IS screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 "the whole field of science is screwed because some people are demanding money for science related material"... is that your final position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 I'd hardly call pop psychology "science." As to Martin Seligman; he's the same idiot who said gay men could be reprogrammed to be straight. Yeah, that really worked out didn't it? :p Look, if they do some clinicals then subject their theories and results, if any, to a peer reviewed journal then I'll think about it. Until then i'll go with Steven Wolin, clinical psychiatrist at George Washington University; positive psychology is a retread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 Look, if they do some clinicals then subject their theories and results, if any, to a peer reviewed journal then I'll think about it. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17439760.asp http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/well-being/journal/10902 You seem intent on writing it off before investigating it at all; why is that? As to Martin Seligman; he's the same idiot who said gay men could be reprogrammed to be straight. Yeah, that really worked out didn't it? :pAd hominem, seriously?! So you're saying it's not possible? Reminds me of the scientists that used to claim change is nearly impossible and basically useless to attempt; if you don't know they eventually went back on that claim... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Ad hominem, seriously?! So you're saying it's not possible? Reminds me of the scientists that used to claim change is nearly impossible and basically useless to attempt; if you don't know they eventually went back on that claim... This is the second time you have brought this up, what studies are you going off of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 This is the second time you have brought this up, what studies are you going off of? http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/happness/happy.htm "It may be that trying to be happier is as futile as trying to be taller and therefore is counterproductive." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1015902-3,00.html "I made a dumb statement in the original article," he tells TIME. "It's clear that we can change our happiness levels widely ? up or down.'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/happness/happy.htm http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1015902-3,00.html Im not seeing anything along the lines of "scientists that used to claim change is nearly impossible and basically useless to attempt" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 Im not seeing anything along the lines of "scientists that used to claim change is nearly impossible and basically useless to attempt" that's why i quoted it for you, but in case you're blind and/or "challenged", here ya go: "It may be that trying to be happier is as futile as trying to be taller and therefore is counterproductive." you'll probably claim the "it may be" part is a valid excuse, but why then would they admit it was a dumb statement? Or you'll claim I never mentioned happiness, but this is a thread about happiness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 that's why i quoted it for you, but in case you're blind and/or "challenged", here ya go: "It may be that trying to be happier is as futile as trying to be taller and therefore is counterproductive." I'm sure you'll claim the "it may be" part is a valid excuse, but why then would they admit it was a dumb statement? So basically single view by a "scientist", not plural as your statement sounded, that ends up with him basically admitting an "I dont know". You are also using "change" with a broad brush stroke. This guy is talking about happiness. Nothing about this says remotely suggesting anything about the type of change when it comes to gays and reprogramming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts