I have recently just come out of a fairly deep stint of depression, and so I have only just now gotten enough energy to write anything at all. One of the things I wanted to write was a complete "re-do" of the first couple of entries on this blog. But having just looked over it, I think my best course of action would be to look at the questions I asked, and then answer them to the best to my ability.
This format is not quite what I wanted for this blog, but I think it's important to try to answer one's own questions instead of just waiting for someone else to answer them.
...it's just when you start to answer yourself that it's time to worry...
If that phrase is correct, then I guess it's time to worry! It's not, but I thought it was an appropriate aphorism to mention...anyway, I'm going to start with the first article.
"Can the same things that bring someone from -8 to 0, also bring someone from 0 to +8? (and/or vise versa?)"
This question is kind of cute, in retrospect. If you read my last article, then you know that due to a sort of unregulated immersion into positive psychology, I kind of either triggered or worsened a depressive episode. Like I said there, however, I truly believe that (if done correctly) one can be treated for depression with positive psychology, but a technique involving it would have to be carefully constructed in order to not come off inappropriately. When I say "inappropriately," I mean a few things:
Condescending. Positive psychology can come off VERY condescending--it is very similar to the whole, "you're not really depressed, you're just in a bad mood" that is so common to hear these days. It's the "just get over it" of advice. It isn't actually that, it just sounds that way when you are depressed. Especially if you have been told the other kinds of advice--it makes it much harder to accept anything positive, really.
Cheesy/Corny. Quick, tell me what you think about this phrase: "laughter is the best medicine" or: "turn that frown upside down." If you are cynical (like me), then you probably rolled your eyes. If you are almost hatefully cynical (like I can be), then you probably equated it with the above. It's slightly different than being condescending, but not by much.
Impossible. This is more along the lines of what I said in my last post about how I felt trying to apply positive psychology to my own life: How am I supposed to identify and improve on my signature strengths, when I'm just trying to convince myself that I should continue to live?
So to answer my own question, with a careful application of principles and an emphasis on patience and kindness (much with any other "learning" types of therapy), positive psychology could absolutely bring someone from a -8 to 0. This is a topic I'm going to have to really think about though, before I post too much more on it.
"Just how stable is mental health?"
This is actually a bigger question than I had realized back then! Measuring the stability of mental health requires the definition of mental health overall. The newest discussion on this I've seen (yes, still my positive psych class), has been pushing the idea that mental health is not just the absence of illness (physical health as well, by the way), but the presence of "flourishing." This is one of those things that makes a depressed person recoil a bit--ugh, what a corny word: flourishing. This is actually a great way to look at things, just so long as you allow for the state of "stability" to be in there. Flourishing, I feel, would be almost impossible to do 100% of the time, specifically when tragedy strikes.
Notice how I said "almost impossible?" It is my understanding (for now) that the true measure of mental health is not your current state, but your current ability to cope with negative events, and how that coping affects your current state. So while a tragedy may make you grieve, your ability to cope with that grief is a better measure of your mental health than the fact that you are grieving. For example:
If "Bill" suddenly had a death in the family, he would start the grieving process. Knowing that grieving is perfectly natural, he makes sure to take care of himself during this difficult time. He also keeps an eye on the rest of his family, makes sure they also know that whatever they feel is okay, and spends time with supportive persons in order to properly heal. He might laugh at this time, he might cry, he might even be angry, but whatever he does, he keeps tabs on his physical health and remembers to do the things that he has always done to make himself happy, even if he does not feel happy at the time. "Bill" is flourishing, despite the pain he feels at the loss of a loved one. He would be a great example of a +8. Now, if everyone around him starts dying off one by one, he loses his house, his job, his wife, his dog, and even his physical health--all in the span of a few months...he may just need to get some help. His number may slip a little if none of his coping techniques help, and it may slip a lot if he abandons them altogether.
Now if Bill simply couldn't cope at all with the original loss, he's not necessarily at a -8, but he sure isn't a +8. And this is okay, too. It takes a lot of work and maturity to be a +8, and most of us will never achieve this in our lifetimes.
This is fairly similar to (my limited understanding of) physical health. Right now, each of our immune systems are dealing with foreign invaders--germs--and for the most part, are killing any threats. Every once in a while, one gets through our defenses and we get colds or the flu, but if we are always taking good care of our bodies, this happens far less often than someone who does not. So practicing positive psychology as at least a 0 is a lot like remembering to eat your veggies and exercise when you are in moderately good health. Then the better you are at doing either one, the healthier and more resistant to natural detriments you become.
Finally,
"How would you operationalize this scenario?"
This question was referencing the article talking about studying a family laughing together. It is also still a question to me. I suppose any sort of research done like this would have to be more qualitative as opposed to quantitative, but either way, one would have to just be more specific than saying "studies on a family laughing together." What are you studying really? Why they laugh? How laughing helps the parents to discipline their children? How laughing strengthens familial bonds (by looking at confidence levels the children hold for their parents or something similar)? The list goes on. And I suppose any of these are relevant...so I guess it's not a question to me anymore. Hm.
Anyway, thanks for staying patient while I answered my own questions. Next time, I'll probably write an unrelated article before moving on to the second terribly written set of questions, in order to give you something of substance to read as a break.
~Deuces!
Showing posts with label questions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label questions. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Article #2 - Thoughts and Questions, et cetera...
Howdy folks! It is time for round two of "What is Positive Psychology?"
Last time, I gave a bare bones summary about both articles that were supposed to be read for week one, then wrote a bit about the first article until my eyes bled (obviously not in a literal way, but that's how it felt). Now it is time for article two, "Positive psychology: An introduction" (already sourced in the previous post).
This, by the way, is still a part of the "catch-up post," and does not entirely reflect my vision for this blog. Time is a precious commodity, and I do have deadlines to meet! :)
My take on the article and my notes and questions:
This article seems to have been an introduction not just to positive psychology, but to that particular issue of American Psychologist. It has a lot of name-dropping and summaries on individual studies/articles of the past, and all-in-all seems to focus more on what psychology as a whole lacks and how positive psychology will fill that void.
Interestingly enough, for an introduction to positive psychology it is a bit on the negative side. For example:
In the first sentence of the article, it talks about preventing pathologies "that arise when life is barren and meaningless" (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
"Don't you mean, perceived as barren and meaningless?"
To say it any other way implies that people with meaningful lives simply cannot develop mental illness, and while I believe (and evidence suggests) that meaning in one's life can help to prevent or lessen mental illness, it still happens. Or am I just wrong about this?
Beyond this article's negative tone (though I will mention it again in a bit), there is also an odd attitude toward positive emotions and qualities that I honestly had no idea still prevailed in the field. Positive features of life (courage, hope, wisdom, etc.) are explained as "transformations of more authentic negative impulses."
"So...wait. Isn't this just Freud's 'sublimation?' Besides in a historical context, who cares about Freud anymore?"
Not to hate on the man or on psychoanalytical theory in general, but the idea that we paint and stuff because we can't go out and rape each other is kinda ridiculous.
"thriving communities" and "individuals are the authors of their own evolution"
Nothing of note here--these phrases just make me happy!
Another point mentioned was that people do things to feel alive. However, my thought is that they should. I have a feeling that this is not always the case, otherwise spreading the word about prevention and positive psych as a whole would not be necessary...right? And it's funny, because when I think of "prevention" I think about hand-washing. I can see why they have reminders to do so in bathrooms everywhere: it is an inconvenience. It's not particularly pleasurable (though if I don't I just feel gross), so we are not necessarily predisposed to washing our hands all the time, unless it is simply a habit. Doing things to feel alive, however...not doing them is a symptom of mental illness in of itself. I don't know, seems strange to me. (And is probably something I'm going to write about at a later date.)
A problem I have with a section of this article: it doesn't right out say that realism is pessimism, but definitely implies it. The quote:
"What is the relationship between positive traits like optimism...on the one hand, and being realistic on the other?" then, "Many doubt the possibility of being both."
...what? Does this mean there are a lot of educated people out there who really believe you cannot be both optimistic and realistic? Have they never heard the term, "optimistically realistic?" Or am I just reading this incorrectly?
Finally, the authors go on to say, "Is the world simply too full of tragedy to allow a wise person to be happy?"
My response: It is if you put it like that. I'm pretty sure that's just confirmation bias. If you are going to label the world as tragic, then you are throwing objectivity out the window. The same applied if you start with the idea that the world is beautiful, too; so don't go celebrating yet, you hippies. I'm just kidding, but seriously: that's why psychology is a science. Objectivity in observation, measurement, comparison, and deductions. If you don't like that, I have some snake oil to sell you!
Anyway, aside from my objections, I really do like the concept of positive psychology. Do you have any thoughts? Corrections? Objections to what I've said?
~[insert ridiculous-sounding goodbye here]!
Next up: Doc and Chaps, or Normalizing psychology and implementing prevention strategies.
Last time, I gave a bare bones summary about both articles that were supposed to be read for week one, then wrote a bit about the first article until my eyes bled (obviously not in a literal way, but that's how it felt). Now it is time for article two, "Positive psychology: An introduction" (already sourced in the previous post).
This, by the way, is still a part of the "catch-up post," and does not entirely reflect my vision for this blog. Time is a precious commodity, and I do have deadlines to meet! :)
My take on the article and my notes and questions:
This article seems to have been an introduction not just to positive psychology, but to that particular issue of American Psychologist. It has a lot of name-dropping and summaries on individual studies/articles of the past, and all-in-all seems to focus more on what psychology as a whole lacks and how positive psychology will fill that void.
Interestingly enough, for an introduction to positive psychology it is a bit on the negative side. For example:
In the first sentence of the article, it talks about preventing pathologies "that arise when life is barren and meaningless" (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
"Don't you mean, perceived as barren and meaningless?"
To say it any other way implies that people with meaningful lives simply cannot develop mental illness, and while I believe (and evidence suggests) that meaning in one's life can help to prevent or lessen mental illness, it still happens. Or am I just wrong about this?
Beyond this article's negative tone (though I will mention it again in a bit), there is also an odd attitude toward positive emotions and qualities that I honestly had no idea still prevailed in the field. Positive features of life (courage, hope, wisdom, etc.) are explained as "transformations of more authentic negative impulses."
"So...wait. Isn't this just Freud's 'sublimation?' Besides in a historical context, who cares about Freud anymore?"
Not to hate on the man or on psychoanalytical theory in general, but the idea that we paint and stuff because we can't go out and rape each other is kinda ridiculous.
"thriving communities" and "individuals are the authors of their own evolution"
Nothing of note here--these phrases just make me happy!
Another point mentioned was that people do things to feel alive. However, my thought is that they should. I have a feeling that this is not always the case, otherwise spreading the word about prevention and positive psych as a whole would not be necessary...right? And it's funny, because when I think of "prevention" I think about hand-washing. I can see why they have reminders to do so in bathrooms everywhere: it is an inconvenience. It's not particularly pleasurable (though if I don't I just feel gross), so we are not necessarily predisposed to washing our hands all the time, unless it is simply a habit. Doing things to feel alive, however...not doing them is a symptom of mental illness in of itself. I don't know, seems strange to me. (And is probably something I'm going to write about at a later date.)
A problem I have with a section of this article: it doesn't right out say that realism is pessimism, but definitely implies it. The quote:
"What is the relationship between positive traits like optimism...on the one hand, and being realistic on the other?" then, "Many doubt the possibility of being both."
...what? Does this mean there are a lot of educated people out there who really believe you cannot be both optimistic and realistic? Have they never heard the term, "optimistically realistic?" Or am I just reading this incorrectly?
Finally, the authors go on to say, "Is the world simply too full of tragedy to allow a wise person to be happy?"
My response: It is if you put it like that. I'm pretty sure that's just confirmation bias. If you are going to label the world as tragic, then you are throwing objectivity out the window. The same applied if you start with the idea that the world is beautiful, too; so don't go celebrating yet, you hippies. I'm just kidding, but seriously: that's why psychology is a science. Objectivity in observation, measurement, comparison, and deductions. If you don't like that, I have some snake oil to sell you!
Anyway, aside from my objections, I really do like the concept of positive psychology. Do you have any thoughts? Corrections? Objections to what I've said?
~[insert ridiculous-sounding goodbye here]!
Next up: Doc and Chaps, or Normalizing psychology and implementing prevention strategies.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Catch-up Post: What is Positive Psychology?
Note: This is a post catching this blog up to the current week in positive psychology since I did not actually start posting until yesterday.
Our readings for last week included:
Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9, 103-110.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
A bare-bones summary:
Psychology tends to focus on what takes a person from "negative eight to zero but not...how people rise from zero to positive eight" (Gable & Haidt, 2005). That zero to positive eight part is what positive psychology is all about.
The articles also shed some light on some historical things about psychology, such as how World War II shifted psychology's focus from three major realms (pathology, talent, and how to develop a productive and fulfilling life), to just one: curing mental illness.
And then the last article highlights several other articles that touch upon different facets of positive psychology as a sort of introduction to the rest of that particular American Psychologist issue.
My take on the first article and my notes/questions:
(This part is more of what I was planning for this blog/journal...thing.)
The first article was really just a nice summary of exactly what the title says. Positive psychology seems like a really interesting topic to me, as I really do think that this could be really important for the majority of people out there (assuming that my statistics for prevalence of mental illness is correct). Not everyone is suffering from something, but everyone alive right now is, in fact, dealing with being alive. However, I am one of those who have had bouts of mental illness; so my first question I had while reading was:
"Can the same things that bring someone from -8 to 0, also bring someone from 0 to +8? (and/or vise versa?)"
CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy, for those who don't know) helps to challenge thinking distortions no matter how minor; does a "0" or above have thinking distortions, or does this disqualify them, making them like a -1 or something? And, if it does disqualify them:
"Just how stable is mental health?"
This is more a pathology sort of thing. I suppose that it all comes back down to how we diagnose psychological problems--such as depression needing to be prevalent for two weeks or longer--right? So if this is the case, then those "slips" of the mind (such as a day-long bad mood or a one-off hallucination of someone calling our name) could be compared to just "feeling off" or a 24-hour bug in physiological terms, whereas major depression disorder would be like being infected with the coronavirus, and schizophrenia would be like having a more chronic disease, such as crohn's.
After reading a little more about how current psychology is lacking, the first article mentions that we've studied a lot about how families resolve conflicts, but "very few studies [that examine] them having fun and laughing together" (2005). So then, my next question:
"How would you operationalize this scenario?"
I only just got out of the research methods class, so being more aware of the challenges involved with setting up studies has me generating questions such as this. How do you measure "laughing?" Other aspects of positive psychology mentioned in the first article are awe, curiosity, and love. There were many more, but these in particular leave me wondering how one could study these other than just describing what one observes.
This isn't really a question, but I like the mention of personality types. Norem and Chang (2001) pointed out that there are people with a "defensive pessimism personality style." These people are exactly how they sound: pessimistic with the intent of defending themselves against unrealistically positive expectations, and that they should not be encouraged to just abandon this line of thinking.
This article is obviously introductory, and the depth of my questions and observations are limited by that as well as my lack of knowledge on this topic as a whole. However, as will always be the case, I encourage anyone who might have more questions or any kind of insight to speak up! I am always up for discussion, correction, and feedback.
~Happy trails!
Next up: Article #2--thoughts and questions.
Our readings for last week included:
Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9, 103-110.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
A bare-bones summary:
Psychology tends to focus on what takes a person from "negative eight to zero but not...how people rise from zero to positive eight" (Gable & Haidt, 2005). That zero to positive eight part is what positive psychology is all about.
The articles also shed some light on some historical things about psychology, such as how World War II shifted psychology's focus from three major realms (pathology, talent, and how to develop a productive and fulfilling life), to just one: curing mental illness.
And then the last article highlights several other articles that touch upon different facets of positive psychology as a sort of introduction to the rest of that particular American Psychologist issue.
My take on the first article and my notes/questions:
(This part is more of what I was planning for this blog/journal...thing.)
The first article was really just a nice summary of exactly what the title says. Positive psychology seems like a really interesting topic to me, as I really do think that this could be really important for the majority of people out there (assuming that my statistics for prevalence of mental illness is correct). Not everyone is suffering from something, but everyone alive right now is, in fact, dealing with being alive. However, I am one of those who have had bouts of mental illness; so my first question I had while reading was:
"Can the same things that bring someone from -8 to 0, also bring someone from 0 to +8? (and/or vise versa?)"
CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy, for those who don't know) helps to challenge thinking distortions no matter how minor; does a "0" or above have thinking distortions, or does this disqualify them, making them like a -1 or something? And, if it does disqualify them:
"Just how stable is mental health?"
This is more a pathology sort of thing. I suppose that it all comes back down to how we diagnose psychological problems--such as depression needing to be prevalent for two weeks or longer--right? So if this is the case, then those "slips" of the mind (such as a day-long bad mood or a one-off hallucination of someone calling our name) could be compared to just "feeling off" or a 24-hour bug in physiological terms, whereas major depression disorder would be like being infected with the coronavirus, and schizophrenia would be like having a more chronic disease, such as crohn's.
After reading a little more about how current psychology is lacking, the first article mentions that we've studied a lot about how families resolve conflicts, but "very few studies [that examine] them having fun and laughing together" (2005). So then, my next question:
"How would you operationalize this scenario?"
I only just got out of the research methods class, so being more aware of the challenges involved with setting up studies has me generating questions such as this. How do you measure "laughing?" Other aspects of positive psychology mentioned in the first article are awe, curiosity, and love. There were many more, but these in particular leave me wondering how one could study these other than just describing what one observes.
This isn't really a question, but I like the mention of personality types. Norem and Chang (2001) pointed out that there are people with a "defensive pessimism personality style." These people are exactly how they sound: pessimistic with the intent of defending themselves against unrealistically positive expectations, and that they should not be encouraged to just abandon this line of thinking.
This article is obviously introductory, and the depth of my questions and observations are limited by that as well as my lack of knowledge on this topic as a whole. However, as will always be the case, I encourage anyone who might have more questions or any kind of insight to speak up! I am always up for discussion, correction, and feedback.
~Happy trails!
Next up: Article #2--thoughts and questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)