Procrasturbation and What's Next

So I don't know what the f*ck to do with my life.

I'm in school right now for psychology, which I love and I'm actually pretty good at--but I am not college material. I should have known this from the start, but I kept deluding myself, thinking, "Maybe this year I'll get my shit together," "Okay, so last semester sucked, but maybe I'll turn everything around this Spring," which inevitably leads to, "Oh...well, shit. Maybe I'll do better in my summer classes."

I'm not stupid, don't get me wrong. If college was just tests, I'd have graduated six times by now. I absorb information like a sponge, but ask me to write a paper and do a presentation, and I'll fuck it up 9 out of 10 times. I hate it. And there is a whole process to it, too.

First, I get the assignment. "Oh that's neat," I'll say. Or maybe even, "That's a dumb topic, but whatever." I tell myself that it'll be easy, or maybe not easy but I don't need to start three months in advance when teachers usually give these assignments. 

Then, I promptly forget about it. I might think about my topic for a day, but then I write it off.

About a month into my class, the teacher brings it up again. Okay, planning time. I can make an outline by this date. This day, I'll pick out what resources I'm going to use. This other day I'll write the first really crappy draft. Then I'll let the topic sit until x date. That day I'll go through and polish it up, sort my resources, etc. Then I'll have a finished draft by...oh...another month before it's due.

Forget about it again.

Two weeks before it's due and people around me start talking about doing research for it. Hm. I should probably get on that.

Forget about it again.

For the next two weeks, I'll be reminded again and again that I have a paper to do, and then--again and again--I'll forget about it. About four days before the paper is due, I'll start to think about it more. Maybe dabble in some research for it. Make that outline. Then I'll go back to video games and hobbies (admittedly with a little more fervor than before) until the night before or the day of and go, "Oh shitshitshitshit," the whole time I'm writing meaningless bullshit.

Alternatively, I'll not do it, and just duck my head down for the next few class periods until the whole paper thing blows over so I don't get the disapproving look and a "Did you send me your paper?"

If I turn the paper in, I usually get an A, which probably just reinforces my procrastinating behaviors--if I get an A with only a day's worth of shitty work, why try?--but overall I alone am responsible for my actions.

There's also some (read: a lot) of perfectionistic tendencies plus defense mechanisms influencing my behavior as well. If I get a bad grade on a paper that I actually tried on, then I'm much more hurt than if I didn't try at all. But it feels like my whole brain shuts down when I sit to type a paper that I know is not going to be good, right up to the "shitshitshit" point.

So What's Next

Fuck if I know. Seriously, though, I am using the GI Bill right now (for which I am eternally grateful), but it's being used on a degree I'm not entirely sure I can finish. I'm not even motivated to finish it, anymore, now that I really have a sense of what I'm actually capable of. It doesn't help knowing that it only covers 3 years of a 4 year program, so even if I got straight A's I would still have to wait until I could afford to go to school another year. So what's a girl to do?

Prostitution. 

Whaaaat? No, I'm just kidding--did you see your face?! Ha, in all seriousness, I still really don't know. I would just love to be able to write for a living: I could work from home, which would be good for my body; I could save money on gas; I could do what I love and get paid for it; and best of all, I wouldn't have to work in customer service. 

Yeah, I just talked at length about how I can't write papers for school and then immediately turned around to say that I'd love to do it for a living. And yes, I am aware of how stupid that sounds. Let's get things straight, if my boss came up to me today and said, "Hey, I'm going to need you to write a report on psychotropic drugs by Thursday," I'd be all over that shit. Because I'd be getting paid to do it, and (while I don't know why a craft store would need a report like that and I should probably look into reporting him for academic dishonesty) it would be relevant to my job. At least, relevant to keeping my job...

Anyway.

I am just not able to work for the long game, is what all this comes down to. I need to experience the immediate consequence for my work, otherwise it is really difficult to care. And I suppose that's not a totally terrible thing: if I get that one condition, I work my ass off. I will gladly sit there for four hours cleaning every speck of dust out of my work area if we are getting inspected. I will get really into re-organizing my office if it is to meet a specific, real-world goal. I will write page after page after page of stuff, if I am actually getting something out of it. And hell, that's how this blog started out--I really felt like I was getting something out of writing about Positive Psychology for a class I was in. I only changed it over to what it is today because I am no longer in that class and I was starting to feel like I was repeating myself.

So in short, god only knows what the hell I'm going to do once my GI Bill runs out (or I end up making enough money to quit early).

Friday Check-In

Alright, so how do I do one of these? I guess however I feel like, huh? Don't worry, I'll get better at this one day...

This week was my second week of doing a Behavioral Activation time sheet. Week 1 is just putting down what you did everyday, and Week 2 is all about having a couple goals for yourself: having certain activities that will make you feel like you accomplished something, activities that you just really enjoy, and others that get you out of the house/socializing.

My goals this week have been journaling, writing, and taking my dog on long walks everyday. I had a trip to the grocery store and a trip to a great little coffee shop to get me out of the house, each instance planned for just one time at some point during the week. I also had a couple papers to write (big, final papers for my two summer courses at college). All of this seemed like it was going to take a lot out of me, but I started off excited, nonetheless.

The papers did NOT go well. I did, however, journal everyday (except yesterday, I'll get into that). Writing entails the revision, etc. of a novel I started in 2009. I'm on the third-ish draft right now, and haven't really been doing as much as I would like, this week included.

Blogging was a goal that I kinda made myself, since I just randomly decided to do in this new direction. I have to keep reminding myself that it won't be perfect, and (especially since I don't have an audience right now) doesn't have to be. This reminder should also help out my writing and schoolwork...perfection is something I really need to let go of.
Anyway, blogging--as you can see--went pretty well for this week.

Dog walking has been a little iffy, since it's been hotter than Hades's Ballsack. But what walks we have been on, she's loved--we have a lot more squirrels and such for her to want to murder.

I actually went out quite a bit. My husband has been rather supportive, and he tends to either drag me along for errands or send me out to get stuff. It also helped that I had to go to class (and I can't cook), so I was also motivated by hunger.

Socializing is a lot easier now, too, as I have two extra people living in my house.

So how has Behavioral Activation worked so far? ...Meh. But it's only been one week of adjustment. Like I said, I started off pretty excited (like usual) and really tried hard to get everything done. This excitement and hope gave me a lot of energy, but soon it wore off and I started to slack off on different things. After the paper fiasco, I really kinda just stopped caring again.

But that's where therapy comes in handy: talking through my issues with perfectionism helped me articulate my reasons behind why I put so much pressure on myself, which in turn helps the outside party (aka, Dr. S.) help me find a way to satisfy the needs that aren't being met.

SO
My goals for next week are the same, minus the papers, and adding on a) finding a job (that's not a part of the therapy, I just need monies), and b) finding a place to volunteer. Baby steps, guys, baby steps.

How's your week been? Any goals completed or new ones for the next week? I'd love to hear it, and even if you don't post them, I wish you luck on new ones, congratulate you on benchmarks reached, and know that ones on which you fell short, you will get eventually--just don't give up!

~ML

On Monday, I'll talk about my beautifully dumb string of terrible therapists as even more testament to not giving up, provide entertainment to those who don't need therapy, and hopefully make a nice connection with those who have had similar experiences. 

It's okay if you talk to yourself...

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!

Dental Work, or: Why Positive Psychology Can be a Pain For the Depressed Client

Teeth cleaning. This phrase may cause some of you a little anxiety, but for the most part, nothing's wrong with it, right? You go in, someone pokes around in your mouth, and eventually does what you do every morning and night but with industrial-grade tools and a little more efficiency. Overall this is an important part of one's health. It should even be done twice a year to keep tartar under control and check for early signs of problems. 

But now imagine that you have an abscessed tooth. Pain radiates every second of every day--so bad, it's literally almost deafening. Now imagine your dentist recommends that all you need to fix it is a good cleaning. If you have had the displeasure of an abscessed tooth, then you just screamed at me. The pain a cleaning would cause is probably a sufficient excuse for murder in some states, so why would any self-respecting dental patient put themselves through this?

They wouldn't! Unless they just didn't know better.

The past semester I have been in a Positive Psychology class (if you couldn't tell from everything else I've written here), and the topic is fascinating. I love the idea of improving everyone's quality of life so that mental illness is largely prevented...but what about those who are "legitimately" depressed? Those who cannot make it through an entire day without anti-depressants, or those who self-mutilate due to the numbness caused by dissociation? What about those who stare at themselves in the mirror, begging their reflection to finally give them the strength to commit suicide? Are they going to benefit from understanding the intricacies of human happiness? What about the Hedonic Treadmill? 

A lot of what I learned in positive psych, as far as exercises and therapies go, are the psychological equivalent of getting one's abscessed tooth hit with a water pick. This is NOT to say that positive psychology cannot help someone with depression; I just think it would be in everyone's best interest if this somewhat new form of therapy was parsed out in such a way that it can be used by depressed individuals without doing more damage than good. 

But, really, you ask. How can you be so certain that positive psychology could hurt anyone? I mean, positive is right in the name! 

Well, I know because I have an abscessed tooth...of the brain. (?) Okay, so the metaphor broke down a little there, but you know what I'm saying. I am a "depressed individual" and I have just gone through months of unbridled exposure to positive psychology: its concepts, its background, its possible and future applications...and let me tell you--the days where I wasn't simply enthralled with it, it sucked.

How can I make a list of three good things everyday, when I am literally trying to find one good reason not to slit my wrists?

How can I think of ways to enter/maintain a state of "flow," when I haven't found a way to make myself shower for the past week?

And don't even get me started on the despair that can come when trying to think of someone who is a fourth degree of separation from yourself (how far someone has to be from you before their happiness stops affecting your own) when you haven't spoken a single word to someone other than your spouse in over three months.

[Disclaimer] I'm doing much better now, don't worry (hell, the biggest evidence of that is that I'm actually writing something for the first time in forever). And to my positive psych teacher (who will inevitably read this), don't you worry, either. I don't hold you nor this class responsible for any ill health I may have been experiencing. If anything, it has been my responsibility for not re-framing all the information in a way for my depressed mind to digest. Re-framing is something I'll have to master anyway, if I plan on making it through the years of learning psychology and counseling, intact. 

But my point is that, while positive psychology is AWESOME at getting people from a "0 to a positive 8," getting someone from a "negative 8 to 0" is a whole other process. This process is a delicate one--so delicate, in fact, you have to go to school in order to be legally allowed to help with it. So to those who are practicing or plan to practice psychology at some point...just keep this in mind. I plan on laying out suggestions as to how to do this in the future. These suggestions will be full of assumptions and conjecture, but perhaps will help design a "test plan" for an experimental treatment of depression one day.

The Hedonic Treadmill vs. the Eudaimonic Staircase

The hedonic treadmill model is one of my favorite concepts. I heard about it a long time ago, and ended up forgetting what my source was (probably something like cracked.com), but it stuck with me even then as an important construct. What researchers say is a "pessimistic conclusion" (Waterman, 2007), I sought refuge in: we cannot truly impact our lifetime happiness in any permanent way (Brickman & Campbell, 1971). Some see this as we will always be our same, depressing selves no matter what we do or buy, but I thought of it as a license to take risks and a comforting mantra for when life got hard.

Diener, Lucas, and Scollon (2006), wrote an article discussing the pessimistic nature of the hedonic treadmill and how to revise it, focusing more on "qualifying" certain aspects of it. The changes revolved around two main ideas: that individuals are different (coping strategies, individual set points), and that this affective adaptation is not as bad as it sounds (set points are not neutral, happiness set points can change). In the spirit of half-done classwork, I was going to stop there. I decided, however, to gather at least one or two other sources for the hedonic treadmill idea so I wasn't basing all of my ideas on one article.

I am really glad I did that.

In response to the originally assigned reading, A. S. Waterman (2007) wrote about a concept I had never heard before called eudaimonia. While hedonia is the pursuit of physical pleasures, eudaimonia is the pursuit of pleasure through the mastery of self and one's skills. To reference my precious article about "flow," eudaimonia is essentially the lifelong pursuit of flow experiences. Eudaimonic happiness is suggested by Waterman to be much longer-lasting and sustainable, and the adaptation process for it is much better understood. He was the one that used the term "staircase" in this situation, as "the opportunities for increasing levels of challenge in any endeavor are almost limitless" (2007).

This information has sent me down a rather exciting rabbit hole, but that's for a different article. In the meantime, I will still think of the hedonic treadmill as being comforting (as I currently like my happiness set point), but will also think about taking the "staircase" much more often.

References:

Brickman, P. & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation level theory: A symposium (pp. 287-302). New York: Academic Press.

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61, 305-314.

Waterman, A. S. (2007). On the importance of distinguishing hedonia and eudaimonia when contemplating the hedonic treadmill. American Psychologist, 62(6), 612-613.

Flow

This is a wishy-washy sounding word, with an even wishy-washy-er sounding definition. Until you actually understand what it is about.

"Flow" is the feeling you get when you do something that is just the right amount of easy and challenging and is something you enjoy doing. It is like when you can't put down a particular book, or you get lost in the moment while playing an instrument. When experiencing flow, you lose track of time, and even after hours of doing this activity you feel mentally refreshed.

Once you have found this activity and engage in it frequently, the balance starts to shift. The challenge of it starts to diminish and you must find a way to make it more challenging in order to continue the flow experience. The awesome thing is you may not even realize that it's happening (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003).

For example:
In middle school, I played the flute. I started because I had to have an intramural class and I didn't like my other choices. When I first started, by band director had us playing with just the mouthpieces, but gradually we worked our way up to playing several notes in a succession that somewhat sounded like music.

After playing my first real song (probably something like "Hot Crossed Buns"), I was hooked. I would sit at home and play literally for hours. I moved ahead in the book to more complex pieces because I got bored of the same three notes. I used the fingering chart in the back to learn more, my parents hired a wonderful woman to give me private lessons, and I got new scores to play from. Soon, I was one of the best in the band and it became a source of great pride for me. At my peak I played an average of seven hours a day, just for fun. (I also didn't have any friends, but that's beside the point!)

That is flow. And it is awesome.

References:

Nakamura, J. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). The construction of meaning through vital engagement. In C. L. M. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (p.83-104). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

There is also a video I got some information from, but it was in class. I'll have to get the info from my professor so I can cite it here.

The Value of Positive Emotions

Week two readings for my class started with:

Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions. American Scientist, 91, 330-335.

This article is also aptly named. The basic summary is that Fredrickson has done research on the short term and long term effects of emotions, both positive and negative, and looked at it from an evolutionary perspective.

According to this researcher, negative emotions have been studied more than positive ones for a couple of reasons: a) they are easier to differentiate, and b) they negatively effect humanity (imagine that). Therefore we have much more information on what these emotions do to us mentally and physically.

The theories behind negative emotions and why we have them, all come down to survival. Fear sends a larger amount of blood to the extremities, facilitating the "fight or flight" response. Disgust invokes a need to "expectorate" (such a nice word!) Anger prepares the body for an offensive attack (2003).

Tree rings show minimal or "narrowed" growth in the winter
and accelerated or "broadened" growth in the summer. 

The big mystery was why do we have positive emotions? The leading theories had still revolved around survival, that positive emotions were just a signal that there were no threats around. But Fredrickson has conducted and studied others' experiments that give a little more insight. Inducing participants with a positive affect seemed momentarily to broaden their thoughts, increasing creativity and creating mental "room" to think about larger concepts. This would suggest that positive affect would allow for our ancestors to switch from the narrow concept of survival to broader ideas of growth, curiosity, and a pursuit of novelty. This is a lot like tracing a tree's growth through the winter and summer; the darker, thinner rings are due to slowed growth in winter as the tree merely "survives" (actually goes dormant, but you get the idea), with accelerated growth in the summer.


The long-term effects of positive emotions seem to be building a resilience against negative events in the future, protecting one from depression. I mentioned this before, kinda, in the "article #2" post:

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?

 However, I do stand by Fredrickson's conclusion on this topic. She talks about resilience, not about whether or not our life has meaning. Which, by the way, I believe to be a really subjective measurement. What makes me believe my life has meaning may not at all be what you think gives my life meaning (if you even think my life does have meaning).

Another long-term effect is an "undoing" of what negative affect does to us. When we are in the "fight or flight" mode mentioned earlier, the increased cardiovascular activity damages our heart and blood vessels, leading to atherosclerosis. Positive emotions and experiences helps to repair ourselves (Fredrickson, 2003)--which makes a lot of evolutionary sense: get chased by tiger, harm body; outrun tiger, have a laugh with our monkey buddies, recover body and repair damage. There are, of course, a lot of other physiological problems caused by stress that can be repaired in time with a positive affect, but this is the particular example (minus the monkeys) that the article touches on.

The author ends with saying that an artificial injection of positivity with humor or something similar may be beneficial, but not always appropriate in hard times. She suggests "finding benefits within adversity, [...] infusing ordinary events with meaning, and [...] effective problem solving" (2003).

Image provided courtesy of nuttakit / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

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. 

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.

An "Academic Journal"

This semester I am supposed to be keeping an "academic journal" for my Positive Psychology class. I also wanted to start a blog right around the same time. One thing led to the other, and now I've decided to combine the two.

Don't worry, though: this is not your everyday, "today I learned this...." Psychology and Coffee is still a creative outlet for me, so I hope to be much more stimulating than that. I also very much encourage anyone and everyone to participate. Discussion is what drives constructive thought, and I'm just itching to get involved with a more professional community, even if it means having to learn by occasionally making a fool of myself.

As for a publishing schedule, I plan to submit something at least once a week, but I'll write more depending on what's happening.

For more info on this, check out the appropriate page.