would be interested tohear thoughts.
lucy

You good people are getting wrapped around the axle by mistakenly assuming that there are fixed importance coefficients for each of the happiness value factors. When in fact, a composite happiness function is unique to each individual.

This is another illustration of why it is so important for PP to be integrated into existing psychological paradigms. Look at the happiness vector from a Jungian context, and use the Myers-Briggs temperament profiles as a classification ontology.

So you have sixteen temperaments and no doubt 16 different happiness vectors. A hearth & home centric ISTJ is probably not going to have the same “Love of learning” coefficient that a gonzo ENTP may have (me for example). And of course from an M-B context, differential intensities across the happiness vector conditioned by temperament are neither good nor bad. Since they are only reflections of those same underlying temperaments.

The danger to PP is the tendency to prescriptively tell people how they are supposed to be happy, rather than in merely providing a supporting architecture of life management insights consistent with individual temperaments.

There are some interesting ways for eliciting differential subjective value. I’ll put together a web-based model for you too try. It was developed by an eccentric genius when he was at Penn BTW. We could then compare individual and group happiness weights. Could be fun.

SteveM

Another answer may be to do with the outcome measure. In Inglehart et al’s paper they use happiness and life satisfaction to mean different things, hence the suggestion that happiness of ex-communist countries rose but life satisfaction fell during transition. Perhaps freedom/free choice is associated with happiness, and (consumer) choice with life satisfaction.

Thirdly it may be about timing – a sort of Tipping Point idea – perhaps you need to have freedom/free choice before you can have (vast) consumer choice. The former isn’t overwhelming (because it’s generally about a few major choices not thousands of smaller ones), but as more and more consumer choices are opened up, you’re more likely to feel overwhelmed.

Anyway, those are my own thoughts; not sure if that helps. Hopefully someone reading will know the ‘official’ answer.

Bridget

Senia – please correct me if I’m wrong – I think the majority of PPND authors are practitioners rather than researchers, so we can talk about how positive psychology applies in real life (which is what I meant) but we’re probably not in position to discover/reveal new validated interventions on this forum. If it’s new research you are interested in, many of my articles refer to 2006-2008 papers.

I’m not sure that’s answered your question though…

Bridget

My question was simple really: one of the basic ideas in PP is that too many choices makes us feel bad (because we never feel our choice was adequate). I was asking how increasing “freedom” (which also increases our choices) does not also cause us to be overwhelmed with choices.

I am not a psychologist, PP student, MAPP grad, psychiatrist, neuro-scientist, therapist, or in any way formally educated in psychology.

I just need clarification, please. And others, please keep your glib comments about this to yourself. I am interpreting these as “making fun of”, not as “discussions related to” (as no one is answering my question, just pointing out how this is linked to ideas they do not like – exception: Jo. Thanks!)

My experience with strengths is very simple – its like the Nike ad – “Just do it”. I think happy people are engaged. Thats why I have it (engagement) as the centre piece of my ACCEPTional Resilience coaching model

Finally re new ideas – this is something that has frequently been mentioned on the UK MAPP programme. I think there have been some good new ideas on PPND, and yes there could be more. But we’re talking about i) academia and ii) big business here…;->

Bridget

See my website for more information: http://www.innate-intelligence.com.au/blog/?p=153

I suspect that working on your strengths activates higher level strengths such as curiosity and zest. Try this simple experiment with a client – rather than working on a strength juts ask them to do something different everyday and look at the impact it has on life satisfaction.

Could you add a pointer to the research that shows that “love of learning” and “appreciation of beauty and excellence” have little impact on life satisfaction. I’ve heard that thirdhand a few times, and have wondered whether it is that they have little impact or that they have relatively less impact than other strengths.

Love of learning certainly brings me personally lots of life satisfaction, at least partly because it’s a strength I share with my husband so we’re in it together.

Thanks!
Kathryn

To a certain extent positive psychology does have a religious zeal to it. If you question the rhetoric you might be branded an “unbeliever”. Similarly positive psychology conferences are like a revival meeting.

I also support you concerns on the Templeton foundation funding positive psychology research as invariably the research will be biased (not consciously) to coincide with the benefactors beliefs. I suspect this is one reason mindfulness is overlooked has it doesn’t have a good fit with Christianity.

By the way you have to appreciate the irony – positive mood induction supposedly improves your ability in abstract thinking – given this you would expect PPDN to be brimming with new ideas.