What do you think about Seligman’s talk, his chapter in the Handbook of Positive Psychology, and the field in general – Online Homework Help

1: Reaction to Seligman’s talk

What do you think about Seligman’s talk, his chapter in the Handbook of Positive Psychology, and the field in general? How does positive psychology differ from the type of psychology you have studied in other courses? Draw upon Seligman’s talk, his chapter in the Handbook of Positive Psychology, and Chapter 1 in your course textbook to identify what you see as the contrast between positive psychology and regular psychology.

Is this what you expected Positive Psych to be? Why or why not?

Advice:  In evaluating the posts, I will be looking for integrated thinking about  the video, the chapter, the podcasts, and the textbook in your post. Mention them, quote them, refer to them as often as you can.

2: Reaction to Lyubormirsky’s talk

What do you think about this week’s plenary speaker and the activities of positive psychology; specifically what are the strengths and limitations of positive psychology interventions, in particular – how important is the ‘fit’ between person and activity?

When you listen to the speaker, read the textbook chapter, and try the Random Acts of Complimenting for yourself, give us your thoughts on the idea of doing positive psychology interventions (PPIs).  Be sure to take a critical approach and discuss when, how and why they work and/or fail, the notion of fit, and the limitations of PPIs.  Feel free to look at additional information and cite your sources where appropriate.

Integrate your own experience AND ideas from the theory that you are reading, watching and listening to in the podcast.  In these forums, I am looking for you to integrate the information with your experience to come to a deeper understanding about positive psychology (so you can include week 1 material where relevant). This is not just a forum for your opinion or a report of your experience, you must apply the theory in a meaningful way to interpret and explain what you experienced.

3: Reaction to Barbara Fredrickson’s talk of Positivity Ratios

The discussion of positive emotions is a key pillar of positive psychology and both the contribution and the criticism of Fredrickson has been important to the developing field.  After listening to Fredrickson herself, and reading about what some have called the ‘take down’ of her theory, what do you make of it?

What do you think about Fredrickson’s ideas on positive emotions and the stinging criticism of the ‘positivity ratio’ and which ideas appeal to you or do not appeal to you? Here are three themes you might include in your post this week, or feel free to go out on your own with a different essay topic:

1. In your view, is her whole theory in doubt or just one potentially isolated piece of it (as she says in her updated thinking response)?  Give this some serious thought, what do you really believe about positive emotion after reading and listening to this controversy?
2. From your own experience, and from the TRACK assignment last week to give 5 complements, do you agree that positive emotions broaden our minds and build resources? Be as creative as possible in finding some slice of life where you can understand what’s happening by really applying the broaden-and-build theory.
3. What do you think of the promotion and the criticism of positivity ratios; is this ‘pop’ psychology at its worst or is this a serious issue affecting how psychology itself is viewed by the public?

The above questions are to get you thinking but you can take any approach you want. In this forum, I’d like to see you connect very clearly Fredrickson’s theory and other information from the Positive Emotions chapter in your textbook with your actual experience.  Use the theory to understand your own experience. Feel free to also include links back to previous elements of the course – legacy, theme song, Seligman’s work, TRACK assignment, Lyubomirsky, etc.

Make an interesting and/or creative links among the major ideas from your reading of theory, viewings and experiences so far in the course, and how they apply to understanding positive emotion and the criticism of Fredrickson’s theory.

4: When or how does more choice lead to happiness?

The three speakers this week come from very different perspectives. If we look at their main messages, we might find ourselves a little confused. Malcolm Gladwell spoke persuasively about how more choices = more happiness (and better spaghetti sauce). And he is right, we might not be able to articulate our preference and when asked, we give the wrong answer (like his weak coffee example).

But Barry Schwartz said that choice presents a paradox and having so much choice is making us miserable. Do we need so many combinations of pasta, sauce and cheeses for example – there must be hundreds of thousands of possibilities.

And Dan Gilbert thinks that we will be happy if we give up on the choices we have not chosen. His argument is that we manufacture happiness when we accept the conditions we are in; we have an ability to ‘make the best of it.’

Give these ideas some thought, then listen to the podcast. Figure out where the ideas agree and where they are talking about different things.

In your forum post, start with an example from your own experience – identify a time when you were able to synthesize happiness when you didn’t expect it, or where you thought something would make you happy but it turned out that it did not. Describe the emotional process involved in creating or supressing happiness for you, and comment directly on the role of “choice.” Be sure to integrate ideas from the speakers and from the readings for the week, and draw upon prior weeks’ material were possible.