917. revise
slkdgha
feedback.docx
Surname5
Rui Shu
Engl 102
02/20/2019
POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
The selected approach is positive psychology. This is a branch of psychology that is concerned with the lives of healthy and happy people. This is a very different approach from traditional psychology which mainly focused on psychologically troubled people (Peterson, p. 46). Positive psychology looks at the lives of people who are reportedly happy from different angles such as race, income level and age. This approach is based on the premise that happy people usually have the same tendencies. These have been described as deriving pleasure by being around loved ones, learning something new or taking part in a given professional or personal project. The more an individual’s day is filled with such activities the happier the individual becomes. Comment by Wendy Schoener: Is this your thesis? In other words, is it the argument you’ll make in the paper? Or are you just tell the reader what positive psychology teaches?
Positive psychology notes that the genetic inheritance of an individual has a role to play in the degree of happiness of the individual. This is all summarized by the set point principle. The set point is the point to which a person returns after a period of great happiness or sadness. This means that if the parents of a child are happy people then the child is likely to have happiness as their set point. If the parents are sad people then the set point of their children is likely to be sadness (Carr, p. 38). The fact that genetics influences the level of happiness of people does not necessarily mean that people are helpless when it comes to happiness. To the contrary people have the ability of controlling their happiness level by choosing the types of activities they engage in on a daily basis. It is theorized that up to 50% of the happiness levels of individuals is influenced by genetics while up to 40% is influenced by the types of activities that people choose to engage in on a daily basis. Comment by Wendy Schoener: A lot of repetition in here. You only have to explain the percentages once.
Positive psychology categorizes the concept of happiness into three main areas. These are the genetic aspects, the activity choices and the circumstances an individual is in. In other words 10% of the happiness level of an individual is based on the circumstance in which they find themselves. It is also stipulated that 40% of the happiness level of an individual is based on the activities that they choose to engage in and that 50% is based on their genetics (Peterson, p. 48). The 40% can be explained in terms of the profession that a person chooses to pursue. It is a fact that an individual’s profession takes up a lot of time. This means that people who enter professional fields that they enjoy are likely to be happier than people who venture into professions that they do not enjoy. This is irrespective of the 50% predisposition to happiness that is based on the genetics of an individual.
The idea that 40% of the level of happiness of individuals is based on their choice of activities can be misleading. It can lead people to be judgmental over other people who may not necessarily be as happy as they are. This is a misleading generalization because it fails to take into account the 10% level of happiness that is based on the circumstance in which an individual is (Peterson, p. 51). Their circumstance has a lot to do with their general level of happiness. An example of this is a person taking part in a friendly game of soccer with friends. It would be expected that this person would be happy since they are with their friends. However, if the person is facing termination at their place of employment then the circumstance in which they find themselves is likely to negate the choice of activity they engage in. This means that they are likely to be unhappy despite the fact that they are taking part in activities that they enjoy with people whom they love. Comment by Wendy Schoener: You’re voicing a common criticism of this approach, so that’s good. But if you are saying that PP works well, as you seem to be, then you have to somehow answer this criticism by explaining that it is unfounded/wrong, or maybe that despite the criticism being accurate, the approach still is the best, at least for some people.
Positive psychology is a good approach because it advocates for more of a balanced life. It does not advocate that people continually focus on their level of happiness. This is equated to a person checking their temperature up to five times a day with the excuse of trying to be healthy. Positive psychology does not advocate that people approach the concept of happiness as more of a chore. Rather it focuses on the generic nature of happiness and how people can pursue happiness without necessarily losing a sense of balance in their lives (Carr, p. 27). An example of this is people simply choosing to focus on the positive aspects of their lives instead of actively trying to be happy.
Positive psychology notes that people have a degree of control over their happiness. An example of this is a person who lives in a very poor neighborhood but is relatively happier than a person who lives in a rich neighborhood. The person in the poor neighborhood can adjust their attitude and in the process focus more on the positive aspect of their life as opposed to the negative. This will lead them to be happier despite being in a poorer financial situation.
Works Cited
Carr, Alan. Positive Psychology: The Science of Happiness and Human Strengths. Psychology P, 2014.
Peterson, Christopher. A Primer in Positive Psychology. Oxford UP, 2016.
Rui,
I’m impressed that you looked at other, valid sources. You should also include in the Works Cited the reading “Positive Psychology” since many of the ideas you mention (e.g., the temperature-taking analogy) come from there. You explain reasonably well what positive psychology advises.
You’ve also come up with some new ideas: that our actions (a 40% influence on our happiness, according to PP) are all related to our work because we are at work a lot. You also seem to say that the 10% influence of circumstances can make the difference in whether people are unhappy. But you don’t give evidence to support these ideas. You need evidence especially because, in my experience, PP doesn’t make these arguments. The reader needs to be convinced you are right.
Rather than try to prove your own ideas about what these percentages mean, you could write about them in the same way that others have and agree or disagree with them. Some writers have noted that Lyubomirsky’s percentages are arbitrary, or that some circumstances hurt people a lot more than other circumstances, so the 10% generalization is meaningless.
