Thanks so much for your willingness to be understanding, passionate, and completely interested in the phenomenology of what arises in the well-being science and philosophical mindset enriched by this unique process, Todd! As someone who considers my passion and calling in the realm of Positive Psychology, I welcome the scientific rigor and philosophical nature of being, and this conversation between you, Eri, and Matt with his debate mediation, from a balanced perspective. I think that I love the essence of character strengths, curiosity, creativity, meaning, and purpose in life from a holistic perspective; It’s well-worth it to have quality conversations about the science of how people can thrive via human flourishing, connect on notions of self-confidence and educational skill sets of the Gen-Z college student population because of how depression has been coming to pass, and how using opportunities such as meditation and music can inspire people in monumental fashion. I can attest to the fact that I am most grateful for this knowledge, skill, and experience of wisdom plus the enjoyment of learning from people smarter than I am too, Todd!
@Todd Kashdan - I really enjoyed this podcast! Even the brief(est) historical overview of Positive Psychology was worth the listen on its own. I actually cited Wong in my book but now I need to go back and remind myself what exactly I referenced him for (it's been long enough that I’ve forgotten lol).
I also appreciated your point about not needing “waves” in the field of Positive Psychology. Seligman really was an interesting character. Already well known for his work on learned helplessness, infamously shocking rats, dogs, and people he could’ve rested on those laurels and retired as a well respected figure in behavioral science. My (half-serious) theory is that he got tired of contributing to the collective depression of living beings (maybe even himself) and decided to shift gears. Enter Positive Psychology. He writes a book on happiness, then realizes that’s a bit thin, so evolves it into the concept of flourishing. I’m still not sure how you pitch all that to the military but I imagine you know more about that than I do.
The exchange between you and Ari was solid, especially around the tension between focusing on the positive while neglecting the darker aspects of human nature. I think Jung would’ve had a field day with that omission. It’s almost like Seligman was trying to outmaneuver his own shadow.
And yet the question still stands: how do Positive Psychology and well-being science meaningfully address the full range of human experience the good, the bad and the messy? It’s easier, of course, to design research studies around observable behaviors and traits than to wrestle with existential and intrapsychic complexities that resist tidy checkbox measurement.
Thanks again for the conversation it really got me thinking!
When you spoke, Todd, I wanted to stand up and clap. When Eri spoke, I wanted to scream into a pillow and reread Aristotle.
When Eri claimed PP has been labelled a “transformative paradigm that’s going to change society and bring wellness to workplaces, schools…” I thought, Did I sleep through my MSc in PP 10 years ago!? I’ve never learned or considered PP in the way Eri described. But that kind of critique of PP has been circulating for years.
It didn’t surprise me to hear him say some theoretical constructs in PP aren’t accessible to the average person. How is that different from any other academic field? I wouldn’t expect my husband—a typical individual—to understand any of my research papers, for example. That’s where practitioners come in—translating research into practice and helping people make meaningful connections to the science.
As you rightly pointed out, Todd – we don’t always know the mechanisms for why things work. Sometimes this leads to multiple frameworks, revisions of theory, and interventions without scaffolding – we just have to ask and test questions. We can’t always wait to figure everything out before lending people a hand up.
On that note…back to not ignoring, like, the entire discipline of social psychology. Like moral philosophy. Like…real people.
I’m curious, how much progress should be achieved in a 25-year span of focus? I recognize that many have researched prior to the legendary Seligman APA speech, but let’s just anchor it here for the sake of conversation. I agree that the field is getting wrapped up in a cozy echo chamber; how does this compare to other fields of study?
For me, I’ve often believed that a solid Positive Psychology degree should be required to have a practicum and a research project together. (Not a practical capstone)
I completely support the idea that there are ethical issues with some of the interventions (mindfulness for example; and even strengths focus).
On my wish list for positive psychology? I’d like to see some strategic interdisciplinary studies with Social Work, Environmental Psychology, Healthcare, etc. Though, I have been disappointed in the lack of innovation in the field of Education (Social Emotional Learning or Resilience or Strengths focus are still focused on the micro-emotional perspective rather than looking for techniques on Learning/Teaching itself). For example, I think Appreciative Inquiry from Cooperrider is a great innovation, but shouldn’t there be more of this type of thing?
Yes. But that still doesn’t answer my core question: is PP’s stagnation different from other disciplines? Are we seeing something academically typical or atypical?
Honestly I think it’s moving at a loser pace than other disciplines because of the rush to make money by selling it - with a lot of horseshit talks workshops books podcasts conferences etc.
I don’t think the sciences has seen anything like this.
Yes. I get a lot of pressure to introduce different trendy things, being the department head of Health Services for the airline. I have successfully pushed back on stuff like MHFA or Resiliency training. The main thing that I’ve supported is incorporating light Trauma-informed perspectives into our Harassment investigation processes. I’ve also coached some folks on Dr. Cameron’s positive leadership model to help them understand an alternate to the hierarchical command/control leadership style.
I love Todd's focus on understanding the system. So many organizational problems are in the structure and the systems, which most training ignores. It's so imortant to understand the interpersonal dynamics, as well and how indivuals may respond to or use the learning. Only indiviudals can apply the learning to themselves and only if they are capable of facing their discoveries.
Thanks. Yep. Doesn’t matter if you’re grateful optimistic savoring mindful with a sense of humor if you’re treated like underpaid expendable meat where your views dorm matter because you’re not part of the inner circle of a poorly run company.
I would enjoy an intervention where the leaders in organisations have to sit in a windowless office and speak to only one person at a time. And the psychologists and researchers, etc from above get to speak with as many people as they like in local quality interactions. Whatever they want to talk about because they know how to implement pos psych for good.
I like this perspective taking leader intervention. Do you know what it’s like to be in a cubicle or windowless office for 6-8 hours even if your work takes 3 hours to complete and still have to sit there…because that’s what you’re told? How’s your mood and performance shift w interruptions of more tasks outside the task you wanted to crush? And tell me what it’s like for you to go to meetings where nobody asks your opinion or cares if you’re there…but you have to be there?
Then report the findings to them.
Then ask them what they think they should change in the day in the life of their employees.
Alright so we have psychologists, researchers, counsellors, psychotherapists, coaches, you get my picture, we have all these people who know pos psych and know how to make pretty damn good interventions at the individual level. Often one person at a time in a windowless room.
At the same time, we have leaders in organisations who have access to thousands of people and in one session can do a pos psych intervention with 3 pieces of information and then decide to do resilience workshops or ruok days.
This is where I think pos psych gets weaponised, it’s in the wrong hands. Maybe good intentions even, and then all the depressed people etc need to mask up, because eg; being sad is not ok in the leaders mind and not helpful.
Thanks so much for your willingness to be understanding, passionate, and completely interested in the phenomenology of what arises in the well-being science and philosophical mindset enriched by this unique process, Todd! As someone who considers my passion and calling in the realm of Positive Psychology, I welcome the scientific rigor and philosophical nature of being, and this conversation between you, Eri, and Matt with his debate mediation, from a balanced perspective. I think that I love the essence of character strengths, curiosity, creativity, meaning, and purpose in life from a holistic perspective; It’s well-worth it to have quality conversations about the science of how people can thrive via human flourishing, connect on notions of self-confidence and educational skill sets of the Gen-Z college student population because of how depression has been coming to pass, and how using opportunities such as meditation and music can inspire people in monumental fashion. I can attest to the fact that I am most grateful for this knowledge, skill, and experience of wisdom plus the enjoyment of learning from people smarter than I am too, Todd!
@Todd Kashdan - I really enjoyed this podcast! Even the brief(est) historical overview of Positive Psychology was worth the listen on its own. I actually cited Wong in my book but now I need to go back and remind myself what exactly I referenced him for (it's been long enough that I’ve forgotten lol).
I also appreciated your point about not needing “waves” in the field of Positive Psychology. Seligman really was an interesting character. Already well known for his work on learned helplessness, infamously shocking rats, dogs, and people he could’ve rested on those laurels and retired as a well respected figure in behavioral science. My (half-serious) theory is that he got tired of contributing to the collective depression of living beings (maybe even himself) and decided to shift gears. Enter Positive Psychology. He writes a book on happiness, then realizes that’s a bit thin, so evolves it into the concept of flourishing. I’m still not sure how you pitch all that to the military but I imagine you know more about that than I do.
The exchange between you and Ari was solid, especially around the tension between focusing on the positive while neglecting the darker aspects of human nature. I think Jung would’ve had a field day with that omission. It’s almost like Seligman was trying to outmaneuver his own shadow.
And yet the question still stands: how do Positive Psychology and well-being science meaningfully address the full range of human experience the good, the bad and the messy? It’s easier, of course, to design research studies around observable behaviors and traits than to wrestle with existential and intrapsychic complexities that resist tidy checkbox measurement.
Thanks again for the conversation it really got me thinking!
I appreciate the depth your brought to listening and thinking about this!!
Ohhh this makes wanna dive into the podcast straight away! Thanks Doc.
I promise you’ll love it
So beautifully and wholeheartedly articulated. Thank you!
Thank you! I love spending time with people who are courageous
Likewise. Interest captured!
When you spoke, Todd, I wanted to stand up and clap. When Eri spoke, I wanted to scream into a pillow and reread Aristotle.
When Eri claimed PP has been labelled a “transformative paradigm that’s going to change society and bring wellness to workplaces, schools…” I thought, Did I sleep through my MSc in PP 10 years ago!? I’ve never learned or considered PP in the way Eri described. But that kind of critique of PP has been circulating for years.
It didn’t surprise me to hear him say some theoretical constructs in PP aren’t accessible to the average person. How is that different from any other academic field? I wouldn’t expect my husband—a typical individual—to understand any of my research papers, for example. That’s where practitioners come in—translating research into practice and helping people make meaningful connections to the science.
As you rightly pointed out, Todd – we don’t always know the mechanisms for why things work. Sometimes this leads to multiple frameworks, revisions of theory, and interventions without scaffolding – we just have to ask and test questions. We can’t always wait to figure everything out before lending people a hand up.
On that note…back to not ignoring, like, the entire discipline of social psychology. Like moral philosophy. Like…real people.
Thanks Sarah! You caught all the meaty exchanges. Glad we’re simpatico on these issues.
I enjoyed checking this out.
I’m curious, how much progress should be achieved in a 25-year span of focus? I recognize that many have researched prior to the legendary Seligman APA speech, but let’s just anchor it here for the sake of conversation. I agree that the field is getting wrapped up in a cozy echo chamber; how does this compare to other fields of study?
For me, I’ve often believed that a solid Positive Psychology degree should be required to have a practicum and a research project together. (Not a practical capstone)
I completely support the idea that there are ethical issues with some of the interventions (mindfulness for example; and even strengths focus).
On my wish list for positive psychology? I’d like to see some strategic interdisciplinary studies with Social Work, Environmental Psychology, Healthcare, etc. Though, I have been disappointed in the lack of innovation in the field of Education (Social Emotional Learning or Resilience or Strengths focus are still focused on the micro-emotional perspective rather than looking for techniques on Learning/Teaching itself). For example, I think Appreciative Inquiry from Cooperrider is a great innovation, but shouldn’t there be more of this type of thing?
So one of my main points in the interview is that it didn’t start with Marty - https://toddkashdan.substack.com/p/6-groundbreaking-happiness-findings
Social psychology has hit wellbeing from the beginning even if it hasn’t used the same language.
Yes. But that still doesn’t answer my core question: is PP’s stagnation different from other disciplines? Are we seeing something academically typical or atypical?
Honestly I think it’s moving at a loser pace than other disciplines because of the rush to make money by selling it - with a lot of horseshit talks workshops books podcasts conferences etc.
I don’t think the sciences has seen anything like this.
This is what I was looking to understand. There’s a feeling that some of this stuff has been co-opted by the GOOP-type industry folks.
But also from within. The whole money corrupts.
And the workplace wellbeing intervention world….so much fluff
Yes. I get a lot of pressure to introduce different trendy things, being the department head of Health Services for the airline. I have successfully pushed back on stuff like MHFA or Resiliency training. The main thing that I’ve supported is incorporating light Trauma-informed perspectives into our Harassment investigation processes. I’ve also coached some folks on Dr. Cameron’s positive leadership model to help them understand an alternate to the hierarchical command/control leadership style.
And hells yes to more AI. David is a gem.
Juicy. Bookmarking to watch/listen.
I love Todd's focus on understanding the system. So many organizational problems are in the structure and the systems, which most training ignores. It's so imortant to understand the interpersonal dynamics, as well and how indivuals may respond to or use the learning. Only indiviudals can apply the learning to themselves and only if they are capable of facing their discoveries.
Thanks. Yep. Doesn’t matter if you’re grateful optimistic savoring mindful with a sense of humor if you’re treated like underpaid expendable meat where your views dorm matter because you’re not part of the inner circle of a poorly run company.
Great podcast. Pos psych generally annoys me because I think it gets weaponised.
Do tell. And thank you. I think it helps that we all respect each other
I would enjoy an intervention where the leaders in organisations have to sit in a windowless office and speak to only one person at a time. And the psychologists and researchers, etc from above get to speak with as many people as they like in local quality interactions. Whatever they want to talk about because they know how to implement pos psych for good.
I like this perspective taking leader intervention. Do you know what it’s like to be in a cubicle or windowless office for 6-8 hours even if your work takes 3 hours to complete and still have to sit there…because that’s what you’re told? How’s your mood and performance shift w interruptions of more tasks outside the task you wanted to crush? And tell me what it’s like for you to go to meetings where nobody asks your opinion or cares if you’re there…but you have to be there?
Then report the findings to them.
Then ask them what they think they should change in the day in the life of their employees.
Alright so we have psychologists, researchers, counsellors, psychotherapists, coaches, you get my picture, we have all these people who know pos psych and know how to make pretty damn good interventions at the individual level. Often one person at a time in a windowless room.
At the same time, we have leaders in organisations who have access to thousands of people and in one session can do a pos psych intervention with 3 pieces of information and then decide to do resilience workshops or ruok days.
This is where I think pos psych gets weaponised, it’s in the wrong hands. Maybe good intentions even, and then all the depressed people etc need to mask up, because eg; being sad is not ok in the leaders mind and not helpful.
That’s the best I can come up with at the moment.
Yes. Let me find a way to show what I’m thinking.