When Well-Being Science Lost Its Mind (And How We Might Save It)
A debate guaranteed to stimulate your mind.
Every field has its shadow. Positive psychology was supposed to be the antidote to pathology. A science of flourishing. A blueprint for a life worth living. And for a while, it felt like it might deliver until it started spinning in circles, slapping smiley faces on suffering, and outsourcing human complexity to PowerPoint decks.
Enter this debate. With an amazing host, Dr. Matt Iasiello, I sat down with Dr. Eri Mountbatten-O’Malley (yes, he of the triple-barreled intellectual firepower) to explore a deceptively simple question:
What is wrong with the current version of well-being science?
You’ll hear us argue that our so-called science of well-being has calcified.
People who adore this field ignore information outside their curated echo chamber. Like the entire discipline of social psychology. Like moral philosophy. Like… real people.
Why do so many interventions feel like expensive yoga mats placed over structural potholes?
Who decides what counts as well-being, and who gets left out?
Are we in service to science, or have we become the wellness industry’s underpaid interns?
There are moments where I wanted to stand and clap for Eri. Others where I wanted to walk off set, scream into a pillow, and reread Aristotle. That’s the point. You’re not supposed to leave a real debate with your beliefs intact. You’re supposed to feel rearranged.
We did.
Whether you’re a researcher, clinician, teacher, coach or someone who’s been handed one too many “positivity” platitudes while drowning this conversation is going to light up neglected parts of your brain.
I loved this conversation but regardless…Argue with us loud in your car. Share your thoughts in the comments. And I’ll try to answer posted questions in a subsequent video.
In the name of improving science and human welfare, it’s time to stop playing nice and fix things.
🎧 Listen or watch here:
YouTube →
Spotify →
If this made you think
Share it - Post a link on social media or text it to someone.
Like it - My fragile ego appreciates every 💖. And it gives the post a a boost.
Upgrade to Paid with benefits like premium content and the chat room.
Todd B. Kashdan is the author of several books including The Upside of Your Dark Side (Penguin) and The Art of Insubordination: How to Dissent and Defy Effectively (Avery/Penguin) and Professor of Psychology and Founder of The Well-Being Laboratory at George Mason University.
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!