Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

The Science of Happiness: Is It All Bullshit?

By Bruce E. Levine, AlterNet. Posted July 4, 2008.


Just because a Harvard academic says something is so, doesn't mean it is.
Advertisement

A "Daily Show" interview that hit a chord for me was Jon Stewart's conversation with Tal Ben-Shahar, who teaches "positive psychology" at Harvard and has written a self-help book. Early in the interview, a suspicious Stewart declares, "I am a psychology major, so I know a lot of it is bullshit."

Stewart, however, politely gives Ben-Shahar a chance to explain the value of his book and his course on positive psychology. Ben-Shahar is proud that his course is the most popular one at Harvard, to which Stewart gets an audience laugh by suggesting that perhaps the real reason it is so popular is because it is easy. This results in a nervous laugh from Ben-Shahar, who retorts that his exams are "actually quite difficult." Ben-Shahar then explains that there is now a "science of happiness" and offers a study to prove it, but an unimpressed Stewart quips, "How is that science?"

Finally, Stewart is no longer able to restrain his amazement that platitudes are considered profound at Harvard nowadays (the "Six Happiness Tips" on Ben-Shahar's website are about acceptance of negative feelings, positive attitude, meaningful activities, being grateful, simplifying life and physical health). Stewart ends the interview in Groucho Marx fashion by saying, "It's a fascinating subject and one that I can't believe you are getting away with."

Compared with the dangerously dehumanizing stuff in the mental health business, positive psychology is so innocuous that I almost felt sorry for Ben-Shahar. But Stewart's derision was not groundless. Even if a pretend profundity is harmless enough, it is never completely harmless when people surrender their own authority to others based solely on affiliations and advanced degrees. When people allow credentials such as a Harvard Ph.D. to cut off their own critical thinking, they will eventually buy into some truly dangerous bullshit.

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines bullshit as "nonsense, lies or exaggeration." My recent articles have been about the corrupt partnership between Big Pharma and psychiatry -- resulting in nonsense, lies and exaggerations about mental illness diagnoses, chemical imbalances and psychiatric drugs -- and thus, lately, I have neglected discussing the particular bullshit of my fellow psychologists, some of which is seriously dehumanizing.

While psychologists and psychiatrists have different bullshit, they also have overlapping bullshit, one example being the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the bible of mental illness diagnoses. When I was an undergraduate in the 1970s, the DSM-II included homosexuality as a mental illness. The good news is that gay rights activists succeeded in getting homosexuality voted out of the DSM-III. The bad news is that the DSM-III and the current DSM-IV dramatically increased the number of psychiatric diagnoses, including more childhood mental illnesses, one of which is "oppositional defiant disorder." Kids don't get to vote in DSM mental illness elections.

While psychiatry has its own biochemical bullshit, psychology has its low-tech bullshit, some of which is quite dehumanizing. When I was a psychology major, one of the most prominent psychologists in America was the Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner, famous for popularizing "behavior modification" -- the use of positive and negative reinforcements to manipulate rats and people. One Skinner book that many psychology majors were required to read was Beyond Freedom and Dignity, which I remember thinking was a damn scary title.

My first institutional experience of Skinner's behavior modification came while interning on a locked ward in a state psychiatric hospital that had something called a "token economy." I recall one patient there -- I'll call him George -- who was severely depressed. George refused to talk to staff but, for some reason, one day chose me to shoot pool with. When my boss, a clinical psychologist, spotted my interaction with George, he told me that I should give George a token, a cigarette, to reward his "pro-social behavior." I fought it, trying to explain that I was 20 and George was 50, and that this would be humiliating, but the psychologist threatened to kick me off the ward. So with staff watching but not hearing from behind the nurse's station window, I asked George what I should do. Fighting the zombifying effects of his heavy medication, he grinned and said, "We'll win, let me have the cigarette." In full view of staff, George took the cigarette and then placed it into the shirt pocket of another patient. George, unlike B.F. Skinner, was not "beyond freedom and dignity."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: happiness, psychology, harvard, dsm

Bruce E. Levine, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist and author of Surviving America's Depression Epidemic: How to Find Morale, Energy, and Community in a World Gone Crazy (Chelsea Green, 2007). www.brucelevine.net.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Psychology is a tough discpline...
Posted by: Smartcookie on Jul 4, 2008 12:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the reason why psychology is so tough is because you can't simply experiment on people or spy on them without them wanting kick your butt.

Next is the PHD's, and other students who graduate who are merely looking to cash in or prey on stupid people to pay off their enormous debts, things like ADD and ADHD, are basically trying to explain away normal behaviour but other aspects of psychology are not bs, even some of the so called 'personality disorders' (schizophrenia, etc) do have some kind of neurological / phenotypic basis, lets not forget John Nash.

Lets also not forget that autism was once thought to be caused by "refrigerator mothers" we now know for certain its genetic, neurological and developmental.

While some psychology is bullshit a lot of it is absolutely not, the science is a fledgeling science let's not forget this. Medicine was once just as bad! Our future children will look back and think our medicine was 'snake oil' just as well.

A little perspective goes a long way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What on earth does this mean? Posted by: truthlover
Cult professors
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jul 4, 2008 2:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chomsky is one of the most cranky, rude, bitter, miserable old bastards you'll ever see. Now there's a real cult professor. Not an ounce of happiness within 500 yards of that guy.

I agree that we should stop listening to all of these gurus who think they have all of the answers. Unfortunately, there are too many suckers willing to pay for them. If there weren't, these guys would have to get real jobs pushing paper and flipping burgers all day like the rest of us. After a few days of that, we'd see how their happiness plan is working for them.

If you want advice, ask someone down in the trenches who has lived through it all, seen it all, and has nothing to sell, like Dilbert's garbage man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cult professors Posted by: progdem
» What? Posted by: maddy
» actually.. Posted by: nap
» RE: Cult professors Posted by: GPFrank
This article is Bullshit
Posted by: progdem on Jul 4, 2008 2:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) While there is still a school of behavioral psychology, there is no active research project pursuing Skinnerian ideas. There never was an active movement to develop or even interest, in psychology, in Skinner's philosophical ideas (about, for instance, the nature of mental states, and political philosophy). That a book is standardly assigned tells you next to nothing about how much the beliefs of the majority of people in the profession match up with the book. Heidegger and Nietzsche are assigned to every philosophy major at some point. Are philosophers all fascists or proto-fascists?

2) I have never met a professional psychologist who would claim that every aspect of intelligence is measured by standard tests of any kind. My wife is trained to administer those tests and can go on and on about what they don't capture and how they still have biases built in to upper/middle class white westerners. No one pretends it captures everything, so why should we care that it doesn't capture everything? Fact is that IQ tests are decent general guides. I am sure there are a few people who score 70 or below on IQ tests (and are technically developmentally delayed) who have some of the skills you mention (undiagnosed dyslexia might take a person of average intelligence and drop them that many points), but it is rare. And again no one thinks that the test is such as to be a failure free guide. It is one indicator among many.

3) No one in academia takes the Bell Curve seriously. That you didn't laugh at yourself when trying to paint a discipline with this brush just shows how out of touch you are.

4) The terms are subjective huh? What an argument. What is one to say in response? Probably the thing I say to my freshman students when they offer such a lazy argument. I usually say something about how the term 'subjective' is itself ambiguous and fuzzy in meaning, so if you want to make a point and sound like you have put some thought into it, chose a different word, one where it is not so easy to throw it around and sound smart. If laziness like yours were good enough to dissuade scientists from doing real work, we wouldn't get anywhere.

That said what do I think of positive psychology? What I know of it comes only from my wife. And that is that it is a relatively new subfield. It may produce nothing of value. It may produce new therapeutic techniques. I don't know. Certainly it shouldn't be judged based on the performance of one author on the Daily Show and the flimsy 'oh but its all so subjective' argument this author has offered. What I do know for sure is that the people working on, while they might fail, have better odds to help people than the self-important ass who wrote this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The bell curve... Posted by: SpiderWoman
» RE: The bell curve... Posted by: progdem
» hey "beck" Posted by: 23skidoo
» RE: This article is Bullshit Posted by: talkville
» RE: This article is Bullshit Posted by: progdem
» RE: This article is Bullshit Posted by: goeswithness
It's Also Called Denial...
Posted by: Nebris on Jul 4, 2008 3:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There is no doubt that healthy-mindedness is inadequate as a philosophical doctrine, because the evil facts which it refuses positively to account for are a genuine portion of reality; and they may after all be the best key to life's significance, and possibly the only openers of our eyes to the deeper levels of truth." ~William James

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's Also Called Denial... Posted by: goeswithness
More AlterNet Science Bashing
Posted by: socialpsych on Jul 4, 2008 3:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, let's round up all the Ph.D.s and send them to the gulags where they belong. That way, Rupert Murdoch and his ilk can do all the thinking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Journalism vs. Academia Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: Journalism vs. Academia Posted by: racetraitor
» RE: Journalism vs. Academia Posted by: progdem
» RE: Journalism vs. Academia Posted by: racetraitor
Andy Cap wins and Flo is second
Posted by: flymulla on Jul 4, 2008 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Andy Cap wins and Flo is second
Ben White says Morgan Stanley’s weak profits make Goldman Sachs appear more outlier than trendsetter on Wall Street.
Now after reading this my smile went off like the corn from the pan.
Look let us talk of the happiness and politic in two dimension. Politics is crazy; happiness is life. Happiness gives you that edge on looking at the cartoons and paying even the tax you do not have to pay, but the war of Iraq and Afghanistan takes me to my medicine cabinet with the sleeping pills and Prozac. Happiness is witling in the woods and near the river. Politics is taking a plunge in the river and burn the bloody forests just for the hack of the lousy politicians.
Sir, the long time myth of the photographer telling you to smile when he snaps you still is valid. Hang the other hums I say. We do not need them,
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Expecting expectations
Posted by: talkville on Jul 4, 2008 3:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the pace we're going, it seems that soon we'll be able to see changes and additions in university faculties, high-school curricula and elementary schools.

It seems possible by now to simply throw up one's hands and utter a "what's next??" The Science of Science; An Empirical Study of Experience; The Rationalism of Reason; An Essay Concerning Concerns in Understanding Understanding; Why We Live Living and Not Dead. A seemingly endless list of Theories of Theory and Practices of Practice. A pragmatic pragmatism and fetishised fetishisms.

Oh well, good luck, "scientists", it appears that the field of your disciplined disciplines in the process of processing its transformations and you will have much available upon which to practice your practices, and duly inform us with your information so all of us can think utterly clearly and with coherent coherence about all these developing advances that are daily being found out and discovered by great demonstrations of capable abilities in the methodologies of scientific knowledges.

Speak seriously and solemnly, always carry PowerPoint and Charts, dress appropriately and display the most impeccable manners; this too is part of the discipline, its ascetic so to speak.

If we're lucky, we'll soon be transcending the great transcendental sublimations and going up another notch from Plato to the Idea of the Idea and the Formation of the Form.

Happy that my Happiness is now scientifically understood and explained, I'm off to buy another one to make. Who knows? Maybe this Next Generation Happiness is way better, simpler to use and more labor-saving than the last. Hopefully it'll come in a great variety of choices as to colors and shapes and have a multitude of inter-active features to select.

After all these years, it seems unavoidable to conclude that I must return once more, back to the 1st grade even!, and re-learn how to learn about learning. Ah! my relatively happy, relatively interesting, relatively fruitful, wasted life! Maybe there's a web-based center that will provide me with a useful degree in a few short years with all these new methodologies and programs and systems available.

Then again, Ignorance is Bliss; isn't that better, more valuable, than Happiness?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

happiness is now a science?
Posted by: EMB on Jul 4, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not an expert in this field nor was I a psychology major. I did suffer serious depression and read a book (picked up at a yard-sale)published in the late sixties which described the power of positive thinking. As in: I learned to have a greater awareness of my thought -process. Simple and life-saving ideas.
That said, I'm surprized and curious about the scientific status of this research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't be knocking Harvard...
Posted by: Dboy on Jul 4, 2008 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
after all, our President went there.

dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Check his Resume Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: Check his Resume Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: Check his Resume Posted by: Xynyx
» He is NOT the president Posted by: wireup
Why are Americans so afraid of people who know more than they do?
Posted by: goeswithness on Jul 4, 2008 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is based upon truisms - like all opposition to science, people hear something they don't understand and which is new to them, don't look at it as it's really meant to be understood, make assumptions about it, and blow it up out of proportion. In this case, I think Levine has an understanding of what's really going on and he should be ashamed of his distortions.

Psychology changes constantly, and new understandings reflect that. It fine-tunes. It gets better, to respond more affectively to the world around us. It never claims to have EVERYTHING UNDERSTOOD once and for all. It doesn't claim that for itself, so while you can rail away all day against the idea that they do, you're wasting your breath.

Oh, and as a teacher I can tell you that ODD is a real thing, and approaching a child with it using my psychological understanding of it is certainly a lot more effective than the old way, when he or she would have been condemned as a bad kid.

In sum, while yes, science can be wrong about some things (for now), any authority can be wrong about some things, in the whole, it's ridiculous to be so suspicious. When someone has spent years of their lives studying something in depth, and I haven't, I think it's probably smart to admit that they know more than I do about it.

Why are Americans so suspicious of the learned? It is boldly manifested in almost every choice Bush has made for appointments. The secretary of Education has never attended a class in education, never been in a classroom. It makes her just like most people, regular folks, and that's supposed to mean she'll do her job better, right? This fear of psychology isn't far from the same attitude.

And unfortunately we don't respond to our fear of authority by educating ourselves so we'll understand it better; we react by shutting it out and condemning those who DO have that understanding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mars the perfect source for Ph.D.'s
Posted by: carbon-based on Jul 4, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really enjoyed this article. I distinctly remember thinking that every professor I had that had a Ph.D. was literally in another world. It just seemed they rarely made sense or address topics with common sense.

As an accounting major the best teachers were those who had their own practice, no advanced degree, but could relate to real world. It is amazing how little one really knows about their course of study when they leave school. Do we have Ph.D.'s to thank for that?

As for the science of happiness, I'm not so sure it's a science but look at certain traits of successful people. Not defining success in monetary terms, but in more general terms, most if not all have a positive attitude, good outlook and high energy level - generally happy people!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Happiness deserves to be studied
Posted by: wonkywriter on Jul 4, 2008 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For 60 years--since the advent of television--we have been bombarded with the notion that "happiness" will come when we simply purchase the right product. (If "happiness" is so subjective, someone should tell the advertisers that they're wasting billions of dollars trying to market it.) Our government is making policy decisions every day based upon something called Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which, while quantifiable, merely encourages this equating of consumerism with quality of life. This practice has led us down the path to the eventual destruction of life as we know it with the arrival of peak oil and global climate disruption.

Perhaps if we learn more about "happiness", we might learn to value things like community, family, recreational time, healty lifestyles, and leaving our children and grandchildren a world in which they can be happy, too. Happiness has something to do with thriving and very little to do with what we're driving.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pathology Based Medicine...
Posted by: drricklippin on Jul 4, 2008 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... taken to excess including in psychiatry is also wrong.

I agree with at least that core priniciple of positive psychology/psychiatry. Because of our Puritan backround we have focused excessively on pathology in US Medicine.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

"optimism is a moral imperative"-ral

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's Relative to the Environment
Posted by: craigandrew on Jul 4, 2008 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have friends who have Ph.d's and I have been to holiday parties in Boston, having drinks with professors and research specialists, bored to tears... not just me... everyone!! It is excruciating!! These people are tedious and boring. Ask them about the happiest moment in their life and they will tell you - in great detail - about some mold culture they somehow got to grow in a laboratory. And that is when you find out that the toothpicks aren't long enough to kill you if cram them in your ear.

So, I have no doubt that people who spend their lives measuring every word and guarding their behavior at all times, because that is what they were taught as being the way to success, would see something like being happy as some sort of complex voo-doo. It's what you get for putting material success ahead of happiness. The weirdo's.

C;)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Stumbling on Happiness"
Posted by: bizeeb on Jul 4, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Stumbling on Happiness" by Dan Glibert (also a Harvard proffessor of psychology), is absolutely brilliant and a joy to read. Anyone who hasn't read it yet should do so. I'm surprised the author of this piece didn't even mention it; it was a bestseller last year. Google Dan Gilbert and there are lots of great essays and vids of lectures etc. that are well worth your time.

I.Q. tests may not be perfect but they aren't completely worthless; I believe you can tell more about a person's intelligence by their I.Q. score than by their curriculum vitae. I've encountered plenty of people with extensive education and degrees that were idiots (think Bush), but I've never met someone with an I.Q. over 140 (Mensa qualified) that fits that description.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CASHNG IN ON SELF INDULGENCE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 4, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A society completely wrapped up in itself is a captive audience for those selling happiness, weight loss, cosmetics, cars, love. The list is endless, as long as it's about them. The Wall St. crowd is up front about wanting to make money. The self improvment crowd attempts to be more subtle. Studying happiness won't find the cure for unhappiness. But $25 a pop will make the author smile. There are countless ways to be happy. None are permanent and ongoing. It's a fleeting thing, like misery. Putting everyone under a microscope is destroying out ability to be spontaneous, an important ingredient in being happy.
Some of us are trying too hard. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can one have a science of nose-picking?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 4, 2008 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until recently, philosophy also modeled its best work against the disciplines of physics. Providing us with a map of the universe for as far as we can see in all direction, including sub-atomic, is quite an achievement. Calling oneself "scientific" spreads even to "Religious Science" in pursuit of creds.

"Happiness" has as ancient a history as a laudatory result as does "science." Reducing either of those to 10 steps, however, is the mark of pop bs. Both can be faked, which is what "10 steps to" promotes.

If happiness can be measured by smiles, it's because the liar behind the smile sees a potential victim. Taking advantage of others makes some people happy. Unhappiness can be far more honest. When do we get a "science of honesty"? Like, telling the truth? At all times? Short of that it is all bs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "learn to be happy" Posted by: Sojourner
eb
Posted by: ebnineteen on Jul 4, 2008 10:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On the subject of happiness:

Bhutan, celebrated at the Washington Folklife Festival in Washington D.C., this year, is the only country that puts happiness at the heart of government policy. They actually have a "gross national happiness" index. According to Wikipedia, their international ranking on the satisfaction with life index was #8, well ahead of the U.S. at #23. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index)

On the other hand, google "women Bhutan" and you'll get an entirely different picture.

So, what is this "happiness" anyway? personally or politically.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Intelligence??
Posted by: ilene on Jul 4, 2008 11:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article talks about intelligence not measured by "the tests". In keeping with that spirit, I have to say that this is just the same "bullshit indoctrination" as anything else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The happiness lie...
Posted by: BaruchZ on Jul 4, 2008 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a huge lie being purveyed upon the modern western public, the idea that they are flawed if they are not "happy" and it is possible to be "happy."

I practiced psychotherapy for 25 years. I can say with certainty that "happiness" is not a static state one reaches and then resides in forever more. "Happiness" is a feeling like sadness, or anger, or fear. We all have lots of feelings, and if we allow them to move through us generally we are OK.

Especially in the US there is this mythic state of "happiness" that people are supposed to achieve. Failure to do so is evidence of one's "not OK-ness." Horse hockey. The Pharma industry and folks who think they have the answer for other people are quick to proclaim what happiness is and how to reach it, but more often than not these end up being for-profit or just more narcissistic stuck-ness.

You want to be happy? Embrace all of your feelings, let them move through you, wake up and relate with your fellow planet mates, and sometimes you'll be happy, and sometimes you won't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The happiness lie... Posted by: Xynyx
» The Injunction to ENJOY Posted by: pdxstudent
sifting thru the bs
Posted by: thealltheone on Jul 4, 2008 12:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is the same as politics, or religion, you have to sift thru the BS of misinformation and the PHD's that have money guiding them for personal or corporate gain. Human's have been searching for the fountain of youth and happiness for a long time. What works for normal healthy people may not work for everyone. Some people are born depressed and stay that way through out their life times. I know from personal experience that chemical imbalance, hormones, toxins, and drugs do play a part in this. As well as a positive out look, like attracts like,faith,a healthy body, etc also play a part. Some people are happy under the worst conditions. I knew this happy go lucky old man with no teeth that worked at a ware house finishing furniture. I had to take something to his home once and was astonished as to how his family lived. His wife worked from home sewing cloths for a living and made all the cloths for their family. His children received scholarships to college for their high accomplishments. They were so poor, it is hard and too much to describe. They were a white family living in a dangerous getto of gang bangers,the kind of neighborhood where everyone of the block have plywood or stacks of refrigerators in front of their front windows of their homes. They did not need a lot of store bought "things". What struck me the most is that they were HAPPY. Always. They were not overly religious people. I concluded it was the genuine love and respect they had for each other. I always admired that man and his family, he was interesting to talk to, well read, and wise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

beautiful
Posted by: bluebirdella on Jul 4, 2008 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's this near-criminalization of unhappiness that is so much bullshit. As if unhappiness were a moral failing, or suspicious - the notion that if you're not happy, you must be up to something nefarious. I see it as an attempt at thought-control for the purpose of denying society's problems - if you don't point out the problems, the reasoning goes, they obviously don't exist - so shut up. Move along, nothing to see here, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

guevara
Posted by: guevara on Jul 4, 2008 2:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am somewhat surprised that an alleged scientist like Levine quotes a couple of personal anecdotes and thinks that makes the case. No randomised controls to make his argument?
At the risk of starting a whole new argument, as a non-academic and having read "The Bell Curve" could someone briefly explain to me exactly what are its failings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: guevara Posted by: Xynyx
An Argument To Be Further Developed
Posted by: sofla100 on Jul 4, 2008 2:58 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's interesting that the author made a connection to Buddhism. IF that's where he is coming from, then he should have said it's Western psychology that largely creates the notion of "self." It's from this "self" then that neurosis, psychosis, etc., are all derived. And, of course, these definitions are invariably relative and subject to cultural biases. It's like saying, well she is "neurotic." But, of course, no objectively findable "neurotic" actually exists. "Neurotic" is just a label applied to certain behaviors. However, I do think the author, though well intentioned, carries his argument a bit too far. I mean, most psychologists probably could agree with much of what the author said, but, they are not so simplistic as to think you can fully and totally define a human being based on admittedly arbitrary labels. I mean, give the psychologists at least a little bit of credit on that. My suggestion, the author should develop his lines of reasoning and progression much more. We already know psychology is a flawed science and it's simply pretend to think we will ever arrive at some "objective truth" with it. So, tell us something we don't already know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Oppositional Defiant Disorder" - LOL!
Posted by: Cathyc on Jul 4, 2008 3:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No doubt, the guy who dreamed up that label was a tyrant, or rather, a Big Pharma drug pusher...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Human Interaction
Posted by: Starfall Deception on Jul 4, 2008 5:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I take my meds, go to my therapist, and bitch to her for an hour. And I try to avoid the psychiatrist that gives me my meds, because I don't trust psychiatrists. This is simple.

But most psychology has gotten too convoluted for my liking. Seriously. Human interaction. It makes people feel better. Hence my therapy sessions.

Psychology now is too removed. There is no helping people. They don't get better. The "doctors" just sit back and try to analyze, and there's no interaction whatsoever. It is bullshit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Harvard and Yale
Posted by: sliver on Jul 4, 2008 9:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Harvard and Yale are our top two institutions of higher learning, why do they keep cranking out corporate peons like Bush, the Clintons, and likely Obama.

If it is really higher learning, wouldn't they have risen above that? Or do those colleges teach that leading a corporate state is the highest level a person in our society can achieve?

Higher learning is awesome, but it doesn't help our country if it produces elite politicians who buy into power and prestige, and shit on the rest of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You big dummies
Posted by: flawedplan on Jul 4, 2008 9:50 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amazing to see y'all schooling Bruce Levine in what it means to be an effective psychologist. Pouncing on the usual petty bullshit to demonstrate your superiority while absolutely clueless of his deservedly heroic reputation among the population he serves. Which would be clearer if not for the blinding privilege that let you skip the part about the dangerously dehumanizing mental health system. This post is about the abuse of power, in all its guises; big wonder you philosophers missed that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CARL JUNG, the great Kabbalist, explained the true meaning of Life.
[