I'm a happy person, oh yes. I am most definitely a very happy person. (I just love, love, love my
happy things!) I'm also a grad student in a scientific field, so when these two passions of mine come together, oooh myyy - the outcome is downright magnificent!
Upon awakening this morning, I flipped on the tube to the news, as per my usual morning routine. I was sparked by a new headline... "The Science of Happiness." The Today show did a segment about genetically determined features of happiness, and their environmental counterparts that may trigger glee in our lives. What'd I do next, you ask? I googled it, natch!
My findings... I found
article after
article after
article discussing the nature/nurture debate - how we, as humans, may be genetically determined to seek happiness in our lives, but stumble across triggers in our environment that encourage us to maintain our happiness. Of course, professionals in the field could argue for years (as they have already) over the importance of nature and nurture combining forces; there is certainly no absolute answer on this, as of yet. (Which school of thought do you follow, nature/ nurture/ nature & nurture?) It is important to note, however, I am not ruling out the relevance of depression. Major Depressive Disorder, or MDD, is an intense diagnosis and emerges from a variety of events - genetic and environmental. As a student of Psychology, I may argue, perhaps our genetics are the driving force behind finding happiness in our lives. Although we may very well be predetermined to become happy people, perhaps our genes act as the catalyst for embracing what occurs in our environments. Here, the two perspectives merge together in a new way.
Scientists simply love the act of research, but always come across the same problem when evaluating an idea... "But how do we measure it?" The
BBC did a wonderful series on the science of happiness, as they discussed the importance of measuring happiness. At this point, self-report becomes the ideal way to measure how happy one is at different points in his or her life. Naturally, there are drawbacks to using this style of data collection... We'll save that for another post... So then, back to the BBC... After administering a survey to participants, a correlation, or pattern, began to emerge. "Significant relationships between happiness and some other factor were repeated." In science, the word "prove" is a bad, bad word. We cannot "prove" anything. We can certainly suggest that a significant relationship exists, but we cannot say definitively that "A" caused "B." There are simply too many other factors that can potentially impact a relationship. So, what are these "factors," you ask? Professor Ed Diener from the University of Illinois reported some of them...
"First, family and friends are crucial - the wider and deeper the relationships with those around you the better. It is even suggested that friendship can ward off germs. Our brains control many of the mechanisms in our bodies which are reponsible for disease."
"The second vital ingredient is having meaning in our lives - something bigger than yourself - from religion, spirtuality, or a philosophy of life."
"The third element is having goals embedded in your long term values that you're working for, but also that you find enjoyable."
Ahh, perhaps some of this seems kind of obvious... "Duh, we need meaning to be happy," but the truth is... Many people fail to recognize this, as they struggle with developing and/or maintaining the tools necessary to pursue a meaningful life. Is this problematic
and ideal, then, when the "formula" for happiness is dramatically different for each and every one of us? "According to the positive psychologist Professor Martin Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania, it is possible to lift our biological set range of happiness, at least to some extent, if we work at it."
In addition to the scientific component of such research, I was pleased to find book reviews of recent literature...
So I came across so many wonderful articles outlining the power of
Positive Psychology (APA Division 17, Society of Counseling Psychology). Here is a snippit from
Harvard Magazine I found especially interesting, which is what I will leave you with today...
"For much of its history, psychology has seemed obsessed with human failings and pathology. The very idea of psychotherapy, first formalized by Freud, rests on a view of human beings as troubled creatures in need of repair. Freud himself was profoundly pessimistic about human nature, which he felt was governed by deep, dark drives that we could only tenuously control. The behaviorists who followed developed a model of human life that seemed to many mechanistic if not robotic: humans were passive beings mercilessly shaped by the stimuli and the contingent rewards and punishments that surrounded them."
"Though not denying humanity’s flaws, the new tack of positive psychologists recommends focusing on people’s strengths and virtues as a point of departure. Rather than analyze the psychopathology underlying alcoholism, for example, positive psychologists might study the resilience of those who have managed a successful recovery—for example, through Alcoholics Anonymous. Instead of viewing religion as a delusion and a crutch, as did Freud, they might identify the mechanisms through which a spiritual practice like meditation enhances mental and physical health. Their lab experiments might seek to define not the conditions that induce depraved behavior, but those that foster generosity, courage, creativity, and laughter."
