Who Doesn't Love Happiness? - A Positive Look at Dr. Marty Segilman

In my continuing journey through Brian Johnson's thinkarete e-mail course, I've come accross a very, very interesting psychologist. His name is Dr. Seligman, and he's the father of a field of psychology known as positive psychology doing research at University of Penn. He's published several books, one of them called, rather generically, Authentic Happiness.

I have to admit, when I first saw all of this, I was a little skeptical. I was thinking something like, 'Oh, here comes the big happy doctor to just tell us to be more happy, all we have to do is smile more. Great.' Turns out I couldn't be more wrong.

Dr. Seligman is all about human potential. He's not about wishy washy "feel" yourself to happiness theories. He's a full fledged Maslowian in terms of believing that in order for someone to be happy, they must live authentically (I guess that explains the title). Actually, to be more specific, he breaks up a happy life into three types: the Pleasant Life (basically hedonism), the Good Life (being moral and compassionate) and the Meaningful Life (having some sort of purpose). He then goes on to integrate these different theories of happiness into his one, unified theory. Wow, I have to say, this is some really, really good stuff. I haven't even read anything substantial by him, and I'm already impressed.

The part of Seligman's work that interests me the most is his interest in the "meaningful" life. I've found through experience that purpose is indeed the one key ingedient to truly being happy. I've found a general formula for using purpose, but Seligman outlines a rather simple yet powerful guide. He teaches that you should find what you're really good at and really enjoy, and should then find a way to work more of it into your day. (This idea may seem really simplistic and intuitive, but somehow I've missed it up til now. No wonder those days filled with random web surfing and e-mail reading didn't quite cut the happiness quota). For example, there's this nifty little survey on his site called the VIA Signature Strength Survey. It basically tells you your top five strengths out of a list of 24 virtues that Seligman feels lead to a meaningful life. My strengths (according to this survey) are:

1. Self-control and self-regulation
2. Love of learning
3. Caution, prudence, and discretion
4. Judgement, critical thinking, and open-mindedness
5. Spirituality, sense of purpose, and faith

I'd say those are pretty darn close. According to his theory, then, I should try to focus the majority of my activities around learning, critical thinking, and spirituality, while using a little self regulated discretion to make sure I don't go overboard. It's amazing, because that, to me, does sound like a rather fulfilling day.

An even more interesting use of the survey was to find my five greatest weaknesses. Here they are, from strongest to weakest:

1. Industry, diligence, and perserverance
2. Leadership
3. Capacity to love and be loved
4. Appreciation of beauty and excellence
5. Social Intelligence

Hm, those are pretty good too. Maybe this man does know his stuff.

My advice, try out the survey and read read the articles under "Newsletters." Think of it as a little Know Thyself exercise. At the very least, you'll learn something interesting about yourself. At the most, you might find your way to "authentic happiness."

Namaste.

PS - I was thinking. Why don't they teach this sort of stuff in high school. They give you classes on math, on science, on reading and history, but nothing on how to lead a truly fulfilling life. This is especially salient considering how many people lead a life of quiet desperation caught up in the hype that consumerism and materialism will - eventually - make them happy. I suppose schools are a little reluctant to legislate virtue, but this information does have a whole lot of wiggle room. I imagine eventually there will be positive psychology courses taught in public schools. It just didn't get there in time for us.

PPS - And if they're not going to teach courses on positive psychology, why not at least regular psych. Students have to take at least 2 out of the three physical sciences (biology, chemistry, and physics), but psychology isn't required. Why? It's probably the most useful of the sciences on a day to day basis, and yet it isn't required. What's up with that?