Tag Archives: strengths

September 10, 2013

Top 10 Questions on Positive Psychology

Because a bachelors in philosophy was overly practical, I decided to get a masters in something most people have never heard of before. These are the questions I get most often.

1) What the hell is positive psychology?

Good question! Psychology has historically sought to identify the symptoms of mental illness and treat disease — a focus on problems. In fact, the goal Freud identified was to turn “misery into common unhappiness.” Positive psych, on the other hand, uses the same rigorous empirical methods to research the symptoms of strengths, strategies for cultivating strengths, and seeks to identify how the miserable, the functional, and even those doing pretty good, can reach their full potential and thrive as human beings. In other words, just in the last decade or two, science has started explicitly pursuing philosophy’s original question: “What is the good life?” Findings so far have enormous implications for all of us–for religions, government, families, the workplace, and the future of humankind.

2) Why can’t I get happy just by getting rid of problems?

Simply put, the absence of bad things does not equal the presence of good things. For example, joy is not the result of simply not being sad and hope is not the mere absence of fear. Rather, both the positive and the negative can be present in abundance, or both can be absent. Strengths and positive emotions have unique physiological signatures and psychological effects that do not simply parallel a mental illness. Because of this, strengths and positive emotions deserve study in their own right, and must be intentionally cultivated. We could spend a lifetime trying to solve problems and never get anywhere. We also have to develop appreciative intelligence — identify what is going right in our lives and build on it.

3) What is the difference between positive psychology and all the self-help-positive-thinking crap that is out there?

Fantastic question! Regarding topic, there is often little difference. Regarding method, they are poles apart. Self-help books are based on the intuitions of authors like Norman Vincent Peale, Stephen Covey, and even Donald Trump. Positive psychology, however, is a sub-field of psychological science. Thus “positive” is not a claim like “it is good to be positive” but simply denotes the research topic (“how does human flourishing happen?”). Research is based on the scientific method with all its parts: hypotheses, experiments, randomized controlled trials, correlational studies, peer-reviewed journals, etc. Positive psychologists themselves have PhD.s, work at research labs at prestigious universities, have unquestionably big IQs, criticize each others experiments, and debate theory. But there is confusion with self-help because the massive self-help market has demonstrated enormous interest in the topic and more and more positive psychologists have been pushed to make their work accessible. (In fact, you can often spot their books because they are some of the worst written best-selling non-fiction books ever–it’s what you get when nerds writing exclusively academic papers for 30 years try to be entertaining.) And the public has gobbled it up. And they should. It helps people. Nearly all my professors have written best-selling books and given TED talks.

: This cover cracks me up. Tump, you might guess, was not one of my professors. But while much of self-help is crap, much isn’t. Speculation has its uses. And the interest in speculations on how to be happy is stunning. “The Secret,” for example, has sold over 19 million copies. “You Can Heal Your Life” by Louise Hay has sold over 35 million. But they are not positive psychology books.

4) So what would you say are the three most important findings in positive psychology?

“Other people matter” — The late Chris Peterson’s (University of Michigan) famous three word summary of the entire field.
Happy people use their strengths everyday.
Happiness often depends more on how we interpret circumstances rather than external circumstances themselves.

5) What general-audience books would you recommend?

The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt — Very well written.
Give & Take by Adam Grant — An interesting idea.
Flourish by Martin Seligman — Seminal.

6) Who, would you say, are the top 3 researchers in the field?

Here they are with links to some introductory talks they have given.

Martin Seligman is widely considered to be the founder of positive psychology, he was also my professor and founded my program — an appropriate amount of Kool-Aid aide was unavoidable. Marty’s done alot of work on optimism and co-created the classification of 24 strengths (Character Strengths and Virtues, or the CSV), a “manual of the sanities,” that serves as counterweight to the manual that everyone uses, such as insurance companies, health practitioners, government, and researchers, to identify insanity (The Diagnostic and Statistics Manual, or DSM).
Barbara Fredrickson is the positive emotions researcher and has a lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She believes positive emotions are both the result and cause of a flourishing mental life.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi invented the concept of “flow,” which is a state of total engagement in which a task requires every ounce of attention but nothing more. Flow is getting lost in the music. Time flies. And afterwards the results are numerous positive psychological affects.

: Marty Seligman

7) What is the difference between the CSV and Gallup’s StrengthsFinders?

Both are great tools based in science and they serve different functions. StrengthsFinders was created by Gallup and identifies strengths relevant to professional work settings (think talents) whereas CSV strengths, while still very relevant to the workplace, are more personal and core to who someone is (think character).

8) If you could only suggest one thing that could help me become more happy, what would it be?

I’ll give the same advice I give family and friends: take the CSV strengths test online at VIA Me. It is the only free psychometrically valid strengths test in the world. After you find out what your top five strengths are, memorize them and design them into the fabric of your life. You will have to register to take the test (takes 2 minutes and they won’t spam you) and it consists of 130 questions which most people complete in 15-30 minutes. No need to pay for premium reports. If you have any questions about your results or how to integrate them into your life, feel free to contact me. I’d love to help!

And I sometimes get questions about me…

9) How did you get into positive psychology?

Seven years ago, I was in college and wrote a manuscript (later Therefore Joy) that took me on a raucous philosophical journey which ultimately forced me to concede that the world was an objectively good place. “But the world looks like a shit-hole!” I thought. Though I had grown up in this universe, had I never really looked at it before?

In an effort to try to understand the mass of positive reasons I knew had to exist, I started purposefully journaling about what was right about existence, writing down five things that I saw that were beautiful each day (later I would find out that this activity was nearly identical to a well-documented positive psychology intervention called the “3 blessings exercise”). Sure enough, day by day, I started seeing the world as a crushingly glorious and beautiful place, and I got strangely happier. “Seriously?” I thought, “that’s not supposed to happen. Isn’t philosophy supposed to make me depressed?” So, in 2007, confused and intrigued, on the last day of my Senior year, I walked into the office of the head of my college’s psych department and announced loudly, “I want to study happiness.” Dr. Paul Young looked at me, smiled, and told me about Seligman and the Applied Positive Pysch program at Penn. I’ve been planning to go ever since. I’ve found that studying positive psych makes me happier and the people around me happier– and its just fascinating! My inner nerdy philosopher self and my inner practical “change the world” self has found a home.

Dr. Paul Young, Chair of Houghton’s Psych Department. Thank you!

10) How does your research fit into this?

As mentioned, I discovered positive psych because I became happier after changing my overall judgement of the world. Now, I am researching the effects of overall judgements of the universe, and I call them universal assessments (UAs). For example, is the world a shit-hole to be endured or a wondrous place to be explored? Answers might change daily life by affecting, perhaps, how many friends you have, how confident you are, if you are prone to depression, how much money you make, etc. For my masters thesis, I conducted an analysis which identified 13 UAs most likely to make life better and put them forth as candidates for future research. In the past, a handful of UAs have been identified and researched in the context of alleviating the ill effects of trauma and depression. But, as far as we know, I am the first to consider what UAs lead to the ‘good life’ — the positive psych approach to UAs. For more, check out Jer’s Thesis in Three Pages Using Non-Academic Language Because Academic Language is for Silly Nits.

Bonus Question: So, if you’ve studied all this stuff, what’s the secret to happiness then? What’s your theory of wellbeing?

This is not a simple question.

Creating the ultimate theory of wellbeing (the path to happiness) is the holy grail of positive psychology. Marty Seligman has a theory that consists of five pillars: positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment (PERMA). Tom Rath at Gallup has a theory that separates wellbeing into domains: carreer, social, financial, physical, and community wellbeing. But Tom’s theory doesn’t really tell you what to do and Marty’s theory is too western and individualistic. He’s got what I call a “happy asshole problem” in which someone could be very high in PERMA, and still be kicking puppies, polluting city parks, and hated by almost everyone who knows him. Thus, my own theory is more context oriented.

I identify eight areas which should be optimized by those wishing to pursue the ‘good life’ — 4 at the individual level and 4 regarding context. Like Tom’s and Marty’s theories, mine is based on research, but unlike them I am willing to get ahead of the research in a few places which I will identify. So this makes my theory part unproven and proven hypotheses. Overall, one should think of this theory of wellbeing as a generic strategy for those interested in fully flourishing as human beings. You will see that it keeps Marty’s two pillars, positive emotion and engagement, as they are, combines meaning and accomplishment, and expands greatly on relationships.

At the individual level:

Somatic Integration – “Soma” means body. Evidence indicates that our bodies are not simply animated corpses that take our minds from place to place. Instead, we are flesh. Mental health requires bodily health and vice versa (lots of research supports this). Human flourishing requires physical activity and engaging in tasks that integrate our bodies and minds. Examples include gardening, cooking, sports, carpentry, sex, cuddling, sailing, swimming, hiking, or playing. Is your body and mind integrated?

Positive Emotion – Fredrickson has found something we all know to be intuitively true: moods are self-perpetuating. To break free from depression, there is a threshold of positive to negative emotions that establishes a virtuous cycle in the mind. It has been suggested that it might be 3:1, but there has been much debate. The point is, we all would do well to limit negative emotions (i.e., take down that picture that makes you sad every time you see it) and increase positive emotions (i.e., spend more time with friends). Are there easy ways to increase your positive to negative emotion ratio?

Engagement – Flow activities are key (see above). How can you build more flow into your life?

Wisdom – Life is complicated. There is no simple set of black and white rules to live by. For example, one needs to be able to accept and reject, set goals and play things by ear, etc. Are you wise?

At the contextual or community level.

Roles Within Nested Communities – “Nested” refers to layers, like a russian doll. I think there are possibly eight layers of communities in which we need a role to fully thrive as human beings: 1) immediate family, 2) small community of similarly-aged peers, 3) primary triblet (might be a religious community), 4) secondary communities (regions, larger tribal group or other like-minded tribes, large institutions) 5) government (interestingly, the ancient Greeks believed that human flourishing was impossible without participation in a polis) 6) the community of humanity at large, 7) the community of nature and the material world, and finally, for religious people, 8) the community of the spiritual world (gods, demons, spirits, etc.). These layers are not of equal importance, but all matter. Do you have roles in nested communities? (Unlike the other areas, which I think are highly based on the evidence at hand, I am ahead of the evidence on this one and making a guess )

Intimates – These are the one or two people who may know you better than you know yourself. They are likely to be your spouse or best friend and might be considered the first layer of nested community. However, these relationships are so distinctly important, the research is so clear, that they must be highlighted. Do you have a best friend?

Contribution: Seligman (2011) argues effectively for the inclusion of “accomplishment” and “meaning” in PERMA, but ineffectually, in my view, for their division. Of course, accomplishment is important. It leads to building optimism, resilience, self-efficacy, mastery, and many other skills and traits important to personal development. But, in the holy words of Tyler Durtan from Fight Club, “self-improvement is masturbation.” Eventually, one’s education and projects must lead to something bigger than the self. If not, accomplishment stays the domain of children, the selfish, the insane–or just anyone who is not fully thriving. Seligman himself defines “meaning” as “belonging to and serving something that you believe is bigger than the self” (p 17). Therefore, I combine “meaning” with “accomplishment,” rename it ‘contribution,’ and, like Marty, forego any sort of an ethical claim (“contributing is what good people do”) and posit a descriptive one (“contributing is what flourishing people do, from Osama Bin Laden to Mother Theresa”). Are you contributing to your nested communities?

Esteem: Individuals become full members of a community when their is mutual agreement that his or her contribution matters and that him or her is a good person. We want to know that our accomplishments are genuinely helpful. We want to be appreciated. Thus, in addition to Peterson’s famous summary of positive psychology “other people matter” I’ll insert three words and say “other people’s opinion of you matters” too.

Together my theory of wellbeing forms the highly regrettable acronym SPEW RICE. I tried for hours to come up with different words, but these were the best. Shoot! Well, at least its memorable.

Jer has a Masters of Applied Positive Psychology from the University of Pennsylvania. This post reflects a page created to be an ongoing resource for those seeking to learn more abut positive psychology.

25 Comments | tags: Barbara Fredrickson, Character Strengths and Virtues (book), Chris Peterson, FAQ, Martin Seligman, Masters of Applied Positive Psychology, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, PERMA, Positive psychology, strengths, University of Pennsylvania | posted in positive psychology

August 24, 2013

Jer’s Thesis in Three Pages Using Non-Academic Language because Academic Language is for Silly Nits

By Jer Clifton

Psychologists have found a whole bunch of behaviors that are good for you, like staying positive and being persistent. Understandably, many people then pursue those behaviors passionately. “Be positive!” we say. “Keep at it!” we shout. But, like a many New Year’s resolutions, these efforts, these sheer acts of will, fail to produce long term results. Underlying and unaddressed reasons why you didn’t act that way before re-assert themselves. So how do we change the underlying stuff? Big time psychologists Ellis (Ellis & Ellis, 2011) and Beck (Beck & Weishaar, 1989) argued that emotions and behaviors are driven by a puppet-master behind the scenes: beliefs. Therefore, a key to happiness might be having certain beliefs that effortlessly fuel these positive behaviors across a lifetime. A type of these beliefs are universal assessments, and I focus on them.

Joe smiles at the 2nd 2012 VP debate in Danville, Kentucky. I think they are that pearly white in peson too!

Joe smiles at the 2nd 2012 VP debate in Danville, Kentucky. They are that pearly white in peson too!

Universal assessments (or UAs) are judgements about the universe as a whole. They may not be explicitly recognized, but, so my theory goes, they express themselves through words and behaviors. For example, Joe Biden, speaking at my graduation this summer at Penn, encouraged us to participate in the world and said repeatedly that the world is “open and full of possibilities.” This is a UA that Joe believes should inspire certain behaviors. As another example, here is the chorus and 2nd verse of It’s a Dangerous World by folk musician Bill Morrisey (1991).

There’s nothing you can say

That could get me up today

Nothing you have ever said

That can drive me from this bed

You can call me lazy, crazy

Call me stupid I don’t care

I ain’t getting up

It’s dangerous out there.

There’s a hunter from New Jersey

In my kitchen drinking beer

There’s a Texan out my window

With a chain saw and a leer

I can take a walk around the block

To shake me from my slumber

But there’s student drivers out today

And one has got my number

This is a perfect example of how a specific UA (the world is dangerous) is causing specific behaviors (staying in bed).

UAs are one component of worldview. Worldview is a set of assumptions, beliefs, and values that one uses to interpret life and make sense of the world. In my thesis, I briefly trace the development of the concept of worldview (or Weltanschauung in German), from its beginnings with Kant to its domination of intellectual life in the 20th century. Big-time philosophers agree (like Humboldt, Hegel, Fichte, Emerson, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dilthey, Husserl, Hiedeggar, etc.): worldview matters. Chesterton thought that “the most practical and important thing about a man is his view of the universe” (Introduction to Heretics). William James thought that worldview is the most “interesting and important thing about you” (Introduction to Lowell Lectures).

Thomas Kuhn coined the now widely used term “paradigm shift” to describe the process in which a scientific community abandons and adopts worldviews. Scientists, Kuhn argues, rely on a common paradigm that allows for progress by providing a sophisticated set of common assumptions–the don’t start from scratch. Among others, Kuhn credits Piaget, Gestalt psycholgists, and B. L. Whorf’s “speculations about the effect of language on worldview” (Kuhn, 1962/1996, p. viii) for playing an important role in the development of his ideas.

By the 20th century, the power of worldview thinking had spread to other disciplines. I note three powerful examples: Max Weber applied worldview-thinking to socioeconomics in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1921/1958), Thomas Kuhn to scientific development in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962/1996), and Adolf Hitler to power politics in Mein Kampf (1925/1999).

Most know that Hitler's goal was Aryan dominance. Few realize that he was just as insistence on establishing a dominate worldview, and achieving power through creating "psychically homogenized creatures" (p. 393) with one "infallible philosophy of life" (p. 455) which alone can achieve victory.

Most know that Hitler published his goal of Aryan dominance in 1925. Few realize that he was also just as insistent on establishing a dominate worldview. His strategy for achieving power was creating “psychically homogenized creatures” (p. 393) with one “infallible philosophy of life” (p. 455) which alone could achieve victory.

Worldviews, and the beliefs that form them, are schemas. Schemas are an important notion in psychology which developed in this world dominated by Weltanschauung thinking. Schemas are defined as mental representations of objects and processes that generate expectancy. For instance, if I am narrating a story about a conversation in a Manhattan apartment, and then mention that a bengal tiger jumps out of a bamboo thicket and kills the speaker, you will grow annoyed with the story. Your schema of Manhattan apartments likely does not include tigers or bamboo thickets. It’s just not realistic.

Schemas define what is and is not ‘realistic’ — in art, movies, and in the real world too.

We have schemas about everything from human faces to Manhattan apartments to water bottles. We expect them to function in certain ways. Numerous studies have shown that (beware of a useful oversimplification here) we tend to ignore things that go against our schemas. For example, if one has a schema that poor people are incompetent, we will tend to ignore data that supports competence and highlight data that shows incompetence.

UAs, as schemas, are powerful because they generate expectancy. This affects how we interpret and learn new data AND also affects how we interpret and remember our past. Psychologists believe that memory bears little resemblance to data-retrieval. Instead, ‘remembering’ is an active process in which we use bits of information to piece together what we think should be true, a process which is shepherded by schemas. UAs, therefore, are prime candidates to play a big role in human life by creating expectations about everything we taste, touch, see, feel, and hear in this universe.

In Psychology of Worldviews (1919), Jaspers begins the process of operationalizing the construct of Weltanschauung in what he will later consider to be the most important work in his life. He defines worldviews as frames of reference in which mental life takes place (later called schemas) and categorizes Weltanschauung as 1) attitudes or 2) world pictures. Attitudes are approaches through which humans experience the world and World pictures, on the other hand, are mental representations of the world that we create in our heads.

In Psychology of Worldviews (1919), Jaspers begins a process of making Weltanschauung philosophy more practical in what he will later consider to be the most important work in his life. He defines worldviews as frames of reference in which mental life takes place (later called schemas) and categorizes Weltanschauung as 1) attitudes or 2) world pictures. Attitudes are approaches humans adopt towards the world and world pictures are mental representations of the world that we create in our heads.

I identify at least four types of UAs, with potentially dozens of each type. I base this typology on Jaspers distinction in Psychology of Worldview (1919).

Universal Characteristic Assessment (world picture)- What qualities does the universe have in and of itself? For example, is the world characterized by dynamic change or rigidness?
Universal Policy Assessment (attitude) – What attitudes or policies do I adopt in dealing with the world? For example, is the world best experienced alone or with others? Universal Policy assessments are of two types: our policies towards the universe and what we percieve to be the universe’s policies towards us (e.g., the world is out to get me).
Universal Meta-Assessment – These are the BIG paradigmatic assessments which take into account everything we think or feel about the universe and sums it all up–an “assessment of assessments.” Universal Meta-Assessments were what I was talking about in my last post: Is my wife good, and does it matter? There are at least four UMAs: 1) Is the world good? 2) Is the world worth existing? 3) Do I like the world? 4) Do I say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the universe?

However, only three UAs have been identified and studied by researchers.

Is the world just or unjust? This UA is called BJW (belief in a just world) and is about whether one believes that the universe is a place where people get what they deserve and deserve what they get.
Is the world safe or unsafe?
Is the world meaningful or meaningless?

Ronnie Janoff-Bulman wrote Shattered Assumptions in 1992. Her theories continue to guide much depression and trauma research.

There are three big takeaways from this list. First, three is very few (after all, there are at least four categories to fill!). Secondly, research indicates that all three play a very important role in human life (not an overstatement). For example, good data has tied BJW to better mental health, more positive emotions, optimism, less suspicion towards others, less depression, less loneliness, more kindness, more kindness when under stress, more productivity in the workplace, and more loyalty to one’s work place. At the same time, BJW causes people to blame victims for being victimized! BJW has been tied to prejudice towards the unemployed, those with AIDS, the elderly, and the poor. Thirdly, all three of these UAs are negative in orientation. Universal safety and universal meaningfulness, for example, were identified by Janoff-Bullman (1992), a trauma specialist, and have been studied exclusively in the context of trauma and depression. Rape, for example, can destroy a belief that the world is a fundamentally safe place. Many therapists feel that they must restore this belief before the person can “move on.”

I applaud all this work on trauma and depression. However, in addition to the question, “What UAs are essential for staying sane?” we might ask, “What UAs are essential for building the ‘good life?'” As far as we know, I am the first to do so, which puts me firmly in the vein of positive psychology. Positive psychology assumes that strengths and positive emotions are not merely the absence of the negative. For example, joy is not the result of a simple lack of sadness and hope is not the mere absence of fear. Rather, both the positive and the negative can be present in abundance, or both can be absent. Moreover, each strength and weakness, each negative emotion and positive emotion, has a unique physiological signature that does not simply mirror its “opposite.” In other words, strengths and positive emotions deserve study in their own right because they have their own qualities.

So, I conducted a conceptual analysis–an exercise in hypothesis generation–designed to identify major UAs which might contribute to the ‘good life.’ It involved a methodical process which identified relevant UAs and cross-referenced them with each strength and positive emotion that has been identified by positive psychologists. In the end, I examined (and re-examined) 884 possible connections between UAs and the ‘good life’ and 13 major UAs emerged which may help humans live particularly happy and fulfilled lives:

Is the world good or bad? Thinking that the world is good and having a gut-level positive response was the single most relevant UA I identified. It pays to have a little crush on existence.
Is the universe interesting or boring? It’s hard to imagine developing strengths like “love of learning” and “curiosity” without a strong belief in universal interestingness.
Is the universe beautiful or ugly? My wife’s top strength is “appreciation of beauty and excellence.” Why would she or anyone stop to savor (which research says is good for you) the roses if one does not expect roses, or much else, to be worth savoring.
Can the universe change or can’t it? My good friend Eric is remarkably politically informed AND remarkably politically apathetic. I think he imbibes the notion that nothing really changes in this world. This UA may separate “believers” and those who are at their heart grumpy old men.
Is the universe is getting better or getting worse? We know stories matter. What is the story you tell over the universe? Where are we going? How will this all end? I think religion can play a big role in all of these, but especially this one.
Is the world safe or dangerous? A sense of danger causes you to scan the horizon for threats while a sense of safety is a prerequisite to feeling good and being open to new things and new ways of thinking.
Is the universe to be explored or avoided? Of course, we cannot avoid the world completely, but we can try to stay away from it as much as we can. Alternatively, we could pursue immersion, novelty, and new experiences.
Is the universe comprehensible or incomprehensible? Why should I try to understand the world if I have no chance of doing so?
Am I at the center of the universe or not? If I do not get a job I apply for, does that mean that there is something wrong with me? Maybe, but someone who thinks that they are the center of the universe will tend to think it is definitely their fault somehow. Being at the center of the universe means that you are always in the right place at the right time for credit and blame.
Is the universe intentional or mindless? Is there a mind behind the scenes orchestrating events, or is it random? This mind might be Jesus, superstition, fate, Karma, etc. An example of this UA might be, “the world is out to get me.
Is the universe best experienced alone or with others? If the world is a war zone, we need buddies in our bunker. If the world is a paradise, we need playmates.
Is the universe as it should be, or should it change? When we approach something new, do we assume that there is a reason for it being the way it is and it likely needs to be accepted, or is there little reason for it being the way it is and should we prepare ourselves to change it? This might be at the core of conservative and liberal tendencies. This is the only UA continuum that did not have an obviously “better” choice.
Is the universe just or unjust? Strengths like prudence and self-regulation would be difficult to come by if one did not beleive that his or her actions affected outcomes.

Calvin seems to think the world has intentionality, that there is a mind to compete against, and that mind is after him.

Calvin seems to think the world has intentionality (UA #10), that there is a mind to compete against, and that mind wants to win.

Some UAs relevant to the miserable life are on this list, some are not, and several of them (like the world is beautiful) seem very unlikely to have emerged without a focus on the ‘good life.’ Also, like BJW, most of these UAs had positive and negative connotations. For example, thinking the world is good might be tied to 32 strengths and positive emotions but thinking that the world is bad still might be tied to 16. Still, in almost all cases, there was a clear candidate for a UA that was much better for you than the other. In other words, if Jack thinks that the world is good, interesting, beautiful, changeable, safe, comprehensible, just, intentional, to be explored, not centered on him, best experienced with others, and getting better, he is much more likely to have a good life than Jill, who thinks the world is bad, boring, ugly, dangerous, incomprehensible, unjust, can’t be changed, is centered around her, is best experienced alone, and is getting worse. That’s my hypothesis anyway. Each of these UAs require empirical research as all this is based on little more than my own thinking. Psychometrically valid assessment tools have to be created, results have to be correlated with life outcomes, etc.

James Pawelski, my thesis advisor, is very excited by the new and important realms of research my work has identified. He has strongly encouraged me to pursue running a UA-research lab. Ultimately this would address a series of nine empirical questions:

What universal assessments do people actually hold, who holds them, and what do the distributions look like?
How are they held (implicitly or explicitly, compulsorily or freely, strongly or weakly, etc.)?
Can certain UAs be tied to specific life outcomes, such as depression, divorce, subjective well-being, longevity, health, strengths, or even travel habits?
What is the causal relationship between UAs and life outcomes?
Which UAs are most likely to make people happy and fulfilled in life?
Where do UAs come from, and at what age are they typically formed?
Can UAs change?
Can interventions be developed which change UAs into those most likely to bring happiness?
Can these interventions be administered at scale (quickly and inefficiently to lots of people)?

In other words, I am interested in changing the world by examining and then potentially changing our beliefs about it. If interested, all 157 pages of the thesis are posted here on Scholarly Commons. About 30 pages are references, 60 are appendices, and 60 is the paper itself.

In the near term, I am creating a real world UA-bank, and I need your help. There is great need to create a well-thought out and respected list of UAs that can catalyze independent UA-research. In order to do that, in addition to researchers and resources, we need popular help finding and identifying UAs that people actually believe in the real world. Please be on the lookout for UAs that you come across, like the Calvin & Hobbes comic above, and send them to me. I just got this one from a friend: “One of my mother’s favorite sayings was, ‘I can’t see why not!'” This UA, specifically a universal policy assessment, is about saying ‘yes’ to the universe. Creating and analyzing a vast real world UA-bank is the only way to identify every UA that plays an important role in human life. I invite you to be a part of this project. Thank you!

Many people contributed to the success of my Masters thesis. I want to thank Bob Easton, Andrew Soren, David Yaden, Dan Lerner, Karen Warner, Bit Smith, Paul Giacomini, Marty Seligman, Kevin Lum, Brandon Allen, Clinton Montgomery, Kiran Thadhani, Hannah Lythe, Chris Major, Christa Fritner, Dan Tomasulo, Johannes Eichstaed, Amy Walker, and Judy Saltzberg-Levick, for your support and contributions to this capstone. Also, two people need special appreciation for the enormous help they provided. First, James Pawelski worked tirelessly on my behalf and continues to be my great advocate and supporter. He read my work carefully and offered thoughtful insight. On the basis of an epic three and a half hour phone conversation, I scraped a very solid draft and created an excellent one. He was the one who initially directed me towards schemas and towards Weltanschauung philosophy. He helped me find my voice as a promising and serious academic instead of what he hilariously identified as “a brilliant yet over-reaching undergraduate philosophy student” (the man understands me! : ) ). Thank you so much, James!

This handsome devil is James Pawelski. He is my professor, mentor, and friend. He works as a Senior Scholar at the Positive Psychology Center, Director of the Masters of Applied Positive Psych program, and Executive Director of the International Positive Psychology Association. He is also a philosopher who wrote his dissertation on William James. We have a lot in common and it was a pleasure working with him!

James Pawelski is my professor, mentor, and friend. He works as a Senior Scholar at the Positive Psychology Center, Director of the Masters of Applied Positive Psych program, and Executive Director of the International Positive Psychology Association. He is also a philosopher who wrote his dissertation on William James. We have a lot in common, and it was a pleasure working with him! He is possibly the most emotionally intelligent philosopher I know.

Finally, I want to thank my wife, Alicia, for her support and shaping of the project itself. For six weeks this summer, Alicia lived with a zombie as I neglected all my relationships, my health, and other projects to focus 100% on this thesis. I did not leave my nearly windowless basement apartment. I ate when I was hungry, went to sleep when I was tired, and skipped a few days in the process (my body seems to like 30-hour cycles). I often went for 10 hours straight without eating or using the bathroom. But Alicia encouraged me to eat and got me to sleep. She helped me brainstorm and prioritize. She was my sounding board. She’s vastly intelligent and wise. She helped us sprint towards July 24th, when we flew to Taiwan on a long-awaited trip. It was her first time to see where I grew up, the first time for me to be back “home” in a decade, and the first time to meet our new nephew. We had not seen my brother and his family in two and half years, my father in a year, and it was my 10-year high school reunion. Not only was it meaningful to show Alicia my roots, not only was she ever-interested in my nostalgic musings for two weeks (pics of the trip will be up on facebook soon), she spent most of her 15-hour flight from Chicago to Hong Kong doing a final read through and edit of my paper. It would not have been a success without her. Her fingerprints are all over the best parts.