哈佛大学公开课——幸福课-第八课

499 Positive Psychology – Lecture 8 I ended last time by sharing some biographical details about my life. Some people asked me after, "Are they really true?" So yes, They are absolutely true. And I told the incident from two perspectives— first as a fault finder, and then as a merit finder. Now the important thing to keep in mind when we think about the merit finder is that it's not that the merit finder does not experience pain or disappointment, or anger, or humility, or fear, or disappointment. It's very disappointing to say the least, not to be able to pursue one's goal, if the goal happens to be a professional career in squash. It is very humiliating to be the only person who fails of a program and to have to walk around for a whole year in William James while feeling like you have a horn coming out of head. It's not fun. It's painful. However, the difference between a merit finder, sorry, a benefit finder and a fault finder is that, the benefit finder understands that while things don't necessarily happen for the best, it is possible to make the best of things that happen. Things will be OK. Things will turn out fine. It may take a while. Until I see the benefit of it, it may take a while and I will get over the humiliation or the pain or the disappointment. But that, too, shall pass. In other words, the benefit finder understands that these feelings are temporary, gives him or herself the permission to be human and then understands things will turn out fine at the end. I know that. Been there. Done that. Part of life. Permission to be human, which includes permission to experience these emotions and also the permission to fail. We'll talk a lot about this permission to fail when we talk about perfectionism. Because perfectionism is real intense for your failure or we feel it's all or nothing. Either we have a complete flawless record, or it's useless. It's either phenomenal, or catastrophe. All or nothing. The benefit finder understands that nature, the human nature dictates that we have painful emotions and human nature, or being human dictates we also fail. And that, too, shall pass. There 500 are many benefits to be a benefit finder. So the first benefit is we simply feel better. We are happier for it. But there are many many others. For example, Suzanne Thompson from Pomona University did following research, She went to people who had just lost their homes in a fire in California, there were many of them at the time- it was a large wildfire, and many people lost their homes and she interviewed them after that. And she distinguished who were benefit finders and fault finders: the benefit finders didn't say "I'm so glad it happened", but they said "well there are some positive here- I can start a new; it's a fresh start; and now I'll appreciate my home more; my family is OK; and I'm relieved and that's good. So they focused on the positive. When she followed up with these individuals, those who were benefit finders as opposed to fault finders were happier in the long term, were able to, were experiencing more positive moods, and less likely to be anxious and had less physical symptoms. Both psychological as well as physical consequences. Numerous, a lot of research on health benefits-for example, Glenn Affleck did research with individuals who had a heart attack. And there were some individuals who saw it as the catastrophe, the end of the world. There were others who were certainly not happy about it, but said "OK, so this is a wake-up call. It's actually some positive here, because it is telling me I need to take care of myself better". Or it helped them revise their personal values. Those individuals who saw the positive, the benefit, who are able to see the wake-up call there were more likely to survive 8 years later; less likely to have a second heart attack. Now that sounds pretty obvious, because you know they change their life style. But it's not just about changing life style. Julienne Bower we talked about last time from UCLA looked at AIDS patient and identified the benefit finders there- not the people who said "I'm so glad that I have AIDS", but rather the people who said "as a result of that, I am able to appreciate certain things more; as a result of that, I focus more on the things that really matter; as a result, I am getting closer to certain people". The benefit finders, 501 when she followed up 4 to 9 years later, the benefit finders were more likely to survive, were more likely to be alive. Research by Laura King and Minor: what they showed was that it can also be used as an intervention. So it's not just people who are born benefit finders or fault finders - and we know there is a genetic component too, but there could be an intervention. So they brought in people who'd experienced traumas in their lives and they had them write about these traumas and their "perceived" benefits of the trauma. Those who wrote about the "perceived benefit" of the trauma were physically healthier and psychologically healthier, happier. Another research on cancer patients. The women came in and wrote about their cancer. And they wrote about "good things that came out of my experience with cancer". The women who wrote about this, visited the doctor office less often, were more likely to survive their cancer. Just by changing their perspective, by changing their focus. Now these women did not say "it happened for the best". Maybe some did; but most did not. They said "I wish I didn't have this cancer". However it happened, you know. Stuff happens. The question is what we do with it; how we interpret it after. Then they said to themselves "OK,so we get closer to our family; I'm appreciating life so much more now; I can enjoy the breath or flower, or I couldn't before my family so much closer now; I know who my real friends are". And they found benefit in it. Not for the best. But they made the best of the things that happened. And that made the difference even to their mortality rates. There's a lot of research on optimism, benefit-finding and longevity. For example, in a sample of 839 residents in the Mayo clinic, when they looked at them, they identified the benefit finders and fault finders. The benefit finders that are optimists were, after 2 years, were 19% more likely to survive. By far, the most influential and interesting study done in this area of benefit finding and optimism was the nun study. The nun study showed in many ways that the Bible was correct, that joy does prolonged our lives. And the nun study was done, started in 502 1932. In 1932, 178 nuns who just completed their training- they were around the age of 22, just about to embark on their mission were tested on numerous accounts. One of the things they did was write biographical sketches of themselves. And we had this data for decades. And psychologists just very recently opened up the data and wanted to look at it, wanted to understand what predicts longevity. Which of the nuns are still alive today? How long did they live? OK, this was done in 1932 when they were average age of 22. And they looked for predictors of longevity so they looked at how complex their essays were- in other words, their intellectual capacities, zero correlation to longevity; They looked at place of residence- maybe they lived in places with less or more pollution that would impact how long they lived, zero correlation- California, Boston, no difference; they looked at how devout they were, their levels of belief at that time at the age of 22- didn't predict longevity. There was one thing and one thing alone that predicted how long they would live. And that was positive feelings. What they did, the researchers, was looking at the biographical sketches-now they had no idea who these women were, so it was a completely blind study- double blind. And they looked, they categorized the writings into four categories: the most positive, the least positive and two categories in between. And then they compared the most positive quartile to the least positive quartile. And here are the results that they found. Let me give you a sample though before so that you get a sense of what a positive sample is and what a less positive sample is. So here is Cecilia Opine from the positive quartile: "God started my life off well by bestowing upon me grace of inestimable value. "The past year which I spent as a candidate studying at Notre Dame has been a very happy one. Now I look forward with eager joy to receiving the Holy Habit of Our Lady and to a life of union with Love Divine." Happy. Joy. Love. This is a positive person. Now here is someone from the least positive quartile. As you'll see, 503 this is not someone who is particularly negative, but not a person who focuses on positive, on joy, on happiness. Marguerite Donnelly: "I was born on September 26,1909, the eldest of seven children, five girls and two boys. My candidate year was spent in the motherhouse, teaching chemistry and second year Latin at Notre Dame Institute. With God's grace, I intend to do my best for our Order, for the spread of religion and for my personal sanctification." Again, very factual. But not as positive as much of a merit finder, an optimist as Cecilia Opine. Let's look at some of the data now. At the age of 85,at the age of 85—and again, this is a looking back,90% of the most cheerful quartile were alive and just 34% of the least cheerful quartile were alive. This is significant difference. Now that doesn’t mean that there aren't some fault finders who lived to 120 and merit finders who died of a heart attack at 30. Of course, there are. But on average, the best predictor what accounts for the most of the variance, in terms of longevity in the study, was positive feelings- positivist in general. Here is 9 years later. Same study. At the age of 94, 54% of the most cheerful quartile were still alive while just 11% of the least cheerful quartile were alive. These are remarkable results. Again, you have some sketches. You analyze them, not knowing who lived and who died. And just based on the single factor- positivist, you are able to predict with remarkable significant levels. You are able to predict longevity- who will be alive and who will not be. Now when I look at this data- and there's a lot more data on longevity, on health, on well-being, I said to myself,‖ Wow. So this is fantastic! Benefit finding really works! Being an optimistic is good!" And I have two questions then,‖ Why isn't everyone optimistic?" If we become happier, if we become healthier, why not, why aren't we all optimistic? That's the first question. The second question is: alights I want to be more optimistic. How do I become that? So first one: why aren't more people optimistic? Second: how do I become optimistic? I am going to answer these two questions. Let me begin with the first. One of the main reasons why there aren't 504 more people who are optimistic is that optimists are considered detached. And how do we know that? Well, or what leads to the sense of detachment, to the notion that optimists are detached? It's mostly the media. Because what do we see? We mostly see hatred. We mostly see blood shed. We mostly see unhappiness. We see terrorism. And then, when someone says "well I'm optimistic; I think the world is a good place", that person- what? Are you out of your mind? You are detached Pollyanna. Just look at all the terrible things in the world. How can you be in such a world- how can you be optimistic? How can you be positive? How can you talk about joy and happiness? And positive psychology in a world like this? You must be Pollyannaish. In many ways, the message of Thomas Hobbes is correct: you know, life is short,brutish, nasty and poor. And that seems much more likely to be true than an optimistic sense of life. Let's look at some of the headlines. I got these just a couple of weeks ago as I was preparing for this particular lecture. So Venezuela. A missing jet. Flight delays. Ok, this is the elections. Fresh violence in Kosovo. So a new state is created, and there is violence. This is the focus. Hundreds of home damaged by quake. And so on. Turkey launches incursion into Iraq. Blood (There will be Blood vs. No Country for Old Man)dual for Oscar. Octant’s a good one I guess. Yeah. Tory Spelling dishes... Auklet’s move on. So that was CNN. Here is... What was that? Forget which paper I got. I think this is Reuters. Iran nuclear question remains. And you know again, Turkey. Protest embassies. EU. So on and so on. Negativities. This is Fox News. What's the focus? This kid's mom wants out. A mother leaves her child. You know it's not focusing on the millions, billions of mothers who embrace their children. It's the mother who wants out. And then they tell why- you know, what led the mother to want out of this relationship. And so on and so on. So much negative. How can we be positive in a world like this? It would be really unrealistic of us, wouldn’t it? Well, I want to show you an excerpt now by my favorite psychologist, Ellen Degeneracy. Ellen Degeneracy (Excerpt from "Here and Now" in 2003): So I was watching the 505 news the other day. Brought to you by Papal. Well now I need it. Smart advertising. That's another thing when I was a kid the news was once a day. You either caught it or missed it. Now the news is on 24 hours a day. And that's not enough. They got a guy talking and there's a crawl down there. So you got that guy talking and you got the crawl going and you're online and you put your opinion and you put.. "Nooo!!..I said to that nook...!" There should be one crawl that goes around over and over again: "Things are getting worse". That's all we need. And the local news- man! They want to you to watch every broadcast they've got, don’t they? It's not good enough you watch the one you want? They just... These teases get you to watch it later on. They are so incredible cruel. "It could be the most deadly thing in the world that you may be having it for dinner. We'll tell you what it is tonight at 11." Is it ..peas? I feel sorry for the news-casters, you know. We can turn it off. But that's their job and they have to read these stories and they're just coming up at the teleprompter. They don't know what's coming up and they got to go through these range of emotions and that... "There were no survivors. And next, which candy bar helps you lose weight? Still to come, it's an asteroid heading towards earth. But first, where to find the cheesiest pizza in town? Also, a disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing." She really is one of the most brilliant psychologists I know. And we'll see a lot of her throughout the semester. Now...so the media does it. The media does focus to the great extent on the negative. And that's not just a bad thing. Because one of the roles of media in a civil society is to highlight wrongs that can be righted, to inspire people, to act, to change, to make the world a better place. However, we need to realize that the media doesn't just report reality as it is. It highlights certain aspects of reality. And there is a media bias involved. Now the media bias is not, you know, left-leaning CNN or Reuters versus right-leaning Fox and Wall Street Journal. That's not the bias I am talking about. I am talking about bias 506 toward the negative. The media focuses, highlights the negative. It acts as a magnifying glass rather than as a looking glass. And we need to keep that in mind, and to correct for that. The media doesn’t just reflect reality as it is. Reality is not the FrontPage of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. That's not reality. That's highlighting a specific area of reality and magnifying it. It accentuates the negative, focuses on the negative- the war in, with Turkey,or,the blood spilled in Kosovo, or the mom leaving her child. The hatred. And what it does, when it does that, is also under represent the positive. Now if you think about it, this is exactly two of the three mental distortions that we talked about. Magnifying the negative. Minimizing the positive. In other words, what the media does is to distort our perception. It actually makes us into pessimists, especially because the news is on 24 hours a day. And we are constantly bombarded by negativity after negativity after negativity. And where do we get the positive? 30 seconds at the end of the news. Oh yes, there’s also a little bit good stuff going on. And it's just to make you smile so that you come back tomorrow or the next hour for more bad news. Negativity after negativity after negativity. Distorting. Creating these cognitive distortions, the psychological traps that we talked about under cognitive behavior, under cognitive therapy. And we become pessimistic. Is it any wonder that most people are pessimistic when the media has such an impact on us? Again, not to belittle the role of the media. But what I am doing is highlighting certain aspect that we need to be cognizant of, that we need to counter. And how we counter- we'll talk about it in a minute. So what does the media highlight? The frauds- Martha Stewart, or Enron, or WorldCom. Highlighting these frauds, but not reporting on the millions and billions of honest transactions that takes place everyday, right now as we speak. Highlighting the negative. Ignoring the positive. Millions and billions of honest transactions taking place all the time, all around us constantly. Now what else is happening? What we are doing, what the media is helping us to do is extrapolate from a few instances where 507 people want to hurt, while ignoring the millions and billions of people who are dedicating their lives to helping spread the happiness in the world, whether it's in soup kitchens to help the world a better place, or whether it's writing in our back yard. Over 1800 Harvard students volunteer as part of Phillips Brooks House. Remember the false stereotype that I talked about- whether it's here at Harvard or in the United States, so many people dedicate so much time to helping. And yet the focus is on the few that hurt. And that creates certain scheme in our mind while we think the world must be a bad place. The focuses are on terrorism primarily. But what about the millions and billions of people who want to live in peace? Again, this doesn't mean this is one important role of the media. At the same time, we shouldn't also ignore the good. The focus in media is mostly on people hurting other people. For example, through rape, while ignoring millions and billions of people who are making love everyday. And not just in fairy tales, people all over the world- I've no idea who they are. I hope they are not in the classroom. There is Google image. And not just around the world. Also, right here- in Harvard yard. I don't know if they still have this survey, but the last one I found online was 04. I don't know what happened since. Now for those of you who don't believe that there are people also at Harvard right here who make love. Here is a proof of positive that some do. He's so cute. And the baby is adorable. OK. OK. OK. Now what I'm saying here is not that we need to ignore the bad, not that we need to ignore what's not working. We should focus on it. We should look at it. We should improve the world. At the same time, we should also understand that people who say to the optimist