哈佛幸福课第三课第四波~
Well, I’m going to be talking about the basic premises of this course. As I said earlier, this course is not a survey course of positive psychology. It’s very selective. It’s about the question of questions. What can help us as individuals? What can help our community become happier? Not happy, happier. So that by the end of the three-month’s semester, you’re happier than you were before and you’ll, from now, you’ll be hopefully happier at the end of the semester and so on and so on.So what are the basic premises? Where am I coming from when I think about these courses? And what I wanna do is to share with you the five basic premises and these premises are going to be presented as something. And eccentrically is opposite. So that we are clear about from the outsets. Where were we coming from? Where I’m coming from? Where the teaching staff is coming from? And also so that I can build the foundation of the course, remember I talked those few that were here at the first time? This course is built like a spiral. Everything is interconnected. What I talked about the first class, it’s connected to what I’m gonna talk today, it’s gonna be connected to lecture 19. so in many ways the premises coupled with what we discussed in the first two lectures build the foundation of that spiral, upon which everything else will be built. So here are the five basic premises. I’ll go through them briefly now and then elaborate on each in the next couple of lectures until weaving them with studies, research as well as applications.
First, these courses I mentioned first is about bridge building. Bridge building among disciplines selected and bridge building in terms of academia and main street rather than the division, and the separation, the specialization that very often is dominant in academia. This is not, this is, the approach of this course, with all its challenges, is, is the opposite.
Once again I wouldn’t be teaching the class if I think the change is possible, for there’s a lot of teachers in psychology, a lot of evidence that shows how different change is. So I’ll argue that change is possible, whether it’s individual change, organizational change, and we’ll start to look at how it’s possible. Just the very basic level of the spiral, we have an entire week just devoted you to change, where we’ll elaborate on that. Techniques, methods, tools.
Third, premise related to the first internal facture that determines primarily happiness. This is what I’m going to argue for. It’s opposed to happiness’ primary function of external circumstances. Not saying that external circumstances are not important that we shouldn’t focus only ion improving them, bettering them whether for ourselves, for society at large. However happiness primarily, not only primarily is dependent on how we perceive them, the world, on the form, on our interpretation.
Human nature must be obeyed versus human nature must be perfected. This, in many ways, captures the conflict that has gone through, throughout human history, whether you look at the politics, whether you look at the religion, whether you look at philosophy as well as to date psychology. How do we look at human nature? Assumingly nature flawed and therefore needs to be perfected? Or is human nature flawed maybe there’s something we don’t like it about. But we need to accept it and work with it. I’m going to argue for the fir, for the latter, for what I just said, for defending human nature needs to be perfected, with all its flaws, with all its shortcomimgs, on a psychological level. We’ll get to that next time. Controversial--the very important foundation of mental health and well being.
And finally, what I’m ganna argue for is that happiness isn’t ought to be the ultimate and the end to which the end to which, the end which we pursue. And that is also a moral claim, as opposed to happiness, just being another secondary pursuit and that are pursuits that are higher, more important, more moral than that. Once again may sound controversial. I’ll try to reconcile that this is the, the, the unhappiness that you may experience. Think about that. Again, more in that next time.
So let me begin with bridge building. Here I’m going back to what I’ve talked about right at the very beginning of the first lecture---the idea of bridging Eiffel Tower and Main Street. There are many people in academia, outside of academia, who divide the world essentially into two. They talk about the real world that is outside, that is dirty, impure, profane versus academia which is lofty, idealistic, sacred. Sacred versus profane. This distinction hurts, hurts academia and hurts people who are outside of academia.( I’ll figure it out for the philosopher. 没听懂) The careful shielding of university from the activities of the world around us is the best way to show interest and to defeat progress. Celibacy does not suit university. It must make itself with action. This is very important for, for university. Sheldon Wine, who was my physics advisor as an undergraduate her，talked about a second psychology. And he said a second psychology is a psychology that leaves the labs, that draws on research done in the labs, that is important and meaningful. However, doesn’t only focus on that, it goes out to the outside world, into acts, gets its heads, its minds dirty, does work outside and then it applies its work and learns from “the dirty experience and brings it back to the lab and so on and so on in an upward spiral, called that it is the importance of a second psychological which is what (只知道是人名，听不出) is taking about.
Now you maybe sitting here, and most of you, aren’t gonna go into academia. And you’re thinking to yourself, “OK, fine, so university academia must make itself with action. What does it have to do with me? How is this relevant to me? The one reason that it’s relevant to you is that it has everything to do with you. And here’s why.--what the world needs more than anything else is practical idealists.
For 6 years, I was a resident tutor in Leverd House when I was a graduate student and then I also started to teach. And what struck me most about conversations that I had either in Leverd or other houses were students is their sense of mission, your sense of mission, your desire to do good, to make the world a better place. And as I followed many of the students after they graduate, whether the students who were with me here as undergrads or students who I tutored, when I followed the path, it wasn't just empty words. These students went ahead and did wonderful things, whether it was right out of college, whether it was once established themselves, but there was always this, the back of their mind very often far of their minds. How can I make this world a better place? Passionate? Idealistic? Good, in the deep sense, good. This desire to make a difference came into just about all students. There are many people who talk about this generation as the "me" generation. All I care about, all this generation care about is "well, let me just make more money", "let me just get a bigger house", "let me just be more successful and create more accolades, more prestige". This is a false stereotype. Yes, accolades, prestige, money is important. It’s important to most people in the world. Big deal! But when these people who has this stereotype were there, is that they see just that they don’t see the desire to make a difference? You know that 1800 students at Harvard each year, about 1800 students are members of PBHA. That’s not all. There are other students who are outside PBHA and who volunteer. Just about every single one of you listed we look at the statistics. Just about every single one of you very soon after you leave Harvard will join an organization whether it could be your primary job or not, organization that is a social enterprise not for profit something to battle the world. You’ll be on board of such organizations. You’ll donate money to such organizations. Harvard grads are generous with their time, with their money, with their efforts, whether the business school, the law school, college, med school, ed school. You give a lot because you care, again whether it’s money, whether it’s time, usually both. False stereotypes, there are also false stereotypes about Americans, Americans empirically speaking, just like speaking empirically about Harvard students. Looking at the trends and statistics, empirically speaking, Americans are the most generous people in the world, not because they have more money to give, yes, they have, Americans have more money to give, and they give a lot more money, whether it’s in food, whether it’s in medical aid. Americans also spend the most time. This is a research done under thmef. Americans spend the most time out of any other people in the world volunteering in average 4 hours a week, volunteering outside their job which may also help, a social objective more than any other people in the world, once again, false stereotypes about this wonderful country. And this is wonderful. This is wonderful to see, wonderful to be, to be here whether it’s Harvard, whether it’s America. A real privilege. You see, many of you, not far from now, not long time you’ll be influential positions, or you will be able to do a lot of good in for-profit or not-for-profit organization, the board of your previous school, of your money, of your time. However, and here is the however, I’ve met many of grads students with me, or students when I was a tutor, who express their frustration to me, such you know, I had all the good intention in the world, I have all the good intention in the world, I want to do good, I’ve donated my time, my money, but I’m sure that something was missing. I feel that I’ve fallen short of my potential to really make a difference. Why? Because your good will and idealism were necessary. They are not sufficient, not enough, because very often, with very good intentions we may fall short of what we are capable of doing, or in some situations, even hurt more than help. And we'll look at some of these studies, hopefully still today, were very good intentions actually hurt more than help. Psychologists for decades had very good intentions about helping at risk population. A lot of money, millions, millions of dollars went into that with very little effect. Why? Because they didn't also ask the questions that they needed to ask, which was, in that particular case, the (soluter) genic question: why do some individuals succeed despite unfavorable circumstances? There were very good intentions before this question was asked.There was a lot of idealism. It wasn’t enough. And very often, some of these interventions engendered the passive victim mentality. It’s opposed to the active agent mentality that more of （----）instilled, the program by (Karen—Martensligmer----instill). And this is where psychology can help. You see, because we can take the research and apply it, we can take this research and apply it, which goes back to the point why it is so important to bridge ivory tower and Main Street. Most of these researches is not applied. So for example: how many teachers working in the classroom day in and day out know about the Pygmalion effect? The Pygmalion effect that we are going to talk about next week or the week after shows how teachers' expectations are self-fulfilling prophecies. And if we have high expectations, if we see the seed of greatness in the student, that seed of greatness is much more likely to flourish. Or if we don’t appreciate it, it will depreciate, wither and die. No many teachers know about these studies.Next week or the week after, shows how teachers’ expectations are self-fulfilling prophecies(预言) and if we have high expectations ,if we see the seed of greatness in the students .that seed of greatness ismore likely toflourish .or if we don’t appreciate it ,it will depreciate(贬值) whither and die.
How many teachers know about these studies and how they create through their beliefs the Self-fulfilling prophecy(预言) when it comes to their students .how many teachers know about Marva Collins ?every teacher in the world on the first of teacher train needs to know about marva Collins Pygmalion(卖花女) effects.
They don’t do that How about this ?self-esteem how do you increase self-esteem? if I have to do a poll here ,most people guaranteed ,would say praise people. praise people praise children,it will enhance their self-esteem.Right, partially right.And if it’s taken as the whole truth and nothing but the truth .it’s detri mental(有利的，有害的) because there is a lot of research that shows when we praise people indiscriminately(不加选择地，任意地) .we are actually in the long run potentially hurting them more than helping them. Whether its theirwell-being as well as their success .but the self-esteem movement mostly says praise people ,praise children all the time. and again that’s important but it is also important to know how to praise .how many people are familiar with the work of the Stanford psychologists Carol dweck. while you are going tobe familiar with it in a few weeks many idealists many idealists with good intentions are not and they continue to support or to practice .self-esteem as indiscriminate praise. Ultimately hurting more than helping how many psychologists or rather how manyintenventionests with good intentions are familiar with the work of albert bandura or self-efficacy?
and how you cultivate that? Not enough ,and very often more harm than good is created. How many psychologists are familiar with this new emerging field of the mind and body? how many know about the studies that cheerful example that yoga practice diminishes significantly ,significantly more than any other interventions that they tried the likelihood of second time offenders, when they practice in jail. After they release they are much less likely to return to jail if they do some yoga(瑜伽) there. strange but true .how many people know that and this is connected to my first point ,that doing meditation . Actually literally transforms our brain.Making us more susceptible(易受影响的) to positive emotions and more resilient(弹回的，有弹力的) in the face of painful emotions. How many people know that three times a week physical exercise .30 minutes each time has the same effect as our most powerful psychiatric(精神病学的) drugs? 3 times a week for 30 minutes. How many psychologists or psychiatrists(精神病医生) prescribe（规定，开药方） run 3 times a week and see me in the morning? Not enough that practical idealism coupled(结合，联合) together .how many conflict resolution? The dominant theme of most people with good intentions want to resolve the conflict is let’s get the people together, let’s get them to talk and they and we will live happily ever after.While we have research from 1954,those of you who has taken psych(用精神分析治疗) ,Muzafer sheriff(人名) showing that the contact hypothesis(假设) which is just get people to talk to one another doesn’t work. In fact ,very often it worsens the situation .very often the conflict actually gets worse as a result of just getting together and talking .that contact is not enough. That what you need in the words of Muzafer Sheriff and later elaborated(精心制作) on by Elliot Aronson. what you need is a super ordinate goal. a goal that you have carry out together, that you cannot do by yourself –carry out togetherwith a conflicting group and that’s how over time you resolve conflict. Not just bring people together now as you can imagine that is very close to home(归巢，回家) for me.Because there were many people on both sides of the Arab/Israeli conflict who want to end it. Many people in this country who wanted to end it. So what did they do? let’s just get them together ,let’s get them in a room whether it was in Camp David whether it was in oslo or in Egypt .let’s just get them together to talk to resolve their conflict and their issue and then we will all live happily ever after .what happened? The situation worsened. Now we’ve known that Muzager sheriff showed that in 1954 that it is the most likelihood outcome of just contact hypothesis just getting them to be together and there were many people trying to resolve the conflict and not just in the middle east else in the world with very good intentions but very often making inadvertently the matters worse idealism.Idealism with good intentions are not enough. We need to merge to mate the research with the practice. And this is where you come in ,this is where you come in ,taking it seriously. Now when Itake it seriously there’s a problem here because sometimes research does not deliver good news it would be much easier and nicer if you could just simply get Israeli and Arab together and the conflict would end. It would be much nicer, easier .smoother, it would be much easier if we could just cultivate children self-esteem by giving them positive feedback(反复，回复) telling them how wonderful they are. It’s easy to do, right? It feels good , they feel good, we feel good, but in the long run ,it doesn’t help. If it’s only that much easier and research very often delivers bad news saying it‘s not enough the contact it’s not enough to praise and then people chosesubconsciously not consciously to ignore the research and go with their heart and that’s important to go with their heart and the mind.
Imagine if an aeronautics engineer woke up in the morning and said, "You know, the Law of Gravity thing really makes things difficult for me. It's a pain. Things would be so much easier without the law of gravity. The design would be simpler." And he designs airplane and he ignores the law of gravity. What kind of airplane machine would he or she design? A failure.
想象一下,如果一个航空工程师在早晨醒来的时候,说:“你知道,万有引力定律真的让事情变得复杂极了，太伤脑筋了。试想如果没有万有引力定律，事情会变得多么简单啊！设计也会简单得多。”如果他设计飞机,却忽略万有引力定律。那他将会设计出什么样的飞机啊?那样的飞机注定是失败的。
Aeronautics engineer takes into consideration of reality. And reality-- there's Law of Gravity.
航空工程师考虑的应该是现实，那就是万有引力定律。
We deal with that similarly. What research shows us is reality: what's out there, what’s working and what's not working. And we need to conform to it. Take it into consideration. And it's up to you, to take responsibility, to bridge the Ivory tower and Main Street. You are being exposed in 32 classes fraught your Harvard career to the most rigorous thinking on different topics have you take it and apply it, whether it's psychology, whether it's in economics, obviously in engineering or computer science, where it's done much more readily than in social sciences and humanities. It's important to take responsibilities, because no one else is going to do it for you. No one is coming. Premise 2: To be a practical idealist, the foundation of it has to be the belief that change is possible. Because if the change was not possible on the individual level, on the society level, why am I doing what I am doing? Why would I spend time? Let me just be a hedonist, trying to enjoy my life as much as possible. Now for many of you, when you look at this you may say, "Well, Ok, yes, change is possible. I believe that and why do we need to have it as a basic premise of the course, as opposed to change is illusive?" Well, in the context of a psychology course, it's anything but trivial that change is possible.
和航空工程是相似，我们也只针对现实——现实是什么？现实中哪些事很顺利？哪些事不顺利？我们要接受它们，并且积极地思考。这完全取决于你，取决于你是否愿意在象牙塔与现实世界之间搭起一座桥梁，以便于你能很快从象牙塔里走出来，回到现实生活中。你们现在正为你们的哈佛学业打拼，你们要上32节课，无论你选的是心理学，经济学，工程学还是计算机科学，你们都要训练自己在不同主题上的严谨思维能力，尽管这些课程上的这种能力比在社会科学与人性学上要求更低。对自己的学业负责是一件很重要的事，因为没有人会替你完成你的学业。前提二:成为一个现实主义者,其基础是你必须坚持一个信仰，那就是“改变是完全可能的”。因为如果个人无法改变，社会无法改变，那么我为什么要去做事呢？我到底在做什么呢？我为什么要花这么多时间呢？让我成为一名纯粹的享乐主义者吧！让我尽情地去享受生活吧！当你们看清这个事实，你们可能会说：“那好，改变是可能的。”我认为我们应该把这个信仰看作是这堂课的一个基本前提，它与“改变简直是谬论”这种观点是完全对立的。在心理学课堂上，“改变是完全可能的”这个观点相当重要。
Let me share with you one study to illustrate what I mean. The Minnesota Twin study, one of the most famous studies in the field of psychology, was done by Lykken and Tellegen, two prominent psychologists. And what they did was they wanted to understand how much do genes matter. How much is it about nature versus nurture? So how do you test that? You look at identical twins, monozygotic twins who share the same genetic profile. And you look at those who are reared apart. Because if they are reared by the same parents, one could argue, "Well they came out very similar because same environment: they look the same; they go to the same schools; same parents, and so on." But what if you are able to find identical twins who were separated at birth, and reared in radically different environments. Well you could. And they found significant number of those, reared in, sometimes different continents. And they studied them.And what they found remarkably was significant similarities among these twins, sometimes to the points of unbelievable. Like one set of twins— I think they found the wives with the same name. They were reared in different countries, didn't know about each other until the age of 37— married similar wives, enjoyed drinking the same beer, called their children by the same names. There were some mind-boggling similarities. And this is an exception, but there were quite a few of those exceptions. But more interesting for psychologists was that their personality was incredibly similar and very interesting for positive psychologists, those concerned with wellbeing and happiness: their wellbeing and happiness levels were incredibly similar, even if they were raised in radically different environments.
让我来和你们分享一项研究来说明我的意思——在心理学领域里，明尼苏达州双胞胎研究是最著名的研究之一,它是由两个杰出的心理学家Lykken和Tellegen完成的。之所以做这项研究，是因为他们想了解基因对于一个人的性格形成到底有多少影响。自然因素与后天的塑造到底孰轻孰重?那么换成是你们，你们怎么去做这项研究呢?现在，我们看那些同卵双胞胎,他们拥有相同的基因档案，我们再看那些在不同环境下生活的双胞胎。因为如果它们是由相同的父母亲抚养的，有人肯定会出来辩驳：“他们如此相似是因为他们的生活环境非常相似:他们穿得差不多，他们去相同的学校上学,他们有相同的父母,等等。”但如果你们能找到打出生便被分离的一对同卵双胞胎,然后生活在两个完全不同的环境中，你们便会发现双胞胎的相似与环境风马牛不相及，当然你们一定能找到这样的例子。两位心理学家也找到相当数量的分隔两地的双胞胎，有时甚至还分隔在不同的大洲。他们研究了这些双胞胎。他们惊人地发现这些双胞胎显著的相似性,相似度有时竟达到了令人难以置信的地步。就像我认识的一对双胞胎——我发现他们的妻子的名字竟然是相同的。他们生活在不同的国家,直到37岁时，他们才认识对方。他们娶了非常相似的妻子，他们都喜欢喝同一种牌子的啤酒，他们以相同的名字给他们的孩子取名。他们两个真的有某些令人难以置信的相似之处。当然，这是一个例外,但这个世界上还有相当多的例外。但心理学界更感兴趣的是,双胞胎们的性格惊人的相似。这对于那些积极心理学家，是一个相当有趣的现象。当积极心理学家考虑到他们的幸福度时，他们发现他们的幸福水平竟然如此的相似，虽然他们生活在两种完全不同的环境。
Lykken and Tellegen published a paper, a very influential paper in the 80s, which they called "Happiness is a Stochastic Phenomenon". And they end this paper with the following quote: "It may be that trying to be happier is as futile as trying to be taller and is therefore counterproductive." This quote made me very unhappy on two accounts. This was a very influential quote. This appeared in New York Times. They Coz what are we doing here? If this is the outcome of the research, a rigorous research that they did— not an easy research to go and look around the world, what can we do about it? Here is my response to that: Very simply, change is possible. And again, don’t take my word for it of course. Let me discuss that further and elaborate.
于是，Lykken和Tellegen发表了一篇学术论文，一篇八十年代极具影响力的论文，他们称“幸福是一种随机现象”。在论文的结尾部分，他们写了下如下的话语：“也许努力想变得更快乐和努力想长得更高一样，都是徒劳无功的，反而会弄巧成拙，物极必反。”这段引言让我很不开心，有两个原因——一是这是一段非常具有影响力的引言，二是它被刊登在《纽约时报》上，他们解释了我们到底在这个世界上做什么?这一项相当严密的研究需要他们要走访观察全世界，相当不容易。如果这是他们研究的成果,那么我们能做些什么呢？我的回答相当简单：改变是可能的。再次声明一下：不要从字面上理解这句话，接下来让我进一步论证和详述——
There is account of evidence where people actually do change and we have research showing that people going to therapy very often change as the a result of therapy. Work by Albert Bandura, Stanford psychologist shows that very often people encountering one special sentence, reading it or hearing it from something, that sentencecanchangetheirlives,readingitoncertainbook,havingcertain experiences— there is this concept of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). There is also a concept of Post-Traumatic Growth. So people change-- up or down in their level of happiness is a result of their experiences. So there is counter evidence that shows that not everyone, level of wellbeing is determined by their genes. In fact, there is research that shows yes genes do matter and they matter a lot, as we'll talk about during the week on change. Other things matter as well. And the error that Lykken and Tellegen and many others make when they generalize and say "change is not possible" is what I call "the error of the average". Yes, on average, when you look at this group of 40 or 50 twins reared apart, when you look at the average, they are just about the same. However, that’s not looking at the individuals because while many of them are the same, not all are the same.
有很多证据证明人们实际上是由有某些改变的，我们的研究也表明人们经常改变了之后又再加以改变。一位斯坦福心理学家艾伯特?班杜拉通过研究表明人们经常遇到某些特别的句子，不管是读到的还是听到的，那句话都可能改变他们的生活。在某本书上看到某些话，然后不由自主地联想到自己一些特定的经历，这种现象可以称为“创伤后精神紧张性精神障碍”，也可以称为“创伤后成长机制”。所以人们改变是相当可能的，他们幸福水平的高低完全取决于他们的经历对他们产生的影响。所以，有一些截然相反的证据证明并非所有人的幸福水平都是由基因决定的。实际上，研究表明，基因是有影响的，而且影响还不小，在以后的几周我们都会在谈“改变”的时候谈到这些。Lykken和Tellegen以及其他很多心理学家都会犯的错误，即概括“改变是不可能的”这个观点，其实每个人都会犯。是的，平均说来，当你们观察者四十或五十对分隔两地的双胞胎时，当你们看平均情况时，他们非常相似。但是，那不是针对无数个个人而言，因为虽然其中的很多对是相似的，但是并不是所有的都是相似的。
Yes, on average, when you look at this group of 40 or 50 twins or reared apart, when you look at the average, it’s just about the same. However that’s not looking at the individuals, because many of them are the same, not all are the same. It reminds me of a joke about the statistician who drowned in the pool with an average height of 10 inches, drowned in the pool with an average of height of 10 inches. You see, you can’t tell the height or depth rather of a pool based on the average. Because that pool, maybe the average pool is 10 inches, it may have a place of 25-inch depth if it is a large pool. The same, when you look at the average of individuals and twins, the majority or average are extremely similar, but also there are outliners. In very often, it’s the outliners that did the differences that are the most interesting. Because they stretch, just our imagination, stretch our ability to understand when and where change is possible. The question when we see the exceptions whether we Lykken and Tellegen study we do see the exceptions not all the twins were the same, the majority were but not all. The question is no longer whether or not change is possible, but rather how is change possible. Once again, the exception proves the rule. The research that argues that it’s not possible to change is detrimental. Thinking about an 8-year-old girl who is very unhappy and reads in some magazine about that study, says that basically you are genetically set point what you are born with is there for life. And she is unhappy, she feels anxious and miserable at the 8-year-old. And she says to herself, “That’s it. That’s my lot in life. I was born unlucky.” And it’s very often that becomes self-fulfilling prophecy, and sometimes it even makes her less happy than she was before …… because now she is also helpless. Change is possible. You know? I often say that I am the right person to teach the positive psychology. Why? because I was not born with happy genes. I was born with, genetically speaking, with rather high level of anxiety, inclination towards the rumination, over-examination we will talk about in the later course. I stopped. I went into positive psychology into the field of psychology I mentioned in the first lecture, because I was unhappy here. And over time, as a result of many of these studies, the result of examinations, the result of asking, also the right questions I have become happier. So on the personal level, I know it’s possible to become happier. I am happier than I was 15 years before and when I started, I hope to be happier 15 years from today I am. It is the life-long process. But it’s possible, and many people show it’s possible. And those who argue it is not possible and use science to argue for, very often, are hurting than helping the field. Now by the way, Lykken and Tellegen were interviewed recently in the Time magazine issue on happiness. And let me quote to you what they said: “this is in 2005--Lykken. I made a dumb the statement. It is clear that we can change our happiness’s level up or down. So when we come back to the statement of sensation. It was a sensation statement at the time, it’s certainly possible. So how do we do research that is more responsible, that does not lead to the detrimental results? At the same time, true, you know, we don’t want to invent the research. Research is about identifying the things really occur or happen in reality. So one of first thing that we are arguing for, in terms of healthy research, is, let’s focus on what is working. That’s the first thing we discussed in the past lecture. The second thing we are arguing for, in addition, to study for what works, is also to study the best. What do I mean by that? Let’s not just study what makes people happy, just not study the happy people, let’s not study what makes happy relationships and good relationships. Let’s study the happiest people. Let’s study the most successful relationships and learn from that. That’s a radically different approach than studying just the average, because what I am saying here. Let’s not study the average. Let’s just study the top 5% so that we can learn the phenomenon better. The person who talks about this is Abraham Maslow. When you talk about the growing-tips of statistics, let me read to you. This is taken from his book. What this kind of research design means it’s a change in our conception of statistics, and especially of sampling theory. What I am frankly exposing here, is what I have been calling growing-tip statistics. Taking my title from the fact that is at the growing tips of a plant, the greatest genetic action takes place. What he say is that let’s study the sages, the saints, the extraordinary people, the arrowhead so that we can understand and realize the potential in all people. Let me quote him in greater length. That is very important, which is why I am doing it. If we want to know how fast human beings can run. Then there is no use to average out of the speed of the good samples of the population. It’s far better to collect the Olympic gold-medal winners to see how well they can do. So if we want to know the possibility for the spiritual growth, value growth, or moral development in human beings. And I maintain that we can learn best by studying our most moral, ethical, or saintly people. On the whole, I think it’s fair to say that human history is the record of the ways in which the human nature has been sold short. The highest possibility of human nature has practically always been underrated. Certainly it seems more and more clear that we call “normal” in psychology is really the psychotherapy of the average. So undramatic and so widely spread that we don’t even notice it ordinarily.
Let’s not study just the average that says that people can’t really change.
Let’s study those people who have changed.
Who have literally transformed their lives and those lives around them? This is a radical approach to research;
This is a radical approach to the search, to studying ourselves as well. Because very often, if we only study average, we only see the average, we only see geometrical shapes and completely missing the children on the bus. And very often, the answer to some of our most pressing question lies in the extraordinary----- lies in children on the bus.
Now does anyone other than me and I admit I fall into this category. But anyone other than me feel a little bit disease when I talk about this? Seriously, a little bit disease when I talk about “let’s focus on studying the best, the saint, the sages, the extraordinary?” I feel disease. I’m sure some of you feel that too, because after all, isn’t that elitist? Shouldn’t we study the average, because we are concerned not just with elitists, we are concerned with the average. So there are two answers to that-------why I still maintain? And I must admit I still feel some disease every time I teach this, every time I think about this and I think too--------why it is so important to study the best ?why the growing-tip statistics is such an important approach to research that I encourage, my students to carry out. First of all, because it is not to the exclusion of the average，just like positive psychology does not say: Let’s exclude what’s not working, let’s exclude study of pathology. Similarly, growing-tip statistics is not saying let’s study the average. It says: let’s also, let’s also study the best. So this is the first thing to leave the concern off the elitism. But the second issue, the second response is even more important, because everyone, everyone benefits when we study the best and “average” whatever that means?the “average” benefits even more than the best from this kind of study. Why? For example, the study of Muslims, we couldn’t have gone on and studied the average at-risk population for decades and centuries. And very little advances would have been made, very little advances were made. It was only when we started to study, those “best” examples, those successful kids，those “ super ”kids as they were initially named. It’s only when we started to study those, that we actually understood how we can best help that population. And once we applied what our studies the resilience issue, everyone benefited and continued to benefit from it. That’s the example of growing-tip statistics research or how about the study of meditation, so I want to study how to meditate. Do I go out to Harvard yard to take a random sample of sophomores to study meditation or do I go to mountain top in Tibet and study the people who have been doing it for decades. Of course I go and study. This is exactly psychologists did and they studied their brain. We’ll talk about it when we talk about the meditation and they illustrated how their brain is transformed through meditation and psychologists like John Kabet Zin, Rechard Davidson and Hebert Beson were able to take what they learned from these extraordinary, best individuals and apply it to other people’s lives. So that now I benefit from meditation, when I do it for 15 or 20minitues a day and millions of other people, the average benefits a great deal, because of the study of the best, of the growing-tips. How about relationships? Can you image a study of relationships around human history? They focus on the average. What’s the average relationship in human history? The average relationship in human history is one in which the woman is subjugated. That’s the average relationship in human history. Now what if we just study that? Would be helpful?No, it was when people like John Steart Mall, who studied his relationship which was at that time extraordinary, realize the potential of what all relationships can be, but he wrote his book on subjugation of the women, one of the most important books, of the 19 century that he led to the feminists movement and toe the equality movement. But what if he only study the average would be helpful to relationships. Not at all, how about teaching? What do you want do in order to learn about teaching? Go and study the average teachers or go and study Malve Collions and then apply what does to all teachers. Everyone benefits when we focus on the tip statistics. This is why Masow said: human nature and human potential have been sold short. When we only study the average, it’s also about studying our personal best experience, becausr if we study our best experience when we survived the most within relationship, we can learn from it and apply it to the future as well. When we study our average, we are describing our lives, when we were studying the best within ourselves, we potentially prescribing. Masow again: few in number though they be, we can learn a great deal about values from the direct study of these highly evolved. Most mature, psychologically healthiest individuals, and from the study of peak moments of the average individuals moments, in which they become transiently self-actualized.
This was the study that was run, starting in the 1930s right here between Harvard and MIT, were the best minds— psychological minds, philosophical minds, psychiatrists— got together and said, "let's create the Rolls-Royce—there wasn't a Rolls-Royce then— but best intervention program that we can think of." There was no limit in terms of how much money was put into it. As much as they needed, they got and they chose 250 kids from an at-risk population. And the intervention is not a quick fix, overnight change," we can" seminar-- five-year intervention. And here is what they got. Twice a month, case workers visited them, helped them deal with the conflicts in the family, helped them deal with issues in their lives. Half of them had academic tutoring, those who needed it— got help, academic help. Psychiatric attention— all those who needed it, they were there. No limits on how much you needed it. Whatever you needed, you got from the best minds in the field. They joined the boy scouts, YMCA, other youth movements, benefited a great deal, supposedly from these experiences.
They got everything. This would be a dream treatment— not just in the 1930s, today as well. This is what psychologists dream about at night. Just introduce this. And then measuring outcomes was as serious as the program itself. There was a random assignment— there were 250 kids who got nothing, who were also studied, just like the kids who got the five-year intervention were studied— 250 kids in the control group. 40 years follow-up. This was not just about today, tomorrow for the five years; they followed them through much of their lives. This was serious study. This was serious intervention. And the results were shocking. Even though all those who participated in this study— whether it was the mental health workers, whether it was the philosophers, psychologists, the professors and the psychiatrists.program as the best, as highly effective, when they looked at the raw objective data, the results were shocking.
Juvenile offenses: control group versus intervention group-- no difference. Over a third had official records and 20 more percent had unofficial records for misdemeanors. No difference in juvenile offenses. Adult offenses later on in their lives. Again, no difference. Over 20 percent offenses— whether against property or against person— in both groups: the 250 here versus 250 here, which is significant sample size. No difference whatsoever. other measures: physical health and mental health—no difference whatsoever. But finally, there was a significant difference on alcoholism, the number of people who became alcoholic later on in life as well as job status— how many people were able to getting to do "the white collar" jobs. So at least there are results there. At least they found statistically significant results when they came to that. That's good, right? Not at all. Because these results were "in the wrong direction", meaning there were alcoholics in the intervention group than in the control group; there were more people in the control group making it at work "raising their status at work" than in the intervention group. In other words, intervention did more harm than good. Idealism, good intention, a lot of money wasn't practical. Now many people who look at this study— this is a seminal study—very few studies in the history of psychology that were that serious. They say, "Well, societal change is probably not possible". Give me one minute and I'll finish. Societal change is not possible, they say. Is it? First of all, there are exceptions and we have exceptions that prove the rule--there are programs that actually work, whether it's the work again of Karen Reivich and Martin Seligman from U Penn," resilience program", whether it's Marva Collins who's certainly an exception, who shows how interventions work. And it's interesting to think about the difference of what Marva Collins does, or she doesn't give the students in sense of entitlement, or she praises them but she gives them hard love as opposed to free lunch, or she doesn't label them as needy and the study 396 perhaps labeled these kids as needy. There are many differences. But the keys to study this exception and for practical idea is to come together and to say "what is working? Let's study the best; let's study what works and then apply it." Let's spread the word.
Let's do what Maslow talked about back in 1950s. What he suggested is "Manhattan-Project-type attacks upon what I consider to be the truly Big Problems of our time, not only for psychology but for all human beings with any sense of historical urgency". The Manhattan Project, when they created the atomic bomb and whether or not you agree with the Manhattan Project normatively. One second. I'm almost done. Positively, what they did there was bring together the best minds Oppenheimer, Zillart, Fermi Feinman, Bore— bring them together with a mission of saving the free world. Again whether you agree or not with the project is beside the point, it was the greatest, positively speaking, scientific project in history where the minds got together. This is what Maslow is suggesting that psychologists do. This is also the aim of positive psychology, no less than this. You get people around the world to think about these problems, these issues-- practical idealists who will study what works, who will study the best and through that, make a difference.
I'll see you next week
页:
[1]