Tags for this video have been changed from 'ted, shawn achor, happiness, psychology' to 'ted, shawn achor, happiness, positive, psychology' - edited by calvados

I have been doing some research lately into the Aristotelian ethics, so thanks for the additional sources of reading material!

>> ^Ariane:

I agree with what she is saying totally, and the scientists and researchers in "Positive Psychology" would agree. We have been led to believe that having a positive attitude will bring about positive change and there is no data to support that. Its a lie started in American theology called the "prosperity doctrine" and then secularized and adapted by the new agers.
If you want to learn what will really make us happy, start with Dan Gilbert, then move on to Dr Barry Schwartz and Dan Pink, and Carol Ryff. Their seemingly strange conclusions about what makes us really happy are backed up by scientific research. The conclusion that they draw is that the whole "American Dream" is a piece of fiction that will ultimately lead to misery.
What we need is a "meaningful purpose", and we need to work with others on that purpose. Our endeavors do not even have to succeed, as long as our purpose is clearly defined, we are able to see progress, and there is some hope for success, it will lead us to eudaemonia as Aristotle called it or lasting "well-being" and contentment.

I agree with what she is saying totally, and the scientists and researchers in "Positive Psychology" would agree. We have been led to believe that having a positive attitude will bring about positive change and there is no data to support that. Its a lie started in American theology called the "prosperity doctrine" and then secularized and adapted by the new agers.

If you want to learn what will really make us happy, start with Dan Gilbert, then move on to Dr Barry Schwartz and Dan Pink, and Carol Ryff. Their seemingly strange conclusions about what makes us really happy are backed up by scientific research. The conclusion that they draw is that the whole "American Dream" is a piece of fiction that will ultimately lead to misery.

What we need is a "meaningful purpose", and we need to work with others on that purpose. Our endeavors do not even have to succeed, as long as our purpose is clearly defined, we are able to see progress, and there is some hope for success, it will lead us to eudaemonia as Aristotle called it or lasting "well-being" and contentment.

i apologise for assuming you liked freud - i think i have my wires crossed with someone else. in any case i am always glad to hear when people are suspicious of him, because there is good reason to be. i highly recommend reading "the unknown freud" by frederick crews.

to respond point by point:

1. yes, i agree that the human condition has been examined for thousands of years, and that 'psychology' in some form began with the ancient greeks, if not earlier. but this is oversimplifying things dramatically, and it becomes an argument of definition. i refer to psychology as psychological SCIENCE, which -is- (relatively) new. this difference is not trivial -- until the 19th century, our hypotheses about the human condition were untested. psychological science allows us to see if our philosophies about human perception, cognition, and behaviour, are demonstrably true.

2. the humanists/third wave occupied an important space and time, but were overshadowed by behaviourism/cognitivism. still, i think a lot of people outside of psychology have heard of abraham maslow and his 'hierarchy of needs'. not only that, but humanist psychologists were responsible for the development of the 'client-centered approach', which was hugely influential. i would disagree with you here and say that in research, and clinical psychology, humanist trends are vitally important. in fact, a relatively new sub-discipline within psychology called "positive psychology" is burgeoning. i would suggest that perhaps the reason it seems discouraged is because psychology is so unbelievably broad now, and neuroscience is becoming increasingly popular, that it seems as though interest in wellbeing is small. i don't think it truly is.

3. well, i suspect here we have a true divide that we can't agree on. you believe we have failed in understanding the human condition because of something i believe doesn't exist. i think we understand the human condition fairly well, given our short (scientific) time at examining it. but it is an unwieldly, hugely complex beast, and we are just at the beginning.

and with regard to your points on bashing psychology:

1. if you want to understand a human, it is useful to understand the workings of the brain. would you let a surgeon operate without training? i'm not sure what the problem is with emphasising that students of the science of human thought and behaviour learn how the biology of the mind works.

2. yes, rates are up. population is also up. ability to diagnose accurately is also up. recognition that people have problems, instead of pretending they're fine, is also up. look, i see what you're saying, and it's perfectly reasonable, but i think this problem is enormously complex, and blaming psychology is misplaced.

>> ^enoch:

SDGundam nailed it.
and i dont have anything against psychology as a whole,to do so would be ignoring the many MANY advancements in understanding the human mind.
that being said i have to admit a revulsion to freud (his discovery non-withstanding) i found his conclusions entirely bleak and apocalyptic as i also did neitzche.
this is my opinion but i could make a strong argument for my case.
now i am going to engage in a tactic i really dislike (the bullet argument) but i shall do so in order to maybe communicate a bit where i am coming from NOT to win/lose an argument.
because i do not see this as an argument ...just a differing of opinion based on not only my own bias and prejudice but berticus as well.(hmmm..maybe it IS an argument LOL).
1.psychological/behavioral sciences are new in name only.history reveals that understanding the human condition and mind have been studied for thousands of years see:mystery schools,jesuits etc etc.
2.i am gladdened by the new batch of "humanists",though in american higher education this is..discouraged..due to employment issues,money etc etc.those who do pursue that branch of study might as well become hippies or a talk show host.not much money in that field.
3.you are correct in the vast literature concerning the things we are talking about and should there be any surprise in that fact?
i dont think so.it is the fundamental part of being human to talk about the things that touch us,to attempt to understand ourselves as people and as a society... for good or ill.
i have come to the conclusion (maybe incorrectly) that the great philosophers/psychologists of our time have ultimately failed in their conclusions due to the fact that they totally ignore the ongoing battle between spirit and ego.
humanists at least recognize that there is something more.they may not call it spirit/soul but they do realize that there is a dynamic that people like freud missed entirely.
hell..freud concluded that the ego was EVERYTHING..which puts him in the douchebag column.(mass marketing anyone?).
does this dismiss freud accomplishments? no.
just as i wont dismiss neitzche (even though he was a depressive asshat who we would call EMO nowadays).
i find hegel to be particularly abominable in his conclusions but that does not detract from his brilliance.
jung and r d lang's conclusions were just as flawed and for the same reasons the freud/hegel were flawed.
their conclusions lacked a complete dynamic.
this "third wave" is beginning to address these flaws but the way i see it the elements they are bringing to the table have been in front of us for 3000 yrs.
hence my comment.
let me end this particularly long comment with a few points to why i may be perceived as bashing psychology (rightly so in my opinion).
1.greater and greater pressure put on students to pursue bio-chem for a choice in the field.
2.in america suicides are up.unhappiness is up and the new "maladies of the day" bi-polar,adhd and panic anxiety disorder are up by staggering rates.over the past 20 yrs anti-psychotics,ssri's and sedatives are up exponentially..1000's of percentage points higher than 20 yrs ago.
all with the avg time before diagnosis? 1 1/2 hrs.
i could go on for quite a bit longer but i feel these points suffice to make my point.
conclusion=epic fail.
while my comment may have had a snarky flavor my sentiments were sincere.
i am over-joyed that practical applications based on a more humanistic approach are seriously being considered instead of pumping people full of meds (with full understanding that meds are a necessity at times).
i am assisting a friend who just entered her master program for psychology and i am appalled at the depth of indoctrination and lack of opposing philosophies and understanding and she is being pressured to pursue bio-chem and marginalize any other train or pursuit.
please understand that i am self taught and most likely have gaps in not only my studies but understanding and welcome any opposing thoughts or understanding my friend.
you have always been respectful berticus and while at times we may disagree thats exactly how i look at it..a disagreement and not a forum on who we are as people.
if my thought process is wrong or misguided i would love to hear what you have to say my friend.

"Positive Psychology Lecturer"? Yeah, it's going to be unsubstantiated bullshit.

>> ^EDD:
I can only say that I've noticed the same thing, ForgedKittenReality, avatars influence my perception of the users behind them a great deal - oftentimes even more than I'd like them to. Btw you awe sooo cuute, yes you aawe!
P.S. Does MY avatar give any subconscious impressions to anyone?


Haha! Nice. Yes, I try to think of avatars as little more than a means of personalizing someone's online persona. This in itself, though, tends to say something about that person, even if they don't intend for it to. They chose to personalize it that way for SOME reason, and in that sense it tends to carry some weight, so we can't help but be influenced whether or not we know it. Don't you think?

Also, your avatar might not have any meaning to me were it not for past experiences. So I guess in that way, avatars can also have an impact we didn't intend, since it's going to be different for different people because they're coming from different perspectives.

As griefer stated, your avatar is fairly neutral to me as well, except when I factor in the fact that I used to know someone who went by the online name "MrWoot" and he was basically a huge dickhead, and the word "woot" from then on holds a bit of a bitter aftertaste for me. I don't have that impression of you, but that avatar just conjures up memories of an oddly mentally unstable person. That or woot.com, but to a lesser extent.


>> ^radx:
Subliminal messages such as in advertisements have been shown to be more effective on people who do not believe they are receiving them. I know I feel completely oblivious to most banner ads but that doesn't mean videoSift's ad selection doesn't color my perception of the site. I think we should expect the emotional content of an icon in close proximity to a posted message to have some effect even when we can't match an avatar to a username.


Advertisement is a great example. Companies spend years and lots of money developing a "persona," or brand, that is a positive one which consumers can relate to, and hopefully vote with their pocketbooks on how favorably they view that brand.

It's the whole reason logos, taglines, etc. are developed in the first place. Companies will exhaust inane amounts of effort in developing specific guidelines on color, size, placement, and other usage rules that outline the ways in which their brand can be used. Any communications to consumers must follow these strict guidelines so that the brand remains consistent and minimizes the chance of confusion on the part of the consumer. Confusion in itself is a signal to the consumer that maybe that brand doesn't have as solid grasp on its identity over, say, another brand which may or may not have an impact on their products or services. More than that though, keeping the messages consistent is a powerful means of impregnating that brand into the minds of consumers so that the brand is remembered the next time the consumer decides to buy a product with which the brand may be involved.

I guess in a way, avatars are our logo, or our branding. A lot can be said without using words, and corporations go to great lengths to ensure that the things their brand says to the consumer are all positive. Psychology is a crazy thing.

More info:
Happiness 101 @ NYT
UPenn positive psychology center

Tech note-Sift starts at 28:00 within the file. Discussion here.

Thanks for pointing that out, Jeff. I didn't catch that because you have to be a non-charter to have caught it. Should be fixed now.

Actually, I didn't even know that you suggested making this change. The primary reason we did it for playlists is that they were breaking due to the creative characters people started using. We implemented the video/ST post friendly-URL-ification mainly for the benefit from search engines and the positive psychological affect it has for people getting URLs emailed or really just seeing it anywhere. Having that up and running, it was only natural progression to do the same thing for the playlist URLs when we realized we really needed a serious fix for those bad boys.

Oh, to answer your other question, no, unfortunately there's no way to just search the source for old format URLs. In many places they are generated dynamically and sometimes it depends on the situation.