A site on the future of psychology

In the next series of posts, I am going to critically examine major lines of thought that are currently receiving much attention in the field via the lens of the unified theory. I am going to start by evaluating Martin Seligman’s conception of the field, as articulated here in this TedTalk.

Seligman is one of the most famous living psychologists, having served as president of the APA in 1996, and making a number of important contributions to the field, including the learned helplessness conception of depression, and spearheading the positive psychology movement over the past 15 years. In the talk, Seligman articulates his conception of the field of psychology, both in terms of its mission and how well it is doing, after which he proceeds to discuss what is perhaps the key concept in positive psychology, well-being. Seligman shares his three pathways to the good life, which are via positive affect, flow (or engagement in life), and meaning. (In his most recent book, Flourishing, he updated his vision, which is now called PERMA, for Positive Affect, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning and Accomplishments).

My evaluation of the talk is mixed. On the positive side, the construct of well-being is a central construct that has traditionally been under studied (see Sam Harris’s The Moral Landscape for an interesting argument that well-being is one of the central constructs in all of science—although he barely mentions positive psychology). In fact, my graduate students and I are embarking on the development of a clinician administered structured interview of well-being, The Well-Being Interview, which I believe is the first of its kind. That fact in and of itself is an indication this important construct has been understudied. In addition, with PERMA, Seligman offers a decent conception of well-being, quite similar to our approach. Seligman also deserves kudos for his ability to coordinate large scale empirical studies that are yielding good information.

On the negative side, however, Seligman’s approach is lacking in philosophical and theoretical depth. Indeed, that Seligman is neither a theorist nor philosopher of psychology was painfully apparent in his talk. Listening to Seligman’s conception of psychology, one comes to the conclusion that up until 1995, psychology was indistinguishable from psychiatry, as both were the science of mental disease. Then, eschewing hand waving, wishful thinking, and self-deception (which apparently was what the humanists were doing with their focus on optimal functioning and living constructive lifestyles), good, scientifically minded individuals like him are now leading the charge in studying the positive dimension.

Seligman claims that there are fourteen mental diseases that are treatable (and two that are curable). He makes this claim as though there is consensus in the field about what we study (which there is not) and as if the list of treatable mental diseases is generally known (it is not). Although there have been improvements in the diagnostic reliability and treatment of anxiety and depression, the idea that we can say with precision or consensus that there are 14 (not 13 or 15) treatable conditions is, to me, ludicrous, and an example of proofiness. Moreover, I would strongly contest the description of the conditions that I am guessing are on his list should be characterized as ‘mental diseases’. In fact, there are very good theoretical and philosophical reasons to differentiate mental diseases from mental disorders, but Seligman appears oblivious to such nuances.

I also cringed listening to Seligman’s conception of the field of psychology at large (a conception which is not only given in this talk but in his writing as well). One would hope that a former President of the APA would have a more philosophically grounded conception of the field. Instead, it is a simple, naïve, empirical, pragmatic view. Psychology is what the NIMH has paid it to do, which is to categorize and treat mental disorders/diseases. And now, via Seligman’s vision, psychology needs to also pay attention to the other side of the human functioning continuum. Such an approach is completely vacuous when it comes to dealing with the profound philosophical and theoretical complexities associated with the discipline. Unfortunately, it is exactly this vague conception of the field that is prominent and why so many lack an appreciation of the deeper issues.

In conclusion, Seligman has done the field a great service by highlighting the value and need to turn the methodologies of psychology to the positive aspects of the continuum. However, his conception of psychology reveals what I believe is a rampant naïve empiricism. And without a deeper theoretical and philosophical grounding, it seems likely that research in positive psychology will contribute more information about people, but perhaps little wisdom.


Comments on: "Seligman’s Psychology: From Clinical to Positive" (2)

  1. Dave Haaga said:

    Interesting analysis, Gregg, and I appreciate your candor. My sense from earlier exchanges with people making similar points to yours (not necessarily from perspective of your theory, but on the theme of Seligman’s painting with a very broad brush and seeming to imply that nothing useful re the “positive” side of human functioning was a point of emphasis till his APA presdential address) is that Marty would not really care to engage. I distinctly recall his referring to an SSCPnet thread in this vein as “low-level bitching” that wasn’t worth responding to. To which my own reaction was mixed — besides finding it funny as a debate tactic, I had about equal parts negative reaction (give everyone else some credit, please) and admiration (he plows ahead with enthusiasm and rallies people to agreement without worrying about whether all the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed. Ultimately, I think the field needs Seligman’s to galvanize the public, secure foundation funding, etc. etc., and equally needs the many more cautious scholars to make sure we can really ground our claims.


  2. Hi Dave,
    Thanks for the comment, and I basically agree with it. Certainly, Marty would have a good justification for dismissing my post as low-level bitching [may be even ‘LOWER level bitching than SSCPnet :o)] simply by pointing to all the influence his “galvanizing” approach has had over the years.
    My message to the field is that, although we need people like Seligman who are the galvanizers, I believe we will be in a much better place via the unified theory, to ground such enterprises in a theoretically and philosophically sophisticated frame.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: