When I was President of the American Psychological Association, they tried to media-train me. And an encounter I had with CNN summarizes what I'm going to be talking about today, which is the eleventh reason to be optimistic. The editor of Discover told us 10 of them; I'm going to give you the eleventh.
Dok sam bio predsjednik Američke psihološke udruge, pokušali su me poučiti odnosu s medijima. Susret sa CNN-om sažima sve o čemu ću danas govoriti, a to je jedanaesti razlog da budete optimistični. Urednik Discovera naveo nam je njih deset. Ja ću vam dati jedanaesti.
So they came to me, CNN, and they said, "Professor Seligman -- would you tell us about the state of psychology today? We'd like to interview you about that." And I said, "Great." And she said, "But this is CNN, so you only get a sound bite." I said, "Well, how many words do I get?" And she said, "Well, one."
Dakle, prišao mi je CNN, i rekli su: "Profesore Seligman, biste li nam opisali današnje stanje u psihologiji? Voljeli bismo vas intervjuirati." Rekoh ja: "Odlično." A ona reče: "Ali ovo je CNN; moći ćemo emitirati samo kratku izjavu." Pitao sam je: "Na koliko riječi imam pravo?" A ona će: "Jednu."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And the cameras rolled, and she said, "Professor Seligman, what is the state of psychology today?" "Good."
Kamere se pale, i ona reče: "Profesore Seligman, u kakvom je stanju psihologija danas?" "Dobrom."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
"Cut! Cut. That won't do. We'd really better give you a longer sound bite." "How many words do I get this time?" "Well, you get two."
"Reži. Reži. Neće valjati. Bolje da vam damo malo više prostora." "Na koliko riječi imam pravo ovoga puta?" "Mislim da imate na dvije.
(Laughter)
Dr. Seligman, u kakvom je stanju psihologija danas?"
"Doctor Seligman, what is the state of psychology today?" "Not good."
"Ne dobrom."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
"Look, Doctor Seligman, we can see you're really not comfortable in this medium. We'd better give you a real sound bite. This time you can have three words. Professor Seligman, what is the state of psychology today?" "Not good enough." That's what I'm going to be talking about.
"Gledajte, dr. Seligman, vidimo da vam nije ugodno u ovom situaciji. Bolje da vam damo prostora za dulju izjavu. Ovoga puta recite u tri riječi. Profesore Seligman, u kakvom je stanju psihologija danas?" "Ne dovoljno dobrom." O tome namjeravam govoriti. Želim reći zašto je psihologija bila dobra, zašto nije bila dobra,
I want to say why psychology was good, why it was not good, and how it may become, in the next 10 years, good enough. And by parallel summary, I want to say the same thing about technology, about entertainment and design, because I think the issues are very similar.
i kako bi, u sljedećih deset godina, mogla postati dovoljno dobra. Istodobno, istu stvar želim reći i o tehnologiji, o svijetu zabave i o dizajnu, jer vjerujem da su vrlo slični.
So, why was psychology good? Well, for more than 60 years, psychology worked within the disease model. Ten years ago, when I was on an airplane and I introduced myself to my seatmate, and told them what I did, they'd move away from me, because, quite rightly, they were saying psychology is about finding what's wrong with you. Spot the loony. And now, when I tell people what I do, they move toward me.
Dakle, zašto je psihologija bila dobra? Više od 60 godina, psihologija je djelovala u okviru Modela bolesti. Prije deset godina, kad sam se u avionu predstavljao suputnicima, i običavao reći čime se bavim, oni bi se odmaknuli od mene. Zato što su, s pravom, znali reći da psihologija otkriva što nije u redu s tobom. "Skuži prolupalog." Kažem li danas ljudima čime se bavim, oni mi se približe.
What was good about psychology -- about the $30 billion investment NIMH made, about working in the disease model, about what you mean by psychology -- is that, 60 years ago, none of the disorders were treatable; it was entirely smoke and mirrors. And now, 14 of the disorders are treatable, two of them actually curable.
A što je bilo dobro u vezi sa psihologijom, s 30 milijardi dolara ulaganja Nacionalnog instituta za mentalno zdravlje, s radom u okviru Modela bolesti, s time što pod psihologijom smatrate, bilo je da se, prije 60 godina, nijedan od poremećaja nije mogao liječiti. Bilo je to apsolutno "tapkanje u mraku". Danas, 14 se poremećaja može liječiti; dva od njih, zapravo, i izliječiti.
And the other thing that happened is that a science developed, a science of mental illness. We found out we could take fuzzy concepts like depression, alcoholism, and measure them with rigor; that we could create a classification of the mental illnesses; that we could understand the causality of the mental illnesses. We could look across time at the same people -- people, for example, who were genetically vulnerable to schizophrenia -- and ask what the contribution of mothering, of genetics are, and we could isolate third variables by doing experiments on the mental illnesses.
Sljedeće što se dogodilo bio je razvoj znanosti, znanosti o mentalnim bolestima. Otkrili smo da neke nejasne pojave, poput depresije ili alkoholizma, možemo podvrgnuti strogim mjerenjima. Da možemo klasificirati mentalne bolesti. Da možemo razumjeti uzroke mentalnih bolesti. Da bismo iste ljude mogli pratiti tijekom vremena - ljude koji su, primjerice, genetski skloni shizofreniji - i ispitivati utjecaj odgoja, ili genetskih faktora, a mogli bismo i izdvojiti treće varijable kroz pokuse s mentalnim bolestima.
And best of all, we were able, in the last 50 years, to invent drug treatments and psychological treatments. And then we were able to test them rigorously, in random-assignment, placebo-controlled designs, throw out the things that didn't work, keep the things that actively did.
Konačno, u posljednjih smo 50 godina postali sposobni osmisliti i terapije lijekovima i psihološke terapije. Bili smo ih potom u stanju i rigorozno testirati, preko slučajnog uzorka, koristeći placebo, odbaciti ono što ne djeluje, zadržati ono djeluje. Zaključak je da, u posljednjih 60 godina, psihologija i psihijatrija
The conclusion of that is, psychology and psychiatry of the last 60 years can actually claim that we can make miserable people less miserable. And I think that's terrific. I'm proud of it. But what was not good, the consequences of that, were three things.
mogu istinski tvrditi da nesretne ljude možemo učiniti manje nesretnima. Mislim da je to sjajno. Ponosim se time. No, tri su posljedice onoga što nije bilo dobro...
The first was moral; that psychologists and psychiatrists became victimologists, pathologizers; that our view of human nature was that if you were in trouble, bricks fell on you. And we forgot that people made choices and decisions. We forgot responsibility. That was the first cost.
Prva je moralna, psiholozi i psihijatri postali su viktimolozi, patologizatori. Gledali smo na ljudsku prirodu tako da ako ste bili u nevolji - nastradali ste. Zaboravili smo da su ljudi odabirali i odlučivali. Zanemarili smo odgovornost. Bila je to prva nastala šteta.
The second cost was that we forgot about you people. We forgot about improving normal lives. We forgot about a mission to make relatively untroubled people happier, more fulfilled, more productive. And "genius," "high-talent," became a dirty word. No one works on that.
Druga je šteta bila ta što smo zanemarili vas, ljudi. Zanemarili smo poboljšavati normalne živote. Zaboravili smo na misiju da ljude koji nemaju većih problema učinimo sretnijima, ispunjenijima, produktivnijima. "Genijima" i "talentima" nismo se bavili. Nitko se njima nije bavio. Treći problem u vezi s Modelom bolesti jest što se
And the third problem about the disease model is, in our rush to do something about people in trouble, in our rush to do something about repairing damage, it never occurred to us to develop interventions to make people happier -- positive interventions.
žurimo učiniti nešto u vezi s ljudima u nevolji, žurimo se učiniti nešto da popravimo štetu, pa nam nikad nije sinulo razviti metode kojima bismo ljude učinili sretnijima.
So that was not good. And so that's what led people like Nancy Etcoff, Dan Gilbert, Mike Csikszentmihalyi and myself to work in something I call, "positive psychology," which has three aims. The first is that psychology should be just as concerned with human strength as it is with weakness. It should be just as concerned with building strength as with repairing damage. It should be interested in the best things in life. And it should be just as concerned with making the lives of normal people fulfilling, and with genius, with nurturing high talent.
Dakle, to nije bilo dobro. To je bilo ono čime su se vodili ljudi poput Nancy Etcoff, Dana Gilberta, Mikea Csikszentmihalyija i mene da poradimo na tzv. pozitivnoj psihologiji, a što ima tri cilja. Prvi je taj da bi se psihologija trebala jednako baviti ljudskim snagama kao što se bavi i slabostima. Trebala bi se baviti izgrađivanjem snaga kao što se bavi i popravljanjem štete. Trebala bi se baviti onim najboljim u životu. Trebala bi se baviti i time kako ispuniti živote normalnih ljudi, te s genijem, s odgajanjem izvanserijskog talenta.
So in the last 10 years and the hope for the future, we've seen the beginnings of a science of positive psychology, a science of what makes life worth living. It turns out that we can measure different forms of happiness. And any of you, for free, can go to that website --
U posljednjih deset godina i, nadamo se, u budućnosti, vidjeli smo početke znanosti pozitivne psihologije, znanosti o onome što život čini vrijednim življenja. Ispostavlja se da možemo izmjeriti razne oblike sreće. Svatko od vas može besplatno na ovoj internetskoj stranici
[www.authentichappiness.org]
naći čitav spektar testova sreće.
and take the entire panoply of tests of happiness. You can ask, how do you stack up for positive emotion, for meaning, for flow, against literally tens of thousands of other people? We created the opposite of the diagnostic manual of the insanities: a classification of the strengths and virtues that looks at the sex ratio, how they're defined, how to diagnose them, what builds them and what gets in their way. We found that we could discover the causation of the positive states, the relationship between left hemispheric activity and right hemispheric activity, as a cause of happiness.
Možete se pitati kako izmjeriti pozitivne emocije, smisao ili "tok" u odnosu na desetke tisuća drugih ljudi? Stvorili smo suprotnost dijagnostičkog priručnika mentalnih bolesti: klasifikaciju snaga i vrlina, razmjeran spolnoj zastupljenosti; kako su definirane, kako ih dijagnosticirati, što ih sačinjava i što ih ometa. Pronašli smo da možemo otkrivati uzroke pozitivnih stanja, odnos između aktivnosti lijeve hemisfere i aktivnosti desne hemisfere kao uzroka sreće.
I've spent my life working on extremely miserable people, and I've asked the question: How do extremely miserable people differ from the rest of you? And starting about six years ago, we asked about extremely happy people. How do they differ from the rest of us? It turns out there's one way, very surprising -- they're not more religious, they're not in better shape, they don't have more money, they're not better looking, they don't have more good events and fewer bad events. The one way in which they differ: they're extremely social. They don't sit in seminars on Saturday morning.
Čitav sam život radio s izrazito ubogim ljudima, i postavljao sam si pitanje: Po čemu se izrazito ubogi ljudi razlikuju od svih ostalih? Unatrag šest godina pitamo se što je s izrazito sretnim ljudima. I po čemu se oni razlikuju od nas ostalih? Ispostavilo se da postoji jedna razlika. Nisu religiozniji, nisu u boljoj formi, nemaju više novca, ne izgledaju bolje, nemaju čak ni više dobrih i manje loših iskustava. Osnovna je razlika: izrazito su društveni. Ne sjede na seminarima u subotnje jutro.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
They don't spend time alone. Each of them is in a romantic relationship and each has a rich repertoire of friends.
Ne provode vrijeme sami. Svatko je od njih u romantičnoj vezi i svatko ima širok krug prijatelja.
But watch out here -- this is merely correlational data, not causal, and it's about happiness in the first, "Hollywood" sense, I'm going to talk about, happiness of ebullience and giggling and good cheer. And I'm going to suggest to you that's not nearly enough, in just a moment. We found we could begin to look at interventions over the centuries, from the Buddha to Tony Robbins. About 120 interventions have been proposed that allegedly make people happy. And we find that we've been able to manualize many of them, and we actually carry out random-assignment efficacy and effectiveness studies. That is, which ones actually make people lastingly happier? In a couple of minutes, I'll tell you about some of those results.
Ali, pripazite. Ovo su tek korelacije, ne uzroci, i radi se o sreći u izvornom holivudskom smislu; o provali oduševljenja, o kikotu, o veselju. Istaknut ću uskoro da to ni izbliza nije dovoljno. Zaključili smo da bismo mogli metode promotriti kroz stoljeća, od Buddhe do Tonyja Robbinsa. Otkrili smo oko 120 pristupa kojima se navodno moglo ljude učiniti sretnima. Mnoge smo od njih uobličili u priručnik, i sada metodom slučaja provodimo studije djelotvornosti i učinkovitosti. Drugim riječima, koje metode čine ljude trajno sretnijima? Zakratko ću vam reći više o nekim rezultatima.
But the upshot of this is that the mission I want psychology to have, in addition to its mission of curing the mentally ill, and in addition to its mission of making miserable people less miserable, is, can psychology actually make people happier? And to ask that question -- "happy" is not a word I use very much -- we've had to break it down into what I think is askable about "happy." And I believe there are three different -- I call them "different" because different interventions build them, it's possible to have one rather than the other -- three different happy lives. The first happy life is the pleasant life. This is a life in which you have as much positive emotion as you possibly can, and the skills to amplify it. The second is a life of engagement: a life in your work, your parenting, your love, your leisure; time stops for you. That's what Aristotle was talking about. And third, the meaningful life. I want to say a little bit about each of those lives and what we know about them.
Međutim, krajnja moja želja jest da misija psihologije kao dodatak njenoj misiji liječenja mentalno oboljelih, i kao dodatak njenoj misiji da uboge ljude učini manje ubogima bude: Može li psihologija učiniti ljude sretnijima? A da bismo postavili to pitanje -- "sretan" nije riječ koju često koristim -- morali smo je razlomiti u dijelove za koje smatram da se mogu propitivati. Vjerujem da su tri različita... Nazivam ih različitima, jer ih sačinjavaju različite metode; moguće je živjeti jednim, a ne i drugim životom -- tri različita sretna života. Prvi sretan život je ugodan život. U njemu proživljavate onoliko pozitivnih emocija koliko je god to moguće, i posjedujete vještine da ih iznova iskusite. Drugi je predan život.-- Život na poslu, roditeljstvo, ljubav, dokolica, vrijeme za vas staje. O tome je i Aristotel govorio. I treći život, smislen život. Dakle, želim reći ponešto o svakome od tih života i o onome što o njima znamo.
The first life is the pleasant life, and it's simply, as best we can find it, it's having as many of the pleasures as you can, as much positive emotion as you can, and learning the skills -- savoring, mindfulness -- that amplify them, that stretch them over time and space. But the pleasant life has three drawbacks, and it's why positive psychology is not happy-ology, and why it doesn't end here.
Prvi je ugodan život i on, koliko o njemu znamo, znači uživati što je moguće više, sa što je moguće više pozitivnih emocija, i učiti se vještinama -- ukusu, svjesnosti -- koje ih osnažuju, koje ih produljuju u prostoru i vremenu. No, ugodan život ima tri nedostatka. Zato pozitivna psihologija i nije srećologija i zato ne završava ovdje.
The first drawback is, it turns out the pleasant life, your experience of positive emotion, is about 50 percent heritable, and, in fact, not very modifiable. So the different tricks that Matthieu and I and others know about increasing the amount of positive emotion in your life are 15 to 20 percent tricks, getting more of it. Second is that positive emotion habituates. It habituates rapidly, indeed. It's all like French vanilla ice cream: the first taste is 100 percent; by the time you're down to the sixth taste, it's gone. And, as I said, it's not particularly malleable.
Prvi nedostatak je taj što je ugodan život, vaše iskustvo pozitivnih emocija - nasljedan; oko 50 posto je nasljedno i ne odviše promjenljivo. Stoga različiti trikovi koje Matthieu, ja i ostali znamo o povećanju količine pozitivnih emocija u vlastitom životu su 15-20 posto - trikovi. Što više, to bolje. Drugi je da se na pozitivne emocije uistinu vrlo brzo navikavamo. Sve je to poput sladoleda od vanilije, okus pri prvom kušanju je potpun; do trenutka kad ga po šesti put kušate, nestao je. Kao što sam rekao, na to ne možete osobito utjecati.
And this leads to the second life. I have to tell you about my friend Len, to talk about why positive psychology is more than positive emotion, more than building pleasure. In two of the three great arenas of life, by the time Len was 30, Len was enormously successful. The first arena was work. By the time he was 20, he was an options trader. By the time he was 25, he was a multimillionaire and the head of an options trading company. Second, in play, he's a national champion bridge player. But in the third great arena of life, love, Len is an abysmal failure. And the reason he was, was that Len is a cold fish.
Što nas dovodi do drugoga života. Moram vam ispričati o svom prijatelju, Lenu, o tome zašto je pozitivna psihologija više od pozitivne emocije, više od nakupljanja užitaka. Na dva od tri velika životna polja, dok još nije navršio ni 30-u, Len je bio silno uspješan. Prvo je polje bio posao. Već u 20-oj trgovao je opcijama. Prije 25-e bio je multimilijunaš i čelnik tvrtke za trgovanje opcijama. Drugo, bio je nacionalni prvak u bridžu. No, na trećem životnom polju, u ljubavi, Len je bio beznadno neuspješan. Razlog: Len je hladna riba.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Len is an introvert. American women said to Len, when he dated them, "You're no fun. You don't have positive emotion. Get lost." And Len was wealthy enough to be able to afford a Park Avenue psychoanalyst, who for five years tried to find the sexual trauma that had somehow locked positive emotion inside of him. But it turned out there wasn't any sexual trauma. It turned out that -- Len grew up in Long Island and he played football and watched football, and played bridge. Len is in the bottom five percent of what we call positive affectivities.
Len je introvert. Žene koje su s Lenom bile izlazile govorile su mu: "Nisi zabavan. Nemaš pozitivnih emocija. Nestani." A Len je bio dovoljno imućan i mogao si je priuštiti psihoanalitičara s Park Avenuea, koji je pet godina pokušavao pronaći seksualnu traumu koja je nekako pozitivne emocije zatočila u njemu. Ispostavilo se da nije bilo nikakve seksualne traume. Len je odrastao na Long Islandu, igrao je i gledao američki nogomet, igrao je bridž -- Len je u donjih 5% onoga što nazivamo pozitivnim afektivnostima. Pitanje je: Je li Len nesretan? Ja bih rekao da nije.
The question is: Is Len unhappy? And I want to say, not. Contrary to what psychology told us about the bottom 50 percent of the human race in positive affectivity, I think Len is one of the happiest people I know. He's not consigned to the hell of unhappiness, and that's because Len, like most of you, is enormously capable of flow. When he walks onto the floor of the American Exchange at 9:30 in the morning, time stops for him. And it stops till the closing bell. When the first card is played till 10 days later, when the tournament is over, time stops for Len.
Suprotno onome što psihologija kaže o donjih 50% ljudske rase u pogledu pozitivne afektivnosti, mislim da je Len jedan od najsretnijih ljudi koje poznajem. Nije prepušten paklu nesretnosti i to stoga što je Len, poput većine vas, silno sposoban postići stanje obuzetosti. Kad stupi na pozornicu američke burze, u 9.30 ujutro, za njega vrijeme staje. I stoji do završnog zvona. Pošto netko baci prvu kartu, sljedećih 10 dana, dok turnir ne završi, za Lena vrijeme stoji.
And this is indeed what Mike Csikszentmihalyi has been talking about, about flow. And it's distinct from pleasure in a very important way: pleasure has raw feel -- you know it's happening; it's thought and feeling. But what Mike told you yesterday -- during flow ... you can't feel anything. You're one with the music. Time stops. You have intense concentration. And this is indeed the characteristic of what we think of as the good life. And we think there's a recipe for it, and it's knowing what your highest strengths are -- again, there's a valid test of what your five highest strengths are -- and then re-crafting your life to use them as much as you possibly can. Re-crafting your work, your love, your play, your friendship, your parenting.
Upravo je to ono o čemu je govorio Mike Csikszentmihalyi, o obuzetosti: On se od užitka razlikuje u nečemu vrlo bitnom. Sirovi osjeti su užitak: znate da se zbiva. On je misao i osjećaj. No, Mike je jučer rekao da kad ste obuzeti, ništa ne osjećate! Jedno ste s glazbom. Vrijeme staje. Snažno ste usredotočeni. To je pravo obilježje onoga što smatramo dobrim životom. Vjerujemo da za to postoji recept, trebate spoznati svoje najizrazitije vrline. Naravno, postoji valjan test kojim možete utvrditi tih svojih pet najizrazitijih vrlina. Potom preoblikujte svoj život kako biste ih što više koristili. Preoblikujte svoj posao, svoju ljubav, svoju igru, svoja prijateljstva, svoje roditeljstvo.
Just one example. One person I worked with was a bagger at Genuardi's. Hated the job. She's working her way through college. Her highest strength was social intelligence. So she re-crafted bagging to make the encounter with her the social highlight of every customer's day. Now, obviously she failed. But what she did was to take her highest strengths, and re-craft work to use them as much as possible. What you get out of that is not smiley-ness. You don't look like Debbie Reynolds. You don't giggle a lot. What you get is more absorption.
Primjerice, osoba s kojom sam radio pakirala je proizvode u Genuardi'su. Mrzila je taj posao. Nastojala je završiti fakultet. Najjača njena vrlina bila je socijalna inteligencija, pa je preoblikovala svoj posao tako što je susret kupca sa sobom pretvorila u socijalni vrhunac dana u životu svakoga kupca. Očito, nije uspjela, ali pokušala je izdvojiti najveće vlastite vrline i preoblikovati posao kako bi ih koristila što je više moguće. Ono što tako dobijete nije smješkovitost. Ne izgledate poput Debbie Reynolds. Ne kikoćete se često. Dobijete više zaokupljenosti.
So, that's the second path. The first path, positive emotion; the second path is eudaemonian flow; and the third path is meaning. This is the most venerable of the happinesses, traditionally. And meaning, in this view, consists of -- very parallel to eudaemonia -- it consists of knowing what your highest strengths are, and using them to belong to and in the service of something larger than you are.
To je, dakle, drugi put. Prvi put - pozitivna emocija. Drugi put je eudaimonijska, očaravajuća obuzetost. A treći put je smisao. On je najdostojniji sreće, u tradicionalnom smislu. Vrlo slično eudaimoniji, smisao se sastoji od poznavanja najvećih vlastitih vrlina i od njihova korištenja radi pripadanja i služenja nečemu većemu od sebe.
I mentioned that for all three kinds of lives -- the pleasant life, the good life, the meaningful life -- people are now hard at work on the question: Are there things that lastingly change those lives? And the answer seems to be yes. And I'll just give you some samples of it. It's being done in a rigorous manner. It's being done in the same way that we test drugs to see what really works. So we do random-assignment, placebo-controlled, long-term studies of different interventions. Just to sample the kind of interventions that we find have an effect: when we teach people about the pleasant life, how to have more pleasure in your life, one of your assignments is to take the mindfulness skills, the savoring skills, and you're assigned to design a beautiful day. Next Saturday, set a day aside, design yourself a beautiful day, and use savoring and mindfulness to enhance those pleasures. And we can show in that way that the pleasant life is enhanced.
Spomenuo sam da za sve tri vrste života, ugodan život, dobar život i smislen život, ljudi uporno nastoje naći odgovor na pitanje postoje li stvari koje trajno mijenjaju te živote? Čini se da je odgovor da. Dat ću vam nekoliko primjera. To se radi na rigorozan način. Na isti način na koji testiramo lijekove da bismo utvrdili koji djeluju. Služimo se slučajnim odabirom, eksperimentalnim nacrtom s placebom, provodimo longitudinalne studije različitih metoda. Dat ću vam primjer pristupa kakve nalazimo djelotvornima. Kad poučavamo ljude ugodnom životu, kako da više uživaju u životu, moraju se osloniti se na svoju svjesnost i na vlastit ukus i osmisliti prelijep dan. Sljedeće subote, izdvojite vrijeme i osmislite sebi prelijep dan; upotrijebite sav svoj ukus i svjesnost, kako biste uživali u životu. Tako možemo pokazati da je ugodan život moguće obogatiti.
Gratitude visit. I want you all to do this with me now, if you would. Close your eyes. I'd like you to remember someone who did something enormously important that changed your life in a good direction, and who you never properly thanked. The person has to be alive. Now, OK, you can open your eyes. I hope all of you have such a person. Your assignment, when you're learning the gratitude visit, is to write a 300-word testimonial to that person, call them on the phone in Phoenix, ask if you can visit, don't tell them why. Show up at their door, you read the testimonial -- everyone weeps when this happens. And what happens is, when we test people one week later, a month later, three months later, they're both happier and less depressed.
Posjet zahvalnosti. Molim vas, učinite sljedeće... Zaklopite oči. Prisjetite se nekoga tko je učinio nešto iznimno važno, a što je na vaš život utjecalo u dobrom smjeru, i kome nikad niste primjereno zahvalili. Osoba treba biti živa. Dobro? Sad možete otvoriti oči. Nadam se da ste se svi prisjetili takve osobe. Dok učite posjet zahvalnosti, vaš je zadatak u 300 riječi sročiti izjavu toj osobi; nazvati je u Phoenix; najaviti posjet, nemojte joj reći razlog; pojaviti se pred vratima; pročitati izjavu -- Svi plaču dok se to zbiva. Kad testiramo ljude tjedan dana kasnije, mjesec dana, tri mjeseca kasnije, oni su i sretniji i manje potišteni.
Another example is a strengths date, in which we get couples to identify their highest strengths on the strengths test, and then to design an evening in which they both use their strengths. We find this is a strengthener of relationships. And fun versus philanthropy. It's so heartening to be in a group like this, in which so many of you have turned your lives to philanthropy. Well, my undergraduates and the people I work with haven't discovered this, so we actually have people do something altruistic and do something fun, and contrast it. And what you find is when you do something fun, it has a square wave walk set. When you do something philanthropic to help another person, it lasts and it lasts. So those are examples of positive interventions.
Sljedeći je primjer spoj vrlina, na kojemu od parova očekujemo da na testu vrlina prepoznaju glavne svoje vrline pa osmisle večer tijekom koje će oboje izražavati svoje vrline. To osnažuje odnos. I zabava naspram filantropije. Ohrabrujuće je biti u skupini poput ove, u kojoj se toliko mnogo vas posvetilo filantropiji. Moji studenti i ljudi s kojima radim nisu ovo otkrili, što znači da imamo ljude koji čine nešto altruistično i istodobno zabavno. Dok činite nešto zabavno, to ima oblik kvadratnog vala. Kad činite nešto iz čovjekoljublja, pomažete drugome i to traje. Dakle, to su primjeri pozitivnih pristupa.
So the next to last thing I want to say is: we're interested in how much life satisfaction people have. This is really what you're about. And that's our target variable. And we ask the question as a function of the three different lives, how much life satisfaction do you get? So we ask -- and we've done this in 15 replications, involving thousands of people: To what extent does the pursuit of pleasure, the pursuit of positive emotion, the pleasant life, the pursuit of engagement, time stopping for you, and the pursuit of meaning contribute to life satisfaction?
Pretposljednje što bih želio reći jest da nas zanima koliko životnog zadovoljstva ljudi osjećaju. To je suština. Naša ciljna varijabla. Pitanje vidimo kao funkciju tri različita života: Koliko vam život donosi zadovoljstva? Zato pitamo, i učinili smo to u 15 navrata uključivši tisuće ljudi -- U kojoj mjeri potraga za užitkom, potraga za pozitivnim emocijama, za ugodnim životom; potraga za predanošću, za vremenom koje staje; i potraga za smislom, doprinose životnom zadovoljstvu? Rezultati su iznenađujući, oprečni onome što smo pretpostavljali.
And our results surprised us; they were backward of what we thought. It turns out the pursuit of pleasure has almost no contribution to life satisfaction. The pursuit of meaning is the strongest. The pursuit of engagement is also very strong. Where pleasure matters is if you have both engagement and you have meaning, then pleasure's the whipped cream and the cherry. Which is to say, the full life -- the sum is greater than the parts, if you've got all three. Conversely, if you have none of the three, the empty life, the sum is less than the parts.
Potraga za užitkom, za ugodom, uopće ne doprinosi životnom zadovoljstvu. Potraga za smislom je najsnažnija. Težnja za predanošću je, također, vrlo snažna. Užitak je važan i kad imate i predanost i smisao, tad je užitak šlag na torti. Dakle, život je potpun -- cjelina veća od sume dijelova, ako imate sve troje. Naprotiv, ako nemate nijedno, isprazan život, suma je manja od pojedinih dijelova. Sad se, pak, pitamo
And what we're asking now is: Does the very same relationship -- physical health, morbidity, how long you live and productivity -- follow the same relationship? That is, in a corporation, is productivity a function of positive emotion, engagement and meaning? Is health a function of positive engagement, of pleasure, and of meaning in life? And there is reason to think the answer to both of those may well be yes.
jesu li iste kategorije: tjelesno zdravlje, incidencije, duljina života i produktivnost u jednakome odnosu? Odnosno, u korporacijama, je li produktivnost posljedica pozitivnih emocija, predanosti i smisla? Je li zdravlje posljedica pozitivne predanosti, užitka i životnog smisla? Imamo razloga vjerovati da bi odgovor na oba pitanja mogao biti da..
So, Chris said that the last speaker had a chance to try to integrate what he heard, and so this was amazing for me. I've never been in a gathering like this. I've never seen speakers stretch beyond themselves so much, which was one of the remarkable things. But I found that the problems of psychology seemed to be parallel to the problems of technology, entertainment and design in the following way: we all know that technology, entertainment and design have been and can be used for destructive purposes. We also know that technology, entertainment and design can be used to relieve misery. And by the way, the distinction between relieving misery and building happiness is extremely important. I thought, when I first became a therapist 30 years ago, that if I was good enough to make someone not depressed, not anxious, not angry, that I'd make them happy. And I never found that; I found the best you could ever do was to get to zero; that they were empty.
Chris je najavio da će posljednji govornik imati prigodu objediniti sve što je čuo. Meni je ovo bilo čudesno. Nikad nisam bio dio ovakvoga skupa. Nisam vidio da govornici toliko nadmaše sami sebe što je doista izuzetna stvar. No, otkrio sam da problemi u psihologiji prate probleme u sferi tehnologije (T), zabave (E) i dizajna (D). Svi znamo da su tehnologija, industrija zabave i dizajn bili i mogu biti korišteni u vrlo štetne svrhe. Svi znamo da se tehnologija, industrija zabave i dizajn mogu upotrijebiti radi ublažavanja patnje. Napominjem, razlika između ublažavanja patnje i kreiranja sreće iznimno je važna. Kad sam prije 30 godina postao terapeut, mislio sam da je dovoljno nekoga učiniti ne-depresivnim, ne-anksioznim, ne-bijesnim, pa da ga time učinim sretnim. Nikad to nisam potvrdio. Najviše što možete učiniti je doći do nule. Ali, ostat će prazan.
And it turns out the skills of happiness, the skills of the pleasant life, the skills of engagement, the skills of meaning, are different from the skills of relieving misery. And so, the parallel thing holds with technology, entertainment and design, I believe. That is, it is possible for these three drivers of our world to increase happiness, to increase positive emotion. And that's typically how they've been used. But once you fractionate happiness the way I do -- not just positive emotion, that's not nearly enough -- there's flow in life, and there's meaning in life. As Laura Lee told us, design and, I believe, entertainment and technology, can be used to increase meaning engagement in life as well.
Ispostavlja se da su vještine sreće, vještine ugodnog života, vještine predanosti, vještine smisla, različite od vještina ublažavanja patnje. Vjerujem da isto vrijedi i za tehnologiju, industriju zabave i za dizajn. Moguće je da ova tri zamašnjaka našega svijeta povećaju sreću, povećaju pozitivnu emociju, i obično se s tim ciljem oni i upotrebljavaju. Ali pošto raščlanite sreću onako kako ja to činim -- ne samo uz pozitivnu emociju, to nije dovoljno -- tu su još i obuzetost i životni smisao. Kao što nam je Laura Lee rekla, dizajn, zabava i tehnologija, mogu se upotrijebiti da bi se u životu uvećala i smislena predanost.
So in conclusion, the eleventh reason for optimism, in addition to the space elevator, is that I think with technology, entertainment and design, we can actually increase the amount of tonnage of human happiness on the planet. And if technology can, in the next decade or two, increase the pleasant life, the good life and the meaningful life, it will be good enough. If entertainment can be diverted to also increase positive emotion, meaning eudaemonia, it will be good enough. And if design can increase positive emotion, eudaemonia, and flow and meaning, what we're all doing together will become good enough.
Da zaključim, jedanaesti razlog za optimizam, kao dodatak svemirskom dizalu, jest taj da tehnologijom, zabavom i dizajnom možemo, zapravo, uvećati količinu ljudske sreće na planetu. Ako, u sljedećem desetljeću ili dva, tehnologija donese ugodan život, dobar život i smislen život, bit će to dovoljno dobro. Ako zabavu preusmjerimo kako bi i ona umnažala pozitivnu emociju, smisao, blaženstvo, bit će to dovoljno dobro. I ako dizajnom budemo umnažali pozitivnu emociju, blaženstvo, obuzetost i smisao, ono što svi zajedno činimo postat će dovoljno dobro. Hvala vam.
Thank you.
(Pljesak)
(Applause)