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.
Ko sem bil predsednik Ameriškega psihološkega združenja, so me poskušali izuriti v komuniciranju z mediji, in srečanje s CNN povzema to, o čemer bom govoril danes, kar je enajsti razlog, zakaj bi bili optimistični. Urednik revije Discover nam jih je povedal deset, jaz pa vam bom povedal enajstega.
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."
In so prišli do mene -- CNN -- ter rekli, "Profesor Seligman, bi nam lahko povedali kaj o stanju psihologije dandanes?" Radi bi naredili intervju z vami o tem." In jaz sem rekel, "Super." Nato je rekla, "Ampak to je CNN in na razpolago imate le majhen izseček." Potem sem vprašač, "No, koliko besed pa dobim?" In ona reče, "Eno."
(Laughter)
(smeh)
And the cameras rolled, and she said, "Professor Seligman, what is the state of psychology today?" "Good."
Zaženejo kamere in ona reče, "Profesor Seligman, kakšno je stanje v psihologiji dandanes? "Dobro."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
"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."
"Rez, rez. To ne bo dobro. Mislim, da bi vam res morali dati daljši izseček." "Koliko besed pa dobim tokret?" "Mislim, no, dve dobite.
(Laughter)
Doktor Seligman, kakšno je stanje v psihologiji dandanes?"
"Doctor Seligman, what is the state of psychology today?" "Not good."
"Ni dobro."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
"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.
"Poglejte, doktor Seligman, videti je, da se ne počutite udobno s tem medijem. Bolje bi bilo, ko bi vam dali pravi izseček. Tokrat dobite tri besede. Profesor Seligman, kakšno je stanje v psihologiji dandanes? "Ni dovolj dobro." In to je tema, o kateri bom govoril sedaj. Rad bi razložil, zakaj je bila psihologija dobro, zakaj ni bila dobro
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.
in kako bi lahko, v naslednjih desetih letih, bila dovolj dobro. In sočasno bi rad rekel nekaj podobnega glede tehnologije, zabave industrije in oblikovanja, saj se mi zdi, da se soočajo s podobnimi problemi.
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.
Torej, zakaj je bila psihologija dobro? Več kot 60 let je psihologija delovala znotraj boleznskega modela. Pred desetimi leti, ko sem potoval z letalom, in se predstavil svojim sopotnikom ter jim povedal, kaj počnem, so se presedli stran od mene. Govorili so, pravzaprav pravilno, da je bistvo psihologije v iskanju tega, kar je z nekom narobe. Najdi čudaka. Sedaj pa, ko ljudem povem, kaj počnem, se mi ljudje približajo.
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.
In kar je bilo dobro glede psihologije, okoli 30 milijard dolarjev NIMH investicije, glede delavanja znotraj bolezenskega modela in glede tega, kako se dojema psihologijo, je, da pred 60 leti nobena bolezen bi bila ozdravljiva -- šlo je za izkrivljanje resnice. Sedaj se čahko 14 motenj zdravi, dve izmed teh pa sta dejansko ozdravljivi.
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.
Poleg tega se je je prišlo do tehnološkega napredka, znanost mentalnih bolezni. Ugotovili smo, da lahko vzamemo meglene koncepte -- kot sta depresija, alkoholizem -- in jih merimo z natančnostjo. Da lahko ustvarimo klasifikacijo mentalnih bolezni. Da lahko razumemo vzroke mentalnih bolezni. Da lahko gledamo preko časa na iste ljudi -- ljudje, na primer, ki si genetsko ranjivi za shizofrenijo -- in se vprašali, kakšna je prispevek materinske vloge neodvisno od genetike in smo tako lahko izolirali tretje spremenljivke z izvajanjem eksperimentov o mentalnih bolezni.
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.
Kar je najboljše, smo sposobni, v zadnjih 50 letih, izumljati farmakološke in psihološkie tretmaje. Nato smo bili jih bili sposobni rigorozno testirati v naključnm dodeljevanju, placebo kontrolni dizajn, in zavrgli tiste stvari, ki niso delovale in obdržali tiste, ki so. Zaključek tega je, da psihologija in psihiatrija v zadnjih 60 letih
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.
lahko dejanko trdita, da lahko naredimo nesrečne ljudi manj nesrečne. Meni se zdi to čudovito. Ponosen sem na to. Ampak kar ni bilo v redu, so tri poledice, ki iz povedanega izhajajo.
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 morala, da so psihologi in psihiatri postali viktimologi in patologi, in je naš pogled na človeško naravo tak -- če se zanjdeš v teževah, bodo nate padale opeke. Pozabili smo, da ljudje sprejemajo odločitve in izbirajo. Pozabili smo na odgovornost. To je bila prva napaka.
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 napaka je bila, da smo pozabili na ljudi. Pozabili smo na možnost izboljšanja normalnih življenj. Pozabili smo na misijo narediti relativno zadovoljne ljudi še bolj srečne, bolj izpolnjene, bolj produktivne. In "genij", "visoko talentiran" sta postali umazani besedi. Nihče ne deluje tako. In tretji problem bolezenskega modela je,
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.
da v naglici narediti nekaj za ljudi v težavah, da v naglici narediti nekaj, zato da bi popravili škodo, nikoli nismo pomislili, da bi razvili intervencije, ki bi naredile ljudi srečnejše, pozitivne intervencije.
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.
Torej to ni bilo dobro. To je pripeljalo ljudi, kot so Nancy Etcoff, Dan Gilbert, Mike Csikszentmihalyi in mene do delovanja v smeri, ki ji jaz pravim pozitivna psihologija, ki ima tri cilje. Prvi cilje je, da bi moralo biti psihologijo zanimati tako človeške moči kot človeške šibkosti. Prav tako bi se morala ukvarjati z gradnjo moči kot tudi s popravljanjem škode. Moralo bi jo zanimati, kar je v življenju najboljšega. Moralo bi jo zanimati, kako narediti življenja normalnih ljudi še bolj zadovoljujoča, prav tako delo z geniji in z vzgajanjem visokih talentov.
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 --
V zadnjih 10 letih in z upanem za prihodnost, smo videli začetke znanosti pozitivne psihologije, znanost o tem, kaj naredi življenje vredno živeti. Zdi se, da lahko merimo različne oblike sreče. Kdor koli med vami, lahko brezplačno obišče to spletno stran
[www.authentichappiness.org]
in izpolni velik nabor testov, ki merijo srečo.
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.
Lahko me vprašate, kako lahko postavite pozitivne emocije, pomen, zanos nasproti dobesedno na desettisoče drugih ljudi? Naredili smo nasprotje diagnostičnega priročnika mentalnih bolezni, klasifikacija moči in verlin, ki zajame razmerje med spoloma, kako jih definitati, kako jih diagnosticirati, kaj jih gradi in kaj so njihove ovire na poti. Ugotovili smo, da lahko raziščemo vzroke pozitivnim strategijam, odnos med levo hemisferično aktivnostjo in desno hemisferično aktivnostjo kot vzrok za srečo.
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.
Celo življenje se ukvarjam z resnično nesrečnimi ljudmi, in vprašal sem jih, kako se ekstremno nesrečni ljudje razlikujejo od ostalih? Pred šestimi leti smo vprašali ekstremno srečne ljudi. In kako se oni rezlikujejo od vseh nas? Izkazalo se je, da obstaja ena pot. Niso bolj religiozni, niso v boljpi telesni formi, nimajo več denarja, niso bolj privlačni, niso doživeli več dobrih kot slabih dogodkov v življenju. Edina razlika med njimi in ostalimi je: so izredno družabi. Ne sedijo na seminarju v nedeljo dopoldne.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
They don't spend time alone. Each of them is in a romantic relationship and each has a rich repertoire of friends.
Ne preživljajo časa v samoti. Vsak med njimi je v romantičnem razmerju in vsak med njimi ima bogat nabor prijateljev.
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.
Ampak pozor. To so komaj korelacijski podatki, niso vzročni, in na tem mestu govorim o sreči v prvem, hollywoodskem, pomenu: sreča kot veseljačenje, hihitanje in dobra volja. Čez trenutek vam bom povedal, zakaj to niti približno ni dovolj. Ugotovili smo, da lahko pregledamo intervencije v zadnjih nekaj stoletjih. od Buddhe do Tonyja Robbinsa. Predlaganih je bilo približno 120 intervencij, ki načeloma naredijo ljudi bolj srečne. Ugotovili smo, da jih lahko strnemo in smo dejansko izvedli eksperiment z naključnim dodeljevanjem, študije učinkovitosti in efekta. Katere intervencije dejansko naredi ljudi dolgotrajno srečnejše? V nekaj mintuah, vam bom razložil nekaj rezultetov teh raziskav.
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.
Bistveno je, da je misija, za katero si želim bi psihologija prevzela kot dodatek k misijam, usmerjenim v mentalne bolezni, in kot dodatek k misijam, kako narediti nesrečne ljudi manj nesrečne, ta, kako lahko psihologija dejansko naredi ljudi srečnejše? Da si zastavimo to vprašanje -- sreča ni beseda, ki bi jo pogosto uporabljali -- smo morali reducirati na tisto, kar je po mojem mnenju vprašljivo glede sreče. Jaz verjamem v obstoj treh različnih -- lahko jim rečem različnih, saj so jih zgradile različne intervencije -- možno je imeti eno, bolj kot drugo -- tri različna srečna življenja. Prvo srečno življenje je prijetno življenje. To je življenje, v katerem je toliko pozitivnih emocij, kot jih je možno imeti, in v katerem posedujemo sposobnosti za njihovo razširitev. Drugo življenje je življenje udejstvovanja -- življenje v delu, partnerstvu, ljubezeni, prostem času, ko se čas ustavi zate. O tem je govoril Aristotelj. Tretje je življenje smisla. Sedaj želim povedati nekaj o vsakem izmed teh življenj in o tem, kar vem o njih.
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.
Prvo živlenje je prijetno življenje in je tako dobro kot bi si ga vsak želel, gre za doživljenja čim več prijetnih dogodkov, čim več pozitivnih emocij, in učenje veščin -- okušanje in čuješnost -- da bi jih razširili, da bi jih raztegnili čez čas in prostor. Ampak prijetno življenje ima tri slabosti, in sicer je to razlog, zakaj pozitivna psihologija ni srečo-logija in zakaj se ne zaključi tukaj.
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.
Prva slabost prijetnega življenja, izkušenj pozitivnih emocij, je dedljivost, okoli 50 procentov take sreče je dedljive in dejansko se je ne da veliko modificirati. Različni triki, ki jih Matthieu [Ricard] in jaz ter drugi poznamo o višanju nivoja pozitivnih emocj v življenju so v 15 do 20 procenrov triki, kako iz življenja dobiti več. Drugi razlog je ta, da pozitivna emocija habituira. Hitro doseže platfon. Je precej tako kot francoski vaniljin sladoled, prva pokušnja je vreden 100 procentov; z vsako pokušnjo do šeste, užitek izgine. In, kot sem že rekel, ni pretirano flaksibilna.
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.
To nas pripelje do drugega življenja. Povedati vam moram zgodbo o svojem prijatelji Lenu, da bi vam lahko razložil, zakaj je pozitivna psihologija več kot pozitivna emocija, več kot gradnja užitka. V dveh od treh veličastnih arenah življenja, je Len, dokler je dosegel 30 let, bil izredno uspešen. Prva arena je delo. Do svojega 20 leta je postal delničar, do svojega 25 leta je postal miltimilijonar in voditel trgovsko-delniško družbo. Druga arena, igra -- bil je nacionalen prvak v bridžu. Ampak v tretju veliki areni življenja, ljubezen, je Len poplen polom. Razlog je v tem, da je Len kot mrzla riba.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 introverten. Ameriška ženska je Lenu rekla, ko sta bila še par, "Nisi zabaven. Ne čutiš pozitivnih emocj. Spravi se stran." Len je bil dovolj premožen, da si je lahko privoščil pshianalitika iz Park Avenue, ki ga je obravnaval pet let, da bi našel seksualno travmo, ki je v njem nekako zaklenila pozitivne emocije. Ampak izkazalo se je, da ni šlo za nikakršno seksualno travmo. Izakazao se je -- Len je odraščal v Long Isladnu in je igral nogomet in gledal nogomet in igral bridž -- Len se nahaja v spodnjih petih procentih tistih, za katere pravimo, da posedujejo pozitivno afektivnost. Vprašanje je, je Len nesrečen? Jaz mislim, da ne.
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.
V nasprotju s tem, kar so nam psihologi govorilo o spodnjih 50 procentih človeške rase in pozitivni afektivnosti, jaz mislim, da je Len eden izmed najbolj srečnih ljudi, kar jih poznam. Ni obsojen na pekel nesreče in to zato, ker je Len, tako kot večina vas, izredno sposoben preiti v stanje zanosa. Ko ob 9:30 zjutraj vstopi na tla American Exchange , se zanj čas ustavi. Ustavi se, dokler ne zazvoni zvonec, ki naznanja konec. Ko se odigra prve karte, in 10 dni, dokler se turnir ne zaključi, se čas za Lena ustavi.
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.
Gre za, kot je govoril Mike Csikszentmihalyi, zanos. Razlikuje se od ugodja na zelo pomemben način. Ugodje vsebuje surove občutke: veš kaj se ti dogaja. Je misel in občutek. Ampak, kot vam je Mike včeraj povedal -- med zanosm, ne čutiš ničesar. Postaneš eno z glasbo. Čas se ustavi. Doživljaš izredno koncentracijo. To je zančilno tudi za kar mi mislimo, da je dobro življenje. Mislimo, da imamo recept zanj, kar naj bi bilo poznavanje svojih moči. In spet, obstaja veljaven test, ki testira, katerih pet moči je pri vas prisotnih. Potem sledi preurejanje življenja tako, da bi jih uporabil čim več. Preurejanje svojega dela, ljubezni, iger, prijateljstev in svojega starševstva.
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.
Samo en primer. Ena oseba je delala kot polnilec paketov v Genuardi. Sovražila je delo. Poskuša se je prebiti skozi collage. Njena najvišja moč je socialna inteligentnost, zato je preuredila pakiranje tako, da je za stranke naredila srečanje z njo, višek njihovega dneva. Seveda ji je spodletelo. Vzela je torej svoje najvišje moči in preuredila delo tako, da bi jih čim več uporabljala. Kar dobiš iz tega ni nenehno smehljanje. Ne izgledaš kot Debbie Reynolds. Ne hihitaš se veliko. Dobiš pa več absorpcije.
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.
Torej to je druga pot. Prva pot, pozitivne emocije. Druga pot je zanos. In tretja pot je smisel. To ni tako veličastna sreča, kot si jo tradicionalno predstavljamo. Pomen, v tem smislu vsebuje -- zelo podobno kot dobrobit -- zavedanje, katere so tvoje moči in njihova uporaba, da bi pripadali oziroma da bi služili nečemu večjemu kot samo mi sami.
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.
Omenil sem, da glede vseh vrst življenj, torej prijetno življenje, dobro življenje in življenje smisla, ljudje sprašujejo ali obstajajo stvari, ki trajno spremenijo ta življenja? Zdi se, da je odgovor pritrdilen. Podal vam bom nekaj enostavnih primerov. To so raziskovali na strog način. Tezo so testirali na podoben način kot testirajo zdravila, da bi ugotovili, katera delujejo. Z naključno razdelitvijo, placebo in kontrolna skupina, longitudinalne študije različnih intervencij. Naj vam orišem, za kakšne intervencije smo ugotovili, da imajo učinek. Ko ljudi učimo o prijetnem življenju, kako živeti bolj prijetno življenje, je ena izmed nalog najti sposobnosti čuječnosti, sposobnosti okušanja, in osebi je dodeljeno, naj si sestavi čudovit dan. Naslednjo soboto si vazmi čas in si ustvari čudovit dan, uporabi sposobnosti okušanja in čuječnosti, da bi povečal te užitke. Na tak način lahko pokažemo, kako lahko prijetno življenje opolnomočimo.
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.
Hvaležnostni obisk. Prosil bi vas, da vsi to naredite skupaj z mano. Zaprite oči. Prosil bi vas, da se spomnite na nekoga, ki je naredil nekaj zelo pomembnega, kar je spremenilo vaše življenje na bolje, tej osebo pa se niste nikoli primerno zahvalili. Ta oseba mora biti živa. OK. Sedaj, OK, lahko odprete oči. Upam, da imate vsi tako osebo. Vaša naloga, ko se učite o hvaležnostem obisku, je, da napišete 300 besed dolgo sporočilo tej osebi, pokličite jih po telefonu v Phoenix, vprašajte jih, ali jih lahko obiščete, pojavite se na njihovih vratih, preberite jim spročilo -- vsakdo pade v jok, ko se mu to zgodi. Kar se zgodi, ko testiramo ljudi en teden kasneje, en mesec kasneje, tri mesece kasneje je, da so bolj srečni in manj depresivni.
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.
Še en primer je zmenek moči, v katerem dobimo par, vsak pri sebi najde najvišje moči na testu moči, in potem si skupaj sestavita večer, v katerem oba uporabita svoje moči. Ugotovili smo, da to opolnomoči partnerski odnos. In zabava nasproti filatropiji. Tako je lepo biti v skupini kot je ta, kjer vas je veliko namenilo življenje filantropnosti. No, moji študentje in ljudje, s katerimi delam tega niso spoznali, torej dejansko pripravimo ljudi, da strorijo neko altruistično dejanje in da naredijo nekaj zabavnega, kar predstavlja kotrast. Kasneje smo ugotovili, da ko storimo nekaj zabavnega, dobimo kvadratno krivuljo. Ko pa naredimo neko filantropsko dejanje da bi pomagali drugemu, pa dober občutek traja in traja. To so torej bili primeri pozitivnih intervencij.
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?
Zadnja stvar, o kateri bi govoril je, da nas zanimajo, kako zelo so ljudje zadovoljni z življenjem. To je pa redko tisto, kar delate vi. To je naša ciljna spremenljivka. Postavimo vprašanje kot funkcijo treh različnih življenj, kako zelo so zadovoljno z življenjem? Vprašamo -- in to smo naredili v 15 replikacijah ter tako vključili na tisoče ljudi -- v kolikšni meri prizadevanje za užitek, prizadevanje za pozitivne emocije, za prijetno življenje, prizadevanje za vključevanje, ustavljanje časa zase in prizadevanje za smisel pripomore k višjemu zadovoljstvu z življenjem? Dobljeni rezultati so nas presenetili, vendar so bili obratni kot smo pričakovali.
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.
Izkazalo se je, da prizadevanje za užitek skoraj nič ne pripomore k višjemu zadovoljstvu z življenjem. Prizadevanje za smisel je najmočnejše. Prizadevanje za udejstvovanje je prav tako zelo močno. Užitek je pomemben, ko sta prisotna tako udejstvovanje kot tudi smisel, saj je takrat užitek le češnja na vrh torte. Kar pomeni, da je polno življenje -- celota je večja od svojih delov -- ko imaš na razpolago vse tri. Po drugi strani, če nimaš nobene izmed treh, torej prazno življenje, je celota manj od svojih delov. In kar sedaj sprašujemo je,
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.
ali isti odnos, fizično zdravje, morbidnost, kako dolgo živiš in produktivnost, sledijo istemu odnosu? Torej, je v skupnem delovanju produktivnost funkcija pozitivnih emocij, vključevanja in smisla? Je zdravje funkcija pozitivnega vključevanja, užitke ali smisla življenja? Obstaja razlog, zakaj bi lahko na obe vprašanji odgovorili pritrdilno.
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.
Torej, Chris je rekel, da ima zadnji predavatelj priložnost združiti vse, kar smo do sedaj slišali in to je bilo zame izjemno. Nikoli nisem bil vklučen v podobno srečanje kot je to. Nikoli nisem slišal predavatelje govoriti preko sebe, kar je bila ena izmed izjemnih stvari. Ugotovil sem, da se problemi v psihologiji zdijo vzporedni problemov v tehnologiji, zabavni industriji in oblikovanju na naslednji način. Vsi vemo, da so bili tehnologija, zabavna industrija in oblikovanje uporabljeni za destruktivne namene. Vemo tudi, da se tehnologija, zabava in oblikovanje lahko uprabljajo za olajšanje bolečin. Mimogrede, razlika med lajšanjem nesreče in gradnjo sreče je izredno pomembna. Ko sem pred 30 leti postal terapevt, sem mislil, da je dovolj dobro, če nekoga pripravimo, do tega, da ni depresiven, da ni anksiozen, jezen, ampak jih naredimo srečne. Tega nisem nikoli našel. Ugotovil sem, da je najbolje kar lahko narediš, da prideš do ničle. Ampak bili so prazni.
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.
Izkazalo se je, da se veščine sreče, veščine prijetnega življenja, veščine vključevanja, veščine pomena razlikujejo od veščin lajšanja nesreče. In s tem lahko po mojem mnenju potegnemo vzporednico s tehnologijo, zabavno industrijo in oblikovanjem. Torej je mogoče za te tri voznike našega sveta, da povišajo srečo, da povišajo pozitivno emocionalnost in to so tipični načini njihove uporabe. Ampak ko enkrat razdelite srečo, kot sem to storil jaz -- ne samo pozitvnih emocij, to ni niti približno dovolj -- bo prisoten zanos v življenju in prisoten bo občutek smisla. Laura Lee nam je povedala, da je oblikovanje, po mojem mnenju tudi zabavna industrija in tehnologija, lahko uporabljen za povišanje udejstvovanja v življenju.
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.
Torej, če zaključim, enajsti razlog za optimizem, poleg vesoljsega dvigala, je, da lahko po mojem mnenju s pomočjo tehnologije, zabavne indrustije in oblikovanja povišamo količino sreče pri ljudeh na Zemlji. Če lahko tehnologija, v naslednjem desetletju ali dveh poviša prijetno življenje, dobro življenje in smiselno življenje, bo dovolj dobro. Če zabavno industrijo pravilno predstavimo, lahko poviša pozitivno emocionalnost, pomen, navdušenje, bo dovolj dobro. Če lahko oblikovanje poviša pozitivno emocionalnost, navdušenje, zanos in smisel, kar delamo mi vsi skupaj, bo dovolj dobro. Hvala.
Thank you.
(Aplavz)
(Applause)