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.
Kada sam bio predsednik Američke Asocijacije Psihologa pokušali su da me medijski edukuju i susret koji sam imao sa CNN-om sažima ono o čemu ću pričati danas, a to je "11.ti razlog za optimizam." Urednik Diskaverija nam je rekao njih deset, ja ću vam dati 11.ti.
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."
Tako su oni došli do mene, CNN, i rekli, "Profesore Selidžmen, možete li nam reći nešto o stanju psihologije danas? Želeli bismo da Vas intervjuišemo o tome." Odgovorio sam, "Sjajno." A ona je rekla, "Ali ovo je CNN, tako da dobijate jako malo vremena." Pitao sam, "Pa dobro, koliko ću dobiti reči?" Odgovorila je, "Pa, jednu."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
And the cameras rolled, and she said, "Professor Seligman, what is the state of psychology today?" "Good."
Kamera je krenula i ona je rekla, "Profesore Selidžmen, kakvo je stanje psihologije danas?" "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. Tako neće ići. Biće bolje da Vam ipak damo malo više vremena." "Pa, koliko ću dobiti reči ovoga puta?" "Mislim, pa... Dobićete dve.
(Laughter)
Doktor Selidžmen, kakvo je stanje psihologije danas?"
"Doctor Seligman, what is the state of psychology today?" "Not good."
"Nije 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.
"Vidite, doktor Selidžmen, vidimo da Vam baš i ne ide sa ovim medijem. Ipak će biti najbolje da Vam damo još više vremena. Ovoga puta imaćete tri reči. Profesor Selidžmen, kakvo je stanje psihologije danas?" "Nije dovoljno dobro." I o tome ću govoriti ovde. Želim da kažem zašto je psihologija bila dobro, zašto nije 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.
i kako može postati dovoljno dobra u narednih deset godina. I kao poređenje, želeo bih da kažem istu stvar i o tehnologiji, zabavi, dizajnu, zato što mislim da je suština vrlo slična.
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.
Pa zašto je psihologija bila dobro? Više od 60 godina, psihologija je radila u okvirima bolesničkog modela. Pre deset godina, prilikom jednog leta predstavio sam se čoveku koji je sedeo do mene i rekao mu čime se bavim i on se odmakao. Potpuno ispravno, jer se govorilo da psihologija samo traži ono što nije u redu sa tobom. "Uočite ludaka." A sada kad kažem ljudima čime se bavim, oni mi prilaze.
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.
Ono što je bilo dobro u vezi sa psihologijom, u vezi sa 30 milijardi vrednom investicijom NIMH-a (Nacionalni Institut za Mentalno Zdravlje), u vezi postojećeg "modela bolesti", u vezi onoga što ja podrazumevam pod psihologijom, jeste to da pre 60 godina nijedna od bolesti psihičke prirode nije bila izlečiva -- stanje je bilo jako maglovito. A sada se 14 poremećaja može tretirati, dva su izlečiva.
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.
I druga stvar koja se desila jeste da se nauka razvila, nauka o mentalnim bolestima. Uspeli smo da tako nejasne koncepte bolesti kao što su depresija, alkoholizam, merimo strogom preciznošću. Moguće je napraviti klasifikaciju mentalnih poremećaja. Moguće je razumeti uzročnike poremećaja. Možemo pogledati kroz vreme iste ljude -- ljude, na primer, koji su genetski podložni shizofreniji, i zapitati se koliki je doprinos sredine, a koliki genetike, a potom izolovati treću varijablu eksperimentalnim ispitivanjem mentalnih bolesti.
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.
A najbolje od svega je to što smo uspeli da, u poslednjih 50 godina, osmislimo medikamentozne i psihološke tretmane, i potom smo mogli da ih rigorozno ispitujemo u nasumično izabranim grupama kontrolisanim placebom -- izbaciti stvari koje nisu radile, zadržati stvari koje aktivno jesu. I zaključak svega toga je to što su psihologija i psihijatrija, u poslednjih 60 godina,
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.
učinile nesrećne ljude manje nesrećnim. Mislim da je to fenomenalno. Jako sam ponosan na to. Ali ono što nije dobro, posledice toga, su tri stvari.
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 vezana za moral -- da su psiholozi i psihijatri stali u službu istraživanja žrtava i patologije; da je naš pogled na ljudsku prirodu bio takav da ako neko ima problem, to verovatno znači da mu je cigla pala na glavu. Zaboravili smo da ljudi prave izbore i donose odluke. Zaboravili smo na odgovornost. To je bila prva cena.
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 da smo zaboravili na vas ljudi. Zaboravili smo na poboljšavanje normalnih života. Zaboravili smo na misiju da treba da učinimo ljude koji su relativno bez problema srećnijim, ispunjenijim, produktivnijim, a "genijalac", "visoko talentovan", su postale "prljave" reči. Niko ne radi na tome. I treći problem u vezi sa tim postojećim modelom "bolesti" jeste da,
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.
u našoj trci da učinimo nešto za ljude koji imaju problema, u našoj trci da učinimo nešto kako bi popravljali štete, nikada nam nije palo na pamet da razvijemo neke intervencije kako bismo učinili ljude srećnijim, neke 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.
Tako da to nije bilo dobro. I upravo je to navelo ljude kako što su Nensi Etkof, Den Gilbert, Majk Čiksenmaji i mene da počnemo da radimo na nečemu što ja zovem pozitivna psihologija, koja ima tri cilja. Prvi je da psihologija treba da bude podjednako zabrinuta za ljudsku čvrstinu koliko i za bolest. Podjednako usmerena na izgradnju te čvrstine koliko i na popravljanje štete. Trebalo bi da bude zainteresovana za one najbolje stvari u životu i trebalo bi da radi na onim stvarima koje ljudski život čine ispunjenijim kao i da se bavi genijima i načinima za odgoj visoko talentovanih.
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 --
Tako smo u proteklih 10 godina, i nadam se i u budućnosti, imali prilike da vidimo početke nauke o pozitivnoj psihologiji: nauke o tome šta život čini zbilja vrednim življenja. Ispostavlja se da možemo meriti različite oblike sreće. I svako od vas, besplatno, može otići na taj vebsajt
[www.authentichappiness.org]
i uraditi čitav spektar testova koji mere sreću.
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 proveriti kako stojite sa pozitivnim emocijama, na primer, kakav je vaš flow (vrsta emocije - vrhunsko zadovoljstvo), u odnosu na desetine hiljada drugih. Kreirali smo pandan dijagnostičkog priručnika mentalnih bolesti: klasifikaciju snaga i vrlina u odnosu na to kako su definisane, kako ih dijagnostikovati, šta ih čini i šta im stoji na putu. Ustanovili smo da možemo da otkrijemo uzročnike pozitivnih stanja, veze između aktivnosti leve hemisfere i aktivnosti desne kao uzročnike stanja 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.
Proveo sam život radeći sa ekstremno nesrećnim ljudima, i postavljao sam pitanje, kako se ekstremno nesrećni ljudi razlikuju od vas? I počevši od pre šest godina, zapitali smo se oko ekstremno srećnih ljudi, na koji način se oni razlikuju od ostalih? I ispostavilo se da postoji odgovor. Oni nisu religiozniji, nisu boljeg zdravstvenog stanja, nemaju više novca, ne izgledaju ništa bolje, ne dešava im se više dobrih nego loših stvari. Ali u jednoj stvari se razlikuju: oni su ekstremno socijalni. Ne sede na seminarima nedeljom ujutro.
(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 provode vreme u samoći. Svako od njih je u romantičnoj vezi i svako od njih ima puno 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 malo opreza ovde. Ovo su samo korelacioni podaci, nisu uzročni, i radi se o sreći u holivudskom smislu o kojoj ću govoriti: stanju razdraganosti i kikotanja i opšte veselosti. Ali sugerisaću vam za trenutak da to nije ni približno dovoljno. Otkrili smo da je moguće početi sa traženjem intervencija tokom vekova, od Bude do Tonija Robinsa. Predloženo je oko 120 intervencija koje navodno čine ljude srećnijim. Našli smo da smo u stanju da radimo na mnogima od njih, i izneli smo jedno istraživanje efikasnosti i efektivnosti. A to je, koja od njih čini ljude dugoročno srećnim? Za nekoliko minuta reći ću vam nešto o tim 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.
Ali ishod ovoga jeste da misija koju ja želim da psihologija ima, uz svoju misiju vezanu za izlečenje mentalno obolelih, i uz misiju da učini nesrećne ljude manje nesrećnim, jeste da li psihologija zbilja može učiniti ljude srećnijim? A da bih postavio to pitanje -- sreća nije reč koju tako često koristim -- moramo da je raščlanimo na ono što ja smatram da je moguće da se ispituje kada je sreća u pitanju. Mislim da postoje tri različita -- a zovem ih različita zato što ih čine različite intervencije, moguće je imati jednu pre nego drugu -- tri različita srećna načina življenja. Prvi srećni oblik života je zadovoljan život. To je život u kome imate najviše moguće pozitivnih emocija, i sposobnosti koje to pojačavaju. Drugi oblik jeste angažovani život: život na poslu, roditeljstvo, ljubav, slobodno vreme. O tome je Aristotel govorio. I treći oblik, život koji je ispunjen smislom. Želim da pričam po malo o svakom od ovih oblika života i šta mi znamo o tome.
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 oblik je zadovoljan život i najjednostavniji način za njegovo postizanje, jeste da imate zadovoljstava što je moguće više, što više pozitivnih emocija i naučenih veština kojima ćete to pojačati i razvući to stanje kroz prostor i vreme. Ali takav život vuče za sobom tri nusprodukta i to iz razloga što psihologija nije "srećologija" i zato što se ne završava tu.
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 mana je ta što se ispostavlja da je zadovoljstvo životom, vaš doživljaj pozitivnih emocija, naslednog karaktera, oko 50 procenata je nasledno i u suštini nepromenljivo. Tako da različiti trikovi koje Metju [Ričard], ja i ostali znamo o povećanju pozitivnih emocija u vašem životu uzimaju samo 15 do 20 procenata udela. Druga mana je ta da su pozitivne emocije stvar navike. Na njih se brzo navikne. To je nešto nalik francuskom sladoledu, kada ga prvi put probate ukus je 100 procentan; do trenutka kada ga probate šesti put, čarolija je nestala. I, kao što sam spomenuo već, nije previše podložna uticajima.
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.
A to vodi onom drugom obliku života. Moram vam reći nešto o mom prijatelju, Lenu, da bih vam objasnio zašto je pozitivna psihologija više od pozitivnih emocija, više od postizanja zadovoljstva. Na dva od tri bitna aspekta života, kada je Len imao 30 godina, Len je bio neverovatno uspešan. Prvi aspekt se ticao posla. Kada je imao 20, bio je prodavac opcija (finansijskih derivativa). Kada je imao 25, bio je multimilioner i na čelu kompanije koja je trgovala opcijama. Drugo, u igri: bio je nacionalni šampion u bridžu (igri kartama). Ali na trećem važnom aspektu života, ljubavi, Len je imao neizmerne promašaje. A razlog tome je taj što je Len bio hladan kao led.
(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 introvert. Amerikanke sa kojima je Len izlazio su mu govorile, "Uopšte nisi zabavan. Nemaš pozitivnih emocija. Gubi se." Len je bio dovoljno imućan da je mogao sebi priuštiti psihoanalitičara sa Park Avenije, koji je pet godina protraćio pokušavajući da pronađe kakvu seksualnu traumu koja je nekako zaključala pozitivne emocije unutar njega. Ali ispostavilo se da nije u pitanju nikakva seksualna trauma. Ispostavilo se da... Len je odrastao na Long Ajlandu i igrao je i gledao fudbal, igrao je bridž... Len je u poslednjih pet procenata onoga što zovemo pozitivni afektivitet. Pitanje je, da li je Len nesrećan? Želim da kažem 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.
Suprotno onome šta nam psihologija govori o donjih 50 procenata ljudi na lestvici pozitivnog afektiviteta, mislim da je Len jedan od najsrećnijih osoba koju poznajem. On nije predodređen paklu nesrećnih i to zbog toga što je Len, kao i većina vas, izuzetno sposoban za doživljaj "flow"-a. Kada on stupi na pod American Exchange u 9:30 ujutro, vreme se zaustavlja za njega. I stoji dok god zvonce ne označi kraj. Kada se prva karta odigra, pa do isteka desetog dana, dok se takmičenje ne završi, vreme se zaustavlja za Lena.
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.
A to je upravo ono o čemu je Majk Čiksenmaji govorio, o flow-u i njegovom razlikovanju od običnog zadovoljstva na veoma značajan način. Zadovoljstvo ima sled osećanja: znate da vam se to dešava. Tu su misli i osećanja. Ali tokom flow-a, o čemu je Majk juče govorio, ne možete osetiti ništa. Vi ste jedno sa muzikom. Vreme se zaustavlja. Imate veoma intenzivnu koncentraciju. I to je karakteristika onoga što mi mislimo da je dobar život. I smatramo da postoji recept za to, a to je saznanje o tome koje su tvoje najveće mogućnosti. I ponovo, postoji validan test o tome koje su tvojih pet najvećih sposobnosti/prednosti. A potom reorganizujete svoj život da bi to iskoristili najbolje moguće. Reorganizujete svoj posao, ljubav, igre, prijateljstva, 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.
Samo jedan primer: jedna osoba sa kojom sam radio, radila je kod Genardija. Mrzela je svoj posao. Radila je tokom celog svog studiranja. Njena najveća prednost je bila socijalna inteligencija, tako da je reorganizovala svoj posao tako da susreti sa njom doprinesu ulepšavanju dana mušterijama. E sada očigledno je da nije uspela. Ali ono što je ona uradila jeste da je upotrebila svoje najveće prednosti, i reorganizovala posao što je moguće više. Ono što se dobije iz toga nije više smeha. Nećete izgledati kao Debi Rejnolds. Nećete se mnogo kikotati. Ono što dobijate je veća udubljenost.
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 druga staza. Prva je - pozitivne emocije. Druga je eudemonijski (božanstveno blaženi - kod starih Grka) flow. I treća staza je značenje. Ovo je, tradicionalno, najvredniji aspekt sreće. A značenje u ovom smislu se sastoji od -- veoma slično eudemoniji, sastoji se od saznanja o tome koje su vam najveće prednosti i njihove upotrebe da bi ste se predali nečemu što je veće od vas samih.
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 sva ova tri oblika života, zadovoljni život, dobar život, život ispunjen smislom, ljudi sada naporno rade na pitanju, da li postoje stvari koje zauvek menjaju te živote? A deluje da je odgovor pozitivan. Daću vam neke primere toga. Radi se na rigorozan način. Radi se na isti način kao što se rade testovi na tabletama da bi se videlo da li zaista rade. Tako da imamo ispitivanje u kontrolisanim uslovima, placebo kontrolu, dugoročne studije sa različitim intervencijama. I samo da prikažem neke intervencije koje smo pronašli da imaju efekta, kada smo podučavali ljude o zadovoljnom životu, kako da imaju više zadovoljstva u životu, jedan od zadataka jeste da se preduzmu najbolje veštine i jedan lep dan je osiguran. Sledeće subote uredite i dizajnirajte jedan lep dan i upotrebite punoću svog uma i svoje prednosti da povećate zadovoljstvo. Možemo vam dokazati takvim načinom da je zadovoljan život uvećan.
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.
Poseta zahvalnosti. Želim da svi to uradite sada sa mnom. Zatvorite oči. Želim da se setite nekoga ko je uradio nešto izuzetno važno što je promenilo vaš život na bolje i kome se nikada niste zahvalili kako treba. Ta osoba treba da bude živa. U redu. Sada možete otvoriti oči. Nadam se da svi imate takvu osobu. Vaš zadatak kada učite o poseti zahvalnosti jeste da napišete pismo od 300 reči toj osobi, pozovete je, pitate da li joj možete doći u posetu, ne kažete razlog, pojavite se na vratima, pročitate pismo -- svi plaču kada se ovo desi -- i ono šta se dešava jeste da kada testiramo te ljude nedelju dana kasnije, mesec dana kasnije, tri meseca kasnije, oboje su srećniji i manje 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.
Drugi primer je sastanak snaga u kom nalazimo parove i navodimo ih da identifikuju svoje najveće snage na testu i potom da organizuju veče u kom će oboje koristiti svoje najveće snage, otkrili smo da je ovo osnaživač veze. I zabava nasuprot filantropije. Ali vrlo je emotivno biti u grupi kao što je ova, u kojoj je toliko vas preokrenulo svoje živote u pravcu filantropije. Moji studenti i ljudi sa kojima radim nisu otkrili ovo, tako da imamo ljude koji rade nešto altruistično i nešto zabavno, kao kontrast tome. I ono što se otkrije jeste da kada radite nešto zabavno, to ima kvadratno talasno kretanje. Kada uradite nešto filantropski da pomognete drugoj osobi, to traje i traje. To su bili primeri pozitivnih intervencija.
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?
Sledeća od poslednjih stvari koje hoću da vam kažem je da smo mi zainteresovani za to koliko su ljudi zadovoljni životom i to je zapravo ono što vas čini takvima. I to je naša ciljana varijabla. Postavljamo pitanje koje je funkcija tri različita života, koliko životnog zadovoljstva dobijate? Tako smo pitali -- a to smo uradili sa 15 ponavljanja uključivši hiljade ljudi -- u kojoj meri potraga za zadovoljstvom, potraga za pozitivnim emocijama, zadovoljnim životom, potraga za obavezivanjem, za momentima u kojim se vreme zaustavlja, i potraga za smislom, doprinosi opštoj životnoj satisfakciji? Rezultati su nas iznenadili, bili su u suprotnosti onome što smo mislili.
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.
Ispostavilo se da potraga za zadovoljstvima ne doprinosi životnoj satisfakciji. Potraga za smislom je najjača. Potraga za obavezivanjem je takođe veoma jaka. Tamo gde zadovoljstvo ima doprinos, jeste na mestima gde imate prisutno i obavezivanje i smisao, tako da je zadovoljstvo onda samo višnja na šlagu torte. Tako da ispunjen život, ukoliko imate sva tri aspekta, veći je od pojedinih elemenata koji ga čine. Isto tako, ako nemate nijedan od ova tri, prazan život, proizvod je manji od njegovih pojedinih delova. Ono što se mi pitamo sada 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.
da li ista veza - fizičko zdravlje, bolest, koliko dugo živite i produktivnost - prati ista povezanost? To jest, da li je produktivnost funkcija pozitivnih emocija, obavezivanja i smisla? Da li je zdravlje funkcija pozitivnog angažovanja, zadovoljstva i smisla u životu? Tu je i razlog za mišljenje da bi odgovor na to mogao da bude 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.
Kris je rekao da poslednji govornik ima priliku da integriše sve što je čuo, tako da je ovo bilo neverovatno za mene. Nikada nisam bio na sličnom skupu. Nikada nisam video govornike koji se protežu toliko izvan sebe, što je jedna izuzetna stvar. Ali sam otkrio da je problem psihologije sličan problemima tehnologije, zabave i dizajna na sledeći način. Svi znamo da tehnologija, zabava i dizajn mogu biti i jesu, upotrebljivani za destruktivne namene. Takođe znamo da tehnologija, zabava i dizajn mogu biti upotrebljeni da smanje nesreću. I uzgred, distinkcija između smanjenja nesreće i građenja sreće je izuzetno važna. Mislio sam, kada sam postao terapeut pre trideset godina, da ukoliko budem dovoljno dobar da učinim da neko ne bude depresivan, da ne bude anksiozan, da ću ga učiniti srećnim. Nikada to nisam otkrio. Otkrio sam da najbolje što ćeš ikada uraditi jeste da to svedeš na nulu. Ali oni su onda bili 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.
I ispostavilo se da su sposobnosti za sreću, sposobnosti za zadovoljan život, za obavezivanje, za smisao, drugačije od sposobnosti za oslobađanje od nesreće. Tako se istovetne stvari drže sa tehnologijom, zabavom i dizajnom, verujem. Moguće je da se ova tri pokretača našeg sveta upotrebe da povećaju sreću, da povećaju pozitivne emocije, i tipično je da se koriste na takav način. Kada jednom raščlanite sreću na način na koji sam ja to učinio, ne samo pozitivne emocije -- to nije ni izbliza dovoljno -- postoji flow u životu i postoji smisao. Kao što nam je Loreli rekla, dizajn, a ja mislim i zabava i tehnologija, takođe mogu biti upotrebljeni da povećaju smisao i obavezivanje u životu.
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.
Kao zaključak, 11.ti razlog za optimizam, pored svemirskog lifta, jeste da ja mislim da sa tehnologijom, zabavom i dizajnom, možemo povećati količinu ljudske sreće na planeti. I ukoliko tehnologija može u sledećoj dekadi ili dve povećati zadovoljstvo životom, dobar život i život ispunjen smislom, to će biti dovoljno dobro. Ukoliko zabava može biti preusmerena takođe na povećanje pozitivnih emocija, značenja, eudemonije, to će biti dovoljno dobro. I ako dizajn može povećati pozitivne emocije, eudemoniju, i flow, i smisao, sve ono što radimo zajedno biće dovoljno dobro. Hvala vam.
Thank you.
(Aplauz)
(Applause)