Khadaji indicated an interest in the book Learned Optimism by Martin Seligman, and since I just finished reading it and found it quite fascinating I figured I’d start a discussion thread on it.
For those who are unfamiliar with the book, Seligman is a prominent psychologist most notorious for his work on learned helplessness – he demonstrated with experimentation on both animals and humans that people in situations they cannot escape learn helplessness in ways that affect their behavior in the future. Thus, a dog who is shocked repeatedly with no way to escape the shock, will respond to a later battery of shocks with no action even when evasive action is very easy. He later replicated these findings with experiments on humans (not by shocking them, but by exposing them to unpleasant noises, blinky lights, and puzzles they couldn’t solve.) People, too, learn how to be helpless, a fact he argues can be extrapolated to explain why some people just never seem to rise above unfortunate circumstances.
The focus of Learned Optimism is about the difference between optimistic and pessimistic explanatory style. By optimism we are by no means talking about empty platitudes like ‘‘every day in every way, I’m getting better and better’’ (in fact Seligman specifically disses that particular platitude or the attempt to white-wash and minimize bad situations.) Everyone at some point in life encounters failure, and the feeling of helplessness associated with it, but what really seems to make the difference is how one explains the failure.
Seligman breaks down his understanding of optimistic explanatory style in three key ways:
**
Permanent** – when bad events happen, does the individual think that the event is going to last forever, or see it as merely temporary?
Personal – when bad events happen, does the individual see himself as the cause, or attribute the cause of the failure to external events or people beyond his control?
**Pervasive **-- when bad events happen, does the individual think of them as likely to effect his entire life in all areas, or just limited to the sphere in which the event occured?
I probably don’t need to explain which responses constitute a more pessimistic explanatory style. Much of the book is dedicated to Seligman’s discussion of the studies that have led him to conclude that pessimistic explanatory style is a major cause of depression. He essentially sees depression as pessimism to the nth.
While Learned Optimism is both intended to be, and is quite useful as, a self-help book, it is one that is steeped in academic research. Perhaps one of the most impressive things is that Seligman has been able to replicate these findings in study after study and extrapolate them to scenario after scenario. He found that people with an optimistic explanatory style are more likely to succeed professionally, be better students, play better sports, be physically healthier, and are even more likely to be elected president. He also talks about a nifty little technique called CAVE – Content Analysis of Verbatim Explanation – which I think is really cool, because they figured out a way to determine the explanatory style of people who aren’t even alive anymore, by analyzing their documented responses in interviews, academic journals, etc. They even used this technique by getting a bunch of old people to donate their diaries to science, which enabled them to do a kind of longitudinal study on the old peoples’ explanatory style when they were teens/young adults vs. in the present.
Perhaps the most amusing thing about Learned Optimism is Seligman’s view of himself as having completely annihilated the validity of behavioral psychology. He is one arrogant SOB, but given the extraordinary success of his research I guess it’s hard to fault him for that. He is a good writer, and tells a lot of fascinating little vignettes about prominent researchers he’s associated with. My favorite is his colorful description of the hippie, rebellious, salesman-like father of cognitive psychology, Albert Ellis, who was barred from speaking at a Penn convention because his proposed seminar was entitled, ‘‘Masturbate NOW!’’ The book is excellent at pointing out how lovely it is to be brilliant and genuinely curious about the world around you. He really gets you excited about research and the kind of people who do it well.
Seligman also includes diagnostic tests for optimism and pessimism in his book. Since, to be frank, I was reading the book with more of an eye toward self-help than anything else, I took his little tests. A score of 0 or lower on the pessimism scale indicates that one should contact a mental health professional right away. I scored a negative 13. I also scored on the depression scale as ‘‘extremely depressed.’’
I find this so interesting I almost want to write to him and ask him to explain it.
I don’t argue with the basic results of the tests – I do have chronic depression, and during major depressive episodes I tend to see everything that goes wrong as my fault, destined to last forever, and impacting my entire life. I am a person who overcame an incredible amount of personal hardship to achieve academic, professional and interpersonal success… I survived a gauntlet of discouraging, depressing, hopeless, even sadistic interpersonal experiences to become a very happy, very content young adult who surrounds herself with things that uplift and inspire her. It didn’t happen overnight… it took years of hard work despite looking like I was in a completely hopeless situation. I hit brick wall after brick wall, having only the tiniest of breakthroughs to urge me on. If I’d have taken the test four years ago the results would have been even worse… for back then, I really was ‘‘extremely depressed.’’ My test results would be huge indicators that I was destined for failure, or in the very least underperformance, yet I seem to just plug along anyway.
The only alternative hypothesis I can come up with is that there’s such thing as long-term and short-term explanatory style, and while my short-term explanation for bad events is pretty self-defeating, my long-term explanatory style must be incredibly optimistic. It’s difficult, however, to find evidence for this. Looking back on the bleakest, most difficult times in my life, I can’t recall my motivation being anything other than the explanatory equivalent of ‘‘Screw you guys, I’m going home.’’ My understanding of the impermanent nature of reality didn’t come until much later in the game. Until then, I was nothing but pure visceral drive.
‘‘Dear Dr. Seligman, I regret to inform you that you are overlooking one very significant factor in whether a person experiencing hardship will eventually become successful: spite. Is there no revenge better than a life well-lived? Let my happiness forever serve as a universal ‘‘FUCK YOU!’’ to those who didn’t treat me with the dignity I deserved.’’ Judging by the enormous smile on my face as I typed that paragraph, I think I’m onto something.
At any rate, short of that little anomaly, I thought Learned Optimism was an excellent read and found it effective as both a psychology lesson and a self-help book. My life has improved tremendously as a result of my own attempt to develop an optimistic explanatory style. One thing I have noted is how ridiculously irrational one must be to avoid depression at times. Studies have repeatedly indicated that depressed people have a better grip on reality than happy people, and it’s hysterically funny to force myself to say, night after night, ‘‘Wow, that train whistle is extra loud today’’ when the more likely scenario is that I’m a nervous wreck. But the truth is, it really works. Learned Optimism has made a me a happier, more successful person.
Thoughts?
