Heck, yeah! The name of the course when I first began teaching it in 1982 was Psychology of Adjustment because positive psychology didn't exist yet. But I taught it from the current positive psychology perspective rather than a pathological perspective. Eventually Penn State officially relabeled the course "Introduction to Well-being and Positive Psychology."
I've read Frederick and Loewenstein's Hedonic Adaptation recommended in this post (struggled with the math, but gave it a good try). The article seems to me to prove something we all "know": "You can get used to anything." Of course, you can't in some cases, I heartily agree, but I somehow didn't find it quite as mind-blowing as Caplan seemed to say.
Maybe if I had stuck with the "math" longer (it involved NO NUMBERS, like most good math).
It certainly covered its subject thoroughly. A good exercise, at the very least.
I taught positive psychology at my university for 30 years, and I can confirm that books on happiness research do not belong in the New Age section.
Positive psychology. A college course(s)? Who knew?
Heck, yeah! The name of the course when I first began teaching it in 1982 was Psychology of Adjustment because positive psychology didn't exist yet. But I taught it from the current positive psychology perspective rather than a pathological perspective. Eventually Penn State officially relabeled the course "Introduction to Well-being and Positive Psychology."
I've read Frederick and Loewenstein's Hedonic Adaptation recommended in this post (struggled with the math, but gave it a good try). The article seems to me to prove something we all "know": "You can get used to anything." Of course, you can't in some cases, I heartily agree, but I somehow didn't find it quite as mind-blowing as Caplan seemed to say.
Maybe if I had stuck with the "math" longer (it involved NO NUMBERS, like most good math).
It certainly covered its subject thoroughly. A good exercise, at the very least.