This week’s article was interesting. It tied together quite a few of the topics we have covered in the span of this class. It mentions that positive psychology should be more ingrained into education due to the positive effects it has on not only the students but also on the teachers, social structure, and community.
One part mentions that a promoted practice of mindfulness would be very beneficial to students. It goes on to suggest that not only could opening a class with a mindfulness exercise be beneficial but also having rooms and locations where students can practice mindfulness for themselves. I personally think that adding mindfulness to every class would be good for a university.
The rest of the article was interesting as well but I am personally bias to mindfulness because I enjoy it more then most other subjects. What was your thoughts on the article?
This weeks article was informative to say the least. It was a study involving the effects of interaction with weak ties. I must agree with the article that interacting with people who you don’t have a strong connection with can improve your mood and sense of belonging. Interacting with fellow students, most of which are just for the one time, makes my day and helps me feel better overall. This is because there is a need to have social interactions to help our mental health. While some people require less than others, there is a basic need in all humans to have at least one interaction (if not way more) a day socially. My question to everyone is have you had much interaction with the individuals in our class and if so, do you see a visible change in your mood through out the day afterward?
The article for this week was shocking. The fact that gender stereotypes were held true by a survey of college students amazes me. Also that love of learning was one of the lowest values among college students. Shouldn’t it be one of the highest considering that you have to pay thousands of dollars to be here just for that reason. I was slightly shocked that mean valued creativity more then women considering my exposer to college students that are around me
My question is do you think that the research accurately shows us?
The reading for this week was very interesting. It stated that the basis for all relationships is that that one has with their caretaker(s). If someone was to have overly protective parents they could have the basis to be a bit more clingy. Caretakers make the base while peer relationships continue to build the foundation. If I was to apply these findings to my own relationships I could see where my influenced them, but not where my early peer interactions did. My parents hawked over me because I was the first and only child for ten years. I was the focus of attention and now when it comes to my romantic relationships I tend to require quite a bit of attention. In contrast, if I was to apply my early peer relationships I should have negative responses to most any interaction in my romantic relationships. Though this is all said to lay a foundation I believe the individual’s disposition in life also plays a role in foundation creation.
I do agree with the articles this week. Feeling happiness, even if a rapidly fleeting one, is better for your health than nothing at all. Positive emotions have been show to reduce severity of certain illnesses. It not only helps your mental health but also your physical at well. Who would have thought that feeling good could make you feel better? I believe that I am a happy for the for most part since i realized that only I can choice how to respond to things. Positive emotions has helped me so I will continue to try and find happiness.
If others can not find happiness, how do you assist them on their journey to it?
The article this week was detailing a study that had been conducted. The interesting thing was that it said that most of the factors we like to correlate with lower GPAs can not be proven to actually affect it. The only factor they can be sure that affects it is amount of sleep. every other factor there is not enough statistical proof that it has a connection but the practices still stand to help improve them.
I try to sleep eight hours a day but usually fall short at about six to seven. I have a hard time falling asleep in the bed the college provides and I have not figured out why. I also tend to fall asleep in class but I am always aware of what is happening and hear what the professor is saying. Even in high school i would fall asleep in class but I always made high grades. My GPA has always stayed in the upper range and had only dropped once because i goofed off in class. I have waves where I move between eating breakfast all the way to not eating the whole for days on end.
This article was the most interesting of our weekly readings thus far. It did have relevant points when it spoke of how positive psychology had been phased out for a while. The focus was one the already damaged and ill when we should have been focusing on promoting strength and talent.
The article mentions that optimism is healthy and may protect from illness. This is interesting because I have seen this in my life. The people who focus on the brighter points of life tend to feel less effects of what inflicts them. Positive psychology is worth the investigation and time investment. we need to focus on not only repairing damage but also preventing it.
This article was better than the article form last week in my opinion. It properly discussed the subject matter, providing plenty of backing and information to keep my interest.
The correlation between genetic influences and environmental influences, and how they affect one another is very interesting. Also the fact that genetics can warp how you perceive environmental events shocks me. I found the statistics that compared the amount of parent involvement and alcohol and substance abuse believable. the studies showed that adolescents only started to use a substance due to pressure in society but the continued abuse is due to genetics. I find this fact to be interesting as well. If people would not listen to the risk taking side of the brain they may be able to avoid substance dependency. Using twins, genetics and environmental effects can be fully studied. How do we break dependency if it is in our genetics?
This article was well-written though I have complaints about it. It does have an amazing amount of research and evidence to back it up. If one was to search for answers involving the statistics of languishing with and without metal disease, it is the best article for reference. How to achieve a flourishing existence is hardly explained in the article, nor is it explained well.
As for what I have learned from the article, it is hard to be completely mentally healthy and even the mentally ill can flourish. This makes it even harder to define yourself into a category. How does one obtain complete mental health and where does the line between flourishing with metal illness and without mental illness appear?