Positive Psychology is the applied science of identifying and using human resources, resourcefulness, and potentials to create the most meaningful, intentional, satisfying and/or joyful life experiences possible. It’s a great field. I love it.

For purposes of my own private Psychologist/Coaching practice, it is important to note that the ultimate goals of Positive Psychology are entirely compatible with the goals and many of the points of view found in the Principle/Law of Attraction literature. The reason it is important to me is that much of my own life and work is grounded in those two worlds.

The fact that the epistemological grounding of the Attraction literature is not limited to traditional social sciences methodologies does not ipso facto make its tenets less valid, in my world. Social scientists often come really close to saying that an intervention is not efficacious, nor a theory valid unless and until it is demonstrated to be so, using their methodologies. But they are wrong. What IS true is that they will not recognize it as such until they run their brand of studies. If the stuff is effective and/or valid, it is so whether you test it or not. Your testing does not make it so.

   My passport does not make me James Mick Nolan. I am already that. It documents to somebody’s satisfaction that I am. That is another matter altogether.

Social science’s rule that phenomena must be empirically/scientifically “tested” reminds me of soccer’s rule that you can’t use your hands to catch or throw the ball. It’s a random, imposed restriction that defines the game, and rules out endless possibilities for alternative ways of playing, much as the insistence of the social scientists rules out other ways of knowing. Nothing inherently “wrong” with that, but it is artificially limiting. It’s kind of like saying “We’ll only recognize studies published in English.” OK, that’s fine, but you do realize you will be missing a lot of stuff, right?

I love that Positive Psychology generates social science research to support its theories and propositions. I do not personally require it, and I will not limit how I practice by that standard, but I do appreciate it. It does make it feel more robust in the eyes of the world.

My own position is that I am open to evidence-based theory, practice-based evidence, and also alternative ways of knowing, which may include intuition, awakenings of various sorts, epiphanies and teachings that emerge from paranormal, spiritual or mystical experience.

What was it Hamlet told Horatio? “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Yeah, like that.

Text me at 505-699-7616

Licensed as a Psychologist in New Mexico and Hawai’i

Practicing Life Coaching on all the major planets, and occasionally beyond

about the moderator