Tag Archives: psychology

Seligman on happiness: authentic or by definition?

I’m almost done with Mar­tin Seligman’s well-known book of pos­i­tive psy­chol­ogy, Authen­tic Hap­pi­ness (2003). It’s been a very good read — although I was famil­iar with many of the rel­e­vant research find­ings, from my var­i­ous inter­net trav­els (and Bark­ing Up The Wrong Tree in par­tic­u­lar), Selig­man puts it all together and lays it out in

learning styles, individual differences, and responsibility

Recently, I came across this video: “Learn­ing Styles Don’t Exist,” by psy­chol­o­gist Daniel T. Will­ing­ham of the Uni­ver­sity of Vir­ginia. Will­ing­ham argues that learn­ing style the­o­ries fail to pre­dict the dif­fer­ences in learn­ing that we would expect to see if they were cor­rect (you should go watch, he explains it bet­ter than I could). Learn­ing

another stab at situationism

I think maybe I explained sit­u­a­tion­ism rather poorly back here in skep­ti­cism about moral char­ac­ter. Some things Adam says over at Sophist­pun­dit about The Nature of Char­ac­ter pro­vide a good oppor­tu­nity for me to clear things up for him as well as any­one else I may have unwit­tingly con­fused. So let me address a few

snapshots of moral character

Here is my very late reply to Jim on skep­ti­cism about moral char­ac­ter. The short answer: No, in all my mod­er­ately exten­sive read­ing on this sub­ject, I have not found any “stud­ies that actu­ally involve the obser­va­tion of a person’s behav­ior across a wide range of rel­e­vant cir­cum­stances,” as opposed to stud­ies which deal with

skepticism about moral character

The other day, my buddy Adam over at Sophist­pun­dit wrote about Char­ac­ter. I was not sur­prised that, being an econ­o­mist and some kind of Humean virtue ethi­cist, he thinks that moral­ity mostly con­cerns what kind of peo­ple we are, and that actions are sig­nals to other peo­ple, pro­vid­ing infor­ma­tion about what we’re like. Adam claims that