These are the two short essays that I wrote for the essay portion of my final exam in my Positive Psychology.

1. Tim Frederick
Dr. Halonen
Positive Psychology
12/9/14
Final Exam Essays (#’s 1 & 3)
#1
I believe the proposed modification to UWF’s curriculum of replacing general
psychology with positive psychology as a general education class is erroneous for numerous
reasons, and I will expound upon five of them in this essay. First, the proposed change simply
does not correspond with the goals of general education. From what I have gathered, general
education is meant to provide one with a strong, and wide, base of knowledge from which one
can subsequently build upon if one so chooses. As far as the field of psychology is concerned,
the course of general psychology logically provides a better general understanding of psychology
than any other course, almost by definition, some might say. Second, the goals of positive
psychology, like those of most other “upper level/specialized” courses, do not coincide with the
goals of general education. Positive psychology is about both building upon traditional
psychology, as well as shining a light on the previously largely unexplored topic of positive
human psychology. Thirdly, chronologically speaking, it makes no sense to teach positive
psychology before teaching students about the history of psychology and/or general psychology.
Like most fields, current psychologists build upon the work of past psychologists, and therefore
one should first learn about traditional, general [insert subject here] before learning about a
modern sub-section of the subject. One would not be taught a course on modern philosophy
before first learning about traditional, general philosophy, consisting of the foundational works

2. of Socrates, Plato, etc. and one should not be taught positive psychology before first learning
about Freud, Skinner, etc.
Fourth, I understand the selection of positive psychology as opposed to other sub-sections
of psychology, such as clinical psychology, I/O psychology, etc., because positive psychology
supposedly covers around 50% of psychology while all other subsections cover considerably less
in the grand scheme of things. However, just because it covers half of psychology that does not
make it an acceptable substitute for all other sub-sections of psychology, and certainly not for
general psychology itself. Botany would not be taught as a general education course at the
expense of zoology and general biology and the same should not be done with positive
psychology. Finally, once again, I do see the appeal of the exciting, new field of positive
psychology, and I believe that it should be allowed to be taken by all students as an elective.
However, a more reasonable solution would be to simply add the teaching of positive
psychology into the general psychology course, just as it already briefly covers most other sub-
sections of psychology.

3. #3
For this essay I will be assuming the role of Martin Seligman, and briefly responding to
five specific critiques of positive psychology: that it minimizes the negative aspects of
psychology, and consequently ignores the “whole being”; that positive psychology’s new
programs are underfunded; the aggressive tone that some psychologist’s use when describing the
potential positive psychology holds; that positive psychology is “wussy”, over-simplistic, or self-
help “woo-woo”; and finally, that positive psychology is built upon flawed statistical support.
First, I, Martin Seligman, would like to state that positive psychology is not “negative about the
negative”, it is simply not our area of interest. That would be akin to saying that zoologists
ignore plants and botany and in doing so are ignoring the “whole biology” of Earth. Positive
psychology recognizes that life consists of both the positive and the negative, and that a
complete, comprehensive psychology will take into account both the strengths and the
weaknesses of people. However, that future, comprehensive psychology must have access to a
plethora of research on both the positive and negative psychological aspects of life, so far,
psychologists have done an extensive amount of work on pathology, weaknesses, and the
negative aspects of psychology, but not nearly as much on optimal functioning, strengths, and
the positive aspects of psychology. That is where positive psychology comes in. Just as
zoologists focus on animals, and largely ignore plants so that the general field of biology will
have access to more information on animals, so positive psychology focuses on the positive
aspects of psychology so that the general field of psychology will have a greater understanding
of the positive aspects of psychology.
Second, it is true that positive psychology programs are not as well funded as some other,
more established programs in psychology. However, it is that way with many new fields of

4. study, and we are becoming more popular, and better funded every day. Third, as one of the
founders of the positive psychology movement I do apologize if some positive psychologists
come off as a bit aggressive with our grand claims about the power, and promise of this exciting
new field. That trip to Mexico of mine may not have helped… But anyways, while I do admit
that we can get carried away at times, I do believe that the new rush of interest and research into
a, largely ignored, 50% of psychology is something to get excited about.
Fourth, the fact that positive psychology has been described as “wussy” or “sissy” is
troubling and seems to only reinforce its necessity. The fact that amazing concepts such as peace,
love, and happiness are seen as feminine, or inferior, to concepts such as conflict, hate, and anger
is disheartening, and with some luck, the “wussy” field of positive psychology can put peace,
love, and happiness in their rightfully superior position. Finally, if our statistics our currently
flawed I assure you that we will continue researching until our data is as strong as it can be. I
would be surprised if most fields of study were not built upon data and statistics that some would
not describe as flawed at one point in their development. Positive psychology is still a relatively
young field, and there is undoubtedly much data that has yet to be discovered. However, I assure
you that we will continue to work day and night to provide our field of psychology with the
strongest data and statistics possible.