Yet another article summarizing positive psychology (aka happiness research); it's built around a recent conference on this subject. I really liked this description of the good folks researching this field:
But the main difference probably shows up in the question periods. Typically, academics seem obsessed with poking holes in the argument of the presentation just made—finding fault, pointing out counter-examples, insisting on qualifications—with the transparent purpose of one-upping the speaker. Such shenanigans are absent here. “They’re trying to build,” explains one participant. “There’s none of this academic carping,” observes professor of psychiatry George Vaillant, who has spoken at five of these “summit” events. “The teaching exercises I’ve done for positive psychology audiences have been an absolute joy. Here, people really laugh at the jokes.”
Is neuroeconomics science or science fiction? Jim Heskett would like to hear your comments (before January 24, 2007).
* * *
Thanks to Political Theory Daily Review for the pointers.