Interesting question. There are a number of factors for this. As a disclaimer, my approach is psychodynamic/psychoanalytic and structural. The problem I have with the "positive psych" movement is that it seems at times to fall into the trap of ignoring or discounting people's problems and genuine distress. So the clinician will ram "positive thoughts" and concepts like resilience down clients' throat when what they really want is to have someone they can "tell their sorrow to". Many clients won't buy it, feel not listened to and leave.

More generally, there is also a link with postmodern ideological lines that I am not comfortable with.

I can value work along the lines of narrative therapy, or solution-focused. But we have to recognize the limitations and be ready to go more in depth should it be necessary.

David Joubert, Thank you for your reply. I do agree with your position. Toxic positivity or hiding one's head in the sand and believing that negative aspects will go away on their own is precisely the wrong approach. However, positive psychological concepts like resilience have been shown to work, repeatedly in numerous studies. Maybe the method of incorporating them needs refinement to retain clients and increase efficacy.

I also agree with the need for a more robust and comprehensive approach to be taken, should the need arise. As you mentioned that you utilize a psychodynamic approach, might I suggest a book? I feel that Positive Psychotherapy by Rashid and Seligman addresses a lot of the issues and provides good directions to follow.

In any case, thank you for replying and have a good day!

My approach during my 36 years of professional practice is Integral and therefore I use many of the principles of Positive Psychology and yet, it's true that, in occassions, it seems that the approach almost touches orthodox religion pretending to demonize negative feelings, thoughts or experiences to then only talk, maintain or impose positivity (which I agree; to work TOWARD Positivity is the very best way to see life), always that we also see, PERMIT TO TALK about, listen and embrace the negative (give it space to exist, because it does, even though it may be a creation of the mind or the bad managed emotions, it does have a clear manifestation) to then transform it and I would even say "transmute" it; as I do work with Energetic Consciousness. Once we've heard, accompanied and deeply worked with the negativity of the person, change Polaritiy !!!

Wanting is better than having, if we look at individual happiness ,it is often associated around the self and expands outwards to the other important individuals.Often the first sessions are about the self (individualistic). Instead of a downward spiral into the self , I will notice a positive effect in when the spiral will move from personal experiences, individual traits to a outward spiral which will include those around the individual, experiences with family ,friends etc to a point where a individual will consider the conversation to a spiritual experience,transforming the negative to positive overseeing the narrow focus on just the patient themselves to broader considerations for positive experiences expected from just the self. Identity is not always shaped by one individuals perception of the self...we learn this in early childhood ..before we comprehend the value of gratitude. Choice is not always that easy , but if you can define the choices even as positive or negative, then one can add the ingredient of reward of positiveness to the right choices.

I am more of an eclectic practitioner, using a diversity of therapies and schools of thought, being flexible in my use of therapies after a good understanding of my client. This good understanding is a sine-qua-non to the success of the interface with a client, and no therapist must embark on the use of any therapeutic approach without first successfully crossing this hurdle. For me, it is important for therapists not to be dogmatic and stick to just one form of therapy. Your clients are different and there is no one cap that fits all. In fact, even for the same client, I may diversify the therapeutic approach I use in the course of our interaction with some interactions lasting 7 weeks, 10 weeks, etc.), depending on what aspect of the client comes on board for therapy. Positive psychology is great and I have found it useful and appropriate a number of times for a number of clients.

Positive psychology at times is type of a promise to be broken. Clients are motivated to only focus on the good sides and things about life while most of life's realities bite. In my experience as a Counselor, clients prefer honesty and assurance that failing and falling are natural parts of life's journey. Besides, most positive things in life are products of negative experiences.

The positive psychology is a big part of our life, I'm a coach of athletics and swimming also badminton in short physical educator, I use the positive psychology to my athletes for their physical, mental, social, and indecipline for their own progress. It really works for them, 90% of them are achiever.

It is a good part in the class why not used

It is important to use positive psychology in supporting our teenage students, because it is in line with the actual reality of our lives

Positive psychology has been accused of many criticisms, such as the artificial and unnecessary division it supposedly makes between positive and negative psychology, inhibiting certain negative emotions and feelings (McNulty and Fincham 2012). However, in my opinion, all these criticisms hide the rejection of taking psychological science out of the prevailing clinical setting.

Yes the initial positive psychology movement was criticised for being ‘too positive’ by not acknowledging the realistic notion that people will encounter challenges, adversities, bereavement and disregarding the existence of negative emotions (Wong and Roy, 2018). Second-wave positive psychology, adapted by Wong (2017), provides a more balanced perspective that acknowledges the entire human experience, the good and the bad (Waterman, 2013). Stemming from the 'Ease-Disease Continuum" (Antonovsky (1979) and the "Two-Continua" model (Keyes, 2002), I believe that overall mental health refers to the continuum between flourishing and languishing and includes the presence or absence of mental illness (psychological distress and generalised anxiety etc) alongside the presence or absence of positive mental well-being (flourishing, positive emotions and life satisfaction etc). Considering both is important. According to Fredrickson (2001), broaden-and-build theory states that over time positive emotions can build a repertoire of resources (i.e. personal, social, intellectual, psychological) that can be accessed in times of need. This would argue that positive well-being is, in of itself, self-causing. This notion does not discredit or invalidate negative emotions, thoughts, feelings or experiences. It is more so complimentary to the protective and preventative factors for positive mental health that contribute towards healing, recovery and enhancing mental well-being.

Personally I find much to value in positive psychology, as long as we don't act like it's all there is. In fact, it's a useful corrective to the tendency to only look at problems/pathology. (As a fictionalized version of Frieda Fromm-Reichman remarked, "we have tests for the illness, why not for the health?" That's a paraphrase by the way.)

I would, however, identify a couple of problems with positive psychology as a branch of psychological science or as a movement. First, much of what is studied here is not really new. We've long had research into creativity, for example, as well as certain character strengths. Second, it seems overly reliant on self-report inventories - only capturing what people want to say about themselves, a portion of what they know about themselves, so the deeper reaches of personality aren't reached.

Of course, the whole movement started because Seligman had a midlife crisis, realizing that he was famed as a torturer of dogs (not 100% true of him, but definitely how he was portrayed), had not gotten to know his kids while single-mindedly pursuing professional fame, and would start to be written out of the discipline as soon as he retired. (I am not making this up. He said as much in an essay back in the nineties, including the memorable line, "nobody reads the works of dead psychologists.)

Fascinating tidbit about Seligman above. I was not aware that's where the positive psychology movement originally comes from. It shines an interesting light on the movement itself because the anecdote about Seligman seems very sad. Perhaps the positive psychology framework can in part be understood as a form of personal struggle against depression, but also the process of pathologization more broadly. The roots of the movement certainly seem to bear a connexion with the 70's humanistic and post-modern/critical lines of thinking.

A supervisor of mine, Dr Allen Surkis, used to say that beneath every symptom there is the seed of health. I am guessing that in this sense, very few therapists out there do NOT make at least some use of positive psychology in their work. Perhaps symptoms/suffering and positivity/resilience should be viewed as a duality, or at least not as a binary.

It is not unusual that projective assessment material reflects attempts by the person to keep depression or distress at bay, via the use of manic/hypomanic or pollyannaish defenses. Those can be seen as "symptoms" I suppose but I think more productively as markers of internal struggle that can be made sense of (reflected, interpreted), perhaps even channeled in the direction of health. That being said, I share Dr Joy's concern regarding the more superficial nature (e.g., self-report) of the assessments in the field of positive psychology.