I recently was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to attend two keynote addresses in which each address covered a different aspect of positive psychology. The positive psychology movement certainly has a lot going for it with its emphasis on strengths, talents, well-being, flourishing, goals, and the requirements for a satisfactory life. It occurred to me, however, as I was listening to the presentations, that a robust explanation of how humans function would have lots to offer this field.
For example, an aspect of positive psychology that was discussed during one of the keynote addresses was “flow”. Flow can be thought of as “the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29). From the information on Wikipedia, flow is regarded as involving intense and focused concentration in which action and awareness merge and there is a loss of reflective self-consciousness. A sense of personal control is a feature of flow as well as a distortion of time and the experiencing of the activity as intrinsically rewarding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29).
The description of flow has many parallels with the phenomenon of control and, if the control established through the mechanism of negative feedback was more widely recognised, it might not be regarded as one aspect of flow. Instead, flow might be more accurately considered to be one feature of the ongoing, ubiquitous process of control.
Control is the process of keeping all those aspects of our lives that are important to us in the states we prefer them to be in. These states are created and maintained through the mechanism of negative feedback. Basically, with negative feedback, the current state of that which we care about is compared with its ideal state (ideal to us anyway), and action is used to keep the difference between the two as small as possible. This essential process is characteristic of all living things. Perceptual Control Theory (PCT; www.pctweb.org) provides a formal description of how organic control works.
I’m currently watching the Australian Open tennis tournament which is the first Grand Slam event of the tennis calendar. Watching these athletes going about their business is a striking reminder of the power, precision, and beauty of control. Frequently these players seem to be experiencing what might be described as flow but not always and not all players. In fact flow can seem to come and go for players during the one match. Control, however, is omnipresent.
The features of flow, therefore, seem to comfortably fit within a framework of negative feedback control. Furthermore, a PCT explanation of control enables us to clarify some of the features of flow. For example, in flow it is suggested that the activity that promotes flow should be “intrinsically rewarding”. PCT, however, helps us understand that the only type of reward is an intrinsic reward. It is superfluous to specify “intrinsic reward” since an extrinsic reward is an impossibility. A reward is simply something someone desires. And desiring is only ever an internal affair.
Sometimes the terms “external” and “internal” are used to differentiate rewards like money (which is considered external) from rewards like personal satisfaction (which is considered internal). The demarcation, however, is spurious and unnecessary. Rewards that are considered external can only be rewarding if they are sought after by the individual being rewarded. If an individual does not want more money, then money can’t be used as a reward for that individual.
PCT would also help positive psychologists understand the relationship between goals and actions by explaining that goals don’t specify particular actions but they do articulate the outcomes of what any action will be. It’s important, then, to talk about the outcomes of actions and to incorporate flexibility and responsivity into plans to achieve goals.
Positive psychology, with a focus on strengths, talents, and goals, would do well to pay attention to a theory (PCT) that explains how goals actually work. The mechanism of negative feedback is fundamental. With an understanding of control and negative feedback, more people might be able to achieve more of their goals more of the time. Furthermore, we will have a nuanced understanding of the dynamics of those situations where goals remain elusive. With PCT, a genuine science of satisfying living is possible. A science such as this would provide policy makers and practitioners with the knowledge and understanding they need to help all people live the sorts of lives they would wish for themselves.
