9/6 Group 4 Discussion

A couple big questions from chapters 2 and 3, for Group #4:

"Why spend so much time on oneself when there are so many things to be done?" (96)

Is indulging in this "positive thinking" movement not a way to evade responsibility to society and others at large? "PT" is egocentric, even though it may aim at self-betterment. Should we be pushing an idea centered on individualism, when in fact sharing, giving, being part of a community are in themselves means to happiness and well being?

We got off on a tangent about the advertising campaign of PT, but this is a valid point. On the one hand, in management "success campaigns" are clearly profitable in the sense that they may empower and inspire the employee. At the same time, does this not suggest that success is a necessary end? That such is required to be happy? Look at the discussion of the money-talisman in Bright-Sided, where we are encouraged to paste the corners of a dollar bill onto paper and hold it to our heart every day, praying for prosperity. Where is the line between faith and good-will PT and delusion? Furthermore, is happiness essentially intertwined with a wealth conception? Money can make you happy, but obviously we realize it has limits (i.e. people who have everything and endless$$$).

On a somewhat cynical note, we think it has to be said that a main objective of the PT movement is to make happiness profitable. The movement itself is a sampler of ways to market happiness, through books, lectures, clothing, and any number of labeled/inspired/bedazzled items. Would the PT movement have gotten this far if it was not profitable? Obviously people are still unhappy.... A question we turned to is altruism - where doing the right thing has to be profitable. Look at natural disaster relief where infomercials beg for donations, where pennies a day can feed the starved child.... Contributing to these needs can make one happy, but clearly this also involves a profitable business. Some may even point to organized religions as "making happiness profitable." The point here is that Doing the right thing is not profitable. If it was, there would be many more people doing the right thing! So how does this relate to happiness? We believe happiness is a consequence of doing the right things but that it may in fact also be an intended consequence - is it wrong to make a contribution because it makes me happy? is it any less of a contribution?

As a group, I think we are of a consensus that there are inherent problems with PT, and especially the movement itself, but that the question remains as to how we can "break the bubble." PT may be good for one's self esteem, may enable success in the workplace, etc. but at some point it is simply not enough. Is the individual responsible for bad things that happen - is their PT not strong enough? Their faith weak or shaky? This is a huge problem within the PT movement and if it cannot be resolved with yet more PT or a reconfigured ideology, the next step is blaming one's own illness/disease on lack of PT. Although central to some believers of PT, personal responsibility for illness is contrary to our scientific knowledge of health and genetics. Such a conception is patronizing to the very people who are suffering and trying to find happiness in the reality of illness.