{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034411562284927734, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006882312456985547, 'mean_word_length': 5.639269406392694, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Positive psychologists on positive constructs.

McNulty and Fincham (February–March 2012) offered compelling evidence that constructs such as forgiveness and optimism can have both beneficial and adverse consequences, depending on the context. Their caution about labeling particular psychological processes as “positive” is timely and well-taken. I fear, however, that their article propagates a misunderstanding of positive psychology—namely, that positive psychologists believe that the constructs or processes they investigate are “good” and should be promoted. To the contrary, the great majority of positive psychological scientists (despite their infelicitous label) simply argue that such topics as optimism, well-being, and courage should be studied. Thereafter, they let the data speak for themselves. If optimism, happiness, kindness, or forgiveness have deleterious effects for certain individuals, under specific conditions, or when practiced or expressed in particular ways, then the results are all the more interesting, challenging common assumptions and calling for more research. As Schwartz and Sharpe (2010) eloquently argued in their book Practical Wisdom, no trait or virtue is inherently good, and wisdom is needed to determine the right way to act “in a particular circumstance, with a particular person, at a particular time” (pp. 5– 6). Research, like that of McNulty and Fincham and their colleagues, is needed too. REFERENCES