I've spent several years studying scientific self-help. I'm sharing some of what I've learned in my sequence The Science of Winning at Life, but I probably won't have time to write additional posts in that series for a while. In the meantime, those who are interested in what mainstream scientists have discovered so far about effective self-help methods may want to read some of my favorite popular-level scientific self-help books:
- Wiseman, 59 Seconds: Change Your Life in Under a Minute
- Steel, The Procrastination Equation: How to Stop Putting Things Off and Start Getting Things Done
- Seligman, Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being
- Halverson, Succeed: How We Can Reach Our Goals
- Burns, Feeling Good
I am interested in why you think that sort of goal is a bad idea.
My own view is that there seems to be an implication that our life is static ("a work of art"). This is a fairly well-known pitfall, not in terms of the psycho happiness research as far as I know, but in terms of the common-sense idea that we are often deluded by the idea that I will be happy if (or if and only if) I get that degree, that job, that girl, &c.
I automatically think of architecture like music. Does anyone know where I might have gotten that meme?