I am an occasional participant in a positive psychology listserve, Friends of Positive Psychology, which you can join at http://lists.apa.org/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A0=FRIENDS-OF-PP. It is an active listserve, usually on topic, and always interesting. For the past few days, a great deal of discussion has ensued about Tim Russert and his untimely death. Why was he so widely admired? And why did he die when he did? Interesting ideas have been advanced, some citing his apparent strengths of character (to explain his popularity) and some citing how hard he seemed to work (to explain his death).

Just this morning, another thread began on this listserve, addressing from a positive psychology point of view why the Boston Celtics beat the LA Lakers to win the 17th championship for the franchise. Again, strengths of character--of individual players and of the team as a whole--have been advanced as explanations. No one has mentioned the Celtic leprechauns (yet), but I assume they too have strengths of character.

I posted the following comment:

"I have been a sports fan a lot longer than I have been a psychologist, and if truth be told, I probably know more about sports than I do about psychology. That said, I have thought a lot about the ability of psychology to explain singular events (like the outcome of a specific game ... or for that matter, the untimely death of a specific person--e.g., Tim Russert). I think we can offer up more versus less plausible accounts, but ultimately we do not and cannot know. And maybe this is why talking about sports is so much fun.

In most games, someone has to win, and someone has to lose. That's the nature of the game, not the psychology of the participants. Do the Celtics have certain (contextualized) strengths of character? Of course. Their coach cited ‘mental toughness' as the deciding factor. But sometimes the shots fall, and sometimes they do not, regardless of character strengths (think of the outcome of the last Super Bowl, which hinged on one play).

As a sports fan, I was not surprised* by the Boston victory, only its magnitude. I think the Celtics were the better team, as shown by their regular season record at home and away. And someone could challenge this statement by noting that the "best" team during the NBA regular season does not typically win a championship. My counter is that in general, seedings predict quite well who will win a series."

*To several of my sports buddies yesterday, I actually predicted that Boston would win handily, a thoroughly lucky guess for which I will take huge credit when I see them later today.

The more general question is the degree to which positive psychology (or psychology per se) can speak to any singular event that will never be repeated. The best discussion of this issue that I have ever read is the 1981 article by Mac Runyan titled "Why Did van Gogh Cut Off His Ear?" (It's also the best title I've ever seen for a scientific paper.) Runyan's conclusion is that psychology can explain such events, the same way psychology explains anything: by considering the evidence for and against the explanation and by considering seriously alternative explanations. The best psychology can do is to narrow the range of possible explanations to the more plausible ones (those consistent with the evidence), and that is the best any study can do, whether it is an experiment, a survey, or a case study. Explanations should be tentative, and psychologists should be willing to be wrong in a way that sports fans need not be.

I love this game.

Runyan, W. M. (1981). Why did van Gogh cut off his ear? The problem of alternative explanations in psychobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 1070-1077.