
The father of positive psychology, Dr. Martin Seligman, discusses how to harness the hidden engine of human progress: agency.
You’ll Learn
- The key concept that determines whether we give up
- The building blocks of human agency
- How to find your human edge in the age of AI
About Martin
Martin Seligman is the most influential psychologist in the world and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, where he directs the Positive Psychology Center. A former president of the American Psychological Association, he earned his BA in philosophy from Princeton and his PhD in psychology from Penn, and holds ten honorary doctorates. His research—from learned helplessness to learned optimism to prospection—has reshaped how science understands human well-being. He is the author of more than thirty books, including Flourish, Authentic Happiness, The Hope Circuit, and Tomorrowmind.
Resources Mentioned
- Book: Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell
Thank you, Sponsors!
- Shopify. Start your free trial at Shopify.com/awesomepod
- Vinted. Download the Vinted app for free to start selling with no seller fees!
- Fitnexa. Get $10 off the SomniPods3 with the link and code AWESOME
Martin Seligman Interview Transcript
Pete Mockaitis
Marty, welcome!
Martin Seligman
Good to be here, Pete. Thank you for having me.
Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to talk about agency and just to talk with you. You’re kind of a big deal, a legend, if you will. And I’d love it if you could kick us off, as the so-called father of positive psychology, is there a particularly fascinating and surprising discovery you’ve made about us humans in all your research and writing and speaking and work that just really sticks with you time and time again?
Martin Seligman
Yes, and it’s the basic theme of my new book. And the discovery is about, “When do we give up, not try? And when do we innovate?
I started out 60 years ago working on helplessness, and I asked, “When do people give up? And when are they resilient?” And what I found to start with is when people believe that nothing they do matters, that’s when they give up. The psychological state is the key to it.
And then I asked the question, “Well, when do we innovate? When do we not give up?” And what I found was that, when we believed we were agents, when we believed that we could do it, that was the key to success and to not giving up.
Pete Mockaitis
Okay, so that’s the big differentiator is the belief. If the belief is, “Yeah, there’s nothing we can do. You know, it is what it is. I’m kind of stuck,” then, we’re not going to do anything, versus, if we believe we’re agents, we have the capability to change the trajectory of things.
Martin Seligman
Yes, so the beliefs you have at work and at home are crucial to whether or not you give up and become depressed, or whether or not you succeed and innovate. So it’s those beliefs and how to change them that are the key to success and failure.
Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, I’m always intrigued when we discuss beliefs because there’s mountains of research, and you’ve done a lot of it, in showing that, “Hey, beliefs, they make a big impact in terms of how we perceive things, how we feel about things, what decisions we make, what behaviors we engage in or abstain from.”
And I guess I’d like to think and hope that my beliefs are accurate, real, true reflections of the world reality as it is. And yet, I’m sure I don’t have it perfect. So I guess I want to start there is how do you think about belief and truth?
Martin Seligman
Crucial question, Pete, and I’ve worked on it all my life and I’ve got a whole bunch of things to say about it. First, before modern psychology came across, people believed that it was the external circumstances that caused you either to give up or to innovate and succeed.
But let’s look at external circumstances and their relationship to belief. So take your 11-year-old son. He strikes out at the end of the little league game and the team loses. Well, the objective facts, the truth is that he struck out. Now what caused him to strike out? Was it a bad call by the umpire? Was it that he is not a good hitter and gave up? Was it because it started to rain that inning?
So reality is very often dissectable into what really is the cause, and that’s very hard to know. But it turns out, if you’re a depressive or a pessimist, someone who’s inclined to fail a lot, you will choose the most pessimistic possible causes.
On the other hand, if you’re an optimist, and we’ll talk about that at some length, you’re going to pick out the causes of that reality that are most likely to cause you to try and to innovate. So so-called reality leaves us a lot of room for what’s true behind it.
Pete Mockaitis
Okay, understood. There are immovable facts in terms of what transpired, and yet the cause of them, we can point to all sorts of things, and whether we’re optimistic or pessimistic, we’ll reach different things. Well, now when you say cause, now I’m starting to think about this Robert Sapolsky determined biological stuff.
And not to go deep into that whole philosophical perspective, but I do want your hot take. In some ways, the view that our behavior is biologically predetermined feels like the opposite of agency. Is that how you see it?
Martin Seligman
Not at all. And let me give you an example at work that’ll help us think this through. Friday, noon, you open up your email and there is a message from your boss which says, “Come see me at 4:00 o’clock.” Okay, that’s the reality. Now, what is your reaction to it and how do you spend the next four hours? Now that’s not predetermined.
So let’s work this through. And this is a very important exercise for your viewers, by the way. It’s called, put it in perspective. And it’s how thought intervenes between the so-called reality, the 4:00 o’clock meeting you’re going to have with your boss, and what’s going to happen in the next four hours.
So the first thing we do, and what’s going to happen to you first, is you are going to make the most catastrophic interpretation possible, “Four o’clock, oh, my God, I’m going to be fired.” And, in fact, when we do this with people at work, we have people tell us at some length about the most catastrophic explanation, “I’m going to be fired.”
Okay, what’s the best thing that this meeting could be about? Well, we have people go into that and they’ll say, “The boss loved my memo and I’m going to get a raise.” Okay, tell me at length about that. Okay, now what’s the most realistic, likely outcome at 4:00 o’clock? “Well, it’s probably that the boss read my memo and she’s got some reservations about it but she wants to see what the economics of it are going to be.”
Now, the reason that’s important is it illustrates the reality here, what seems to be determined is you get this frightening memo, but how you spend the next four hours and how up for this meeting you are with your boss depends on your ability to make the most likely explanation and plan for it.
So it’s not helpful for people at work to say everything is determined, particularly because you’ve got a lot of choice in how you see so-called reality.
Pete Mockaitis
Okay, understood. And so then, if we are latching onto the most likely scenario, then I suppose our natural behaviors would be, “I’m going to get those numbers together so I will be prepared to answer those questions effectively.”
“And, in turn, the boss thinks I’m great and prepared and smart and a capable contributor, all kinds of good things,” as opposed to, “I was just worrying about things for four hours, in which case I am not so prepared for an economic discussion.”
Martin Seligman
Yeah, if, indeed, you spend the next four hours under the influence of the most catastrophic interpretation, you’re going to be depressed, defensive, and passive. To the extent you spend those four hours thinking about, “Ah, well, the boss probably has some reservations about my memo and is going to want to know its economic implications,” you’re going to plan for it. You’re going to be agentic.
So it’s absolutely crucial that you make the realistic interpretation. But, in fact, we’re bad weather animals, and the most catastrophic interpretation of bad events is built into us by the ice ages. And, indeed, a lot of my book is about the long history from the ice ages to AI and how it impacts agency and our belief that we can do it or our belief that we are helpless and we should just give up and let the world take over.
Pete Mockaitis
Intriguing. So take us a bit on this historical journey and unpack it for us, please.
Martin Seligman
Well, it’s the most fun I’ve ever had in my 60 years of writing and research. So what I’ve done most of my life is actually take people in the here and now, people at work, look at the way their optimism and pessimism functions and move from pessimism to optimism.
And what I had found, Pete, over many years, and the whole field of cognitive psychology found, is when we believe we’re not agentic, when we believe we can’t achieve what we want, that’s when we give up and that’s when we’re depressed.
But, most importantly, if you look at people who succeed at work, people who beat depression, people who are resilient, these are the people who believe, “I can accomplish my goals now, I can accomplish them in the future, and I’ve got a wide range of goals.”
And so where I was before I started to look at history, Pete, psychology had become pretty convinced that there was this important notion of agency in modern times, and that it had three components.
The first was efficacy, and that meant, “I can get my goal here and now.” The second component was optimism, which is, “I can achieve my goals far into the future.” And the third component was imagination. So that’s what was established as something you should have.
And so I began to ask the question seven years ago, “Is this true throughout all of human history? What is its basis? And what is the implications in the far future with AI and human agency?”
Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Well, it’s intriguing in many ways, just like that 4:00 o’clock scenario you presented us with. I suppose we could take AI or anything throughout history and have a very unpleasant or pleasant view of each of those dimensions.
Like with AI, it’s like, “Oh, it’s so cool. I’m empowered to do things that could be new and powerful and tremendous. And I could invent new things. I could automate things. I could explore domains I never could. I could have custom software. I can save money, make money, have boring things automated.”
Or, it’s like, “Oh, the robots are going to take all our jobs. We’re all screwed. We’re just going to have to crawl into a hole and try not to die.” I mean, I suppose I can have high or low efficacy, optimism, imagination with regard to about any environment or development in the world.
Martin Seligman
Well, before we do AI and ask the question, “Is AI doom or is it the best thing for human agency that we ever came across?” I want to do ancient history with you, Pete.
Pete Mockaitis
All right.
Martin Seligman
It’s what really informs who we are. So let’s go back to 3,000 years ago. I looked at four different civilizations – the Greeks, the Hebrews, the Chinese, and the Persians. And if you look 3,000 years ago, there is no progress going on in any of those civilizations, 3,000 years ago.
And, very importantly, they don’t have the words for agency. They don’t have words that mean, “I can do it.” And, in fact, when they use those words, it’s the gods who are doing it. All four of them. Something miraculous happens in all four of those civilizations over the next 500 years. It’s called the Axial Age.
This is the age that the Buddha and the prophets and Confucius all come around, four different civilizations. And 500 years later, they’ve suddenly got the words for agency, they invent words that weren’t there before, which mean that human beings can do it.
And so, for example, if you take the Greeks, 2,500 years ago, they have no words for human beings achieving things. And then 500 years later, they’ve got words like akrasia, which means weakness of the will. So they can now distinguish between a person knowing what’s right and still failing to act. So they have notions about human action.
So what occurs in all four of these civilizations is we finally get the words for human agency. And when we get new words, that’s when we can act on those words. So, historically, going back as far as writing goes, when it starts, humans don’t have agency. The gods do it.
Five hundred years later, they’ve invented a vocabulary in four different civilizations, which says, “I can do it,” a vocabulary that’s optimistic about the future, in which it’s not the world crushing you, but it’s your will that makes a difference. So that’s the historical background.
Pete Mockaitis
Well, that’s fascinating. And, well, Marty, my immediate question is, do we have all the words that we need in terms of your average professional? Are we missing a couple words? And can you give them to us?
Martin Seligman
Well, very important, in modern life, when we get new words, we create new realities. So let’s just take an example, Pete. In my own work, before about 1980, there was no word for burnout. So whenever a patient came to me with what I would now call burnout, I said, “Oh, you’re depressed.” Well, it turns out burnout is not the same thing as depression.
And once we get the word, once we get a new category, we invent new targeted therapy for the newly named condition. So, in modern life, when we get new words, and AI is providing us with not only a whole vocabulary of new words, but a search and accomplishment technology that takes us to places we’ve never been before.
Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. So we’ve got the words and we have a whole word generating machine that does a lot. I guess what I’m curious about is are there, in your experience and research, some key words that most of us don’t know, but would be very much enriched and benefited by knowing?
Martin Seligman
That is really a good question, and the answer is I don’t know. Well, we have a new technology which is enabling us in many ways. You began 20 minutes ago with AI as doom. And having done ancient history with you, Pete, I now want to do the future and the present about AI.
And as you rehearsed, there are the doom-scrollers and the doomsayers have the day about AI. And I’m not one of them. As a positive psychologist, as the founder of positive psychology, when something comes along, I look for the very best it can do. So I’m someone who spends all day with AI looking for what it can do.
So let me go through a couple of things that have been enabled in my life that could not have happened without AI. So it’s very common among the doomsayers to say, “AI is dehumanizing us. It’s undermining how we write. It’s undermining our skills. And, worst of all, it’s undermining our emotional life.” Hmm, well.
Pete Mockaitis
Bummer!
Martin Seligman
I have more love in my life now because of AI. And let me tell you what happened. I have two four-year-old grandsons. I’m crazy about them. But I’m 80 years older than they are. They walk faster than I can run. And I can’t throw a football around with them.
I noticed, by the time they were about two, I was becoming invisible to them. And that hurt. So I went to Anthropic’s Claude, and I said, “Claude, help me write stories in which Max and Denny are the heroes.” So I started chapter one, “Max and Denny visit the haunted lighthouse at Stone Harbor.”
Well, I’m 150 chapters later, I’ve been doing this every day, and I’ve become visible to my grandchildren. They can’t wait to see me and to read to them. And so that’s an instance in which AI, and without it and without the illustrations that OpenAI, ChatGPT provides, I couldn’t have done this. So a lot more love in my life because of AI.
Creativity. Okay, this is the thing I work on all the time, innovation and creativity. And the question is, “Is AI creative?” Well, there are two views of creativity. It’s really, “Who is creative? And what’s the right number?”
So the usual view is the Michelangelo view, that creativity, Pete, resides in your head. And out of your brow, if you’re creative, comes Michelangelo’s David. The unit here is one genius. I actually think that’s pretty rare.
The usual form of creativity that I know is the Wright brothers, or McCartney and Lennon, in which you go back and forth between two people. And that’s the sense in which AI is hugely creative. And it’s actually what I do every day is going back and forth with AI about the edge of science where I am in psychology. So let me give you an example from my new book, Agency.
Chapter eight is about the Chinese. It’s about Chinese agency. Chapter nine is about the Hebrews. It’s about the difference between the Torah, the prophets and writings and the New Testament.
I send this off to my editor, and she says, “Hey, Marty, there’s no transition between chapter eight and chapter nine.” Now I’ve been staring at those two chapters for five years and I don’t see a transition. So I go to Claude, and I say, “Claude, write me a one paragraph transition between chapter eight and chapter nine.”
And what Claude then says is, for the transition, “At the very same time that the Chinese were worrying about the relationship of agency in the individual human being to the state, the Hebrews were concerned and wrestling with a much deeper question – the relationship of individual agency to God.” Holy cow!
Pete Mockaitis
Pretty good. Pretty good, Claude.
Martin Seligman
I’ve been staring at this for five years and it got it just right. So, actually, almost every day going back and forth with Claude Code and ChatGPT and working at the cutting edge of agency and trying to quantify this for black people and white people, women and men, modern China, there’s a new insight almost every day.
So the first thing I said, Pete, about AI is there’s more love in my life. The second is, in what I’ve been doing for 60 years, the cutting edge of psychological science, I have a collaborator that’s more creative than any collaborator I’ve ever had.
Pete Mockaitis
Okay, right, with the back and forth process as opposed to expecting it to just be the oracle that shoots out, you know, perfection.
Martin Seligman
Absolutely. So being a pilot with AI, unlike being a passenger, is to be able to prompt back and forth as opposed to expect AI to tell you things. You have to ask the right questions.
Pete Mockaitis
Yeah. Well, I’m intrigued, and maybe AI is a tool for this end as well, if these associated beliefs are so transformational, it seems we would do well to hold the optimistic beliefs. What are your top suggestions if folks would like to nudge their beliefs, from more of a pessimistic zone to more of an optimistic zone, in doing that successfully?
Martin Seligman
Actually, the answer to that’s pretty well known, and I’ve spent much of the last 20 years answering that. And it’s basically to learn how to argue against your most pessimistic thoughts. So I’ll give you an example.
By the way, Pete, I’m a depressive and a pessimist, and so when I talk about tools that modify pessimism and depression, I not only try these things on myself when they work, but I do large scale studies of them. And I think it takes a pessimist to do serious work on optimism.
So let me tell you what happened at 4:00 in the morning, Pete. It’s about you. I wake up at 4:00 in the morning, six hours ago or eight hours ago, and I say, “Oh, my God, I’ve got my first interview about the Agency book in eight hours. I got nothing to say about this. I’m past my prime. Maybe I should just cancel the interview.” Okay?
Four in the morning, the most catastrophic thought. And, indeed, most people, when they wake up at 4:00 in the morning will be inundated with the most depressing, catastrophic, and pessimistic thoughts. So what did I do?
I opened my eyes and I started to argue against it. I said, “Well, wait a minute. I had a discussion with the New York Times yesterday right at the cutting edge. And I didn’t fail at that. And she really lit up and laughed at my jokes. And last week, I gave a 45-minute speech to 50 of my graduate students and 150 of their parents and kids, and I got a standing ovation.”
So I basically argued against my most catastrophic thoughts. And I argued realistically. So the most crucial tool we have for agency is, first, to recognize the most catastrophic thoughts we’re saying, and then to marshal realistic evidence against them, to treat our paralyzing, catastrophic thoughts as if they were said by an outside person whose mission in life was to make you miserable.
Pete Mockaitis
Okay, that’s good. Thank you. Oh, Marty, there’s so much good stuff we could cover. Tell me, any critical takeaways you want to make sure people hear about agency before we shift gears and hear about some of your favorite things?
Martin Seligman
Well, this is a show about succeeding at work, and that’s been one of my main concerns over my lifetime.
And the main takeaway here is something brand new I’m going to tell you and your listeners about. So I’ve been interested in, “What is it not only that people who succeed at work have? But what do human beings have that the machines don’t have and are unlikely to ever have?”
And that’s a really important question because that’s where our cutting edge is going to be at work. So let me tell you what we have and the machines don’t have, and how I got there. So two years ago, the Chinese created a virtual Seligman.
They fed it all my books, my speeches, and you can go to it and ask for advice. And I’ve looked at a thousand of the transcripts now, it gives very good advice. But I was concerned with hallucinating, “When does AI hallucinate?” And I found one hallucination in the thousand transcripts.
Some woman had written in to me, and I gave it to the machine. She had broken her back and she wanted advice, psychological advice about what she could do. So AI, “Ask Martin,” you can do it in Mandarin or in English, by the way, gave her a very good advice.
And in the middle of it, it hallucinated. It said that I had been a consultant to the Reeve Foundation. I’d never heard of the Reeve Foundation. Have you?
Pete Mockaitis
No.
Martin Seligman
Christopher Reeves, Superman, broke his back and founded a foundation to teach optimism to people who broke their back. So notice, the hallucination here was right on track. It’s completely false.
Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, the kind of thing you might do, sure.
Martin Seligman
Very coherent with what I might have done. So I said to Claude, and then to Chad GPT, “Hey, what kind of a machine are you? Are you a coherence machine or a correspondence machine?” That is, when you say something, is it because it coheres with what you already believe or because what you’re saying corresponds to reality?
And Claude said, “Marty, that’s just the right question. I am strictly a coherence machine. I don’t have eyes or ears or hands. When I tell you something, it’s the next most logical, coherent thought I have.” Great Claude. And now I’m getting to what the machines can’t do.
I said, “Tell me the 20 most important discoveries in the history of human science, a good list of 20. How many of those, Claude, could you have done?” It said, “Marty, I could have done seven of them.” I said, “Really?” “Yeah. I could have done tectonic plates. I would have fitted Africa to South America. I could have done Mendelian genetics. That’s just algebra. I could have done Big Bang, which is just a fancy mathematics of explosion.”
I said, “Great, Claude. I’m going to give you eyes and ears and hands. Now, how many of the 20 could you have done?” “Hmm, I could have done 18.” “Eighteen?” “Yeah, I would have discovered the neuron that required microscopes. I have eyes now and staining. I have hands.” “Okay, what couldn’t you have done?”
And now we get to the punchline, “I couldn’t have done Darwin or Einstein because they leapt well beyond the data. Einstein didn’t tinker with Newtonian mechanics. He leapt beyond it.” It’s called abduction, the leap beyond the data. If you’re a coherence machine, what you can’t do is be creative in the sense of leaping beyond the data.
And that’s what human beings have. That’s what you need at work. This is what separates the machines from Pete and me. We can leap to the best explanation. And so the takeaway that I would most want your viewers to have is, when I think about my home life, when I think about work, it’s not the next logical step I want to think about. It’s the leap beyond it, “What’s really going on here? And what can I do that doesn’t become apparent?”
So I think our leap, Pete, what we’ve got is creativity. The technical term is abduction. And I think what we most need at work and in our home lives is better abduction.
Pete Mockaitis
All right. Thank you. Well, now could you share a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?
Martin Seligman
I’m going back seven centuries to my favorite quote. It’s 1365 in Norwich, England, and there’s this woman, a female monk, she calls herself Julian. You have to be a male. Her real name is Juliana of Norwich. It’s the middle of the black plague.
And here’s what she says. She says, “He said not, ‘Thou shalt not be travaileth.’ He said not, ‘Thou shalt not be tempesteth.’ He said not, ‘Thou shalt not be diseased.’ He said, ‘Thou shalt not be overcome, and all shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well.’”
Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite book?
Martin Seligman
My favorite book of the last decade is Cloud Atlas, David Mitchell, and even the movie that was made out of it. But the book itself, Cloud Atlas, I strongly recommend.
Pete Mockaitis
All right. And do you have a final challenge or call to action for folks looking to be awesome at their jobs?
Martin Seligman
I want you to challenge your most catastrophic beliefs. You’re going to get into trouble when you believe the most catastrophic things you’re saying to yourself. They are being said to you by an unconscious whose mission in life is to make you miserable. Challenge those catastrophic beliefs with realistic arguments against them.
Pete Mockaitis
All right. Marty, thank you.
Martin Seligman
Pete, pleasure.






