> The findings in this study support Self-Determination Theory, a well-established theory of human motivation developed by two of the paper's authors, Deci and fellow University psychologist Richard Ryan.<p>"well-established" makes me think that this article functions more as a PR piece for SDT. However, I've never heard of SDT befor reading this article, and I find SDT interesting as it seems to be a functional lens through which to study basic human needs - like the need for relationships.<p>"SDT suggests that there are three basic psychological
needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness that
underlie growth and development"<p>"[Self-Determination Theory] begins with the assumption that people are active organisms, with innate tendencies toward psychological growth and development, who strive to master ongoing challenges and to integrate their experiences into a coherent sense of self. This natural human tendency does not operate automatically, however, but instead requires ongoing nutriments and supports from the social environment in order to function effectively."<p><a href="http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/theory.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/theory.php</a>
Reading the article, it sounds like the interpretation of results could have been pretty heavily cooked. With someone this hot for a prior theory it's important to know exactly what experimental methods they used and exactly what they found. Article's pretty short on that.
I think the keyword here is "psychological". If you train yourself to control your mental state you can suffer all sorts of physical afflictions but psychologically you can still be as happy as ever.<p>I used to think that balance was the key, but after some consideration I'm undecided. If spending all your energy on training yourself to be happy actually makes you happy despite your physical well-being, why would you need balance?
There are a few sites I came to avoid on principle. nytimes always has very well written and interesting articles, but with no long-term value. And science daily... well, there is very little science in there. They sound good, but they also lack meat, and honestly they're not that well written.