A total anecdote, and I know the research is ongoing, but as a person who had rather worse depression because of an underlying problem that has since been treated, I would have a to say a comparison between how I used to feel about events, versus how I feel about them now, is spot on like this article says. Before my treatment, my memory of the past at that time (err, looking now back at it) I very much over generalized problems or overly categorized events as "typical" for how such events always are. Today, as I write this, I don't seem to look back at any of it like that, at least, not as much.
I was remembering that blog post as I read the article. The researchers (as described by the NYT) seem to be testing a hypothesis about generalization vs. specialization regardless of whether the subject generalized was positive or negative, whereas you propose a strategy of generalizing the positive and specializing the negative. Do you remember what led you to that strategy? I presume it is still working for you. The researchers might benefit from the competing hypothesis.
I was led to this theory by the book Learned Optimism. I call it a theory because Dr. Seligman claims int he book to have come up with a hypotheses: (1) That you can measure a quality he labels optimism and pessimism, and that (2) optimism is a predictor for performance. He claims he then tested his theory and it was confirmed. That being said, confirmation by the theorist is much weaker than independent confirmation, so if you're a stickler for the scientific method, research this and see what current thinking has to say about it.
Seligman's second theory is even more interesting, he claims in his book to have cognitive therapy that improves optimism, and to have confirmed his second theory. Independent confirmation would be great for this one!
