The Courage to Be Disliked

So, I recently delved into this book, and it certainly sparked some strong thoughts. As someone who enjoys exploring different psychological theories, I found myself intrigued by some ideas presented, but also left with a fair share of head-scratching moments.

The authors draw inspiration from Alfred Adler's theories, and while I can acknowledge his influence on modern psychology, I must admit that their interpretation in this book doesn't resonate with me.

The book loses me in its firm stance on certain aspects. It's as if the authors have taken Adler's ideas and pushed them to the extreme. They claim that trauma is merely a choice, a perspective that I find not just hard to digest but quite offensive. While I appreciate the encouragement to take ownership of our lives and not be defined solely by our past, it is essential to acknowledge the real experiences of trauma that countless individuals have endured. Dismissing trauma as a personal choice seems oversimplified and fails to recognize the complexity of human suffering.

Contemporary psychology recognizes the existence of trauma and the potential long-lasting effects it can have on individuals. Trauma-informed approaches and therapies aim to address the consequences of trauma and support individuals in their healing process. These approaches are supported by extensive research and clinical evidence.

The authors seem to be Adler's ‘fanbois' but add their own flavors to his ideas that are ignoring just about 100 years of modern psychology, medicine, and biology. And the masses love it, of course, they do. Nothing they love more than theories that sustain their belief in meritocracy and pull-yourself-by-your-bootstraps ideology.

It's so funny seeing people defend this book by saying, nooo, you misunderstood it, the ‘philosopher' isn't flat-out saying trauma doesn't exist and that people just invent trauma to fulfill their goal of being unhappy, he's just saying take responsibility for your life. No, the ‘philosopher' is not saying abusive people don't exist and you're making up their abuse because you don't like them, he's just saying life is all about relationships. Mental illness? That's not a thing. People are just using it as an excuse to get away from their responsibilities.

Now, I must confess, I initially approached this book with a longstanding beef with Adler, and my secret goal in life is to be unhappy hence I chose not to find this book ravishing or life-changing.

Just kidding, if it wasn't obvious. I had no idea this book was influenced by him and I can accept that Adler's concepts like taking responsibility and overcoming feelings of inferiority still hold relevance in modern psychology. That said, my main qualm lies in how the book's dialogue oversimplifies complex issues. Reducing all of life's problems to attitudes and interpersonal dynamics feels overly simplistic. It neglects the broader systemic issues and external factors that significantly influence our lives. Relationships are undeniably important, but they alone cannot serve as a panacea for life's challenges.

In conclusion, while the book presents some interesting concepts influenced by Adler's theories, I find it lacking in its approach to addressing complex psychological issues. If you choose to explore it, I encourage you to approach it critically.

This book would have been more interesting had I read it 10 years ago, but at this point I already agree with most of the insights discussed in the book. Although the book benefits from being presented alongside a devil's advocate point of view, I still felt that at times it did not go far enough in testing the limits of Adlerian psychology.

I also disagree with two major claims in the book:

First, it rejects a deterministic view of the world in favor of the notion that free will exists. However, I believe that the modern evidence suggests a lack of free will in the sense that most people understand it. Having said that, I do agree that for practical purposes it is beneficial to believe that you are the agent of change for your own life. It will prevent you from getting stuck in a self-fulfilling prophecy by making excuses to avoid taking action (what the book calls “life lies”).

Second, the book argues the case that emotion is fabricated in service of one's preexisting goals. However, we now know from modern psychology and behavioral economics that emotional cognition happens first, then rational cognition. Nevertheless, it is still useful to interrogate one's own emotional reaction because it provides a crude warning signal that something you just experienced may indicate danger or unpleasantness. It's just that this is not always the case.

Disagreed with Adler's ideology on trauma to some degree and found the ideas mostly theoretical. I prefer most concrete examples and advice with this style of book. Though the principle idea of “don't live your life constantly trying to please others” interesting and fulfilling. So I took away at least one point from the book to carry with me.