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.

The provocative title doesn't capture the spirit or subtly of the book's thesis. Kishimi provides an introduction to the individualistic psychology of Alfred Adler in the form of a Socratic dialog with an initially skeptical and entertainingly combative student. I'm unaware of similar summaries of Adler's work so I believe that this would be the place to start at present.

This material is not scientific but I found it interesting nonetheless particularly with Adler's take on time, determinism, work, relations with oneself and others and finding and feeling value in a chaotic Universe (note the capital U). Some of the work feels more like unrigorous philosophical system building than theories of human psychology which makes it more curious. From my perspective if one treats this as science fiction, particularly thought experiments on the science of mind/s it's entertaining and perhaps useful in some domains. Alas alack, the people engineering the social institutions of the future will need a lot more detail than provided here or in the Walden 2's for that matter.

An aside, I wonder if Zappo's Holocracy work culture was a simplistic distillation and abuse of Adler's concept of Horizontal Relationships? Can the Adlerian work in any modern work environment?