Standvastig

by Svend Brinkmann

Alles gaat tegenwoordig maar sneller en sneller en we voelen constant druk om ons maar te blijven ontwikkelen. Een hoop mensen grijpen daarom naar zelfhulpboeken en -cursussen die ons weer in contact willen laten komen met ons innerlijke zelf. Svend Brinkmann, hoogleraar Psychologie aan de Universiteit van Aalborg, hekelt deze ‘zelfhulpcultuur’ en geeft een verfrissend antwoord op alle zogenaamde positieve psychologie.



Svend Brinkmann leert je hoe je kunt samenwerken met anderen én toch volledig jezelf kunt zijn, door gewoon af en toe nee te zeggen en bovenal stevig in je schoenen te staan. Geïnspireerd door onder meer de filosofie van de stoïcijnen is Standvastig uiteindelijk hét nieuwe zelfhulpboek voor deze tijd.

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, Psychology, Self Help, Danish, Audiobook, Productivity

123 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 1, 2014

About the author

Svend Brinkmann (født 23. december 1975) har været professor i almenpsykologi og kvalitative metoder på Det Humanistiske Fakultet på Aalborg Universitet siden 2009. Han er uddannet cand.psych. fra Aarhus Universitet.

Svend Brinkmann har skrevet og redigeret en lang række bøger og mere end 150 artikler. Derudover har han udgivet artikler og bogkapitler på syv forskellige sprog. I almenheden blev han i 2014 kendt for bogen Stå fast, hvori han gør op med, hvad han beskriver som tidens (selv)udviklingstyranni. Svend Brinkmann har også medvirket i radioprogrammet Netværket på P1 fra 2009-2016 og var i 2014 vært på DRK programmet Lev Stærkt.

Svend Brinkmann har gennem sin karriere modtaget mange priser og legater. Blandt andet modtog han i 2015 DR's formidlingspris Rosenkjærprisen og Gyldendals formidlingspris sammen med Lene Tanggaard.

Reviews

[Heidi Wiechert · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was not the book for me at all, but it was excellently written. Basically, Stand Firm is an application of Stoic philosophy to the modern era. It is serious anti-self help as opposed to the joke-y anti-self help of Sara Knight like Get Your Sh*t Together: How to Stop Worrying About What You Should Do So You Can Finish What You Need to Do and Start Doing What You Want to Do.

Brinkmann provides seven steps that outline his plan to apply Stoicism to your life and free yourself from the (as he sees it) needless, endless introspection and self improvement that plagues modern society. "In spheres like diet, health and exercise, a veritable religion has emerged that constantly churns out new edicts to follow and regimes to live by. ... It seems that we- and I'm not afraid to count myself among the collective 'we'- lack purpose and direction, and run around looking for the latest recipe for happiness, progress and success. From a psychological perspective, this resemble a collective state of dependency." loc 118, ebook.

I disagree. I think that the myriad of different approaches are only of benefit to society. No one solution is going to fit everyone. The variety appeals to the varying needs.

Brinkmann also talks about using 'negative visualization' to build a sense of appreciation and gratitude: "Think about losing something (or someone) you care for and note how this enhances the pleasure you derive from it/them. Psychologists speak of the concept of 'hedonic adaptation,' i.e. that we very quickly get used to the good life. Negative visualization can counteract hedonic adaptation and make you more grateful." loc 497, ebook. Just playing the devil's advocate here, but you can also build appreciation through positive visualization. See Thank & Grow Rich: A 30-Day Experiment in Shameless Gratitude and Unabashed Joy for more about that.

He explains why suppressing emotion is a good thing and should be practiced: "... the worship of authenticity in the pursuit of true feelings infantilises us. ... As an adult, you should admire those who are capable of controlling- even suppressing- negative emotions. You should also be careful not to casually hurl around positive emotions. When repeated too many times, 'Wow, that's megafantastic!' quickly loses its meaning." loc 759, ebook. Again, I just can't agree. It doesn't feel right to me. That's kind of the point of this book, that I shouldn't trust those quickly passing 'feelings', but I do.

"Self-help literature is part of the problem, and should be ignored. However, since reading is generally a good thing, I recommend you throw yourself into a different type of literature instead- namely novels." loc 983. Eh, read whatever you want, whenever you want, as much as you want- that's my recommendation.

I guess I figured out that I'm not a Stoic. Not a huge surprise there, but if you think that you may be or you're just generally interested in Stoic philosophy- you should read this book. As for me, I'm going to go back to my navel-gazing, infantilising feeling releasing, self help inspired life. Stand Squishy, that's me.

Thank you to NetGalley and Polity Publishing for a free digital copy of this book.

[☘Misericordia☘ ⚡ϟ⚡⛈⚡☁ ❇️❤❣ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent, occasionally funny book. Of course, I don't agree with the author on many points, still it's a very good book.

Q:
He articulates the idea that being yourself has some kind of intrinsic value. No matter what you are like otherwise, just being yourself is valuable. This – you now know – is not the case. It is – without a shadow of doubt – better to be an inauthentic Mother Teresa than an authentic Anders Breivik. (c)
Q:
Another semi-poetic strap line – a slogan from the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, which makes products like the ‘happy pill’ Paxil – says: ‘Do more, feel better, live longer’. These are the key goals in an accelerating culture, and psychoactive drugs help us achieve them: to do more (irrespective of what it might be?); feel better (no matter what triggered your emotions?); and live longer (irrespective of the quality of the extra years of life?) (c)
Q:
thinkers. This book is not intended as an introduction to Stoic thought, e.g. as represented by the Romans Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius and, to an extent, Cicero. Rather, I use aspects of Stoicism to respond to some of the challenges of modern life:
- Where positive visualisation is preached nowadays (think of all the things you want to achieve!), the Stoics recommend negative visualisation (what would happen if you lost what you have?)
- Where you are now encouraged to think in terms of constant opportunities, the Stoics recommend that you acknowledge and rejoice in your limitations
- Where you are now expected to give free rein to your feelings at all times, the Stoics recommend that you learn self-discipline and sometimes suppress your feelings
- Where death is now considered taboo, the Stoics recommend contemplating your own mortality on a daily basis, in order to nurture gratitude for the life you are living. (c)
Q:
The more you gaze lovingly at your navel, the worse you will feel. Doctors call it the health paradox – the more help patients receive, the more they self-diagnose, the worse they feel. Most self-help gurus will urge you to base decisions on your gut feelings. Don’t. It’s not a good idea (especially after a vindaloo) (c)
Q:
Like in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, where the main character, who has been proclaimed the Messiah, addresses his followers with the words ‘Look. You’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody! You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals!’ (c)
Q:
Most parents know the despair of a crying baby who won’t fall asleep. But if we remind ourselves of the child’s mortality, this despair can quickly turn into joy at his or her very existence. Epictetus would say that it is better to cradle a screaming baby in your arms than a lifeless one. The negative visualisation helps us to endure the screaming.(c) Okay, that's neurotic for certain!
Q:
There are two aspects to negative visualisation, and here are two exercises to try:
- Think about losing something (or someone) you care for and note how this enhances the pleasure you derive from it/them. Psychologists speak of the concept of ‘hedonic adaptation’, i.e. that we very quickly get used to the good life. Negative visualisation can counteract hedonic adaptation and make you more grateful. Incidentally, hedonic adaptation is also studied by positive psychologists.
- Think about the fact that you will one day shed your mortal coil: Everybody grows old, falls ill and, in the end, dies. If you spend time thinking about this every day, then you will come to appreciate life more – including in times of crisis. Death isn’t just something you can ‘deal with’, but with a little practice you might be able to ‘get on with life’. (c)
Q:
Given the above characterisation of the demands for navel-gazing and self-realisation that pervade modern culture, you would be justified in asking the obvious question: what can I do? Me, myself? How do you go about learning not to gaze expectantly at your bellybutton? The Stoic philosophers not only have answers, they even suggest specific exercises to help you out. Getting started isn’t always easy but give it a go anyway. The most obvious suggestion is to do something you don’t want to do. Something that doesn’t feel right inside but might nevertheless be right for reasons that have nothing to do with how it makes you feel. The modern Stoic William Irvine calls it a ‘program for voluntary discomfort’. It doesn’t have to be something dramatic, such as starving yourself for weeks like some latter-day ascetic mystic. In fact, it can be as simple as not eating dessert even though you want to and aren’t on a diet. Or wearing clothes that aren’t warm enough so you’re a bit cold. Or taking the bus on a day when it would be easier to take the car. Or cycling in the rain rather than taking the bus.
‘Is there method in this madness?’ you might reasonably ask. According to the Stoics, there are multiple, interconnected, advantages to practising doing things that don’t ‘feel right inside’. Firstly, it helps us build up the strength to cope with whatever trials the future might hold. If comfort is all you know, and have ever known, it becomes extremely difficult to endure the discomfort that we inevitably encounter at some point in our lives, e.g. when we are sick and old, or when we lose someone close or something valuable. Secondly, it mitigates the fear of future misfortune if we practise discomfort on a minor scale. According to Irvine, enduring minor forms of discomfort teaches us that unpleasant experiences aren’t necessarily something we should fear. Unknown futures are less frightening when you learn to cope with the concept that things won’t always feel good when you delve into yourself in search of answers. Thirdly, we appreciate what we have when we’ve tried doing without. You like your bus pass so much more after cycling in the rain; your car after a long bus journey, etc. It’s also a fact – and one that many of the ancient philosophers knew – that our appreciation of a meal increases significantly when we’re hungry. If we learn not always to eat, even though delicious food is right in front of us, but to wait until we’re hungry, the food will taste all the better for it. Give it a go: it’s an easy exercise. (c)

[Kirsty ❤️ · Rating 2 out of 5]

A self help book that says stop reading self help books. Bit of a conundrum there. This book is an application of Stoic philosophy to the modern era and while I agree  that our society is trying to do too much and makes too many demands on people I'm not sure if this book is the answer. 

I struggled with reading it and gave up several times only really finishing because I'm stubborn and hate not finishing books. Another book that's sadly not for me

Free arc from netgalley

[MizzSandie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I like Brinkmann.
I've heard him speak/teach/lecture several times and I love his way of teaching, and his ironic yet relevant critiques of our society.
But that doesn't mean I always agree with him.
Or that I liked this book very much.

On an overall scale I agree with Brinkmann that our society is running too fast, trying to do too much, makes too many demands on the individuals (self-improvement, flexibility some of these), and in the process we've lost touch with some important values and created new problems and illnesses for ourselves.
So far so good.
But how did it happen and what to do about it?
This is where Brinkmann and I have different perspectives, some of them overlapping (just to add to the confusion).
His format of a '7-step guide' as an openly admitted attempt of showing the absurdities of society in its 'own language' so to speak, doesn't really work for me (even if it certainly has made headlines and created heated debate!).
I get the point, I just feel like it misses.
Brinkmann's at his best, in my humble opinion, when he's actively critiquing society, holding up the mirror of the consequences of our way of life.
But his 'solutions', are rather useless.
He puts all (too much, in my opinion) his emphasis on blaming self-help individualism and thereby leaves out a lot of other contributing factors and stronger forces at play. And his suggestions of just doing the opposite of what society today often expects and advocates, even if an ironic way to try to prove a point, are also oversimplifying and misses the mark.
His critique of society in itself is liberating and serves in making us reflect on whether and how much we want to participate in that and it would be enough to include in that critique a reminder that its okay to say no and to stand our ground.

And I certainly don't agree with brinkmann that looking inwards is a bad place to look - to see and be conscious of what's going on in there (as much as it might change), and to have the courage to make choices between your differing and often opposing impulses and values and follow what you find to be the most true and best way for you (which is not the same as following every impulse).
I think it's important that we develop the skills to reflect, discern and be conscious of ourselves, our society and the dynamic relationship we have on one another. I think there are an endless amount of interesting questions we can ask and wonder about those.

Oh, and I was bored out of my mind on the history lessons on stoicism in the end. Yawn. A quote here and there where it fits the argument, fine, but don't overdo it please.

[Georg · Rating 2 out of 5]

Svend Brinkmanns Stå fast er en vanskelig bog at vurdere. Jeg har forståelse, ja, sympati for dele af Brinkmanns anliggende. Bogen er egentlig ikke dårlig skrevet, rent sprogligt, men oplæseren er vist ikke særlig fortroligt med græske ord og fremmedord. Det virker forstyrrende.

Jeg har imidlertid også en hel del kritikpunkter af Stå fast. Selv om jeg også har reservationer over for coaching, så er jeg ikke så sikker på, at coaching som sådan er fair beskrevet af Brinkmann.

Brinkmanns anbefalinger til læseren – f.eks. den at øve sig i at sige nej, næsten uanset – er svært at tage seriøs. Hvis man vil gerne vil give en modvægt til coaches, som måtte mangle saglige eller faglige kriterier, er vejen nok ikke bare at sige nej. Mange jobsituationer er vitterlig komplekse og fulde af dilemmaer, hvor en coach kan hjælpe en ved at stille spørgsmål. Næsten som en slags ekstern Sokrates.

Brinkmann snakker meget om stoicisme og stoiske filosoffer, men i realiteten synes jeg ikke, man får så meget at vide. Og jeg undrer mig over, at stoicismen skal præsenteres som et sådant filosofisk vidundermiddel.

Jeg ved ikke, om mit indtryk skyldes, at Brinkmann vil alt for meget og slynger om sig med alt for mange navne og citater. Men mit indtryk er en bog, der ikke rigtig hænger sammen tankemæssigt. Brinkmann er ude i et polemisk ærinde og bruger alt, hvad han mener, kan tjene som kritik af "tidens udviklingstvang".

Anliggendet – at sætte folk fri af "tidens udviklingsTVANG" – kan jeg som sagt godt føle lidt sympati med, men jeg må indrømme, at Brinkmanns bog i længden virker lidt for tvangspræget. Desværre.

[Volodymyr Dehtyarov · Rating 3 out of 5]

Забавная «антихайп»-книга. «Перестаньте прислушиваться к себе, сконцентрируйтесь на негативе, научитесь говорить «нет», подавляйте чувства, увольте коуча, читайте романы, а не self-help, помните о прошлом». Римский стоицизм для человека 21 века, в общем. Полезная, хоть и не очень хорошо написанная книга.

[Mahnoosh · Rating 1 out of 5]

انگیزشی زرد!!! چرا؟؟؟!!!!! یعنی اونقدر کتاب خوب کم داریم که ناشرهای ایرانی از چاپ کردن مطالب زرد دست نمیکشن؟!

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Egentlig har der været et stort publikum til Svend Brinkmanns "Stå Fast" i flere år. Jeg har faktisk bare gået og ventet på at den blev skrevet. For den positive psykologi, den anerkendende ledelse (og kollegaskab) og det stærkt opreklamerede behov for kun at tale i fremtid - alt det, det er vi rigtig trætte af. Det individualiserer og trivialiserer problemer der burde italesættes og løses, og gør nødvendig og operationel kritik til kværulanteri. Det er kort sagt strudsementalitet omsat til ledelsespraksis, og nu har Svend Brinmann så søsat en gennemargumenteret anti-selvhjælpsbog, der skal få os til at holde op med det igen. Og tak for det.

Bogen er letlæst, men på ingen måder letbenet. Der argumenteres sammenhængende og dybt (og morsomt) for sagen. Min eneste indvending er, at bogen er skrevet som en (anti)selvhjælpsbog. Altså "følg disse 7 råd, så...". Jeg er med på at det er for at gøre stoffet morsomt og læsbart for en større målgruppe, men jeg havde nok bare foretrukket artikelformatet.

[Kate Ahl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps not the most sophisticated writing / translation, but an important book to have in the (anti-) self-help canon, bringing together and making accessible the ideas of people like Barbara Held & Bruce Levine - critics of an insidious 'positive thinking' movement that so often minimises the effects of external circumstance on psychological health, insisting blithely that every problem (bereavement, poverty, racism, terminal illness, etc) ought to be embraced gratefully as an enriching opportunity for growth and learning.

Brinkmann argues for the importance of focusing on and acknowledging the negative - in order not to be blindsided by the adverse events that will befall us all (death, illness, etc) and also to be in a position to argue for political change. He emphasises the importance of looking to and learning from the past rather than striving to live mindfully 'in the moment' or to be entirely future-oriented as we are so often encouraged to do in organisational life.

The book also presents cogent and welcome arguments against the essentially narcissistic cultural preoccupation with 'authenticity' and 'gut feeling'. And advocates reading novels - which I can absolutely get behind!

Deserves a place on the shelf next to Oliver Butkeman's 'The Antidote'.

[Christian Dalager · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jeg kan godt forstå kritikken af den her bog.
Men jeg er faktisk pisse ligeglad.
For den har fået mig til at tænke lidt.

[Deborah Sheldon · Rating 4 out of 5]

So good, I read it twice.

[Andrei Vasilachi · Rating 4 out of 5]

4/5

In a nutshell: an important “counter-culture” book, a sort of “anti-self-help” message which emphasizes the importance of our past, duty, virtue, community, mortality—things which closely resemble the Stoic philosophy, except the author criticizes one aspect of Stoicism: the over-reliance on the present.

Brinkmann said at the end of the book,

“I don’t believe that humankind mainly lives in the moment, but in time as an extensive and continuous structure. This focus on the present, and on the individual’s power to determine how they will be affected by what is happening right now, closely resembles the current self-development wave (‘you can choose to be happy now!’). In my view, this gives the individual too great a responsibility for how he or she meets the world. I don’t believe that we can freely choose how we will be affected by the present. To the extent that this is a Stoic ideal, I would say that Stoicism should be challenged on this central point. We are, to a far greater extent than the Stoics would accept, impotent – indeed, the realisation of this can act as a source of solidarity between people.” (p. 137)

The author argues that our modern culture (he calls it “accelerating culture”) is too obsessed with “the self” and “self-improvement” and criticizes its main virtues like flexibility, mobility, the over-reliance on positivity and the demonization of negativity, the myth of “finding an authentic self by looking inside” and the whole movement of positive psychology, life coaches, self-help gurus etc.

He identifies 7 steps to countering this culture: (in a satiric way):

1) Cut out the navel-gazing
2) Focus on the negative in your life
3) Put on the “No hat”
4) Suppress your feelings
5) Sack your [self-help] coach
6) Read a novel – not a self-help book or biography
7) Dwell on the past

Here’s some quotes that stood out for me:

“I contend that in order to learn to survive in an accelerating culture – to stand firm – we should look to classical Stoic philosophy for inspiration, especially its emphases on self-control, peace of mind, dignity, sense of duty and reflection on the finite nature of life. These virtues engender a deeper sense of fulfilment than the superficial focus on permanent development and transformation.” (p. 9-10)

“There is simply no point in attaching so much importance to gut feelings and introspection. At first, you may think that this sounds counterintuitive, but actually it’s just common sense. If somebody is in trouble and needs help, there’s no point basing your reaction on how helping them would make you feel. What you need to think about is the other person. You need to base your reaction on the idea that it’s important to help others per se whenever possible – regardless of how it makes you feel. Whenever aficionados of science, art or philosophy insist that knowledge of Einstein, Mozart or Wittgenstein enriches the human experience, you don’t ask yourself ‘Yes, but how does it make me feel?’ before deciding whether they are of any interest to you. What you need to do is take an interest in what these people actually say, rather than how their utterances make you feel. You need to learn to look outwards, not inwards; to be open to other people, cultures and nature. You need to accept that the self does not hold the key to how to live your life. The self is merely an idea, a construct, a by-product of cultural history. As such, it is by its very nature more external than internal.” (p. 16)

“Philip Cushman once posited that the depression epidemic in the West is explained by the fact that if you look inwards long enough – if you dwell on how you feel, and use therapy to find yourself – then depression will descend the moment you realise that there is, in fact, nothing there. If, as is constantly asserted, the meaning of life is to be found inside you, then finding nothing there renders it all pointless. By spending inordinate amounts of time on navel-gazing you risk ending up disappointed [..] Society sets objective standards for what constitutes a good engineer (technical skills, mathematical understanding, etc.), and they have nothing to do with how you feel inside.” (p. 19)

“…excessive self-analysis brings with it a genuine risk of feeling something that is actually meaningless, but that assumes meaning through the very process of feeling it. Since the 1980s, doctors have been referring to this as the health paradox. More and better methods of diagnosis and treatment have led to people becoming trapped in a cycle of perpetual self-diagnosis, resulting in widespread discomfort and even hypochondria. In short: the more advanced medical science becomes, the sicker people think they are.” (p. 20)

“Why have we forgotten that the truth is out there, not inside us? The German sociologist and philosopher Axel Honneth provides one possible answer. He thinks that the idea that ‘the answer is inside me’ – and that the purpose of life is therefore self-realisation – may well have had a certain liberating appeal back in the 1960s. At that time, there was no shortage of good reasons to throw off the shackles of a rigid society that placed unnecessary restrictions on personal and human development. Honneth argues, however, that while this inward turn may well once have constituted a legitimate form of resistance to ‘the system’, it has subsequently become the basis upon which the very same system now legitimises itself. He thinks that post-modern consumer society – which in this book I call accelerating culture – cultivates individuals who are flexible, changeable and constantly preoccupied with self-development and reinvention. To stand still in a society based on growth and consumption is akin to dissent. The self-realisation tsunami has aided and abetted the market’s demand for a servile and flexible workforce, which is why, over the last fifty years, all sorts of ostensibly progressive management and organisational theories have focused on ‘the whole person’, ‘human resources’ and the idea of self-realisation through work. Self-realisation is no longer a liberating concept. Rather, it involves you accepting the idea of an inner self that you must develop, and perhaps even capitalise on, in ways that are designed to benefit your place of work.” (p. 21-22)

“Positive psychology can be seen as a scientific reflection of the accelerating culture’s fascination with positivity. It really took off in 1988, when Martin Seligman became president of the American Psychological Association. Seligman built his reputation on the theory of learned helplessness as a factor in depression. Learned helplessness is a state of apathy, or at least a lack of will to change painful experiences – even in situations where you actually have options that would allow you to avoid the pain. Seligman had developed the theory via experiments that involved administering electric shocks to dogs. When he (understandably) grew tired of torturing man’s best friend, he decided to focus on something more life-affirming, and threw himself into positive psychology instead. Positive psychology rejects the focus on human problems and suffering that previously epitomised much of psychology (Seligman sometimes calls standard psychology ‘negative psychology’). Rather, it is a scientific study of what is good in life and human nature. In particular, it asks what happiness is and how it is achieved, and seeks to identify positive human personality traits. As president of the American Psychological Association, Seligman used his office to promote positive psychology. He succeeded to such an extent that there are now study programmes, centres and scientific journals dedicated to the subject.” (p. 33-34)

“‘Better to be Socrates dissatisfied, than a fool satisfied’, as the British utilitarian John Stuart Mill said in the nineteenth century. Not everything is possible. Not everything turns into positive happiness. However, there are other aspects of life that are worth striving for, such as dignity and a sense of reality. The point is that you must dare to face up to negativity. You might be able to make some positive changes but, quite simply, the negative aspects of life are here to stay. Accept it. However, we must be allowed to complain and criticise. If we are blinkered, positive and optimistic all of the time, we run the risk of the shock being all the greater when things do go wrong for us. Focusing on the negative prepares you for future adversity. And complaining can also increase your awareness of the good things in life. ‘I’ve got a sore toe – but the rest of my leg doesn’t hurt!’”. (p. 40-41)

“True internal control – called integrity in this book – consists of adhering to moral values, understanding the importance of obligations and duty, and using reason to determine what is good and right in a given situation. If you have integrity, you will often have to say no because so much of the accelerating culture deserves to be renounced.” (p. 47)

“If we aren’t capable of feeling ashamed, then we have no way of sensing how the world around us feels about what we say or do. Shame is a sign that you are acting in a manner considered unacceptable by your own community. You might even say that it would be difficult to become a mature, thinking being – with the character and integrity outlined in the previous chapter – if you know no shame.” (p. 60).

“In the accelerating culture, words like ‘passionate’, ‘love’ and ‘fun’ are increasingly associated with our working lives. This has led the sociologist Eva Illouz to describe the modern age as that of an ‘emotional capitalism’, in which economics and emotions are intertwined. Emotional capitalism is a culture of emotions, in which feelings play a significant part in personal transactions between individuals. It is our emotional competencies that make us attractive in the markets (for both work and love). The concept of ‘emotional work’ is well described in sociological literature. It has long been particularly characteristic of the service sector, e.g. flight attendants who smile and are always cheerful to keep up the spirits of stressed and perhaps nervous passengers. Even while being abused, they respond in a positive and welcoming manner, which can be quite taxing for them. Some airlines even send flight attendants on acting courses, so that they know how to summon forth positive emotions. These courses correspond to certain actors’ penchant for ‘method acting’ – you don’t just play out certain emotions, but actually have them. The keyword is authenticity. We want flight attendants who really are happy, not just pretending.” (p. 63-64)

“Essentially, emotional life has been commercialised or commodified – we buy and sell emotions in the labour market. If we lack emotional competencies (or emotional intelligence, to use the psychological buzzword), then we run the risk of being sent on a personal development course to get in better touch with ourselves.” (p. 64-65)

“Life is far too short for anger. You must learn to repress emotions that disturb your peace of mind and prevent you standing firm. If you want to stand firm, it is a precondition that you aren’t easily knocked off your stride. We are constantly bombarded with appeals to our emotions – on television, in social media and in advertising – and this constantly changes what we want. If you constantly pursue ephemeral desires, you can’t stand firm. And if you can’t stand firm, you aren’t in a position to do your duty. You should therefore learn to suppress your feelings. This may be at the expense of authenticity – which is in itself a benefit. It bestows a certain degree of dignity on an individual to be in control of their emotions.” (p. 72)

“Unlike self-help books and most autobiographies, novels present life more faithfully – as complex, random, chaotic and multifaceted. Novels remind you how little control you have over your life, and also show how it is inextricably entangled with social, cultural and historical processes. Acknowledging this endows you with a humility that might help you to do your duty in life, rather than constantly honing in on yourself and your personal development.” (p. 88)

“Concepts like innovation and creativity float around in all sorts of discourse about organisation and education, in which any sense of the value of repetition and the tried and tested has been lost. We are forever being told to ‘think outside the box’. Fortunately, less excitable creativity researchers have pointed out that it only makes sense to think outside the box if you know that there is a box (and what it’s made of). In most cases, it’s probably wiser to balance on the edge of the box, only tinkering around the edges and improvising around tried-and-tested themes. The new only makes sense within a horizon of something known. If you know nothing of the past and its traditions, it’s impossible to create anything new that is useful.” (p. 105)

“One of the starting points for this book is that the problems associated with life have changed in the past half-century. The basic problem used to be that life was overly rigid – stability was lauded over mobility. Now, it is overly flexible.” (p. 115)

Towards the end of the book, Brinkmann shares his doubts regarding this book and how it may not convey his intended message:

“My main doubt about the book is whether this negativist alternative actually tacitly accepts the individualist premise it purports to contest. Isn’t there a risk of adding to the burdens already heaped on the shoulders of individuals by exhorting them also to take these seven steps? It’s a legitimate concern, but my hope is that by inverting the logic of the self-development mania, the book will highlight its absurdity. It’s a fairly safe bet that positive or negative thinking alone won’t solve the big problems the planet faces. Nevertheless, I do think that Stoic reflection acts as a refreshing tonic when confronted by runaway consumerism and coercive development. However, to use a medical analogy, this is just addressing the symptoms. Other types of discussion and action (political, economic, etc.) are needed if we are to cure the major ailments of the day (e.g. global environmental and economic crises) and the growth paradigm associated with them.” (p. 116)

This book is an impressive attempt at providing an alternative to the mainstream culture of positive psychology and the obsession with the self. Although not perfect, and at times (ironically) too forced and one-sided (satire, maybe?), it is a needed message if we want to look at life from a different perspective. His analysis is good, his solutions may be lacking in clarity and nuance. Still, Brinkmann’s efforts are provocative and laudable, and I cannot recommend this book enough.

[A · Rating 5 out of 5]

An ironically anti self-help self-help book, Stand Firm is an essentially conservative argument against current trends in health, wellness, workplace cultures. As a white lib this is both tempting and off-putting. Brinkmann's arguments are pretty convincing and on many occasions things I already agreed with, or realized, such as the general commodification and appropriation of 'wellness' to make white libs like myself run and shop in circles. However, the challenge moreso lies in where to draw the line, as Brinkmann only rapidly illustrates general principles which are open to wide interpretation. Based off the stoics he quotes, I get the sense that it's not *all* self-"development" or becoming better that we are to avoid, but only certain fallacious approaches that have been emptied by culture.

This issue already presents itself in chapter/step one: "cut the navel-gazing." So stop looking so deeply for meaning inside yourself, stop putting your "gut" feelings on a pedestral. The "masks" you form in social relation are actually valuable configurations of your duty to others. Don't abandon the world for your inner self development project, or something. Your emotions are valuable sources of information but they must be mediated by your understanding, etc. Ok great. But what kind of problem does this present for an "artist"? Where do we draw the line on what level of introspection is productive or reflective? I suppose we're supposed to locate a difference between productive and unproductive rumination. Also, don't get bothered by "agitations of the flesh." So, uhh, take a cold shower? Oh wait . . .

Brinkmann doesn't go as far to say that there is no self - although he kind of does later on, but still encourages above all building a "strong" self that uh, gets up and puts up with life?

Chapters like "focus on negative feelings" (2) and "suppress your feelings" (4) suggest perhaps internal contradictions, like, ok should I now be "kvetching" to reflect my awareness and engagement with all that is not good in life, even in the small stuff, because I cope with it, or, should I just not say anything at all? He has a point in 2 that you can't just "positive think" everything away as some crappy advice would suggest.

Other things that I like in this book:
doubt as a virtue
"liquid modernity/acceleration"
"wellness culture" and how it centers the individual, ignoring socio/economic/political factors
"project culture"
"dwell on the past" (read: nietzsche, use and abuse of history for life)
try and form real friendships and relationships instead of all these "coach" or "mentor" relations
"read a novel" (i.e. bibliotherapy) - if anything isn't the novel the most fertile grounds for self indulgence? How does this contrast ch 1?

Overall though, it's like, he's still recommending a type of self development, just not an orgasmic kind of self discovery. It's stoic philosophy applied to contemporary culture. But like, what does it share with other philosophies for life that it would also criticize? E.g. what does this perspective think of a (modern white) buddhist "philosophy" which also focuses on eliminating navel gazing, focusing on the negative, and suppressing (attentively observing) feelings? Does it make a difference if that western interpretation of buddhism happens in a sort of community or an individual practice? Basically, any sort of philosophy of life, this book included, risks being interpreted as a project for manic self development. The author himself admits this, wondering if he has tacitly accepted "the individualist premise it purports to contest."

IDK

OK BOOK

I'LL PROBABLY KEEP READING SELF HELP AND DOING SIMILAR THINGS BUT MAYBE A BIT DIFFERENTLY

TREADING LIGHTLY

MOSQUITO / ELEPHANT

[Sara · Rating 2 out of 5]

In the first chapter the author writes an analysis of the current society - a society in which constant personal development and positive thinking is an imperative. This diagnosis is spot on! It is very liberating that someone has finally put it in to words, and for this reason alone the book is a worthwhile read.

The rest of the chapters provide 'solutions' - how to 'stand your ground' when society is telling you to constantly keep moving. There are some very valid points throughout these chapters, but the argumentation is polemical and one-sided.

The underlying premise for the book seems to be that we should use reason as a personal guide rather than instinct and emotions. But for many people values and principles are not mental ideals that can be put in to thought. These people 'stand their ground' when something 'feels' right or wrong to them. I do not understand why one mode of navigation should be more worthwhile than others?

The book is in many ways a caricature. And as such the author also treats the views of his 'opponents' as a caricature. According to this book all positive phychologists, coaches, self help authors and likewise advocate the viewpoint that human beings should be self centered individualists who act on their every impulse. Obviously this is not the case! I wish it could have been treated with more nuance.

If I could rate the opening chapter on its own, I would give it 5 stars. But because of the execution of the rest of the book, I can only give it 2. However I do believe that the book is a very important and needed contribution to the societal debate.

[Eva Therese · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is actually more satire than it is a practical guide for doing something different. But like all the greatest satire, it knows its stuff. When the author talks about the culture of positivity and progress and constant improvement, he knows what he's talking about. He also knows why all of these are bad ideas if taken too far.
The seven step guide is really a parody of other selfhelp-guides with their seven easy steps to quick change, which, as Brinkmann is quick to point out, do not work. If any of these guide actually helped to make people feel happy and fulfilled, they would never need another and yet new guides are published every day.
And of course, you can't always be negative and always refuse to learn and improve even the slightest bit. Which just goes to show that the opposite is also true, you can't always be positive and in a constant state of growing. Every problem or hardship is not simply a challenge or even worse, a opportunity, sometimes they are just problems.
But even though it's more a parody of a selfhelp-book than an actual guide, it still has some very useful points. It's just that it gives you a new perspective and something to think about, rather than supplying you with ready answers and truths. There are a lot of references and recommendations for further reading in this book.
Generally, I'd recommend it to anyone who feel that something is not quite right with the culture of positivity and constant personal growth. This book might very well help put in words what is wrong.

[Knud · Rating 1 out of 5]

Præmissen for denne bog, er at angribe selvhjælps- og udviklingslitteraturens trend. Et fremragende udgangspunkt.

Men bogen er ligeså fyldt med de floskler, som den forsøger at angribe.

Bogen kredser om særligt oldgræske og romerske filosofiske-, samt kommunitaristiske tænkere, med talrige henvisninger til værker man bør læse. Men bogen stikker aldrig dybere, som andet end en potpourri af anbefalinger.

Bogen angriber og forsvarer på en og samme tid den moderne udvikling, uden stort set på noget tidspunkt at være særlig konkret omkring hvilke metoder, ideologier, (u)videnskabelige udviklingstendenser osv. der bør forfægtes, og hvilke der måske kan siges at virke.

Jeg fatter ikke bogen har vundet en pris for vidensformidling!?

[radioparesh · Rating 2 out of 5]

خیلی جالبه که یه کتاب «خود_یار» تاکید بکنه که کتاب های خودیاری رو نخونید! به نظرم نویسنده بیشتر سعی داشت بگه سیاه و سفید نباشید، به همه چیز بله نگید! «فقط» کتاب های خودیار نخونید و... اما برای جذاب تر کردن عنوان های کتاب ترجیح داده عنوان ها رو سیاه و سفید انتخاب کنه! «هیچ کتاب خودیاری نخونید و رمان بخونید» خب جناب نویسنده اگر اینکار رو نکنیم پس کتاب شما چی میشه؟

یک فصل از کتاب «احساسات خود را سرکوب کنید» هست و ضمن اینکه عنوان جذابی به نظر میرسه کل احساسات انسان رو به احساس خشم خلاصه میکنه و میگه خشم خودتون رو کنترل کنید!

اما نکته ی مثبت کتاب این بود که مخاطب رو تشویق میکنه توی دنیایی که انقدر سریع حرکت میکنه، اشکالی نداره اگر کسی کمی بایسته، فقط به شرطی که محکم بایسته!

[Mark O'mara · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the book the Brinkmann wrote before Stand Points. It is a short book with plenty of wisdom around the notion that the overwhelming influence/pressure of the self development/self help movements & influencers etc set us up to be constantly searching for our “authentic” selfs and ignores the fundamentals of human nature and the context in which we all live. It is a book that makes you stop and think and definitely worth a read. Kindle edition.

[Denis Vasilev · Rating 4 out of 5]

Неплохая книга по продвижению стоицизма и корректировке бездумной приверженности позитивной психологии.

[Oskar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Svend Brinkmann skriver indledningsvist i Stå fast, at bogen forsøger at formulere en modstand mod - og et alternativ til - den omstillingskultur som præger moderne selvudviklingsfilosofi. Når det kommer til at udpege nogle af problematikkerne ved disse tankegange synes jeg han gør det udmærket, selvom han måske tegner et lidt overdrevet billede af hvor gennemsyrende deres ideer egentlig er for vores samtid og kultur. Man kan her få indtrykket af, at Brinkmann som psykolog færdes meget i kredse hvor en vis selvhjælpsmentalitet er blevet dominerende, og at bogen derfor primært er en form for metakritik rettet mod andre psykologer. Selvom jeg godt kan genkende den tankegang der udlægges, har jeg i hvert fald sjældent oplevet et så altomsluttende krav om fleksibilitet og selvrealisering som Brinkmann beskriver - men måske har jeg bare været heldig.

Når det kommer til at formulere sin egen alternative vision synes jeg ofte bogen bliver flyvsk og selvmodsigende. Brinkmann beskriver det eksempelvis som fundamentalt for livet at vi altid gør vores pligt, men samtidig skal vi også tage nej-hatten på og ikke gøre hvad vi får besked på. Det beskrives som essentielt at vi undertrykker vores dårlige følelser, men vi skal også insistere på at brokke os og være negative. Vi skal stå fast og have integritet, men samtidig har det ingen som helst værdi at være sig selv. Ét sted beskrives det hvordan flypersonale der instrueres i at være smilende og glade er et udtryk for en "emotionel kapitalisme," som bidrager til at korrumpere følelseslivet i resten af samfundet. Men et andet sted skrives der, at de masker vi tager på over for hinanden i virkeligheden udtrykker vores mest autentiske selv, og at vi derfor bør gå tilbage til mere formelle og ritualiserede omgangsformer. Med disse mange modstridende råd og betragtninger synes jeg, at bogen ironisk nok selv kommer til at minde lidt om de flyvske selvhjælpsbøger den kritiserer.

Jeg er på flere måder heller ikke helt enig i Brinkmanns udlægning af den romerske stoicisme. Eksempelvis synes jeg, at hans holdninger til negativitet og brok står i stærk kontrast til Aurelius og Senecas gennemgående fokus på taknemmelighed. Alligevel er jeg meget enig i, at den romerske stoicisme er en yderst interessant og værdifuld gren af filosofien, som vi alle kan lære meget af og bør læse. Og jeg deler i høj grad Brinkmanns holdning til værdien af skønlitteratur, selvom beskrivelsen af denne som 'polyteistisk' virker polemisk og forvirret. Desuden synes jeg overordnet, at bogen maler et lidt for dystert billede af den tid vi lever i, selvom jeg er enig i at fortiden har meget at lære os.

[Peter Geyer · Rating 2 out of 5]

Svend Brinkmann is accountable for one of my favourite phrases "There is a deep contradiction between the demands "be yourself" and "change and adapt all the time" which I've used in papers and presentations. It states the obvious, really, although this may not be apparent to particular people and organisations implementing various programs.

One of the interesting things that used to happen in a number of presentations and workshops I'd attend in the last 30 years (or almost that) is that if the topic were personality, then the first thing you would be asked to do, having discovered it, was to be something or someone else, which never made sense to me because one of the points of the method or model was that it was good to be you. Sometimes, as I found out later on in teaching this method, the discovery was news of a kind and what people wanted to do, including myself was to practice it, particularly if you felt that this had never been allowed, or you had experienced misunderstanding, or even punishment. In addition, if you were me, you wanted to test out the proposition that came with the method, find the limits, the inconsistencies, even the expertise of the presenter, which could be scanty. Such scantiness pervades the internet these days.

Another part of this for me was a growing aversion to "self-help" as a genre, partly through reading a few books and also with aspects of study, whether it be a formal qualification or a training course. The field had become problematic because of the many half-baked claims, the sketchy propositions, the pathologising of particular behaviours, or even of particular kinds of people, all undewr the rubric of "growth" whatever that meant and for what purpose. For some this meant permanent counselling, others various forms of "spirituality" some legitimate from my perspective, others dubious. The social complexities that followed, some not thrilling.

It's in this context that I looked forward to this book: "resisting the Self-Improvement craze" made sense to me, and the author had credibility in my mind, so I thought it would be an interesting read.

Brinkmann himself starts off with a deal of excitement, honoured to be published by Polity Press and very pleased about the calibre of the translation, which does in fact begin more than pleasantly, with a dash of humor and expression.

His theme is mobility versus stability, the former the current situation, the latter the desired state, which he suggests is Stoicism. If this sounds like a self-help method you'd be right, and the author acknowledges this, but he wants you to go along with this wheeze, if you like.

There are seven principles, which made me think of the Covey system, or any demotivating list and they form the headings and themes of seven chapters with a little on Stoicism in each, plus an Appendix on Stoicism. The text is fairly light on, disappointingly so from my perspective, but that's the intent. In this respect it's hard to know how seriously he takes his task, given that his principles are mostly opposites of what a self-help book might say and working those out might have taken as long as 5 minutes.

Here are the principles/chapters: Cut out the navel-gazing; Focus on the negative in your life; Put on your No hat; Suppress your feelings; Sack your coach; Read a novel; Dwell on the past. Each chapter is around 13-15 small pages, so it's a quick read, unless you stop to wonder at some of the things he says, that don't appear to come from a well-educated person. Maybe that's the point, I don't know.

Brinkmann has to qualify most of these phrases to make sure they're not presented as doom and gloom. Stoicism isn't all that bad a philosophy from the little I know and maybe he exaggerates the language for effect. Initially, too, he denies the self, taking the view that it's an illusion, without reference to where the idea comes from (Daniel Dennett, or critiques of this notion (e.g. the philosopher John Searle), not even dealing with the idea of the mediated self which seems to be related to his critique outside this book.Interestingly by doing this he encourages an extraverted life of the kind that is actually encouraged by certain self-help people.

The No hat appears to be a model that encourages agreement without thinking about it, which doesn't seem all that good an idea anyway as far as decent decisions go, but then I'm not a positive thinking person. "Suppress your feelings" doesn't seem to be a good idea if intended literally, but it might be a judicious approach to a situation where people are expressing them willy-nilly or the requirements imposed on those engaged in emotional labor. A real smile is better than one demanded, one would think. "Sack your coach" seems a good idea if all they do is agree with you and keep you positive, but I've never had one, so can't say.

The admonition to read novels rather than self-help books or biographies is personally annoying, not because I am fixated on self-help books or biographies (I actually read non-fiction for relaxation and interest) but because Brinkmann offers the usual motherhood statement that novels tell you about other people and personalities and other reading material doesn't. Perhaps this view is accountable for the lack of knowledge about history, society, politics, science, facts or propositions. This is a personal view; I've never read a convincing explanation for this idea amid that such insights can be used to effectively interpret the person in the street and elsewhere. This may be the gift of others, of course.

All in all, I was very disappointed with this book; I expected something more in depth and focused and so this issue still awaits a decent and useful critique.

[Charlotte · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rigtig god og inspirerende med budskaber, der er meget relevante og tankevækkende. Kan helt sikkert tåle en genlæsning på et tidspunkt.

[Julie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jeg kan ikke løbe fra, at jeg vitterligt bliver provokeret og (ret uventet) også nærmest vred. Dels på grund af indpakningen: Den gør grin med mig. Det understreges gang på gang at det ikke er en selvhjælpsbog, og selvfølgelig er det ikke det. Og alligevel er den, bare ikke for alvor. Vi skal nærmere hen i afdelingen for kulturkritik/kontemporaneitetsfilosofi eller hvad ved jeg. Uden at være blevet lovet noget, havde jeg vist forventet en tålmodig, saglig og behersket fortællerstemme, der kunne guide mig ud af kaos. Istedet møder jeg en vred samfundskritiker med en lettere arrogant og satirisk klang og en spandfuld af negative modreaktioner. Så helt uberettiget bliver jeg lidt vred. Sådan er det at blive lidt snydt, lidt skuffet. Og kritiseret.

For når samfundet og kulturen kritiseres, kommer mine valg også med i samme omgang. Og så får jeg lyst til at forsvare mig, forklare at det ikke kan være anderledes. Men det er jo bare lige dér, det bliver interessant, for det kan det jo. Det er bare alt for farligt at hive gulvtæppet væk under samtiden til at nogen nogensinde så meget som nævner det, i fulde alvor. Men det hele er jo bare normer og konventioner, selvfølgelig kan det være anderledes.

"Er der grænser for, hvor megen vækst og udvikling mennesker har godt af?" (s. 136)

JA. Jeg er langt hen ad vejen enig med kritikken af udviklingskulturen. Det er så forfriskende at få sat spørgsmålstegn ved mange af tidens selvfølgeligheder. Men der er et eller andet galt med argumentationen her, der nærmest kører efter en model, hvor ét aspekt fremlægges og drejes 180 grader, mens 20 andre skubbes til side og ikke tages med i den endelige udregning. Tidens selvudviklingsideal kritiseres og et nyt stilles op. Det er netop symptombehandling, nødløsninger i en situation presset til det yderste, og selvfølgelig udmunder det i en (absurd) ekstrem.

I bund og grund er min vrede heller ikke så underlig: Brinkmann skitserer tiden som absurd og paradoksal ved netop at være absurd og paradoksal - og hvornår har dét nogensinde været behageligt at se sig fanget i?

Visse ting vil jeg tage til mig, visse ting står allerede som værdier for mig, men jeg må også sige, at jeg på ingen måde abonnerer på den samlede forestilling - hverken af kritikken eller "behandlingen". Jeg læser i øvrigt stakkevis af romaner, men jeg ved nu ikke, om jeg står bedre fast af den grund..

[Didem · Rating 2 out of 5]

İncecik kitap elimde süründü kaç gündür. Uzun zaman sonra bu kadar arada kaldığım, acaba doğrulık payı ne kadardır diye düşündüğüm bir kitap da olmamıştı. Baştan söylemek isterim ki kişisel gelişim ifadesini hiç sevmem, genelde de bu sınıfa konulan kitapları okumakta da oldukça seçici davranır, konunun uzmanı, genelde de görüşlerine güvendiğim doktorları okumayı tercih ederim, Engin Geçtan veya Gabor Mate gibi. Bu kitabın da adı çok ilgimi çekmişti. Ama kişisel gelişimden çok Alain Botton tarzında, modern bir felsefe kitabı olduğunu düşünmüştüm, yanılmışım.

Yeni moda kendini iyi hissetme akımlarına genellikle çok önyargılı yaklaşsam da yazarın fikirlerine çoğunlukla katılmadım. Evet, her şey bir dengede olmalı, bir şeyleri yaparken (stresi azaltma, kendi içine bakma gibi) dengeyi tutturmak önemli, ve kapılıp abartmaya da çok meyilli konular bunlar, özellikle de hayatınızı olumsuz yönde etkileyen şeyler yaşadıysanız veya yaşıyorsanız. Ama keskin çizgilerle, duygularını bastır, olumsuzluklara odaklan kısmı hem abartılı, hem de çok mantıklı gelmedi.

Kitap yedi maddeden oluşuyor. Sol şeritte yaşamak, içine dönmeyi bırak, hayatındaki olumsuzluklara odaklan, hayır şapkanı tak, duygularını bastır, koçunu sepetle, kişisel gelişim kitabı ya da biyografi yerine roman oku, geçmişe tutun, ve ek olarak stoacılık. Başlık isimleri zaten kitabın içeriği konusunda yeterinde bilgi veriyor ama dediğim gibi dengeli olmak ayrı, bu bahsedilenlerin bir kısmını (duygularını bastırmak, olumsuzlara odaklan, geçmişe tutun gibi) bu kadar katı bir şekilde uygulamak ayrı sanki.

Kitapta bana en çok uyan kısım ayda en az bir tane roman okuma tavsiyesi oldu😁 Yazar orda da Murakami önermiş ama oraya çok takılmak istemiyorum zira Murakami çok iyi anlayabildiğim bir yazar olmadı şimdiye kadar. Kitaptan kendime not alacağım belki de tek şey Stoacıları araştırmak ve okumak oldu, felsefe arayan felsefe okusun, değil mi ama😏

Uzun lafın kısası isminden dolayı merak edenler bakabilir, kısa bir kitap zaten. Ama ben önerir miyim, sanmam😒

[Heather Conkin · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. I flew through and enjoyed this book! I didn't rank it higher because I thought some of the ideas could have been a little more fleshed out and I needed different terms and language in the chapter about putting on your "no hat." Other than that, this book was a breath of fresh air after spending a lot of time in the personal and spiritual development world, and frankly feeling overwhelmed and over it. I couldn't put my finger on why but Brinkmann gave me words for it in this book.

I stumbled upon this book when I was doing research for a podcast about the Human Potential Movement and some of it's downsides. I blew through the book within a day and a half. This is the antithesis to the likes of Rachel Hollis's Girl Wash Your Face and even classics like Hill's Think and Grow Rich. The problem with self help is that they usually serve up a dose of tough love and messages pushing readers to live up to their potential and their full and truest selves but they also tell you that you are enough. Which is it?

This book drops all of that and is more about living with and accepting yourself rather than trying to change. I don't think he would argue that you can't change or that evolving is a bad thing, but that simply working on acceptance makes it easier. This book is also well researched and backed by studies and science.

The truth is I think that growth takes a little bit of all of this so you have to learn to use what works for you and take everything with a grain of salt.

[Алиса-Наталия Логинова · Rating 1 out of 5]

Нойте, думайте о смерти и не развивайтесь! Автор малость путает пусть стоика с путем овоща. Вся книга полна авторского нытья, бесконечных передергиваний, унылых попыток в сарказм и жалоб на то, что его обидели коллеги, мир, шестидесятые годы, общество потребления, реклама и почти все окружающие. Не понятно, как психологу из вступительной статьи не стыдно это рекомендовать (не читал?), поскольку автор смешивает в кучу позитивную психологию (за которой стоит солидная база исследований, и которая никогда не предлагала людям закрывать глаза на проблемы и сидеть в иллюзиях) и популярную психологию из журналов. Одна фраза о том, что Мартин Селигман занялся позитивной психологией потому что ему надоело бить током собачек, характеризует уровень и автора, и книги.
Самое смешное, что сам Мартин Селигман как раз пишет о том, что действительно помогает в жизни, но основываясь на научных исследованиях и обосновывая ими же свою позицию. А здесь одно предположение, что депрессия, оказывается, возникает, потому что у человека внутри ничего нет...
Ну, у автора может и нет, раз он посвящает страницы собственной книги разборкам с заметившими его некомпетентность коллегами. Читайте лучше Селигмана, Чиксентмихайи или хоть «Тонкое искусство пофигизма», там хоть автор не такое унылое это самое.

[Glenda · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked learning more about Stoic philosophy. I agree deeply with the author's contention that our accelerated society is a problem. But, I found it took a superficial, lay approach to much of the analysis and discourse.

For me, it lacked focus. I took particular offense at the light and sometimes inaccurate portrayal of the "self-help" remedies it argues against. In particular, the author did not seem to understand serious meditation and mindfulness practices (which generally have nothing to do with "finding yourself", and may actually be closer to the Stoic philosophies than he may care to admit). I found it seemed quite self-indulgent and not so helpful when he fell into a series of book reviews for his recommended reading.

I do hope this helps to start a dialogue on the topic of our accelerating culture and how to bring some balance and moderation to this.

[Silje · Rating 2 out of 5]

I udgangspunktet meget vigtigt indspil i en afpoliticeret og navlebeskuende samfundsdebat. Fokus på at man skal tage etiske standpunkt og holde fast i at der er rigtigt og galt er absolut påtrængt. Dog synes jeg ikke at tage stoikerne som værdigrundlag at argumentere ud fra, er nødvendigt. Der er forskellige måder at komme frem til at det altid vil være bedre at være en uautentisk Mor Teresa end en autentisk Anders Breivik på. Fokus udad bør skabe debat om samfundets indretning, hvordan vi skal finde andre til at ivaretage det tomrum coaches, psykologer og livsstilsguruer fylder i dag efter vi har forladt kirken. Hvad Brinkmand siger i intro til bogen er meget rigtigt. Det er bare ikke meget mere at hente i de næste syv kapitler...

[Jasmin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jaa joo, jeg er ikke så begejstret som jeg havde håbet. Det er ovenud forfriskende, at forfatteren griber fat i vore tids udviklingstrang, og får os til at bremse op, og forholde os kritisk til den! Jeg tager gode konkrete aha-oplevelser med mig.
Forfatternes argumentationsform er dog for påduttende og poppet for min smag. Forfatteren problematiserer vore tids udviklingstrang og kultur i sin ekstreme form, og kommer med denne agenda til selv at fremstille en ekstrem og karikeret modsætning, som han mener vi bør stræbe efter. Jeg tror denne ekstreme form er et valg fra forfatternes side, men jeg synes det bliver unuanceret, og det fungere ganske enkelt ikke for mig.

[Maria · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fyndig och tänkvärd läsning av en dansk psykolog som visar att det går att stanna av även i vår tids accelererande livsstil med ständiga krav på utveckling, förändring och lycka. Format som en självhjälpsbok i 7 steg trots att det egentligen är en antisjälvhjälpsbok.

Humoristiskt och läsvärt om den dominerande och individualiserade hamsterhjulskulturen!