Heather’s review of The Courage to Be Disliked: How to Free Yourself, Change Your Life and Achieve Real Happiness > Likes and Comments
1415 likes · Like
The social engineering bit — yes!!!
I have not finished it yet, but the logic does seem a bit surpassed.
Having read many Buddhist texts, as well as contemporary philosophy, I can say that it does fall a bit short of the mark.
Superb comment Heather. Can you recommend a technical book on Buddhism? Or one you like in general.
It seems those old, white men like Adler have committed so many crimes!
You should give the book a chance to be finished
Tom wrote: "Superb comment Heather. Can you recommend a technical book on Buddhism? Or one you like in general."
The Lost Art of Compassion by Lorne Ladner if you're more interested in the practical aspects you can use to improve mental health.
Frank wrote: "It seems those old, white men like Adler have committed so many crimes!"
I mean, yeah, a lot of them did. lol But the issue I was speaking about in this review is more that they don't understand what it's like not to have certain privileges so they have blind spots when giving personal development advice.
Thank you for this review. Seeing this and a few others that say similar things, I think I will pass on the book. Thanks for the heads-up!
I just finished it and it had a section on this way of thinking that could be worth checking out. My understanding was that he didn't down play the difficulties people face, but rather wanted to emphasise action instead of the potential stagnation found in victimhood. This is a very psychologically healthy thing to do.
I couldn't even get far enough to even agree or disagree with you, I didnt like the style it was written in at the start. Though to be fair that's my own personal preference, kinda glad I gave up after a few pages reading this 😅
Cant agree more 😌, when i start read it im just done .. its make me really sad this book.. bcs my feelings are valid u know
What biological and psychological research are you referring to?. Scientifically, emotions of fear and anxiety involve the amygdala and limbic system and involve neural circuitry. Fear extinction involves a learning experience. So neurons can respond to conditioning. In fact, ACT, acceptance commitment theory, is used by the national center for PTSD as a conditioning tool to accept unpleasant emotions and defuse them or change the relationship with them.. How is this socratic dialogue and meditation on Alderian psychology and these ideas so dated?
I have finished the book and I can understand where your hate is coming from, the book started talking about a person's way of thinking and I too felt off but there will be an explanation in the middle of it. perhaps give it another try if your time permits.
Pity you didn’t finish the book. You would have got more out of it. Adler was Jewish by the way and was persecuted by the Nazis. Hence he emigrated.
Oh good I thought I was the only one not raving about this book. I just crawled past the halfway point and hate every minute of it.
Yet We listen to Freud. This is just sad. Why did you Review it or rather read it when in fact you weren't going to read it because "it's click-bait." Like someone said you missed the big picture. We all have conflicts with the book. I liked the book. The point of non fiction is precisely that. To not agree with everything. But you didn't even read it and gave it one star. This book has looked at life from a different perspective and that's exactly what the book talks about. I am hurt, I am upset but I would move on because the courage to be disliked is hard.
You missed the point entirely as you didn’t read the book! The Japanese author never discounted emotions, but rather explained WHY to think, rather than emote?!?!?Your review really does just prove his point....
Buddhism is right in line with this book and recommends taking responsibility for one's own life. The confusion comes in distinguishing between responsibility and compassion/empathy. No is saying that victim is to blame for the things that happened to them. You have misread this book. What is being said is that whatever the cause, a person aware of their own power is in the greatest position to improve their life. Also, we are all victims in the way you mean the word. All have been hurt; all have suffered. If you really understand Buddhism, then there is no way that you could miss this.
I am not sure if you're responding to me or others.
I also found this book difficult to finish (I did though) and almost wished I hadn’t given it more time. I learned one thing that resonated with me, so I won’t go as far to say I hated it or that it was useless but based on what people say about it, I was expecting to be blown away. I feel like a lot of it was repetitive and didn’t go deep enough in explaining topics or expanding on them thoroughly.
I’m also biased because I don’t like reading books formatted in dialogue- I think I would’ve been more receptive to the teachings in an essay format.
The book is a tough read. I am still half way through and feel it’s a bit too much. Perhaps because of the translation of the content itself is tough to relate to. Still going to finish it to see if I change my mind afterwards.
Agree, also as a Buddhist, I can feel a lot buddhism in the book. I would recommend for those who think they are intellectual and have time limitations, just go straightforward to study buddhism. It will worth your time.
Are you ok? Did you just compare BLM Laura to a book review? Are you ok? Or did the HELP not come today. F**kd up seriously 😳😑😑
Funny how you were able to insert a little bit of your sexism and racism in there. I agree that we can't think our way out of everything and there are physiological limitation we have to work with, but we aren't helpless victims to our biology and life experience either.
This is exactly what I was wondering. I’ve only just started the book and feel uncertain I want to continue. Based on what I’ve read so far, the ideas in the book have their merit - this is basically the emotional framework that I was taught growing up - but I don’t think the book will meet the needs of where I am now in my life. To claim that trauma doesn’t actually exist and that we all just choose our emotions — I can understand how these concepts may be useful for many people, but if this book is more of what I’ve heard already, I think I won’t continue. Thank you to all who have read the book and confirmed that this is the case. Accepting trauma doesn’t mean that one doesn’t take responsibility for their actions and just sits in victimhood. Real trauma is generally also not something that you just think and accept your way out of. This book seems overly simple and (if anyone can confirm) seems to dismiss the work of people like Bessel van der Kolk on what trauma is and how these ideas don’t actually address anything related to the nervous system.
I have not read any books regarding Freud. Freud theory of trauma does exist helps us know our self better. And Adler courage is the choice u gonna make. Freud dwells the past so that we can understand ourselves better , Adler is a person who encourage us to live our desired psychological future. No one is wrong here. I think by knowing ourselves more and accept ourselves and take a courageous step forward is the way
Your first claim regarding the psychological research is really useless here because you didn't critique any of the psychological claims that are presented in the book, you're just talking. Do you think that's useful?
Second, not every circle is a "circular argument". I didn't read the entire book, but what you wrote in your comment is not a circular argument, it could simply mean that people choose their goals because of emotions, and then justify their goals using emotions. Where's the circular argument? That's in fact not even an argument, it's a claim. It's more of a premise than an actual argument that contains premises.
Third, after I saw what you wrote below I just immediately decided to keep reading the book. "White people are bad! This book is written by the author because he wants to justify his privileged position!"... Like gosh, can't you ever seperate politics from other topics? Since your two critiques above are so weak, and you wrote this, I can conclude easily that the reason why you rated this book a single star is because it doesn't align with your political beliefs, so you're looking for whatever you can find that appears to disprove the claims of the book.
This reads exactly as someone who didn’t read the whole book. I had the same reservations. People shouldn’t be allowed to review a book they have not finished. The arguments presented are exponential. It’s very dry and repetitive at the beginning but really picks up speed towards the middle half into the end. Nasty review.
I believe a psychology book is supposed to stimulate one's own thoughts. From your rant I think you have not allowed yourself to let the book's ideas in, so you couldn't even begin to contemplate them.
I also don't think one needs to agree with the ideas to gain useful insights - that is one's own thoughts as a result of processing what's read.
Laura wrote: "I hate the fact, that the value of the researches of Adler seems to be less worth just because he is „white“ and a „man“. (Your words)
This is clearly racism against white people and I don‘t accept critic based on skin color or gender…"
Agreed!
This is a completely biased review and a misleading one which is spreading misinformation. You should learn how to read a book first before starting to review it.
I’m confused about the bait and switch you’re talking about. Is it because the authors are Japanese or that the book was a bestseller in Japan that you expected it to be about eastern philosophy entirely? Like Japanese people can’t be interested in or write about things beyond what outsiders perceive to be their cultural confines?
It seems like your goal is to dislike the book, so you choose to not understand it. We do, in fact, select emotions based on a goal. Check out "How Emotions are Made" by Lisa Barrett.
That was the only concrete objection you had.
I have also just started the book but I disagree so far with you… I use to have a mindset like you but I completely changed because We can’t unsee the things we have seen… being a victim is separate thing from victim mentality… the whole experience and outlook is different… and even theory of evolution suggests that WE DO everything for survival, even love and have children… it is memory since we were just cells… and emotions, negative or positive, are also to safeguard us…
So someone who truly wants to be empowered and not want to give in to evolutionary reactions of the wild to modern (relatively safer problems) would try to take more control and agency over their own mind instead of giving in to the status quo they have believed in so far.
Pretty sure ACT and other newer cognitive behavioral therapies preach roughly the same thing. That is: act from values and having some sense of purpose. At most a minor warning to someone who lacks good coping skills and may feel invalidated by the book to further double down on "denying trauma" as it recommend to themselves.
Generally useful concepts, but it looks like most reviewers can't be bothered for their victimology narratives to be disrupted by a lesser known father of modern psychology. Of course, as with the bulk of similar reviews, plenty of false equivalence between whitenss and meriotocracy. Gotta keep that victim narrative going, I suppose.
People in the comments seem to have an issue with the ‘white men’ comment, but I agree. Reading it is also thought ‘white men’ and was proven right. It already starts off in the first chapter where it’s constantly gendered. It is he, men, etc. ‘Everyone’ is a he is this book. the writer doesn’t seem to take other identities into account, that alter worldviews, like gender, disability, etc.
This comment is so biased. I feel like you did not understand the book fully.
If you haven’t read the book then your review is on what you think the book is about. Your assumptions can be wrong, try not to judge a book by its cover
You are just like the Youth in this book. It’s time you give the philosopher a visit.
You had me until the last paragraph. To the degree Buddhism holds up better to science than this book, for starters, is probably a pretty low bar to hurdle. Second, Buddhism ultimately is a religion, not a psychology, and like others, has metaphysical principles, etc ...
Great review. I'm 2/3 through this book...I'll finish it because I'm so close. Total bait and switch.
Thank you for this review @Heather!
I was excited to read this book, but I have only just started and got to "trauma isn't real" and didn't know if I could go on. So I came here to see if it was worth it and I can see it's just going to be more of the same now! No thanks!
back to top
message 1:
by
mmmm
(new)
Jul 16, 2019 05:46AM
The social engineering bit — yes!!!
reply
|
flag
I have not finished it yet, but the logic does seem a bit surpassed.Having read many Buddhist texts, as well as contemporary philosophy, I can say that it does fall a bit short of the mark.
Superb comment Heather. Can you recommend a technical book on Buddhism? Or one you like in general.
It seems those old, white men like Adler have committed so many crimes!
You should give the book a chance to be finished
Tom wrote: "Superb comment Heather. Can you recommend a technical book on Buddhism? Or one you like in general."The Lost Art of Compassion by Lorne Ladner if you're more interested in the practical aspects you can use to improve mental health.
Frank wrote: "It seems those old, white men like Adler have committed so many crimes!"I mean, yeah, a lot of them did. lol But the issue I was speaking about in this review is more that they don't understand what it's like not to have certain privileges so they have blind spots when giving personal development advice.
Thank you for this review. Seeing this and a few others that say similar things, I think I will pass on the book. Thanks for the heads-up!
I just finished it and it had a section on this way of thinking that could be worth checking out. My understanding was that he didn't down play the difficulties people face, but rather wanted to emphasise action instead of the potential stagnation found in victimhood. This is a very psychologically healthy thing to do.
I couldn't even get far enough to even agree or disagree with you, I didnt like the style it was written in at the start. Though to be fair that's my own personal preference, kinda glad I gave up after a few pages reading this 😅
Cant agree more 😌, when i start read it im just done .. its make me really sad this book.. bcs my feelings are valid u know
What biological and psychological research are you referring to?. Scientifically, emotions of fear and anxiety involve the amygdala and limbic system and involve neural circuitry. Fear extinction involves a learning experience. So neurons can respond to conditioning. In fact, ACT, acceptance commitment theory, is used by the national center for PTSD as a conditioning tool to accept unpleasant emotions and defuse them or change the relationship with them.. How is this socratic dialogue and meditation on Alderian psychology and these ideas so dated?
I have finished the book and I can understand where your hate is coming from, the book started talking about a person's way of thinking and I too felt off but there will be an explanation in the middle of it. perhaps give it another try if your time permits.
Pity you didn’t finish the book. You would have got more out of it. Adler was Jewish by the way and was persecuted by the Nazis. Hence he emigrated.
Oh good I thought I was the only one not raving about this book. I just crawled past the halfway point and hate every minute of it.
Yet We listen to Freud. This is just sad. Why did you Review it or rather read it when in fact you weren't going to read it because "it's click-bait." Like someone said you missed the big picture. We all have conflicts with the book. I liked the book. The point of non fiction is precisely that. To not agree with everything. But you didn't even read it and gave it one star. This book has looked at life from a different perspective and that's exactly what the book talks about. I am hurt, I am upset but I would move on because the courage to be disliked is hard.
You missed the point entirely as you didn’t read the book! The Japanese author never discounted emotions, but rather explained WHY to think, rather than emote?!?!?Your review really does just prove his point....
Buddhism is right in line with this book and recommends taking responsibility for one's own life. The confusion comes in distinguishing between responsibility and compassion/empathy. No is saying that victim is to blame for the things that happened to them. You have misread this book. What is being said is that whatever the cause, a person aware of their own power is in the greatest position to improve their life. Also, we are all victims in the way you mean the word. All have been hurt; all have suffered. If you really understand Buddhism, then there is no way that you could miss this.
I am not sure if you're responding to me or others.
I also found this book difficult to finish (I did though) and almost wished I hadn’t given it more time. I learned one thing that resonated with me, so I won’t go as far to say I hated it or that it was useless but based on what people say about it, I was expecting to be blown away. I feel like a lot of it was repetitive and didn’t go deep enough in explaining topics or expanding on them thoroughly. I’m also biased because I don’t like reading books formatted in dialogue- I think I would’ve been more receptive to the teachings in an essay format.
The book is a tough read. I am still half way through and feel it’s a bit too much. Perhaps because of the translation of the content itself is tough to relate to. Still going to finish it to see if I change my mind afterwards.
Agree, also as a Buddhist, I can feel a lot buddhism in the book. I would recommend for those who think they are intellectual and have time limitations, just go straightforward to study buddhism. It will worth your time.
Are you ok? Did you just compare BLM Laura to a book review? Are you ok? Or did the HELP not come today. F**kd up seriously 😳😑😑
Funny how you were able to insert a little bit of your sexism and racism in there. I agree that we can't think our way out of everything and there are physiological limitation we have to work with, but we aren't helpless victims to our biology and life experience either.
This is exactly what I was wondering. I’ve only just started the book and feel uncertain I want to continue. Based on what I’ve read so far, the ideas in the book have their merit - this is basically the emotional framework that I was taught growing up - but I don’t think the book will meet the needs of where I am now in my life. To claim that trauma doesn’t actually exist and that we all just choose our emotions — I can understand how these concepts may be useful for many people, but if this book is more of what I’ve heard already, I think I won’t continue. Thank you to all who have read the book and confirmed that this is the case. Accepting trauma doesn’t mean that one doesn’t take responsibility for their actions and just sits in victimhood. Real trauma is generally also not something that you just think and accept your way out of. This book seems overly simple and (if anyone can confirm) seems to dismiss the work of people like Bessel van der Kolk on what trauma is and how these ideas don’t actually address anything related to the nervous system.
I have not read any books regarding Freud. Freud theory of trauma does exist helps us know our self better. And Adler courage is the choice u gonna make. Freud dwells the past so that we can understand ourselves better , Adler is a person who encourage us to live our desired psychological future. No one is wrong here. I think by knowing ourselves more and accept ourselves and take a courageous step forward is the way
Your first claim regarding the psychological research is really useless here because you didn't critique any of the psychological claims that are presented in the book, you're just talking. Do you think that's useful? Second, not every circle is a "circular argument". I didn't read the entire book, but what you wrote in your comment is not a circular argument, it could simply mean that people choose their goals because of emotions, and then justify their goals using emotions. Where's the circular argument? That's in fact not even an argument, it's a claim. It's more of a premise than an actual argument that contains premises.
Third, after I saw what you wrote below I just immediately decided to keep reading the book. "White people are bad! This book is written by the author because he wants to justify his privileged position!"... Like gosh, can't you ever seperate politics from other topics? Since your two critiques above are so weak, and you wrote this, I can conclude easily that the reason why you rated this book a single star is because it doesn't align with your political beliefs, so you're looking for whatever you can find that appears to disprove the claims of the book.
This reads exactly as someone who didn’t read the whole book. I had the same reservations. People shouldn’t be allowed to review a book they have not finished. The arguments presented are exponential. It’s very dry and repetitive at the beginning but really picks up speed towards the middle half into the end. Nasty review.
I believe a psychology book is supposed to stimulate one's own thoughts. From your rant I think you have not allowed yourself to let the book's ideas in, so you couldn't even begin to contemplate them.I also don't think one needs to agree with the ideas to gain useful insights - that is one's own thoughts as a result of processing what's read.
Laura wrote: "I hate the fact, that the value of the researches of Adler seems to be less worth just because he is „white“ and a „man“. (Your words)This is clearly racism against white people and I don‘t accept critic based on skin color or gender…"
Agreed!
This is a completely biased review and a misleading one which is spreading misinformation. You should learn how to read a book first before starting to review it.
I’m confused about the bait and switch you’re talking about. Is it because the authors are Japanese or that the book was a bestseller in Japan that you expected it to be about eastern philosophy entirely? Like Japanese people can’t be interested in or write about things beyond what outsiders perceive to be their cultural confines?
It seems like your goal is to dislike the book, so you choose to not understand it. We do, in fact, select emotions based on a goal. Check out "How Emotions are Made" by Lisa Barrett. That was the only concrete objection you had.
I have also just started the book but I disagree so far with you… I use to have a mindset like you but I completely changed because We can’t unsee the things we have seen… being a victim is separate thing from victim mentality… the whole experience and outlook is different… and even theory of evolution suggests that WE DO everything for survival, even love and have children… it is memory since we were just cells… and emotions, negative or positive, are also to safeguard us… So someone who truly wants to be empowered and not want to give in to evolutionary reactions of the wild to modern (relatively safer problems) would try to take more control and agency over their own mind instead of giving in to the status quo they have believed in so far.
Pretty sure ACT and other newer cognitive behavioral therapies preach roughly the same thing. That is: act from values and having some sense of purpose. At most a minor warning to someone who lacks good coping skills and may feel invalidated by the book to further double down on "denying trauma" as it recommend to themselves. Generally useful concepts, but it looks like most reviewers can't be bothered for their victimology narratives to be disrupted by a lesser known father of modern psychology. Of course, as with the bulk of similar reviews, plenty of false equivalence between whitenss and meriotocracy. Gotta keep that victim narrative going, I suppose.
People in the comments seem to have an issue with the ‘white men’ comment, but I agree. Reading it is also thought ‘white men’ and was proven right. It already starts off in the first chapter where it’s constantly gendered. It is he, men, etc. ‘Everyone’ is a he is this book. the writer doesn’t seem to take other identities into account, that alter worldviews, like gender, disability, etc.
This comment is so biased. I feel like you did not understand the book fully.
If you haven’t read the book then your review is on what you think the book is about. Your assumptions can be wrong, try not to judge a book by its cover
You are just like the Youth in this book. It’s time you give the philosopher a visit.
You had me until the last paragraph. To the degree Buddhism holds up better to science than this book, for starters, is probably a pretty low bar to hurdle. Second, Buddhism ultimately is a religion, not a psychology, and like others, has metaphysical principles, etc ...
Great review. I'm 2/3 through this book...I'll finish it because I'm so close. Total bait and switch.
Thank you for this review @Heather! I was excited to read this book, but I have only just started and got to "trauma isn't real" and didn't know if I could go on. So I came here to see if it was worth it and I can see it's just going to be more of the same now! No thanks!
