Seeds of Interest

A couple years ago, on a visit to San Francisco, I met a close friend for dinner. We had a hearty conversation over tacos at an unassuming downtown restaurant, and caught up on each other's lives. Her earnestness in knowing how I was really doing was concomitant with what you'd expect from someone you haven't seen in a long time.

As much as I didn't want to complain about my everyday to her, I proceeded to belabor her with the details of all my problems back then. I did not want to come off as inauthentic; besides, I would rather spill my deepest secrets to her than deal with the awkwardness of sitting in silence. She recommended I read a book that she believed had fundamentally modified her way of thinking: “Courage To Be Disliked”.

That weekend, when I got back home to Houston, I got the book from a kitschy little local bookstore (a Barnes & Noble), but couldn't bring myself to actually take it seriously and read it; people close to me know how much I despise 'self-help' books, and this one's subtitle literally goes:

The Japanese Phenomenon That Shows You How to Change Your Life and Achieve Real Happiness

SIGH 🙄

I'm a judge-a-book-by-its-cover type of guy so I was apprehensive. Anyway, I gave it a chance weeks after it sat by my bedside table, and I found it to be a pleasantly entertaining read, with a non-standard conversational format and lucid writing. Apropos of the rather 'sensationalist' content, the applied psychology and underlying philosophy outlined and (over)generalized in the book felt rather fresh. To be fair, anything would sound fresh to a non-conformist who does not subscribe to convoluted ideology of the fundamental psychology kings (Freud, Jung et al.).

As I begin the new year 2025, I thought revisiting Introduction to Adlerian Psychology and The Courage to Be Disliked may be a great idea - now that 2025 has just begun, because in 2024, I achieved the best physical, mental, emotional and social state in my life (I did not need a "winter arc". I simply locked in much earlier). I'm penning down some of my thoughts and revisiting my notes in this post.

Core Principles of Adlerian Psychology

The Myth of Trauma

And the Rejection of Etiology

Adler and by extension, Kishimi, his Plato (read: resolute disciple), strongly reject trauma and the emphasis Freud places on it. The normative beliefs of past causality are brought to question - and they conclusively posit that past experiences DON'T determine our present. Yeah, it is fascinating, scandalous even, to downright deny trauma, and the shatter the concept of cause-effect from one's past on their life.

While I don't agree with the rigidity of that philosophy, I do think there is strong merit in these ideas, and the conclusion is definitely not specious - if it is, it's as specious as Freud or Jung. To be clear, though, they don't deny emotions or their validity. Is it not true that we, as a global society, have overused and diluted the word 'trauma' (see: trauma dump)? Or that we have placed too much emphasis on unpacking traumas by ruminating on them, feeling dejected, instead of learning to get over them? Or that we often conflate past unpleasant experiences that are a fundamental part of the human experience with trauma?

Going to the extreme and denying the idea of trauma means saying the past does not and should not affect your present. How do they support such a strong claim? They say:

Unhappiness is something YOU choose for yourself
- People choose not to change: we choose our behavior and emotions
We do not think about past "causes" but about present "goals"
- We make what fits our purpose
- The self is determined not by past experiences, but by the meaning we give to them
- An example used in the first few chapters frequently, is this: I can't fit into society because I was physically abused as a child -> I want to find a reason to be anti-social. Of course this is a simplification.
We go through life with subjective experiences that we ourselves give meaning and assign value to. This is why trying to define a singular definitive answer to the purpose and meaning of human life is futile.

Teleology v Etiology: Or What Do These Words Even Mean

Etiology is the study of causality. Modern psychologists and philosophers use it to discuss why humans are the way they are, based on the sum total of their past experiences, behaviors and traumas.

Teleology, as defined through antiquity, is the traditional way of understanding the human experience and behavior based on actions "toward a specific goal in the future". Teleology is a controversial idea, since it comes off as dismissive of past experiences. This is exactly what the authors elaborate on. They challenge the common therapeutic focus on childhood experiences as causality and etiology-based deterministic causes, and suggest that we tend to use these experiences to justify our choices in the present.

Example 1: Adult who was rejected as a child

Take for example, someone who experienced a self-recognized 'life-altering' rejection in their childhood. The etiological view would say:

Cause: childhood rejection Effect: now having trouble forming close relationships with people

The Adlerian perspective, teleologically suggests a literal backflip to this, with no determined 'cause-effect' relationship:

This person is actively or passively choosing to maintain distance in their current relationships and not putting in as much wholehearted effort into their potential relationships, not because of the past trauma they experienced, but to achieve their current goals:

to avoid vulnerability by proactively preventing being rejected in the future
to maintain a sense of control over their emotions, to feel more independent
to passively expect others to commit to them first to validate their own feelings

This is an incredible insight, and sure, the implication that we just seem to have it all wrong is not lost on me. I have my apprehensions but I do see some parallels in past Amey's way of thinking with this teleological perspective.

Example 2: Rich person who came from poverty

Take another example: someone who grew up poor is now hoarding their wealth with an unhealthy obsession - per etiology, their actions are informed by their past, but per Adlerian teleology, they are choosing this behavior to avoid the feeling of powerlessness and lack of security, therefore, it is absolutely possible for them to change their behaviors as an active choice.

Let's be clear here though: etiology is ancillary to trauma, and teleology's radical position is not that trauma doesn't exist, or that it isn't painful, but that our current behaviors are not determined by trauma. We can choose new behaviors at any time, regardless of our experiences in the past, because the behaviors we fall into are not trauma responses, but strategies toward our perceived and skewed goals to reduce similar bad experiences.

Wild, and a ridiculously heavy shift in the paradigm.

All Problems are Interpersonal Relationship Problems

One of the many ways this ideology rejects trauma is by positing that the root of all problems are interpersonal problems. Even when we are alone, humans exist in relationship to their communities, and by extension, the world. So what seem like personal problems are all related to how we associate with and are perceived by others in society.

Kishimi talks about the idea of life tasks - tasks that give your life your own meaning - and show how they are all based on relationships:

Occupational life tasks -> How we contribute to society (a bit abstract, but society here can be as contained as you want to think of it as)
Friendship -> How we relate to our community
Love -> How we form close bonds and intimate relationships
Self -> How we relate to ourselves as part of community and society; and how we act toward self-fulfillment.

The twist of reframing common problems as relationship problems goes like this:

Social anxiety is a strategy to avoid equality in relationships, not just a 'fear'
Perfectionism is a strategy to avoid judgement in relationships (personal or social), not just about holding yourself to some internal standards to prove something to yourself
Depressive thoughts often relate to the need for external care from your relationships (or lack thereof) and the control over the response you receive from others, not just moodiness

ALL problems? All of them? This is very counterintuitive and kind of weird to say, right? What about individual problems? These are the examples they provide for personal problems:

Someone who is anxious about public speaking is actually anxious about their position in relation to the audience, not the actual speech.
Someone who isn't able to get work done is struggling to meet their relationship with their community's expectations, not just motivation.
and so on.

Of course, again, these examples come off as reductive, and they may be, but the essential takeaway is the perspective shift from the internal self to external relationships in regard to how you associate your problems.

So the suggestion is to actually shift your view of everyday problems:

Task Separation

Focus on what is in your control and disregard what is not. Your task, is how you relate to others. It is the others' task to focus on how they respond to you. Since you do not have control over their reaction, there is no point in trying to ruminate over that. Most problems arise from interfering with others' tasks.

Personal Boundaries

Too much distance and too little distance between your relationships will both constrict interpersonal relationships. Now here the wise eponymous philosopher/professor in the book does lose me a bit, because he explicitly mentions the example of parents 'leaving their kids to figure out their life tasks by themselves' , which I disagree with. Additionally, it is a tightrope circus to find AND maintain such perfect personal boundaries with everyone at all times. IMO, that is the fundamental human experience - to fail and learn from it.

The Courage Trilogy

I'm summarizing the three core aspects of the book here.

The Courage to be Normal

To be normal is not about conforming to norms, but about accepting being 'good enough'. So your focus should be on reducing the emphasis you place on perfectionism and rejecting the incessant pursuit of any form of superiority. I do not take this as meaning you should not have high aspirations, or that you should be okay with being average (even though there are some hints to this in the book). Being "normal" requires more courage than being "special" because it means accepting yourself as sufficient, which is a hard life task, but worthwhile to pursue. Living for yourself is more fulfilling in the long term than exclusively and perpetually seeking recognition.

The Courage to be Happy

Happiness is defined differently in different schools of philosophy and psychology. Whatever that means to you, happiness is a choice in the present moment, not a destination to arrive after checking off every single task you need to complete (impossible difficulty). A person who maintains "I will be happy when I do X" is avoiding the choice of being happy right now. Solving every problem you have will never lead you to happiness, because there are always more problems, that is the essence of being human (this insight brought to you by Oliver Burkeman) [^1].

By admission of the author, happiness is hard to define, qualify and quantify at an individual level, so in my opinion, the phrase 'the choice to be happy' is loaded and hard to process.

The Courage to be Disliked

Living true to yourself means accepting that not everyone will like you. You can aim to be disliked by fewer people, but you can't take that number to zero. Moreover, people-pleasing is an active form of manipulation, not kindness, even when it may seem considerate because it is inherently ingratiating and at odds with your real personality. Freedom comes from accepting that being disliked is acceptable and inevitable, and sycophantic behaviors often just decrease your self-worth and self-respect.

What gives?

You as an individual are indivisible from your actions and behaviors. There is no Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation going on, no matter what you believe. There is a line here that Diane from Bojack Horseman says, when Bojack asks her if she thought he has a good person deep down, even though he consistently makes awful choices and has an extreme self-sabotaging personality, which supports this:

"That's the thing. I don't think I believe in deep down. I kinda think that all you are is just the things that you do."

Deep down - Diane Nguyen | BoJack Horseman - YouTube

What are the suggestions?

The suggestions toward happiness provided are very straightforward:

Community feeling and social interest -> these give a higher meaning to life

Contributing to society in even small ways, like volunteering at your local shelter, or participating in farmers' markets makes you feel the camaraderie of being part of something bigger than your limited self
Living in the here and now -> Experiencing your life right now, more fully, realizing every moment, with gratefulness and respect

Being yourself -> unapologetically, and disregarding extreme forms of validation

No competing -> As the thief of joy, as the saying goes.
- Problems invariably arise when you start viewing your relationships as hierarchical (more on this below). More clear goalposts are your own, and milestones are always subjective. Someone who lacked the motivation to do laundry in the past is still growing by choosing to do it, just as much as a researcher is by finally finishing their thesis, separately. Which brings them to the final point:

Horizontal and vertical relationships -> All humans have equal worth, and different attributes.

No one is 'above' or 'below' someone, and competition is unnecessary. This is horizontal thinking, and it is encouraged because your focus will shift on contribution instead of comparison, when you come to accept others' differences without ranking them. This also plays into the clear separation of tasks that we talked about.
- You need to avoid behaviors where you put others 'above' you, seeking praise or being sycophantic to the extreme. Superiority and inferiority complexes are rooted in power struggles and you start believing in the need to "win" in relationships. This is vertical thinking, that you want to identify and adopt behaviors to avoid.
- This can be done by
  - Clearly separating your tasks (how you relate and contribute) vs others (how they react and respond, which is out of your control).
  - Focusing on your contributions without expecting high praise
  - Accepting that others' achievements do not diminish yours
  - Viewing disagreement as differences instead of superiority/inferiority

Critiques and Limitations

As I touched on briefly, I find a few ideas from this book a bit less palatable than others for multiple reasons.

The authors are not adroit at using multiple analogies or examples. Often, they reuse the same example, perhaps to nail a point further, but at the risk of alienating readers who disagree with the premise in the first place.
- For example, they reference parent-child relationships by suggesting some radical child-rearing recommendations, very often, without considering the socio-cultural differences in raising children (the community is much more involved in childrens' lives in the global south than other regions).
- Another example is that the book seems to suggest all choices are conscious, which I disagree with because many behaviors may be deeply unconscious.
There seem to be some very rigid ideologies, though backed up with reasoning and sound philosophical intent, which comes off as a bit cultish, like tiktok stoicism. For example, the professor in the book suggests no praising, no refuting, only encouragement, in regard to maintaining relationships, which I just think is maximally absurd.
As the book prepares its main thesis in regard to etiology, even as the protagonist, an incredibly skeptical youth (that you are expected to relate with especially when informed of radical ideas like the denial of trauma) asks the right questions, the professor seems to take a reductive, oversimplified approach to explanations, to a fault. I get that the idea is to make cogent arguments without coming off as too pretentious and inaccessible, but, Socrates was simple and lucid as fuck too and he confused the hell out of people.
- Of course, this approach will not address severe mental illness, and fails to identify what qualifies as such, or even define a boundary between choices made actively as opposed to those caused by disorders.
While thoughtful, I found some concepts dismissive. I was not surprised to see similar arguments online, especially about the lack of socio-cultural and economic considerations.
- The emphasis placed on individual choice, for example, is deeply Western, and does not translate to non-Western cultures - often, non-Western societies prioritize collective harmony over individual authenticity (whether and to what degree this is problematic is not the point, rather, the exclusion of this is).
- For example, the concept of 'normal' is very different across societies, so adherence to it is dependent on that society.
There seems to be a huge gap between theory and praxis. Implementing the Adlerian way of thinking into everyday life can be extremely challenging even if you completely agree with it. It is ostensibly idealistic and works best when everyone adopts this school of thought, which is very unlikely. Knowing something is a choice, e.g., happiness, does not always make it easier to choose differently.

Some Takeaways and Observations

There are lots of parallels in the ideologies and philosophical foundations in Kishimi-Adlerian psychology with socialist ideals:
- The emphasis on community-driven behaviors as a solution to many psychological problems is valid and sound. Interdependence over rugged individualism is something I can get behind. This resonates with the change in the social zeitgeist over car culture and soul-crushing, mass-manufactured, homogenous suburbia amongst fellow Gen-Z and young millennials. The children yearn for the trains (and more methods of efficient public transportation) and walkable cities.
- Advocacy for egalitarian, horizontal relationships as the norm is a clear dismissal of power structures. Cooperation is better than competition, since competition fuels alienation and exploitation.
Past and future really don't exist.
- This is a very meaningful insight to hammer in why living for and in the current moment is so important. Your life is not the vacations you take, or the pictures you post on instagram, it is what you do on a random Tuesday evening after work, and if you are satisfied with yourself without having expectations or seeking validation from others, something that I live by.
The meaning of life is a pointless search
- You decide what gives it meaning. Or if it even has one. It is an individual pursuit, not something summed up in any psychology paper as a conclusion or in some neat ideology from a niche eastern European dude's notebook.
- Now this butts heads with Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl and so many other books that try to make sense of life assuming there is no room to accept the futility in that endeavor, but it is a valid point, because not everyone needs to have the same source of meaning in the first place.
Focus on community for fulfillment, happiness and purpose has persisted across cultures
- No matter what western ideals are today, historically, cultures have been cultivating social well-being through collective momentum over millennia.
Pastiche of multiple psychology schools is better than a single one, per the afterword:
- Grounded in the thought of Socrates and Plato and other ancient Greek philosophers
- "It is only in social contexts that a person becomes an individual" is Hegelian
- Similar to Nietzsche's ideology with the focus on subjective interpretation over objective truth
- Suggestions to Husserl and Heidegger are apparently abundant but I haven't familiarized myself with their work so I can't comment on that.
It is definitely not for the average, obstinate person to adopt this into everyday practice
- "Communal quarry for everyone to excavate from" as Kishimi says
- Take what works, and discard what doesn't from this, as the suggestion goes, is actually exactly how I am going about processing this book.
Psychology polemics may not accept this, but theory is equally valid as others and under-appreciated
- There is no reason for me to think Freud had more validity in his cocaine-induced writing benders than Adler and Kishimi's work here.
Building an ebullient picture of my current present becomes easy when I work to actively free myself of the claustrophobic prison of the past and the vertiginous open-endedness of the future. My personal principles and beliefs align well with the core thesis presented. Something I live by is that most people, most of the time, are mostly good, which is the premise for a lot of optimistic schools of thought.

Personal Rating

My final verdict is that this is 'transformative in some areas and oversimplified in others'.

Readability: 8/10 Substance: 7/10 Practicality: 7/10 Engagement: 8/10

Footnotes

[^1]: Oliver Burkeman, Four Thousand Weeks Time Management for Mortals

Kishimi-Adlerian Psychology