Scan barcode
sarasey1's review against another edition
4.0
Doing my best to speak from an "I" perspective, because this book seems to be so polarizing. Mostly this is for me to come back to one day, to jog my memory of what I felt while reading this.
This was recommended to me by a psychiatrist who mentored me during a medical school rotation. I hadn’t heard of Adlerian psychology, and I think there is a lot to be gained in understanding his work more, at least for me. A lot of the points weren’t easy to swallow on first listen, but I think its structure (a Socratic dialogue between a young scholar and old philosopher) gave me pleasant waves of nostalgia to my time in college taking an Intro to Philosophy, so I let myself fully buy into it, even if the wording and phrasing felt a little artificial or silly at times.
As with everything, no one thought is 100% right or right for everyone at a given point in time. Had I read this 5 years earlier or later, I may feel quite differently. There are threads that could be interpreted as "victim blaming," but I took these to mean that we are bigger than our pasts and our traumas, that we CAN take ownership over our situations and lives. What really resonated with me was the idea that etiology (vs teleology) and defining yourself (and thus your world) through the traumas you experienced can ultimately be deterministic and thus sort of a dead end. For me, it is really difficult to grow with that kind of mindset.
I also really loved the idea that true happiness/life fulfillment happens when we feel that we contribute to others WHILE ALSO maintaining our own freedom and remaining true to ourselves. This is distinct from being a people pleaser, where you may contribute but end up leaving no room for yourself. And contribution doesn't have to be material. It could simply be your presence, or the idea of your presence. It gives your worth back to you beyond, "what do you do for a living?". I think this is in line with the phrase "community feeling," which I also loved, although I don't know that I understand it enough to be able to explain it.
I’m glad to have read it at this point in my life and to add it to my toolbox of understanding of the world. It will definitely be something to revisit at another stage of my life.
This was recommended to me by a psychiatrist who mentored me during a medical school rotation. I hadn’t heard of Adlerian psychology, and I think there is a lot to be gained in understanding his work more, at least for me. A lot of the points weren’t easy to swallow on first listen, but I think its structure (a Socratic dialogue between a young scholar and old philosopher) gave me pleasant waves of nostalgia to my time in college taking an Intro to Philosophy, so I let myself fully buy into it, even if the wording and phrasing felt a little artificial or silly at times.
As with everything, no one thought is 100% right or right for everyone at a given point in time. Had I read this 5 years earlier or later, I may feel quite differently. There are threads that could be interpreted as "victim blaming," but I took these to mean that we are bigger than our pasts and our traumas, that we CAN take ownership over our situations and lives. What really resonated with me was the idea that etiology (vs teleology) and defining yourself (and thus your world) through the traumas you experienced can ultimately be deterministic and thus sort of a dead end. For me, it is really difficult to grow with that kind of mindset.
I also really loved the idea that true happiness/life fulfillment happens when we feel that we contribute to others WHILE ALSO maintaining our own freedom and remaining true to ourselves. This is distinct from being a people pleaser, where you may contribute but end up leaving no room for yourself. And contribution doesn't have to be material. It could simply be your presence, or the idea of your presence. It gives your worth back to you beyond, "what do you do for a living?". I think this is in line with the phrase "community feeling," which I also loved, although I don't know that I understand it enough to be able to explain it.
I’m glad to have read it at this point in my life and to add it to my toolbox of understanding of the world. It will definitely be something to revisit at another stage of my life.
xtinaji's review against another edition
2.0
Listened to this on audiobook, which I think enhanced the experience! The book is written like a Socrates-Plato dialogue, so actually hearing the two characters make their points made it feel a bit more convincing to me. That being said, I think what makes this book so popular is that it (1) distills Adlerian Psychology into one text and (2) was tailored for Japanese society. Not to say that it has takeaways that are specific and exclusive to Japan, but some of the examples the Youth mentions, and some of the social ailments (for example: NEETs and hikkikomoris), were pretty on the nose for who the intended audience was. This by no means retracts from the book's points, but I thought the cultural lens was a pretty critical part for how the book should be read.
The actual content itself is pretty digestible, and I think that ease of access/understanding is what makes a lot of the psychology references feel more approachable. It does a decent job of trying to explain its points in simple terms. However, I think they also made it a bit too casual - there's anecdotes and hypotheticals but not much else to support the ideals boasted here. I can agree with some of the perspective shifts that the book mentions, but without anything concrete or nuanced to hold onto, it does fall a bit flat for me. I wish the book tried harder to convince me of its philosophy. It pushes a lot under the rug to make its points. That, and with the pretty condescending tone, was the biggest turn off for me. I wouldn't go so far as to say it victim-blames as some reviews here say, but it definitely comes from a place of privilege.
Overall, it's a pretty engaging summary of Adlerian psychology, which is what I assume the writers set out to do in the first place. All in all, evocative title that also kinda sums up the entire book's message. Come with the expectation that this book might not ring as true for you, and that's okay.
The actual content itself is pretty digestible, and I think that ease of access/understanding is what makes a lot of the psychology references feel more approachable. It does a decent job of trying to explain its points in simple terms. However, I think they also made it a bit too casual - there's anecdotes and hypotheticals but not much else to support the ideals boasted here. I can agree with some of the perspective shifts that the book mentions, but without anything concrete or nuanced to hold onto, it does fall a bit flat for me. I wish the book tried harder to convince me of its philosophy. It pushes a lot under the rug to make its points. That, and with the pretty condescending tone, was the biggest turn off for me. I wouldn't go so far as to say it victim-blames as some reviews here say, but it definitely comes from a place of privilege.
Overall, it's a pretty engaging summary of Adlerian psychology, which is what I assume the writers set out to do in the first place. All in all, evocative title that also kinda sums up the entire book's message. Come with the expectation that this book might not ring as true for you, and that's okay.