The Courage to Be Disliked: How to Free Yourself, Change your Life and Achieve Real Happiness

I listened to the audiobook, which made the Socratic Dialogue feel like a podcast, and would recommend the format.

As for the contents of the book, it appears to be a good generalist entry to Adler; a psychologist I hadn't heard of before. With an overview that noted his philosophy was the underpinning of other self-help gurus, I went in skeptical. But there are elements I found compelling. As an example, he discriminates between the teleological (fated from the past) and etiological when discussing a person's barriers towards achieving happiness. This feels less fatalistic and provides more agency in the here-and-now than many psychologies, which seem more rooted in determinism.

I'm also not sure the book offers much in the way of practical solutions. As an example, he notes that in a parent/child relationship, it is ultimately the responsibility of the child to want to study and perform well in school; the parent is simply there to encourage, but cannot take on that responsibility themselves. But practically, what is to be done if the child doesn't want to study? There's a tenant of "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" that feels hard to square with the realities of any relationship.

All in all I enjoyed the book and would be interested in a deeper look into whether contemporary psychologists incorporate any of Adler's ideas. It certainly feels like a foundation I'd prefer to stand on than Freudian psychoanalysis, but I'm not well versed enough in either to make judgement calls.

If you attack trauma, PTSD, self-harm and say it doesn't exist, that it is for attention and that it is all rather silly and all you excuse it with is the "I'm a philosopher, so I approach psychology from a philosophical standpoint", then you need to add some more words to your claims.

Individual psychology, as the philosopher constantly leans up against, excuses itself by not being that well-known now due to "if the psychology is well-known, the person behind it ceases to exist" kind of deal. It all sounds like pseudoscience, backing up with little but anecdotal examples. The claims are not testiable.

The book should have just gone away with the pretense of being about psychology, and rather be more philosophical in how to approach life and certain situations.

When you peel away that constant "I am right, you are wrong" narration, the book has some decent ideas but you really have to pull the rug away from the narrator and approach the entire book with a great deal of skepticisim, in order to get through it - which was exhausting to me.