Manson argues against the standard positive-thinking self-help position, holding that the pursuit of constant positive experience is itself a negative experience and that accepting negative experience is a positive one. His central claim is that a person has a limited capacity to care and must choose deliberately what to spend it on rather than trying to care about everything or nothing.
His substantive positions include that problems never end and that the objective is better problems rather than fewer; that values determine which problems a person gets, so choosing bad values produces suffering regardless of success; that good values are reality-based, socially constructive and controllable while bad values are event-based, socially destructive and outside a person's control; that a person is always responsible for their response even when not at fault for the situation; that certainty is the enemy of growth and that a person should aim to be less wrong over time rather than right; and that the willingness to be rejected and to reject is what makes commitment meaningful.
He draws on Stoicism, on Buddhist ideas, on William James, on Ernest Becker's denial of death, and on his own experience.
The book contains no research and the profanity is a deliberate marketing device. The arguments are not original individually, and readers familiar with Stoicism will recognise most of them. The distinction between fault and responsibility, and the argument that values determine which problems you get, are stated more usefully here than in most sources. The tone will alienate a substantial number of readers by design.
Readers who reject conventional self-improvement writing and want Stoic and Buddhist positions restated bluntly.
No entry holds this book yet. It reached the reference because someone recommended it.
Chosen by shared topics, the entries that hold them, and the people who recommended both.