I've just finished reading 'Your Survival Instinct is Killing You", by Dr. Marc Schoen. Let me preface this review by saying that I have a Ph.D. in Management, and am well-versed in common terminology in habit theory, the science of stress, and decision-making. I do not say this intending for readers to agree with my on an appeal to authority, but rather just to provide a foundation on which to base my critique.
I felt the general thesis of this book is fair: As a result of modern conveniences, we now live in a world where we are becoming less tolerant to discomfort. When this discomfort inevitably arises in our lives, our "survival instinct" sets in, leading to fear and panic. The book seeks to train individuals to better manage this discomfort, if even to avoid some forms of it altogether.
Part 1 of the book discusses the origins of discomfort, while Part 2 is the more self-help techniques offered by Dr. Schoen. I'll critique each part separately, for they are grounded in different issues.
PART ONE:
I was generally annoyed that this part committed such an atomistic fallacy. Too many case studies were used to draw general theoretical conclusions about the nature of discomfort. For instance, on p. 78 we are told that people "turn to medication, alcohol, and avoidant behaviors to deal with fear". Well, in some cases medication IS valuable, but the tone is such that everyone is overusing meds to deal with fear, as per your later disclaimer in Part 2 which backs off this claim a bit, p. 166 (Note: I am seriously curious if the publisher required that disclaimer be put in before press). Rather than these cases, a stronger argument from theory and scientific findings would bolster the lead-in to later assertions. But these things are lumped together as poor coping mechanisms. Some are, no doubt, but medicine does have it's place as valuable, just as it's unfair to also lump the discomfort of panic attack sufferers along with those of obese people seeking food to manage discomfort. Yet alas, readers may relate more to the stories and metaphors, and to the layperson "theory" has somehow become a pejorative synonym for "probably untrue". The book is 231 pages of what could be said in 50. Example (p. 49): "the more agitance we feel, the more out of sync we become with our inner and outside worlds. And the more out of sync we become, the greater level of misalignment." This reeks of tautology (i.e. this phrase is true by definition because agitance IS misalignment).
My next issue was what felt like a tone of narcissism and shameless self-promotion by the author. We are given numerous new terminology throughout the book, which I found confusing and unscientific. The author frequently says "what I call _______", when common terminology would certainly suffice, unless he can sufficiently argue for a different definition. Come on!: Agitance and Discomfort and Misalignment are the same thing (so the cycle of agitance seems weird)! Resonance is Comfort or Balance. Let Down Effect? Cozy Paradox? Lecturing Your Emotions (is this possible?)? Conditioned Powerlessness (i.e. learned helplessness)? Brain Community? Inner Core State of Balance? This is either pseudoscience nonsense, or already has a scientific basis, but the author prefers his own new terms. The Schoen Breathing Technique is called "Deep breathing and holding your breath at the top and bottom". The agitance checklist even feels impossible not to score highly on. First, a 33% yes score means you're in the danger zone. I won't copy questions out of his possible propriety, but uncertainty avoidance is too common (and also is in other existing measures...) I found it too bold a claim that this Survivalist Strategy of the 21st Century (which seems none other than to boost my self-efficacy, or to learn to enjoy discomfort) should somehow be more beneficial than scientifically-supported findings of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and the like.
Chapter 4 was just a very weird shift to a biochemical discussion of the "survival instinct", with impressive medical discussion about dopamine regulation and this and that. Despite this discussion, I am forced to ask: is this book REALLY about a survival instinct? What IS the survival instinct? I feel we never got a clear understanding of this, other than thinking of it as getting a panic attack from a cusp-catastrophe of discomfort. To be clear, the book is about discomfort and managing that, not managing your survival instinct itself. However, Part 2 speaks too openly about retraining your limbic system--which is unconscious, by the way--and finding harmony by making your brain work together. I'm jumping the gun on this section, but the science is too thin and the foundation of these claims too precarious to start a sound argument, though I agree with the ultimate point. (jenga)
Ch. 5: I'll define habits as repeated patterns of learned behavior. I don't really think there are Sick Habits, and an Insomnia Habit is just called insomnia. and protective/avoidance habits are phobias, not habits. I feel like medicine is really given short-shift here, where the author frequently gives examples of medicinal abuse (which no doubt, is true for many), but shouldn't be foregone in favor of willpower alone. I think many manage fear poorly, but the argument for willpower alone was disconcerting--and likely ineffective for many.
This leads me to PART TWO:
The contribution of this book NEEDS to be: what are some viable techniques to manage this growing (or lowered tolerance of) discomfort in our lives?
My main problem with some of recommendations is that many have unfounded bases on which to build arguments. If we can change our discomfort, we should be good, right? We just have to change our emotions by lowering our agitance, or by managing it (p. 132). I like some of the points to manage our comfort, but 15 points should really be like six (seriously, point 12 is the exact same as points 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 14, while some points are just weird, like 9 [well, just don't get agitated!]; same for the later list in Ch.10, and in an earlier list about conditioning...smh, pairing IS association). Moreover, many are just common knowledge, like other reviewers note (breathe, exercise, limit the amount of time spent on technology). I don't think we can control our limbic brain as simply as the author suggests, and the limits of willpower to manage truly stressful situations--beyond those that are just challenges. Neuroplasticity is an interesting field, but Dr. Schoen *REALLY* stretches to the malleability of many predispositions. But hey, self-help books can't profit unless people think they can make easy changes. I just wish there were a closer connection between the scientific findings presented, and the application Dr. Schoen makes to the concept of consciously managing discomfort for positive results. The jump from those studies to his assertions was too wide for me.
The point is, some events are **predisposed, chemical imbalances** to the way we live our life, imbalances that require professional and medicinal attention. Ultimately I would recommend many of these tools like breathing and yoga and tech-fasts, but this book shouldn't be considered a catch-all solution, and certainly we shouldn't think it so easy to really change our habits and just FEEL THE OPPOSITE! or EMBRACE IT! whenever we do feel discomfort. I don't think it's impossible, but more discussion of the fine-grained habitual changes in our life should be discussed, rather than redundancies, or trying to convince us--and weakly in my opinion--that we can consciously alter our brain physiology. Example: Simply because a study finds amygdala size is associated with social network size, doesn't mean increasing my social network size will increase my amygdala size. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
CONCLUSIONS:
I agree that discomfort is an issue with our lives, and books like The Shallows and Amusing Ourselves to Death have made that point more clear with regard to our attention and it's relation to digital technology use. The tools suggested here, like "don't use technology if technology is keeping you wired at night", are nothing new. Though I did think some points are valuable, it takes until Part 2 to really get to the meat, especially given that I think the scientific arguments offered in Part 1 were a bit loosely connected, and based on case studies and conjecture rather than theory. Don't think that the techniques offered here are going to be the quick fix you seek, because such a thing doesn't exist, and reinforces his point about instant gratification. If you want to change your agitance, change your habits causing your agitance. Follow some steps in this book on the habitual changes to make. But to start setting better habits (and don't shirk this point, because habits are HARD to change), I would start by reading The Slight Edge, by Jeff Olson, which helps you to really work on getting to the core of changing your habits first. And as the author concedes in the end, simply because many people do overuse medications to get a short-term fix (leaving the underwater iceberg untouched), there is still value in professional help and many people do need medicine to deal with anxiety/discomfort. But if you are willing to work hard and fundamentally change how you approach situations, this book offers a couple good pointers.