I'm of two minds about this book.
On one hand, I agree with a lot of what the author says: The positivity movement is weirdly condescending, fluffs peoples' egos beyond belief, and does make some people incredibly hyper-sensitive to criticism. I agree that there are some people who are so desperate for positivity and compliments and ego-fluffing that they overshare on social media or constantly seek validation from others.
I also greatly agreed with the idea that criticism and some degree of negativity are necessary for people to change and make themselves better; and that there are people who, when they say to "be positive" or "not negative", mean "please don't ever criticize me ever, and if you do, you're the bad guy".
The author made good points. The positivity movement has gone too far in a lot of ways, to the point where it's a detriment to people who rely to heavily on it.
But I didn't agree with everything, and there's a reason for that.
I'm a middle-ground person. I don't like extremes. That's part of the reason why the positivity movement makes me nauseous: I can't stand the constant, patronizing ego-boosting and the villainization of anyone who says anything remotely critical.
But I'm also not fond of people who use "I'm just being honest" as a shorthand for "if I've offended you because I said something really blunt, then you're just a baby who needs to get over themselves."
Like, in the beginning: Yes, there are parents who go way too far in protecting their children's feelings. But see, here's the thing: Every example used as a criticism (complimenting a child's sub-par drawing, celebrating because they used the toilet correctly) was just... I mean, its not portrayed very honestly?
As an adult, we look at a kid's drawing and go "Wow, that's terrible", because we're adults and we have a standard for art that's well-done and art that's not. I mean- what, do you expect your five year-old to be a Marvel cartoonist? Of course their drawing looks bad to an adult! THEY'RE FIVE! There is a DEVELOPMENT process that occurs with children: They don't come out of the womb painting like Monet!
It's called Positive Reinforcement. When a kid hears "Hey, you did a good job", it encourages them to keep doing it. And as they keep doing it, they begin to touch up on things: The stick-figure becomes more human-like, the dog gets spots and a collar instead of just being a blob on the page. A reasonable amount of positive reinforcement is what encourages kids to keep trying instead of giving up. It's the same thing with toilet-training: You give them positive feedback when they do it right because you WANT THEM TO KEEP DOING IT THAT WAY.
One of the things that bugged me in this book is that the author seems to willfully ignore or misinterpret basic things so he could make it out to be "THE CULT OF POSITIVITY GONE MAD". The stuff I mentioned above is BASIC SHIT for raising kids who don't want to kill themselves when they're teenagers; and you can spin it however you want, but if you tell a five year-old their drawing sucks, then you are an asshole of a person.
The author, I think in chapter two, says that negative reinforcement is what puts fire under you and encourages you to change- i.e. people telling you you're not good enough, that you'll never be anything, that you're worthless.
And see, for some people, that does work. But it doesn't work for everyone.
There are people who think that calling someone who's overweight a fat slob and making oinking sounds at them is "motivation" to make them lose weight. And there are people who have lost weight who say that that sort of harassment encouraged them to lose weight. But there are even more people who say that that sort of criticism pushes them into a depression and makes them eat even worse.
The author is pushing this idea that one-size fits all; and he doesn't seem especially interested in drawing a distinction between "criticism" and "actual, literal assholery".
At one point in the book he gives an example of someone who asks you how they look in their pants; and he implies that if the "honest" answer is "you look like crap" and the asker responds badly to that, then it's just their over-sensitivity coming out.
But... God, I'm sorry, but there's this thing called tact that you are more than capable of using if you want to answer a question honestly. If you say "how do these pants look on me" and someone responds with "you look like crap" then they're being a dick. There are people who use "I'm just being honest" as an excuse to be an asshole, and they really love playing it like anyone who reacts badly to them is just over-sensitive and can't take criticism.
Like I said before, there is a middle-ground. You can be honest without being a gigantic dick, and you can be positive about things without being completely unable to take any sort of criticism.
No matter how honest it is, not every piece of criticism you receive is valid. The author thinks you should take everything the 'haters' say about you and make yourself better- and THEN, after you have, you can tell them to fuck off if they're still coming after you.
But please, enlighten me- at what point do you know that you are the best person you can be? At what point do you stop, take a realistic look at yourself, and say, "Okay, look, I'm never going to be everything that these people say I SHOULD be, so I think maybe I need to start finding satisfaction with what I am now"? Because let me tell you: Opinions are like assholes, because everyone has them. And if you think being the "most amazing person ever" will stop the 'haters' from tearing you a new one, then trust me, you're in for a shock. Someone will ALWAYS find fault with who and what you are, and there IS value in putting your foot down and saying, "Okay, enough of this, I am actually okay the way I am and y'all can go to hell."
The problem is that this book pushes the opposite extreme of the positivity movement: It's pushing this idea that negativity is the ONLY way you can change yourself for the better, and that by indulging in any sort of positivity (because, you know, god forbid anybody have a shitty life and maybe want something good every now and then) is going to destroy you.
It plays this idea that 'positivity' does not encourage you to work harder or make yourself better, but instead to accept mediocrity- which I disagree with on the idea that what counts as 'positivity' for one person could be very different for someone else. You don't know what kind of 'positivity' a person could be embracing: It could be 'hey, I have a great job that I love, and even if it doesn't make me a millionaire I'm happy where I am' or 'hey, I may not be a supermodel, but I have a spouse who thinks I'm gorgeous and I don't feel the need to change my body to fit a standard'. Is that so damaging?
And also, there's this idea that if you take in ALL the negativity and criticism that you can, you will eventually evolve into something amazing. Because clearly our society is not full of people back-stabbing each other to get to the top so they can be the best, or people who drive themselves crazy and make themselves sick trying to be perfect.
Which... Is honestly just as dishonest as the extreme stuff the positivity movement pushes.