Awful. So awful, in fact, that I'm taking time to write a review about it, which I almost never do. So it should be with damaging books.
If this review is tl;dr for you, read this paragraph and skip to the last. It's essentially a book about "how to dissent" that devolves into a rant against "political correctness" and the decrying of "tribalism"...which totally isn't our nation's problem at this point. You can almost hear the familiar whining of conservative middle-aged white dudes everywhere: "Why, oh why, can't we just have a meritocracy?! Why does race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation have to matter?!" More on that below.
To summarize one problematic chapter:
As "Rebels Who Won" (Kashdan's term for successful dissenters who usurp those in power), LGBT+ activists, BIPOC, and women must handle their newfound power (lmao) by exercising understanding, empathy, and constraint when addressing the now minority opinions of a group Kashdan frequently refers to as the "Newly Powerless." You know these people as the shitbag, fragile, cisgender white bigots (my words, his gentle implication) who have kept us in the dark ages and literally STILL HOLD PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE POWER. Unless of course you're Kashdan and clearly haven't switched on, read, or Googled the news in the past 3 to 6 years.
To make it worse, he lumps these deplorable people in with a group he refers to throughout the book as "principled insubordinates" - what we are all supposed to be after reading his book. To imply that the aforementioned bigoted neo-fascists have any principles at all is the kind of "bothsides-ism" that makes me wanna heave. No, Kashdan - read a history book. One of these group's opinion is in the minority for good reason. They very much still retain their "power" because of a system of governance that routinely amplifies the voices of the hateful and ignorant. They'll have my empathic understanding when they can demonstrate a single shred of compassion for people other than themselves. Oh, where we'd be without "statehood" and the Electoral College...but I digress.
To drive his point home, we then spend time shedding tears for a poor, poor university professor renown among students on campus for making minority students VERY uncomfortable with, among other problem behaviors, transphobic comments and blatantly sexist bias against female students. This professor was subsequently investigated, winding-up disgraced (but still employed, the poor man). Kashdan very publicly chastises the university's investigatory process, decrying it as a shutting-down of minority (read: likely bigoted AF) opinions and then...wait for it...
...in a later chapter *praises* another university's investigatory process that found a researcher guilty of research/funding fraud. This investigation ended in the death by suicide of the researcher. Kashdan could have been kind enough to leave this man's family at whatever level of peace and comfort they've found since his passing, perhaps leaving his name out of it? But, no - stand-up fellow Kashdan is, he *names the guy,* over and over, and betrays his clearly still unprocessed anger by way of passive aggression and snark. I guess as long as a university's investigatory process confirms your viewpoint, we can agree with it. But when literally *scores* of students and community members come forward to decry the actions of a bigoted professor, we don't believe them? We write-off their experiences as political correctness run amok and the investigation as, essentially, nothing more than a witch hunt? Shameful. As someone who had a very similar experience alongside his fellow students, trust me - you really ought believe them.
And then there's the revival of defunct practices like "cognitive defusion" and "self-distancing," which as described in the book inspire laughter at how utterly ridiculous they sound on the surface...because they are in fact ridiculous. I don't know a single fellow clinician who uses these in their practice, and they certainly aren't part and parcel of any cognitive-behavioral therapy *I've* been trained to provide.
And, who wouldn't love the "Is Homosexuality a Choice Leg Bomb Thought Experiment?" In order to teach our kids *how* to think instead of *what* to think about the LGBT+ community, we need only ask (paraphrased):
"If a bomb sensitive to heart rate were attached to a person's leg, and they were shown video footage of attractive men and women, could they control their heart rate in either direction of attraction in order to save their life?"
1) No, you wouldn't be able to manage your heart rate...because you HAVE A GODDAMNED BOMB STRAPPED TO YOUR LEG. And,
2) You could just teach your child basic respect for others' humanity, the fact that some people are gay, and that that's neither their business nor do they deserve their questioning of who they are as people. Do we question your heterosexuality? No? Well hot damn, there ya go. End of valuable life lesson.
And because this book pissed me off enough to trigger my pettiness, he also does two things I cannot stand in writing, academic or otherwise:
1) He cycles between actually using swear words and doing this @#$%#@ bullshit. We're all over the age of 12, bruh. Just use the words if you're gonna use 'em.
2) He makes-up his own "academic" psychological terminology that has no grounding in data or the previous literature. "What [you, and only you] might call 'Deliberate Humility'" isn't actually a thing, dude. The entire book is littered with these terms. Even hobby psych lovers and clinicians like me will quickly denounce these terms as "psychobabble bull$#!+" (See what I did there? See how dumb it looks/sounds?).
And then, in the acknowledgments, Kashdan makes it clear from the get that he and his brother "grew up as part of the racial minority in a predominantly Black neighborhood." Given the tone of the rest of the book, I wouldn't have led with that. Barf. Just barf. Barf barf barf.
For a better book on dissent, negotiation, and sharpening your communication skills, I recommend Chris Voss's "Never Split the Difference" and/or John Gottman's "The Seven Principles for Making a Marriage Work." One could read the latter without being married and still find valuable skills within.