The Science of Not Giving a F*ck
Should you trust self-help books?
If you’ve spent any time thinking about personal development or relationship success, you’ve probably read a self-help book. And I’d bet that you liked it. Best-selling self-help books are typically well written and entertaining pieces of literature that rely on quirky insights and surprising advice for living the good life. But do these authors and their books really have the keys to success? Most of them are at best popular science books that loosely base their theories in the scientific literature, and all too often prescribe relationship advice based on personal experiences.
Mark Manson’s best-selling book, “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck” is one of the latest smash hits in the self-help genre and offers some compelling anecdotes about improving your relationship satisfaction. Manson, a self-diagnosed self-help junkie, shares some stories and behaviors from his personal experience that have helped him to improve his relationships. He prescribes advice that ranges from security to love and happiness, but what does the scientific literature have to say about his suggestions?
Manson utilizes a very captivating and entertaining writing style throughout his book. But, while his storytelling kept me turning the pages, as a psychology student, I couldn’t help but notice that “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck” does not contain a single citation, nor does it reference any empirical studies. This raises questions about Manson’s command of psychology. Is he familiar with psychological papers on close relationships? If so, is he formulating advice that stems from that science, or is he making recommendations based entirely on his personal experiences?
While there are certainly lessons to be learned from the mistakes of others, self-help literature ranges in quality from robust science to impractical suggestions. So where does “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck” land on that spectrum?
Love & Security
Manson opens his book with a fairly cliché piece of advice. Before you can love someone else, you must love yourself. All relationships start with our relationship to ourselves. For Manson, developing a good relationship to yourself entails building a strong sense of security with who you are. He states that, “A confident man doesn’t feel a need to prove that he’s confident” (Manson, 2016, p. 4). Manson preaches that not giving a f*ck about the unimportant things in life is a trait that secure people exude, and he believes that engaging in this mindset can help us to become more secure.
Furthermore, Manson states that being more secure in ourselves helps us build more positive relationships because it sets the stage for us to address problems openly and honestly. If we aren’t comfortable with ourselves, how could we possibly be confident in our relationships? Manson’s logic makes total sense here. He believes that insecurity breeds toxicity, and that starting a relationship from an insecure place is an extremely difficult obstacle to overcome.
From a high level, the scientific literature seems to completely support Manson’s theory that more secure individuals have better relationships. Research by Banse (2004) supports the claim that people with secure attachment styles tend have higher marital satisfaction as well other positive relationship effects (Banse, 2004). While he doesn’t explicitly say so, I believe that Manson is indirectly referencing how having a secure attachment style, and being a secure person in general, has positive implications for relationships. Moreover, because we bring our attachment styles into our adult relationships, we have the power to affect our partners attachment security for better or worse (Hazan & Shaver, 1990; Hudson, Fraley, Brumbaugh, & Vicary, 2014). These empirical findings suggest that Manson is at least in part correct. Our security, specifically our attachment security, does have implications for our relationship satisfaction.
Verdict: Science Agrees with Not Giving a F*ck
Honesty
But how do we actually become more secure in ourselves? Manson suggests that developing a high self-worth requires acknowledging problems openly and honestly. This is where he introduces the super-hero that none of us want, but all need, Disappointment Panda. Disappointment Panda has the power to tell people the harsh truths about themselves. He would tell you that you’re ugly, that you’re a failure, and that your kids don’t love you. Manson suggests that we all ought to take this hardline approach of acknowledging and accepting our shortcomings. While it may be painful to admit these flaws to ourselves, Manson says that we all need a healthy dose of pain, because pain is the most effective motivator.
However, it’s unclear which direction the relationship between honesty and security flows. Studies by Gillath, Sesko, Shaver, Chun, & King (2010) have found support for a causal connection between security and honesty and suggest that security increases honesty. However, that study did not necessarily indicate whether security leads to honesty or honesty leads to security. It’s likely that there are some bidirectional effects, where both interact with each other (Gillath, Sesko, Shaver, Chun, & King, 2010).
Nevertheless, Manson focuses on both honesty and security in “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck”. If we accept Manson’s reasoning, then becoming more secure allows us to be completely honest with both ourselves and our partners. Manson states that once we are able to be honest with ourselves, we can be honest with our partners, and suggests that absolute honesty should be a norm in all relationships.
Unsurprisingly, honesty is a complicated subject in the scientific literature. Research by Tim Cole (2001) reveals that individuals avoid telling the truth when it’s costly to do so. If telling the truth is going to lead to an unfavorable outcome, individuals tend to avoid it. But, using deception actually had a positive impact on a partner, given they didn’t detect it (Cole, 2001). However, the use of deception in romantic relationships has the potential to introduce suspicion into the relationship. Conceivably, that suspicion may tempt further deception, which ultimately sends the relationship into a downward spiral with decreased relational outcomes (Sagarin, Rhoads, & Cialdini, 1998).
Ultimately, while some deception may be functional, it can be a slippery slope where extensive use of it can be an indicator of a poor relationship with high distress. These findings seem to suggest that Manson’s advice of complete honest may be a good one. In my opinion, complete and utter honesty as Manson implies is a bit extreme, but overall, I think that establishing a relationship expectation of honesty is a good thing.
Nevertheless, honesty is important in developing trust in a relationship. Manson states that, “Trust is the most important ingredient in any relationship” (p. 177). Without trust, our relationships don’t mean anything. This is why cheating is so destructive. It’s less so the physical component, and instead the loss of trust in your partner. Because of the loss of trust, the relationships can no longer function. Research by DeWall et al. (2011) has found that individuals with insecure attachment orientations are more likely to engage in infidelity (DeWall et al., 2011). This finding suggests that Manson is correct in addressing the self before the relationship. More secure individuals are going to have better relationships.
Verdict: Science Agrees with Not Giving a F*ck
Conflict Resolution
In order to truly construct a happy and loving relationship, Manson states that we must apply these principles towards addressing problems in a relationship. Conflict is inevitable, so by effectively solving problems as they arise, we continually strengthen our relationships. In this sense, conflict is a vital component to constructing a relationship. On its surface, this seems pretty counterintuitive. Popular culture and media suggest that relationships should be easy, and that if you’re fighting with your partner, then you must be in a bad relationship. But Manson is saying that conflict is essential to fostering positive relationship health.
The key to understanding the crux of this point is accepting that conflict is going to happen no matter what. It’s how we go about addressing problems that matters. Manson points out that, “a lot of people hesitate to take responsibility for their problems because they believe that to be responsible for your problems is to also be at fault for your problems” (p. 97). Often in life things will happened beyond your control or intent, but you are left to deal with the aftermath. Manson advises accepting one’s responsibility and handling problems autonomously.
Once again, Manson’s advice hits the nail on the head. People who are more autonomous approach and manage conflict better in their romantic relationships. More specifically, those whose actions are freely chosen and endorsed by the self are less defensive, more understanding, and more honest with their partners (Knee, Lonsbary, Patrick, & Carver, 2005). These behaviors are related to increased relationship satisfaction. Manson applies this scientifically backed approach perfectly in his deeper dive into love. He approaches love through a conflict-resolution lens. He calls unhealthy love, “based on two people trying to escape their problems through their emotions for each other” (p. 168). Likewise, healthy love comes from acknowledging and addressing one’s own problems while supporting your partner in addressing theirs.
This act of taking responsibility for your individual problems is a form of autonomy that Knee et al., (2005) found to be beneficial in relationships and conflict management. Additionally, Manson indirectly advises for couples to focus on making I-statements. He says that individuals ought to have a willingness to reject and be rejected by their partner. To do so, he suggests that people establish clear boundaries by being transparent about what they like and need from one another.
Verdict: Science Agrees with Not Giving a F*ck
Communication and Interaction
One trap that Manson says couples often fall into is what he calls the “yin and yang of toxic relationships”. These toxic relationships take shape with one person acting as a victim and the other as a saver. The victim starts fights because it makes them feel important, and the saver puts out fires because it makes them feel important. However, Manson says that both individuals are motivated selfishly and when couples fall into this pattern, there isn’t a genuine love between them. If these couples had a healthier love, they would handle their problems more autonomously saying, ‘hey, these are my problems, and I don’t need you to solve them, just support me as I figure them out myself.’
What Manson depicts here is similar to the demand-withdraw pattern of marital conflict in the scientific literature. Demand-withdraw is a communication pattern in which one partner attempts to discuss a problem, while the other avoids the issue, or ends the discussion. This pattern of communication during conflict is one of the most destructive and least effective communication patterns and contributes to poor relationship satisfaction and outcomes (Christensen, Eldridge, Catta-Preta, Lim, & Santagata, 2006; Papp, Kouros, & Cummings, 2009).
While it’s not a perfect one to one match, Manson’s victim and saver model does overlap with the demand-withdraw communication pattern, and both have similar implications. Continual interactions like these will lead to low relationship satisfaction. However, I believe that Manson misdiagnoses the internal mechanism behind why people end up there. Manson proclaims that selfishness is the reason that couples engage in negative communication patterns, but I think that most people simply don’t know any better or realize that they are engaging in such negative behaviors. A study by Caughlin & Vangelisti (2000) that looks into why couples engage in demand-withdraw patterns of conflict finds that individuals attribute differences in traits such as argumentativeness, neuroticism, agreeableness, and locus of control influence demand-withdraw patterns (Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2000).
Verdict: Science Questions Not Giving a F*ck
Values and Metrics
Underlying our interactions with our partners are the values we keep, and how we measure them. Manson advises the reader that social comparison is a poor metric for judging our relationship health.
To demonstrate this Manson uses an example of Dave Mustaine, who was kicked out of a band early in his career. Devastated about losing his band, Mustaine bounced back and formed the legendary metal band Megadeath. Megadeath sold more than 25 million copies of its albums worldwide, and by most metrics was a stunning success.
Unfortunately the band that Mustaine got kicked out of was Metallica, which sold over 180 million albums worldwide. As a result, despite his success as a rockstar, Mustaine still considered himself a failure because he wasn’t as big as Metallica. Mustaine chose to measure his success via social comparison, and by that measure he was unsuccessful.
Mustaine valued being a rockstar, but because his metric was a comparison to his old band, Metallica, he felt like a failure. The same logic applies to our relationships. If we are constantly measuring our relationship or our partner against others, we’re unlikely to ever be truly satisfied with our relationship. This is especially salient in today’s society with the prevalence of social media.
The use of Facebook and other social networking platforms show significant association with jealousy related feelings and behaviors (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009). This happens because Facebook floods our brains with seemingly infinite information and points of social comparison. These comparisons enable jealousy that negatively affects our relationships. Manson suggests that our values ought to be based in reality, socially constructive, and within our control. Values based on social comparison are poor metrics for relationship health, and inevitably end in failure.
Verdict: Science Agrees with Not Giving a F*ck
The Bottom Line
I was pleasantly surprised to find that “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck” is a scientifically sound and robust book. Despite falling into a self-improvement genre that is full of loosely backed science, “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck” stands out for its scientific excellence. Whether intentional or not, Mark Manson has managed to bridge the gap between academic scientific literature and popular science.
I found “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck” to be an incredibly fun read, and I fully recommend it to anyone looking to improve their relationships. Mark Manson’s witty storytelling prompts the reader to re-evaluate their own relationships, and his advice has definitely helped me in my own relationships.
While “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck” is supported by the scientific literature, others in this category may fall short of this standard, and the only way to know is by continuing to analyze and review books for their scientific robustness.
References
Banse, R. (2004). Adult Attachment and Marital Satisfaction: Evidence for Dyadic Configuration Effects. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2), 273–282.
Caughlin, J., & Vangelisti, A. (2000). An Individual Difference Explanation of Why Married Couples Engage in the Demand/Withdraw Pattern of Conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(4–5), 523–551.
Christensen, Andrew, Eldridge, Kathleen, Catta-Preta, Adriana Bokel, Lim, Veronica R., & Santagata, Rossella. (2006). Cross-Cultural Consistency of the Demand/Withdraw Interaction Pattern in Couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 1029–1044.
Cole, T. (2001). Lying to the One you Love: The Use of Deception in Romantic Relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(1), 107–129.
DeWall, C., Lambert, N., Slotter, E., Pond, R., Deckman, T., Finkel, E., . . . King, Laura. (2011). So Far Away From One’s Partner, Yet So Close to Romantic Alternatives: Avoidant Attachment, Interest in Alternatives, and Infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1302–1316.
Gillath, O., Sesko, A., Shaver, P., Chun, D., & King, Laura. (2010). Attachment, Authenticity, and Honesty: Dispositional and Experimentally Induced Security Can Reduce Self- and Other-Deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(5), 841–855.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1990). Love and work — an attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 270.
Hudson, N., Fraley, R., Brumbaugh, C., & Vicary, A. (2014). Coregulation in Romantic Partners’ Attachment Styles: A Longitudinal Investigation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 845–857.
Knee, C., Lonsbary, C., Canevello, A., Patrick, H., & Carver, Charles S. (2005). Self-Determination and Conflict in Romantic Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 997–1009.
Manson, M. (2016). The subtle art of not giving a fuck : A counterintuitive approach to living a good life (First ed.). New York, NY: HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins.
Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More Information than You Ever Wanted: Does Facebook Bring Out the Green-Eyed Monster of Jealousy? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 441–444.
Overall, N.C., Fletcher, G.J.O., & Simpson, J.A. (2010). Helping each other grow: Romantic partner support, self-improvement, and relationship quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1496–1513.
Papp, L., Kouros, C., & Cummings, E. (2009). Demand-Withdraw Patterns in Marital Conflict in the Home. Personal Relationships, 16(2), 285–300.
Sagarin, B., Rhoads, K., & Cialdini, R. (1998). Deceiver’s Distrust: Denigration as a Consequence of Undiscovered Deception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(11), 1167–1176.
