Look into the MirrorWhat Jung, Freud, and Adler Left Us

The greatest fuel of self-criticism is often the awareness of "how others see me." A word at the meeting, the slow reply to an email, the change in the manager's expression — sensing others' reactions and using them as the standard of self-evaluation. As long as this circuit operates, self-criticism never stops. Because others' evaluations are infinitely variable and not under our complete control. This essay anatomizes the way of thinking that detaches the self from others' evaluations — through Alfred Adler's (1870–1937) Individual Psychology and especially the concept of the "separation of tasks" (Trennung der Aufgaben). At the same time, we sound warnings against the misuse of task separation: "coldness" and "abdication of responsibility."

01Adler's Individual Psychology — Divergence from Freud and Jung

As covered in Mind Mirror Vol. 1, Alfred Adler stands alongside Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung as one of the three giants of 20th-century depth psychology. He was a central member of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society from 1902 but broke with Freud in 1911 to found his own Individual Psychology (Individualpsychologie).

The fundamental difference among the three:

Adler's pivot was the proposition that "humans are moved not by cause but by purpose." For example, "the person who cannot speak up in meetings" would be explained by Freud as "due to a past experience of frustration." Adler reads it as "by not speaking, they are trying to get something" (safety from criticism, avoiding the burden of expectation, evading responsibility). From victim of the past to chooser of the present — this was Adler's root shift.

This shift is decisive for the self-esteem debate. The phenomenon of "caring about others' evaluation" can be explained Freudian-style as "attachment to childhood parental evaluation." But Adlerian-style, it reads as "by caring about others' evaluation, I am trying to get something" (safety through approval, dependency of responsibility on others, avoidance of audacious challenges). This perspective shift is the logical foundation of task separation.

02Separation of Tasks — Yours or Mine

The most practical concept of Adlerian psychology is "separation of tasks" (Trennung der Aufgaben). For every event in daily life, identify "whose task is this?" The criterion is clear: "Who ultimately bears the consequences?"

The principle is simple: give "my task" my full effort; do not intervene in "others' tasks." Intervening in others' tasks — treating others' emotions, evaluations, choices as if they were my responsibility — is a primary cause of self-criticism and mental exhaustion.

"Almost all relational trouble comes from stepping into others' tasks — or from having others step into mine." — Kishimi Ichirō, paraphrased from The Courage to Be Disliked, 2013 (Third Night)

03"The Courage to Be Disliked" — The Japanese Rediscovery by Kishimi & Koga

Adler's writings were long overshadowed by Freud and Jung even in the West. The decisive rediscovery happened in Japan. In 2013, the philosopher Kishimi Ichirō and editor Koga Fumitake published a dialogue-format book "Kirawareru Yūki" (The Courage to Be Disliked) — The Adlerian Teaching as the Source of Self-Help, which became a massive bestseller with over 2 million copies sold (English edition: Atria, 2018).

The book's central thesis compresses Adlerian thought into five propositions:

1. All troubles are interpersonal troubles — no purely individual trouble exists
2. Inferiority is a subjective interpretation — not an objective fact
3. Separate the tasks of others — do not intervene, do not take them on
4. Reject the desire for approval — do not live to be recognized by others
5. Possess community feeling (Gemeinschaftsgefühl) — connected, even while detached

The fourth proposition, "reject the desire for approval," is the meaning of the book's title. As long as one tries to be liked or approved by others, life is bound to others' evaluations. The courage to accept being disliked is the starting point of freedom — this is Adler's practical core.

04Others' Evaluations Are Others' Tasks

The most practical application of task separation is the recognition that "others' evaluations are others' tasks." I flag a point in material review — the quality and basis of the comment are my task. Whether the marketing lead feels the comment is "appropriate" or "excessive" depends on their cognition, experience, expectations, mood that day, and countless variables I cannot control. That is their task.

This distinction cuts the fuel of self-criticism. The chain "the marketing lead looked unhappy → my comment was bad → I am a bad reviewer" all confuses others' task with mine. What I should genuinely ask is only "was the quality and basis of my comment sufficient?" The other person's reaction is not material for my self-evaluation.

This connects to Bandura's self-efficacy (specific-task capability belief) from Vol. 1. Not "I am valuable as a reviewer" (general, dependent on others' approval) but "I am training the skill of detecting this kind of risk" (specific, measurable by my own standards) — the latter is not swayed by others' evaluations.

05Community Feeling — Connected Even While Detached

A critical misunderstanding to prevent here. Task separation does not mean "isolating oneself from others." Alongside task separation, Adler positioned community feeling (Gemeinschaftsgefühl) as the most important measure of human mental health.

Community feeling is "the sense that one is part of a community and can contribute to others." Adler called it "the highest expression of social interest."

"For Individual Psychology, community feeling is the measure of all mental health." — Alfred Adler, Der Sinn des Lebens (1933)

Task separation and community feeling seem contradictory but are in fact complementary:

• Task separation — do not make others' evaluations the standard of self-evaluation (liberation from dependence)
• Community feeling — even so, remain connected to and contributing to others (participation in relations)

Holding both simultaneously gives rise to relations that are not dependent — relations of mutual autonomy and cooperation. In material review: "not being swayed by the marketing lead's evaluation" (task separation) and "cooperating with the marketing lead to deliver accurate information to patients" (community feeling) — holding both is the foundation of a healthy review culture.

06Misuse of Task Separation — The Traps of "Coldness" and "Abdication"

After "The Courage to Be Disliked" became a megahit, what was observed in Japan was misuse of task separation. Three typical traps:

Correct task separation stands on the delicate balance of "understanding others' feelings empathically while not making them the standard of self-evaluation" and "respecting others' feedback as information while making the final judgment myself." Not "detach and be done."

07Application in Pharma & Material Review — Five Questions

Translating task separation into the daily reality of material review. At a moment when judgment wavers, ask the following five questions in order:

Asking Q1-Q5 in 30 seconds clarifies, within confused thinking, "the part I must take responsibility for now" vs. "the part I cannot take responsibility for (must entrust to the other)." This is a practical frame complementary to the "healthy vs. pathological self-criticism" discrimination frame from Vol. 3.

The task separation Adler formulated in 1920s Vienna was rediscovered in contemporary Japan as "The Courage to Be Disliked" and spread explosively. Its core is the thought that "makes self-evaluation independent of others' evaluations" — cutting the greatest fuel of self-criticism. But task separation does not function alone. Only combined with community feeling (the sense of being connected and contributing to others) does it produce healthy, autonomous relationships.

"Detach" alone produces cold isolation; "connect" alone produces dependent exhaustion. Holding both at once is essentially the same stance as the two-wheeled vehicle of self-efficacy + self-compassion (Vol. 1) and the Middle-Way observation (Vol. 5). Vol. 7 will trace another cultural sphere — the ancient Roman Stoics — and how Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Seneca distinguished what is controllable from what is not.