Adlerian Psychology: The Sole Method to Restore Lost Trust – An Integrated Strategy Centered on Community Feeling

Introduction: The Current State of Adlerian Psychology and the Background of “Lost Trust”

Mythology & Psychology

Greek mythology is no moral or ethical shit, and I'm rambling on about the psychology from there.Mr. Nagoshi, a psychiat...

butterflyandtea.com

2024.11.30

In recent years, Adlerian psychology has gained widespread popularity and influenced many people, particularly following the global success of the book “The Courage to Be Disliked”. Its simple yet forward-looking message offers a new perspective on individual lifestyles and human relationships in modern society. However, alongside this broad dissemination, it has faced criticism regarding misunderstandings and over-interpretations of its theories, as well as a perceived lack of academic scientific evidence, leading to questions about its credibility. This report will analyze the background of this “lost trust” in detail and propose a multifaceted strategy for its restoration.   

Modern Popularity and Influence of Adlerian Psychology

Modern society is an era where the desire for approval has intensified due to the spread of social media, and exhaustion in human relationships is prominent. In such circumstances, Adlerian concepts like “answering one’s own challenges” and “not worrying about social ties” simplify how people approach problems, resonating with many. This approach is valued for its ability to organize complex thoughts and facilitate concrete solutions.   

Specifically, the message “have the courage to be disliked and live your own life” has been widely accepted as a means to boost self-esteem and encourage proactive behavior. It is believed that this philosophy enables people to focus on “the here and now” and approach immediate challenges positively.   

Furthermore, Adlerian psychology is expected to be utilized in various fields, including business, parenting, and education. For instance, in the workplace, focusing on “contribution” can enhance employee motivation, and in human relationships, “sense of belonging” can promote smooth communication. In parenting, “encouragement” is thought to aid children’s independence. Consciously applying these concepts is expected to contribute to overall organizational productivity and the establishment of healthy human relationships.   

Roots of “Lost Trust”: Main Criticisms and Misunderstandings

The issues of trust facing Adlerian psychology are closely linked to its popularity. While widely accepted, its essence is not always accurately conveyed, leading to criticism and misunderstandings.

Lack of Scientific Basis and Aspects as Philosophy/Self-Help

Adlerian psychology is persistently criticized for its lack of clear scientific basis. Many texts present the theory in the form of “Adler thought this,” pointing out that it is not based on scientific experiments or verification. Some commentators even suggest that it has “abandoned being a science,” viewing it more as a “philosophy,” “self-help,” or even “religion” rather than psychology. The anecdote that Adler himself disliked technical terms and wished to base his system on philosophy rather than science is also cited as supporting this view.   

This stands in contrast to other psychotherapies, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), which has accumulated a large body of evidence and whose effectiveness is supported by research. Such differences in academic rigor are a primary cause of doubts regarding the academic credibility of Adlerian psychology.   

The fundamental discrepancy between Adlerian psychology’s recognition as “psychology” and its philosophical foundation, coupled with modern demands for scientific verification, creates a core challenge regarding its credibility. While its philosophy emphasizes subjective interpretation, teleological action, and the value of happiness , the contemporary field of psychology strongly demands empirical verification and evidence. This discrepancy contributes to doubts about its academic and clinical legitimacy. Therefore, to restore trust, it is necessary to either more clearly present its philosophical nature and role, or to strive to generate more rigorous scientific evidence in areas where its principles can be empirically tested. Ideally, a transparent communication balancing both aspects, clarifying its scope, strengths, and limitations, is required.   

Misunderstanding and Over-interpretation of Theories (Especially “Separation of Tasks” and “The Courage to Be Disliked”)

During the popularization of Adlerian psychology, its key concepts have been misunderstood, contributing to a loss of trust. Notably, “separation of tasks” is not a term coined by Adler himself, but rather a concept translated by Shunsaku Noda, a leading authority on Adlerian psychology in Japan, to suit Japanese culture, based on the methods of Rudolf Dreikurs, Adler’s disciple. This concept clarifies “who should respond to the problem” and “who bears the responsibility,” emphasizing that it is “a means to individual independence, not an end in itself”.   

However, because this “separation of tasks” is not understood in conjunction with “it’s not just about separating” and “common tasks,” it leads to misunderstandings such as “mere egoism” or “basically ignoring troublesome people’s tasks and social interactions”. Similarly, “the courage to be disliked” can also lead to misinterpretations like “even if you bother people and are disliked, actively do what you want!” and is sometimes used as an excuse to justify “self-centered behavior” or “unruly” actions. Originally, it does not refer to self-centered behavior without “community feeling,” but rather a healthy way of life predicated on contributing to the community.   

These misunderstandings, combined with the nature of Adlerian psychology that “presupposes one’s own change” , are pointed out as potentially leading to strained human relationships and various troubles “if forced” upon those who “do not want to change themselves”.   

The widespread popularity of Adlerian psychology is attributed to its simple presentation, making its philosophy accessible to many. However, this popularization inherently risked oversimplifying complex philosophical and psychological theories, potentially losing their original nuances and deeper context. Consequently, key concepts were superficially understood or distorted, leading to misapplication and misinterpretation. This resulted in negative perceptions, such as “self-centeredness,” ultimately undermining the overall credibility of Adlerian psychology. This situation creates a vicious cycle where the success of popularization ironically contributes to a decline in trust. Therefore, restoring trust requires not only correcting existing misunderstandings but also a sophisticated approach to accurately and delicately convey Adlerian philosophy, strategically managing its dissemination and communication. This ensures that its accessibility does not compromise its accuracy and depth.   

Lack of Consideration for Social/Legal Background and Practical Limitations

Adlerian psychology, while emphasizing individual purpose and overcoming inferiority, is criticized for lacking perspective on social causes, particularly legal backgrounds and the relationship between the strong and the weak. This is pointed out despite Adler’s own experience as a Jew oppressed by the regime of his time, noting a lack of discussion on legally based oppression in his psychology. It is also warned that there is a danger of being trapped in a religious-like mindset that assumes “analyzing human psychology can silence all humans” and pursues it like a deity. This lack of perspective may limit the applicability and effectiveness of Adlerian psychology, especially in problem-solving at the community or societal level. By focusing too much on the individual’s inner world, there is a risk of overlooking structural problems and power dynamics.   

Limitations in Application to Severe Mental Illness

While Adlerian psychology is effective for personal growth and improving human relationships, it has limitations in treating severe mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety disorders, and PTSD, which require medical intervention and specialized treatment. In particular, Adler’s assertion that “trauma does not exist” is criticized as lacking scientific basis, and concerns are raised about the danger of people with mental illnesses taking this information at face value, thereby missing out on appropriate treatment opportunities. If these limitations are not clearly stated and the approach is presented as a panacea, it could lead to missed treatment opportunities and a decline in the overall credibility of psychology. Professionals have a responsibility to clearly communicate the scope and limitations of Adlerian psychology.   

Core of Trust Restoration: Redefining and Practicing “Community Feeling”

The most effective way to restore trust in Adlerian psychology is to deeply understand its most important concept, “community feeling” (Gemeinschaftsgefühl, social interest), redefine its essence, and practice it in modern society. Community feeling is not merely a sense of belonging or contribution but forms the foundation for balancing healthy connections with others and self-realization.

Re-recognition of “Community Feeling” as the Essence of Adlerian Psychology

Adler placed the utmost importance on “community feeling” in his psychology. He asserted that people invariably belong to some community (family, company, school, region, nation, humanity, and even the universe), and that a sense of belonging and contribution to the community is crucial. At the root of this philosophy is Adler’s belief that “people are not hostile; rather, their natural state is to be connected and bound together.” This idea is said to have originated from his experience as a military doctor during World War I, where he treated soldiers suffering from mental illness on battlefields where soldiers were killing each other.   

Community feeling means not only “the feeling of being connected to others” but also “friendship, problems in relationships with comrades, and the accompanying honesty, trust, cooperative tendencies, and concern for nation, ethnicity, and humanity”. Adler repeatedly used the phrase “to see with the eyes of another, to hear with the ears of another, to feel with the heart of another,” emphasizing an empathetic attitude towards others.   

Adler’s words, “Are you thinking only of yourself? Those who take, those who dominate, those who flee—these people cannot be happy,” suggest that a lack of community feeling leads to individual unhappiness. People with community feeling are said to be able to respect those they interact with and act with a proactive desire to “contribute” and “cooperate”. This aspect directly addresses the cause of Adlerian psychology being misunderstood as “egoism” and clarifies that its essence lies in harmony with others and social contribution.   

“Community feeling” serves as the inherent ethical foundation for Adlerian psychology, addressing criticisms such as self-centeredness and insufficient consideration of social context. The fact that community feeling encompasses concepts like “concern for others,” “cooperative tendencies,” and “prioritizing the interests of the larger group” , and is linked to “altruism” , demonstrates that while Adlerian psychology emphasizes individual freedom and self-determination (“self-determination,” “separation of tasks”), it functions as an indispensable ethical compass to prevent it from degenerating into irresponsible individualism or antisocial behavior. This concept provides a framework for individuals to live as responsible beings within a community and contribute. Therefore, accurately understanding and emphasizing the importance of “community feeling” is extremely crucial for demonstrating the moral and ethical credibility of Adlerian psychology to society. This allows for a shift in perception, transforming it from a mere self-help tool into a robust framework for fostering healthy, responsible human relationships and overall societal well-being, thereby restoring and maintaining public trust.   

Importance of Connecting from “Separation of Tasks” to “Common Tasks”

“Separation of tasks” is based on Adler’s idea that many human relationship problems and stresses arise from an inability to distinguish between one’s own responsibilities and those of others. This emphasizes clarifying “whose problem (task) it is?” and taking responsibility for one’s own tasks without interfering with others’ tasks.   

However, it is extremely important that this concept is “not just about separating,” and Shunsaku Noda, a pioneer in introducing Adlerian psychology to Japan, emphasized that it should be understood in conjunction with the concept of “common tasks”.   

“Common tasks” refers to community members partially taking on or assisting with tasks that cannot be handled individually, meaning working together on “tasks that should be solved by everyone”. “Separation of tasks” is “preparation for creating common tasks”; by drawing boundaries effectively, the areas where true cooperation is needed become clear, enabling efficient collaboration. Understanding this connection to “common tasks” is essential for preventing “separation of tasks” from being misunderstood as “mere egoism” and for building healthy cooperative relationships, while also being central to the “social harmony” that Adlerian psychology aims for.   

Below is a comparison of the concepts of “Separation of Tasks” and “Common Tasks.”

Concept	Definition	Purpose	Adler’s Intent	Common Misconceptions	Intrinsic Relationship
Separation of Tasks	The process of clarifying “who should respond to the problem” and “who bears the responsibility,” distinguishing between one’s own responsibilities and those of others	Reduce stress in human relationships, foster individual independence, avoid excessive interference with others, take responsibility for one’s own tasks	A means to an end, preparation for enhancing self-determination, a method for building healthy relationships	Perceived as egoism, indifference to others, or ignoring troublesome social interactions	A “warm-up exercise” for addressing common tasks, functioning together to build human relationships with a clear distinction between independence and cooperation
Common Tasks	When individuals cannot solve problems alone, community members partially take on or assist with them, working together to address them	Promote cooperation with others, societal harmony, solve larger problems, foster mutual support	The ultimate goal, practice of community feeling, creation of social harmony	Often overlooked, as “separation of tasks” is mistakenly seen as the complete solution	Separation of tasks is a “warm-up exercise” for addressing common tasks, functioning together to build human relationships with a clear distinction between independence and cooperation

As this table illustrates, “separation of tasks” is a frequently misunderstood concept in Adlerian psychology, often interpreted as promoting self-centeredness or isolation, directly contributing to a decline in the overall credibility of Adlerian psychology. However, multiple sources emphasize that “separation of tasks” is not a standalone concept but rather “preparation” for “common tasks,” ultimately contributing to the broader goal of “community feeling.” This inherent connection is often overlooked in popular discourse. Therefore, to restore trust, clarifying the relationship between “separation of tasks” and “common tasks” is essential. This comparison table allows for a concise and structured presentation of not only their differences but also their fundamental interdependence and sequential relationship within Adlerian psychology’s philosophical system. By visually demonstrating that “separation of tasks” functions as a means to achieve “common tasks” and “community feeling,” it directly addresses core misunderstandings that Adlerian psychology has faced, promotes a more nuanced understanding, and ultimately enables the reconstruction of trust in its holistic and socially responsible approach.   

Harmony of Self-Determination and Contribution to Others: Foundation of Healthy Relationships

Adlerian psychology emphasizes “teleology,” which states that individuals can choose their actions for their own purposes, and “self-determination,” which means it is always possible to “re-decide” and “re-live” one’s life. This is a very positive way of thinking, encouraging individuals to forge their future responsibly, without using the past or environment as excuses.   

However, this self-determination does not contradict “community feeling”; rather, it forms the foundation for healthy human relationships. It is precisely because individuals can determine their own boundaries and not excessively intrude on others’ domains (separation of tasks) that “social harmony” arises when cooperation with others is needed.   

The feeling of “valuing oneself as much as one values others” is “community feeling,” and it is emphasized that an attitude of “cooperating” to solve problems with this feeling is crucial. “The courage to be disliked” should also be interpreted not as self-centered behavior, but as the courage to pursue “one’s own way of life” based on contribution to “community feeling”. This harmony between self-determination and contribution to others is the core of “happiness” and “healthy living” that Adlerian psychology aims for, and it is a vital message for resolving misunderstandings and restoring trust.   

Specific Strategies for Trust Restoration

For Adlerian psychology to regain its value and restore trust in modern society, it is crucial to implement specific strategies that meet the demands of contemporary society while maintaining its philosophical depth.

1. Strengthening Scientific Basis and Promoting Empirical Research

For Adlerian psychology to regain academic credibility, the accumulation of empirical research objectively demonstrating its effectiveness is indispensable.

Need for Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Research and Effectiveness Verification

The research methodology in Adlerian psychology primarily involves an “hermeneutic procedure” that comparatively examines individual behavioral contexts and hypothetically synthesizes lifestyles, characterized by a phenomenological and subjective approach. This differs from other psychological approaches that adopt an empirical and objective stance.   

However, in contemporary academia, based on the principles of EBM/EBP (Evidence-Based Medicine/Practice), there is a demand for processes that clarify clinical problems and questions, efficiently seek the best evidence to answer them, and critically evaluate their validity and utility. This requires integrated analysis of qualitative and quantitative research and empirical validation based on scientific verification.   

Some attempts at empirical research exist, such as studies using “class meetings” and “community feeling scales,” suggesting effectiveness in fostering community feeling and improving school adjustment. However, the number of published practical cases is still small. To restore trust, it is necessary to verify how Adlerian concepts (e.g., community feeling, encouragement) specifically influence behavioral change and psychological improvement using more rigorous methodologies, and to demonstrate their effects with data. This will allow for objective proof of its academic legitimacy and practical utility.   

Comparative Research with Other Psychotherapies (e.g., CBT) and Potential for Collaboration

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is one of the most evidence-based treatments for depression and anxiety disorders, with its effectiveness supported by numerous studies. CBT has established a therapist training system, and the reliability of its skill evaluation has also been demonstrated.   

While Adlerian psychology is effective for personal growth and improving human relationships, it has limitations in treating severe mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety disorders. Therefore, a combination with medical intervention and scientific approaches like CBT is suggested. In response to the criticism that Adlerian psychology has “abandoned being a science” , conducting comparative research with other evidence-based psychotherapies and exploring collaboration in specific application areas can clarify its specialization and scope, thereby enhancing its credibility. This strategy acknowledges that Adlerian psychology is not a panacea while leveraging its strengths and positioning it as part of a multifaceted approach.   

Below is a comparison of the scientific evidence levels of major psychotherapies.

Psychotherapy	Main Characteristics	Current Status of Scientific Evidence	Application Areas	Implications for Trust Restoration
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)	Focuses on changing thought and behavior patterns. Structured, short-term approach.	High evidence established for a wide range of mental disorders (depression, anxiety disorders, panic disorder, PTSD, etc.) through numerous RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials).	Wide range of mental disorders (depression, anxiety disorders, panic disorder, PTSD, etc.), stress management, behavioral change	Accumulation of evidence and clear presentation of application scope are key to enhancing credibility. Clarifying collaboration or complementary relationships with other evidence-based therapies is also effective.
Psychoanalysis	Focuses on unconscious conflicts and past experiences. Long-term approach.	Sometimes described as “like a traditional art form” in modern times, limited from an EBM perspective, but valuable for specific needs.	Deep-seated psychological conflicts, personality disorders, deepening self-understanding
Adlerian Psychology	Teleology, community feeling, separation of tasks. Individual lifestyle change and social adaptation.	Strongly philosophical, criticized for lacking clear scientific basis. However, some empirical research attempts exist using “class meetings” and “community feeling scales”.	Individual growth, human relationship improvement, education, parenting, organizational development, motivation enhancement

One of the main criticisms against Adlerian psychology is its lack of scientific basis. This is a significant factor undermining its credibility in contemporary academic and professional contexts. This comparison table clearly shows where Adlerian psychology stands in terms of scientific validation compared to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), which has strong empirical evidence, and psychoanalysis, which has a different historical and clinical standing. This comparison suggests strategic directions for Adlerian psychology to gain academic credibility. Specifically, it implies the need to either strengthen existing empirical research attempts and promote systematic studies to objectively demonstrate its effectiveness, or to more clearly define its philosophical aspects and scope of application, emphasizing its value in areas where scientific evidence is not strictly required, or a combination of both. This clear positioning is essential for guiding future trust restoration efforts.   

2. Accurate Dissemination of Theory and Resolution of Misunderstandings

To restore trust, it is essential to resolve misunderstandings that have arisen during its popularization and to accurately convey the original intent of Adlerian psychology.

Thorough Training of Professionals and Ethical Standards

Psychology professionals must constantly strive for self-improvement, be aware of their influence and personal desires, avoid unfairly exploiting clients’ trust or dependence, conduct their work only within professional relationships, and refrain from private relationships. It is also pointed out that narcissistic wounds or unfulfilled private lives can lead to boundary violations. Since there is a risk that Adlerian concepts may be exaggerated or that incorrect information may spread as “common sense” , it is crucial for influential professionals to disseminate accurate information and establish means to correct errors. By acting ethically and accurately conveying the theory, professionals can build social trust in Adlerian psychology. This is essential not only for academic rigor but also for ensuring accountability in practice and creating an environment where users can engage with Adlerian psychology with confidence.   

Establishing Appropriate Use of “Common Sense” Acceptance and Technical Terms

Adler himself is said to have responded to a listener’s criticism, “But Dr. Adler, everything you say is common sense!” with, “But what’s wrong with that? I wish more psychiatrists were like that”. Adlerians are said to accept this criticism of “speaking common sense”. Adler disliked technical terms and appealed to people who were not necessarily academically trained , but as a result, the definitions of technical terms became ambiguous or overly generalized, also causing misunderstandings (e.g., “separation of tasks” not originating from Adler ).   

The strength of Adlerian psychology lies in its intuitive and approachable “common sense” appeal. However, this accessibility has led to widespread misunderstandings and oversimplifications of its key concepts, significantly contributing to a loss of trust. When concepts are perceived as too “common sense,” the intricate theoretical thinking and precise application methods behind them tend to be overlooked, leading to superficial understanding and misuse. This undermines its credibility within the field of psychology. Therefore, to effectively restore trust, Adlerian psychology must maintain a delicate and strategic balance. While preserving its intuitive, “common sense” appeal and promoting broad dissemination, it must simultaneously emphasize the depth and complexity of its theory, as well as the importance of professional and ethical training required for its accurate application. This suggests the need for clear guidelines distinguishing between positioning Adlerian psychology as a general life philosophy and applying it as a specialized psychological intervention. Furthermore, public relations efforts to clarify its limitations and appropriate uses are also essential.   

Promoting Deep Understanding of Theory Through Practical Examples

Just as “separation of tasks” is preparation for “common tasks,” theory only truly demonstrates its value when combined with practice. It is said that problems are less likely to arise when the theory is presented as a suggestion to “change oneself”. In parenting, “encouragement” is effective not merely by praising, but by stating specific reasons, which leads to a child’s independence. Also, instead of “no TV if you don’t do homework,” it is effective to let the child experience the natural consequence: “no homework → don’t understand in class → I’m in trouble”. Through specific communication methods like dialogue and empathy, consistently practicing “seeing with the eyes of another, hearing with the ears of another, and feeling with the heart of another” leads to fostering community feeling and restoring trust. By providing opportunities to learn the theory not just as abstract concepts but through concrete practical examples and workshops, misunderstandings can be prevented, and deep understanding and conviction can be fostered. This is important for addressing the criticism that the theory is “armchair philosophy” and demonstrating its practical utility in the real world.   

3. Adaptation to Modern Society and Expansion of Application Areas

For Adlerian psychology to regain its value and restore trust in modern society, it is crucial to expand its scope of application and demonstrate concrete results.

Sharing Practical Application Examples in Business, Parenting, and Education

Adlerian psychology is said to be applicable in various situations, such as improving motivation through a “sense of contribution” in work, facilitating smooth communication through a “sense of belonging” in human relationships, and supporting children’s independence through “encouragement” in parenting. For example, proactively acting to achieve goals and having superiors and colleagues express gratitude can lead to increased employee motivation and overall organizational productivity. Furthermore, from the perspective of “life tasks” (tasks of work, friendship, and love), all life’s worries are seen as converging on interpersonal relationships, and Adlerian psychology can contribute to their resolution. Moving beyond the abstractness of theory, sharing concrete success stories demonstrates its practical value and effectiveness to society, building trust. In particular, application examples with tangible results, such as Japan Airlines’ corporate turnaround through “JAL Philosophy” and Hoshino Resorts’ achievement of autonomous organization through shared values , can serve as powerful evidence for gaining trust in the business sector.   

Adlerian psychology faces significant challenges, including a lack of scientific evidence and negative practical outcomes due to misunderstandings of key concepts. However, it also shows potential benefits in various practical fields such as business, parenting, and education. Successful trust restoration cases in other professional fields demonstrate the extreme effectiveness of presenting concrete results (e.g., the permeation of corporate philosophy in JAL’s corporate turnaround , the performance of seismic-resistant buildings , and successful reforms in universities ).   

This situation suggests that for Adlerian psychology to restore trust, it is crucial to visualize its practical outcomes in parallel with pursuing academic rigor. If the theory can be shown to contribute to increased organizational productivity, improved family relationships, and enhanced individual well-being in a measurable and observable way, its practical success will naturally build trust. People tend to trust what actually works. Therefore, to restore trust, a dual approach is essential: advancing rigorous academic research while systematically collecting, documenting, and actively publicizing compelling success stories and case studies from diverse application areas. This will demonstrate that Adlerian psychology is not merely an academic concern but a useful tool for solving real-world problems, thereby actively proving its utility and positive societal impact, and establishing the quickest path to trust restoration.

Approach to Rebuilding Human Relationships Through Dialogue and Empathy

Adlerian psychology posits that “all human problems are interpersonal relationship problems”. To repair strained relationships, it is suggested that consciously setting aside “TTT (Time to Talk)” is crucial. This dialogue should be a constructive, future-oriented “dialogue” (listening to each other’s opinions) rather than an emotional “debate” aimed at winning an argument.   

Adler defined “empathy” as entirely different from agreeing with or sympathizing with another’s opinion; it means “seeing with the eyes of another, hearing with the ears of another, and feeling with the heart of another”. Imagining and leaning into the pain and sadness behind another’s perspective is the first step in building trust. As Adlerian psychology focuses on interpersonal relationship problems, disseminating concrete dialogue and empathy techniques serves as strong evidence that its theory functions practically. This aligns with general principles of “rapport building” and “trust building” in psychology, clearly demonstrating its practical value.   

Promoting Public Relations Strategy and Trust Building Based on Psychology

Various psychological techniques are effective for building trust, including open questions, mirroring, the law of reciprocity, the Windsor effect (utilizing objective information), and the two-sided message rule (disclosing disadvantages). In particular, the “Windsor effect” and “bandwagon effect,” which incorporate objective information such as customer satisfaction survey results, case studies, sales performance, and cumulative sales, tend to lead to trust acquisition. Additionally, the “two-sided message rule,” which intentionally communicates disadvantages, is also effective in dispelling distrust and gaining trust. Given the situation where Adlerian psychology itself has lost trust, a strategic public relations approach based on psychological insights is indispensable for its dissemination and trust restoration. This should be viewed not as a passive stance of “good things will spread,” but as an active part of modern marketing and communication strategies aimed at “building” trust.   

Conclusion: The Future Adlerian Psychology Should Aim For

The “sole method” for Adlerian psychology to restore “lost trust” and achieve sustainable development is to integrate the deepening and social implementation of its core “community feeling” with multifaceted strategies: strengthening scientific evidence, accurate information dissemination, and adaptation to modern society.

Adlerian psychology’s fundamental “teleology” posits that human actions are not solely determined by past causes but are proactively chosen towards self-set goals. From this teleological perspective, Adlerian psychology’s own efforts to restore its credibility can also be interpreted as goal-oriented actions. Its ultimate purpose is none other than to permeate society with “community feeling,” which Adler valued most, and to realize individual happiness and overall societal harmony.Therefore, the “sole method” for Adlerian psychology to restore trust is to intentionally direct all its actions and strategies towards the goal of fostering and practicing “community feeling,” promoting them in an integrated manner. This means that individual efforts such as pursuing scientific validation, resolving misunderstandings, and sharing practical examples ultimately converge on the common goal of deepening “community feeling” and contributing to society. This internally consistent and philosophically grounded approach is the most powerful path to rebuilding the credibility of Adlerian psychology and demonstrating its true value to society.   

“Sole Method”: Deepening and Social Implementation of “Community Feeling”

The restoration of trust in Adlerian psychology does not depend on a single technique or concept, but on re-recognizing the universal value of “community feeling” at its core, deeply understanding it within the context of modern society, and putting it into practice. Community feeling serves as a guide to overcome self-centeredness and isolation, and to achieve self-realization through healthy connections with others. This directly connects to Adler’s philosophy that individuals pursue happiness by becoming “contributors” rather than “takers, dominators, or escapists”.   

It is necessary to clarify the original intent that “separation of tasks” is preparation for “common tasks” and to instill in society an attitude that emphasizes the balance between independence and cooperation. This understanding is essential for dispelling the misconception that Adlerian psychology promotes individualism and for re-establishing its social significance.   

Sustainable Trust Restoration Through Continuous Self-Transformation and Social Contribution

Adlerian psychology is a psychology characterized by “presupposing one’s own change”. This spirit of “self-transformation” should also apply to the psychological system itself, requiring a constantly evolving stance. Trust restoration should not be seen as a static state achieved once, but as a dynamic process requiring continuous effort and adaptation. Considering the core principles of “self-transformation” and “continuous growth” in Adlerian psychology , the restoration of trust in this psychological system itself must also be viewed not as a one-time correction, but as a continuous process of adaptation, self-correction, and ongoing demonstration of its value. Just as individuals continuously strive to deepen their “community feeling,” the field of Adlerian psychology must also constantly evolve in its social relevance, scientific credibility, and ethical application. This recognition forms the foundation for the future development and sustainability of Adlerian psychology.   

Regarding academic criticisms (lack of scientific basis), continuous efforts are required to strengthen evidence-based approaches through the integration of qualitative and quantitative research and comparative research with other psychotherapies. Referring to trust restoration efforts in medical research and discussions on evidence and risks in integrated, complementary, and alternative medicine , a proactive stance to ensure research integrity is necessary.   

To address misunderstandings in its popularization, accurate understanding will be promoted through ethical information dissemination by professionals and sharing practical examples. In particular, emphasizing the importance of dialogue and empathy and disseminating them as practical communication skills will contribute to improving the quality of human relationships.   

Ultimately, by accumulating practices where individuals, based on community feeling, contribute to others and to the well-being of society as a whole, Adlerian psychology can transcend mere theory and self-help, permanently restoring and establishing its credibility as indispensable “wisdom for living” in modern society.