Stop Trying to Get It And You'll Have It | The Backwards Law

The core claim is a paradox about control: the harder people try to eliminate dissatisfaction or force happiness, the more that dissatisfaction persists—so the fastest route to what they want is often to stop trying to get it. The transcript opens with the “pink elephant” thought experiment: consciously suppressing an intrusive image fails because the effort to remove it keeps it present. That same dynamic is then applied to everyday emotional life, where general dissatisfaction shows up as sadness, stress, anger, or boredom. The more someone invests in becoming “less dissatisfied,” the more dissatisfied they become, because the struggle itself keeps the target—lack—alive.

That pattern is framed as “the law of reversed effort,” also called “the backwards law,” associated with philosopher Alan Watts. In this view, willpower works for external outcomes—earning money, training for a marathon—because effort can directly shape circumstances. But the backwards law is said to concern deeper wants: the “holy grail” of what people truly seek, such as happiness, love, friendship, or a long healthy life. Those external markers can feel like the solution, yet the pursuit can backfire. The chase reinforces the sense that the desired state is missing right now, so the person feels farther from fulfillment even while moving toward the goal.

Alan Watts is used to argue that people often can’t define what they truly want. A quoted passage claims that people don’t really know what they want because they either already have it or can’t know themselves—likened to a knife cutting itself or fire burning itself. That uncertainty helps explain why the search continues: a “collective delusion” persuades people that changing external conditions—objects, money, scenery, even bodily adjustments—will cure the felt sense of lack. The transcript counters that the felt lack is tied to discontent with the present moment. Greater discontent means more suffering; the more change is required to feel content, the less content people feel.

The argument then turns to how goal-setting can intensify inadequacy. Using Mark Manson’s framing, the transcript suggests that pursuing something only highlights the gap between who someone is and who they believe they must become. Raising the income threshold for happiness makes inadequacy worse; lowering it reduces the feeling because the “goalpost” moves closer. Still, people keep setting bars high, maintaining the itch while trying to cure it.

Arthur Schopenhauer is introduced to explain why striving can be self-defeating. The will-to-live is described as directionless, continual striving that cannot be satisfied by anything the world offers. Pleasure becomes “an error and an illusion” because no attained wish delivers lasting satisfaction. True contentment, in this account, comes from negating the will—effectively “stop trying to get it and you’ll have it.” Alan Watts is also used with examples of paradoxical effort: trying to stay afloat makes someone sink, trying to fall asleep keeps someone awake, and holding breath makes it harder to keep.

Finally, the transcript uses Zen imagery to make the mechanism concrete: cloudy water clears only when it’s left alone. Stirring and grasping represent attempts to force happiness; clarity represents contentment that arrives when the mind stops stirring the water of desire. The takeaway isn’t anti-ambition, but a warning against believing that the pursuit of happiness automatically produces happiness—inviting people to practice “not wanting” more often while still making necessary changes in life.