The “Let Them Theory”: Old Wisdom, New Packaging, and Its Problems

If you’ve spent more than 30 seconds on social media lately, you’ve likely come across the “Let Them Theory.” The phrase has become a trending pop-psychology idea: if someone excludes you, dismisses you, or doesn’t invite you — let them. If people misunderstand you, judge you, or fail to meet your needs — let them. The supposed wisdom is that acceptance brings peace.

At first glance, this idea resonates. But as I reflect as a clinician, it’s clear that the “Let Them Theory” is not new. It’s a repackaged version of concepts that have existed for centuries in Indigenous teachings about acceptance, in Buddhist traditions of non-attachment, and in modern clinical practices like Radical Acceptance (Linehan, 1993).

It’s also important to give credit where it’s due. The “Let Them Theory” was not created by the social media influencers who popularized it — it was first introduced by Cassie Phillips, a writer and life coach. Like many ideas in pop psychology, it has since been simplified, repackaged, and circulated widely. That doesn’t make it meaningless; sometimes when an idea goes mainstream, it reaches people who might not otherwise encounter it. But it does remind us that viral trends are often recycled wisdom.

The “Let Me” Twist

Now, I know what you’re going to say: what about the “let me” part of Mel Robbins’ version of this theory? Robbins reframed the idea not just as “let them” but also “let me” — meaning, give yourself permission to choose where you invest your energy and attention. This addition emphasizes agency: rather than simply tolerating exclusion or dismissal, you actively decide what you will or will not participate in.

This nuance matters. “Let me” has more potential for empowerment because it’s rooted in choice, not just resignation. However, even here, we have to be careful. If “let me” is reduced to a catchy line without deeper emotional work, it can still bypass the very feelings that need to be processed in order for authentic choice to emerge.

The Appeal of Pop Psychology

The “Let Them Theory” works as a soundbite. It’s easy to remember, empowering in the moment, and fits our cultural craving for quick solutions. Sometimes hearing a concept in plain language — “let them” or “let me” — makes it click for people who might not pick up a therapy book or sit with a Buddhist teaching. In this sense, pop psychology can serve as a helpful bridge.

But the problem is that what gets lost in translation is depth. Acceptance is not the same as avoidance, and “letting them” is not always healing.

The Limits of “Letting Them” in Therapy

From an Emotion-Focused Therapy (EFT) perspective, simply telling someone to “let them” risks bypassing the important work of processing painful emotions. For example, if you were excluded as a child and feel rejected in adulthood, “letting them” can sound like silencing your anger or grief. EFT emphasizes that emotions like sadness, anger, and shame are signals of unmet needs. Rather than suppressing them, we need to engage with them, express them, and transform them into more adaptive emotions. “Letting them” too quickly can reinforce disconnection from self.

The Danger of Denial

Alice Miller’s work adds another layer of critique. In For Your Own Good, Miller argues that many people were raised to deny their pain in order to protect parents and authority figures. If a client grew up being told “don’t be so sensitive” or “just get over it,” the “Let Them Theory” can echo these same dismissive messages. Instead of empowerment, it risks retraumatizing by suggesting once again: your feelings don’t matter.

The Relational Wound of Shame

Dr. Patricia DeYoung’s writing on chronic shame emphasizes that our deepest wounds are relational. We don’t heal by withdrawing further into isolation or cutting off our responses. Healing happens in connection — when our shame, grief, or anger is met with attunement instead of judgment. If “let them” becomes an excuse to avoid relational repair or to shut down vulnerable parts of ourselves, it misses the point of what actually heals.

Moving Beyond the Soundbite

The truth is, “let them” is not enough on its own. Acceptance is powerful — but it is not passive. In therapy, acceptance means feeling our pain, understanding its roots, and integrating it into our story without being ruled by it. It is not about silencing anger or bypassing grief. It is about making space for the full range of our emotions, and then choosing how to respond.

Dr. Antonio Pascual-Leone’s research on emotional processing reminds us that healing happens when maladaptive emotions like shame or despair are accessed and expressed, then transformed into more adaptive emotions such as grief, assertive anger, or self-compassion. This stepwise process of emotional transformation is very different from simply “letting things go.” It requires courage, presence, and often the support of a safe therapeutic relationship.

The “Let Them Theory” may have gone viral, but the wisdom it gestures toward has been here all along — in Indigenous knowledge, spiritual traditions, and decades of relational and emotion-focused therapy. What matters is not the catchphrase, but the deeper practice: turning toward our emotions, honouring them, and finding healing in connection.

References

DeYoung, P. A. (2015). Understanding and treating chronic shame: A relational/neurobiological approach. Routledge.

Greenberg, L. S., & Goldman, R. N. (2019). Emotion-focused therapy: Coaching clients to work through their feelings (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association.

Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. Guilford Press.

Miller, A. (1983). For your own good: Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Pascual-Leone, A., & Greenberg, L. S. (2007). Emotional processing in experiential therapy: Why “the only way out is through.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(6), 875–887. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.75.6.875