The Problem with the "Let Them Theory"

When “Detachment” Masks Emotional Bypassing

Mel Robbins says ‘let them’—but what if your nervous system won’t? What if this approach doesn’t lead to freedom, but more suppression and lack of processing emotions?

Listen, I’m a fan of Mel Robbins. One thing I admire about Mel is she’s a masterful interviewer. She knows how to pull the gold out of her guests—asking sharp, curious questions, playing the outsider even when she clearly has her own take, ensuring the spotlight stays on the person she’s interviewing. She’s straightforward, bold, encouraging, and a powerhouse of a woman.

And honestly, The Let Them Theory might be exactly the kick in the pants some people need to stop bending over backward for approval, over-explaining texts, and spending so much time perfecting the plan that they never actually start living it.

But when I began listening to the Let Them Theory, something felt off to me.

It felt incomplete.

Now, I get it—Mel is a motivational speaker. Her goal is to simplify change into an easy-to-follow formula so people can take action. Like Tony Robbins or Zig Ziglar, she can motivate with the best of them and has built an incredible business doing just that. So I have to give her major props.

Listen, I hope I’m wrong. As of this writing, I haven’t finished the book, and maybe she will bring in a more nuanced perspective later on. If the last chapter reveals that Mel has secretly been studying polyvagal theory and nervous system repair this whole time, I’ll gladly stand corrected.

I’ll be the first to admit—I have a strong bias against anything that leans too black-and-white or steps 1-2-3, probably due to many years spent in cult-like environments. My nervous system does not do well with oversimplified life advice. And I think she and I just come from different camps, so before you keep reading, I ought to let you know where I stand.

Here’s my take: Mindset alone isn’t enough. We’re not just brains running thoughts—we’re bodies carrying emotions, patterns, and deeply wired responses. Real transformation doesn’t happen by flipping a mental switch or forcing a reframe. It happens when we work with the nervous system, process emotions fully, and integrate both thinking and feeling.

My story is one where cognitive work alone didn’t produce the healing I needed and it was only when I integrated somatic work and rewired my nervous system out of a baseline of survival that I began healing on all levels. (I later added in energy work, but that’s a story for another day).

My new normal is a curious observation of all the information my mind/body gives me and processing that information fully. My brain is now integrated, I no longer have CPTSD symptoms, and my nervous system’s capacity is expanded. It is now flexible and resilient.

None of this was as simple as flipping a switch. That’s the lens I’m bringing to this conversation.

So, I have some questions about the Let Them Theory and I feel I need to put a disclaimer out there for anyone who might feel confused by this information. This is going to be a long article, so get comfortable—grab a drink, settle in, and maybe stretch your neck because we’re about to dive deep.

How about we start with where Mel and I align, shall we?

The Good: The Strengths of Let Them Theory

1. Encourages Non-Attachment

• The idea of “letting people be who they are” aligns with radical acceptance, a key principle in both Stoicism and mindfulness. While I’m personally not a fan of Stoicism, this is an aspect that we can agree on. It’s helpful to pull back from trying to manage, fix, or control what is outside of you. I cover this extensively with my clients, and it’s integral to healing from co-dependent tendencies. It’s also a good practice to give yourself a reality check on “what is” instead of what you want something to be.

  

• Somatic Alignment: This can be freeing for people stuck in over-functioning, codependency, or control patterns. It’s a reminder to focus on what you can control, which will always be your thoughts, patterns, habits, and actions. Attachment to outcomes can be detrimental to relationships and cause a lot of stress, so the idea of removing that is one I can support.

2. Empowers Self-Focus Instead of External Control

• Instead of wasting energy trying to change or convince others, the theory shifts attention inward. In my group coaching, we talk about external locus of control and how this is one way we get tied up in co-dependency. Focusing inward is part of the process (not the whole thing) and it’s usually a good first step.

• Somatic Benefit: Anything that helps unravel codependent tendencies—the great destroyer of relationships—is a good practice. It can help reduce the activation of fight-or-flight responses linked to hyper-vigilance in relationships, or at the very least, create an opportunity for greater awareness—allowing you to recognize these patterns and actively work with them.

3. Reduces Emotional Reactivity

• Adopting the mindset that “people will do what they do,” lowers the emotional charge around others’ actions. This is a good thing. We want to create more of a gap between trigger and response. (This is also something I highly recommend). But it’s not the full picture.

• Somatic Perspective: This aligns with nervous system flexibility, as long as the approach includes emotional processing—not suppression. Detached responses as a lifestyle are not a marker of health. Sometimes, instead of this being an empowered choice, it could be the freeze response masquerading as self-sufficiency.

“Detachment is often a survival strategy, not a sign of healing. True healing happens when we feel safe enough to stay present with what is, rather than shutting it down.”— Deb Dana, The Polyvagal Theory in Therapy

So you see, I’m not against the Let Them Theory, per se. There’s a lot that can align with a somatic and trauma-informed way of being. A few more bullet points of things I appreciate in the book and use in a similar, but different way in my coaching practice are:

• Taking personal responsibility (not overly responsible or irresponsible, but right responsibility)

• Reminding yourself that you get to choose how you show up

• Guarding your energy

• Not allowing things outside of your control to cause undue stress (such as politics, other people’s opinions of you, etc.)

But there are also some pretty glaring blindspots. Let’s get into those, shall we?

The Blindspots: Where Let Them Theory Falls Short

1. It Can Encourage Emotional Bypassing

• Stoicism-based encouragement to “be unaffected” by life’s difficulties can sound like emotional regulation but often promotes dissociation instead of true integration. I experienced this when I practiced this type of bypassing with a spiritual lens on it. You can hear more about that on this podcast. This way of being was incredibly damaging as it allowed me to ignore, deny, and suppress red flags and somatic signs that should have caused me to make changes. It crippled my ability to navigate my emotional life because I had labeled certain emotional experiences as “good” and others as “bad”.

• Somatic Take: If someone is emotionally activated, telling them to “just let them be” can easily lead to bypassing the very emotions—betrayal, grief, anger—that need to be processed. Sure, these feelings are uncomfortable, but avoiding them doesn’t make them disappear. It just buries them deeper in the body, where they wait (not so patiently) to resurface later. Learning to sit with and work through these emotions is a skill—one we desperately need, not one we should skip over.

  As Bessel van der Kolk explains in The Body Keeps the Score, “The body keeps the score. If the past is encoded in our sensory and emotional memory, then suppressing emotions doesn’t make them disappear—it just drives them deeper into the body.”

• The goal is to learn to handle difficult emotions, process them, and become more comfortable with our feelings. Mel’s Let Them Theory seems to want to bypass this work using what Dr. Elizabeth Stanley calls “Thinking Brain Override.” (see next point)

• Example: If a friend consistently dismisses your needs, somatic wisdom would say feel the hurt, process it, then decide how to respond—rather than skipping to letting them. While avoiding the negative feeling of being dismissed may feel better in the moment, does it create real resilience to handle that emotion in the future? That’s the question we need to ask.

  “Healing is not about getting rid of the bad feelings; it’s about learning to hold them with compassion and curiosity.”-Gabor Mate, MD, Addiction and Trauma Expert, Bestselling Author of The Myth of Normal and When the Body Says No

  2. It Overlooks Nervous System Responses & Trauma

• The theory assumes that people can simply choose detachment—but nervous systems wired for survival (because of trauma or conditioning) don’t work that way. It isn’t as simple as just “flipping a switch” as Mel describes. If your nervous system maintains a baseline of "stuck on high," or remains in the fight/flight/freeze survival response, you can't simply choose to engage your pre-frontal cortex. Though rewiring of the nervous system is simple, it’s not quick and easy. The way Mel presents this in the book is far too simplistic for anyone who is experiencing trauma or recovering from chronic stress. My concern is that when this flipping-the-switch doesn’t work, the individual will internalize this as a personal failure, vs. understanding the complexities of their beautiful nervous system. (I also don’t appreciate the negative way she speaks about the Amygdala as if its automatic response isn’t part of an intricate, complex system.)

  

  As Hilary McBride puts it in Wisdom of the Body, “Healing happens when we stop treating our bodies as problems to be solved and start listening to them as sources of wisdom.” Ignoring our body’s signals in favor of detachment isn’t regulation—it’s avoidance.

• Somatic Insight: If someone is in fawn, freeze, or fight-or-flight, their biology will resist simply "letting go" without deeper regulation work. Even telling them to do such a thing can feel heartless. Deep breathing (as suggested in the book) is one helpful way to regulate but is not exhaustive enough. It doesn't account for the considerable work required to completely rewire a dysregulated nervous system so that it operates with a baseline of regulation and a wider window of tolerance.

• Example: Imagine someone who has spent years walking on eggshells in a volatile relationship—whether with a partner, a boss, or even a close friend. Their nervous system has adapted to anticipate tension, reading every subtle shift in tone or expression as a potential threat. Telling them to simply “let them” ignores the deeply ingrained survival response that keeps them hyper-vigilant. Without deeper regulation work, their body will still brace for impact, no matter how much their mind tries to detach.

“Healing trauma requires feeling it fully, processing it through the body, and completing the nervous system’s responses to threat.”-Peter Levine, PhD, Developer of Somatic Experiencing, Trauma and Stress Researcher. Author of Waking the Tiger and Healing Trauma

3. It Can Encourage Passivity in Unhealthy Relationships

• While Let Them Theory promotes emotional independence, it risks enabling unhealthy dynamics. Mel offered a brief caveat initially, but as I listened, I realized how someone in an abusive or harmful situation might internalize this information.

• Somatic Perspective: There's a difference between letting someone be who they are and allowing yourself to be mistreated. And I know Mel addresses this in the second part of the theory, which is ‘Let Me.’ And I agree with her that both aspects are necessary. But far too often, people stuck in overdrive and over-functioning in their relationships have no trouble taking personal responsibility. They usually take far too much. So the emphasis needs to be on knowing what is healthy within relationships and what you will or will not tolerate. Our bodies are fantastic resources for this information, as they usually give us signs or clues via emotions or physical sensations.

• Example: A woman in an emotionally neglectful marriage may convince herself to “let him be” rather than advocating for her needs or making an empowered choice. (Again, I know Mel isn’t advising this behavior, but I feel the caveat needs to be much clearer and stronger for those who’ve suffered abuse. Clarity is kindness.)

  “When people are hurt early in life, they often learn to suppress their needs to maintain relationships. This pattern continues into adulthood, keeping them stuck in unhealthy dynamics.”- Gabor Mate

4. It Ignores the Importance of Co-Regulation

• Humans are wired for connection—not radical self-sufficiency. This is where our Western individualism (highly influenced by Stoicism) falls short. We’re not intended to be radically independent, or codependent. We are meant to be interdependent. And we NEED each other to co-regulate. It’s simply not accurate to say that no one else’s dysregulation will affect you. Now, you can create a larger capacity and resilience to avoid this more often than not or to quickly return to regulation, but again, it’s not as simple as flipping a switch in the way you think.

• Somatic Insight: Letting people be who they are doesn’t mean you don’t need safe, reciprocal relationships for regulation. We must pay attention to how we feel around certain people. Certain people and situations allow for us to regulate healthily together—this is by design. It’s important to notice when this energy shifts and becomes a drain.

• Example: If a friend is emotionally withdrawing, the somatic approach isn’t just to let them—it’s also to notice how that impacts you and your nervous system.

“We heal through co-regulation, not isolation. The nervous system doesn’t just need self-reliance—it needs safe relationships to thrive.” — Stephen Porges, The Polyvagal Theory

Alright, I warned you this would be a long one—and we’re still going. But I want to take us somewhere I haven’t publicly shared before.

For the past several months, I’ve been diving deep into this topic. It’s still a newer exploration for me, but it connects powerfully to something I’ve been passionate about for a long time: the tension between embodiment and what Dr. Elizabeth Stanley calls ‘Thinking Brain Override’ in Widen the Window. And at the heart of it? Our different energies.

Carl Jung was the first to pose the idea that we (both men and women) have masculine and feminine energies within us and when these are operating in balance, we feel whole. This is similar to the idea of creating an allied relationship between the Thinking Brain (pre-frontal cortex) and the Feeling Brain (survival response), but it’s a little different.

Think of it this way: We all have two energies inside of us—one that wants to think, analyze, and move forward (masculine/thinking brain), and one that wants to feel, process, and connect (feminine/feeling brain). When these two work together, we feel whole. When they’re out of balance, we either detach too quickly or get stuck in emotional spirals.

One is more logical, structured, and cognitive, the other is more intuitive, in flow, and creative.

🔹 The masculine represents structure, logic, and independence—this is where Stoicism and Let Them Theory thrive.

🔹 The feminine embodies intuition, emotion, and connection—this is where somatic awareness and embodied healing take place.

Carl Jung’s work suggests that true wholeness comes when we integrate these two aspects of ourselves, rather than unconsciously leaning into just one. But, in our perpetual-productivity society and Stoicism, you can see which one is taking precedence, right? And which one is almost being vilified as unnecessary and a problem?

When I work with clients, I almost always find that overthinking is related to underfeeling. It doesn’t matter if they are male or female, if they are solely relying on their logic and independence, they aren’t living in balance or in an embodied way. As a culture, we Americans are very disembodied and we’re paying for it with the effects of stress on our bodies.

Real-World Example:

Imagine you're navigating a challenging project at work. Your masculine energy drives you to set goals, create a structured plan, and push through obstacles with determination. However, without balancing feminine energy, you might overlook the importance of collaboration, intuition, and taking moments to reflect and adjust your approach. By integrating both energies, you not only achieve your objectives, but also foster a supportive environment and adapt creatively to new insights.

Connecting to Jung's Perspective:

Jung introduced the concepts of the Anima and Animus, representing the unconscious feminine side in men and the masculine side in women, respectively. He believed that acknowledging and integrating these aspects within ourselves leads to psychological wholeness. This process isn't about adopting traits associated with the opposite gender but about embracing the full spectrum of human qualities—both analytical and intuitive, assertive and nurturing.

Talking about the masculine and feminine energies or Carl Jung’s work with Anima and Animus is far outside of my paygrade. So I will direct you to an expert below if you have an interest in diving deep into this psychology.

THE MALE AND FEMALE TEMPLATES

Apologies for the stream of consciousness—think of it as a scenic detour. I promise we’re coming in for a smooth landing soon!

If the idea of masculine and feminine energies is too far out there for you right now, let’s revisit Dr. Elizabeth Stanley's work around this from Widen the Window.

“In Widen the Window, Dr. Elizabeth A. Stanley discusses the concept of "thinking brain override," where individuals rely heavily on cognitive processes to manage stress, often neglecting their body's signals. She notes that this approach can lead to compartmentalization and suppression of emotions, resulting in a disconnection from one's physical sensations and needs. This disconnection may cause stress to accumulate, as the body's natural recovery processes are ignored, potentially leading to various mental and physical health issues.

Dr. Stanley emphasizes the importance of integrating both cognitive and bodily awareness to effectively manage stress and prevent the adverse effects of relying too heavily on the thinking brain.”

For now, let’s keep working with the terms “Thinking Brain Override” and “Embodiment” or “Feeling Brain”—whatever you feel comfortable with. The main point is this is a both-and conversation and I found the Let Them Theory to be very heavily sided with the masculine/thinking-brain-override approach.

So what’s the problem with that, you may ask? Well, in my experience, it can easily lead to disembodiment and eventually burnout as (some of us—looking at you, overthinkers and self-improvement junkies) tend to go too far, leaning into the cognitive work without considering the mind/body as a whole.

Your brain is your body and your body is your brain, what happens in one happens in both. When we keep pushing past our body’s signals, our allostatic load—the built-up toll of chronic stress—starts stacking up, and eventually, we pay the price physically, emotionally, and mentally.

Here’s the deal: Our nervous system is designed to handle stress in short bursts. It kicks in, helps us adapt, and then ideally, we return to a baseline of regulated. But when we’re constantly overriding our body’s cues—dismissing exhaustion, numbing out emotions, or muscling through discomfort—we don’t just move on. Instead, our stress response stays flipped on, flooding our system with cortisol and adrenaline. Our new baseline is activated, whether in hyper-arousal or hypo-arousal. Over time, this wears us down, leading to things like burnout, chronic fatigue, brain fog, inflammation, and that fun game where you walk into a room and immediately forget why you’re there—plus a few other mystery ailments your doctor just calls “stress.”

Your body isn’t working against you—it’s trying to talk to you. The longer we ignore it, the louder the symptoms get. Healing starts when we stop treating stress like something to “power through” and instead start working with our nervous system—building resilience, restoring regulation, and giving ourselves permission to slow down and listen.

How the Let Them Theory Leans Too Heavily on the Thinking Brain

When we say, “Just let them,” what we’re doing is leaning into our thinking brain—our rational, logical side that wants to detach, analyze, and move on. That’s helpful… but it’s not the whole picture.

Our feeling brain, on the other hand, holds our emotions, intuition, and felt experiences. It asks:

• “What does this feel like in my body?”

• “Am I safe, or am I just shutting down?”

• “Do I feel at peace, or am I numb?”

If we only rely on our thinking brain, we may convince ourselves we’re fine while ignoring deep, unresolved emotions. If we only operate from our feeling brain, we may stay too emotionally entangled, struggling to step back when necessary.

What We Need is Integration

We don’t have to choose between thinking our way through it and feeling our way through it—we need both to be whole. Otherwise, we’re just brains on sticks, hitching a ride in a meat suit—and honestly, that’s not embodied living.

I’m concerned that The Let Them Theory leans too heavily on cognitive detachment, leaving out the essential work of nervous system integration. True resilience requires both thinking and feeling—detaching and engaging.

What if instead of just letting them, we also let ourselves feel what comes up in the process? Let ourselves grieve, get angry, and feel annoyed—without skipping over the messy middle?

At the end of the day, this isn’t an either/or conversation. The real work is learning when to step back and when to lean in—knowing when to detach and give space, and when to engage, process, and take action.

So, what’s your take? What did I miss? What parts of the Let Them Theory resonate with you, and where do you think it falls short? Or are you just here for the emotional rollercoaster and the existential crisis?

Let’s keep the conversation going.

P.S. If you’ve made it this far, I already know—you’re not here for surface-level advice. You’re here because something in you knows there’s a better way to live.

If this conversation resonated with you and you’re craving a different way of being—one that feels more grounded, whole, and aligned—I’d love to connect.

You can learn more about my work and how I support midlife women in burnout recovery and nervous system regulation at www.heidimills.com.