There is a notion of a “Pollyanna mode” in schematherapy. What it means is ignoring negative facts and challenges with an outwardly positive attitude and avoiding addressing the issues themselves.

This certainly can be harmful to oneself. Another harmful thing is hating and bashing oneself for mistakes and faults and I won’t make a comparative judgement, but a healthy way is supposed to be along the lines of speaking up openly about what bothers you and thinking what can be done about it if at all.

The plot summary of the book is likely not what you should be reading as it's become an idiom. Something like Wiktionary or another dictionary would be a better place to look it up.

In this case, it's not about being able to receive criticism, but about being reticent about _giving_ it.

This is a good and perhaps under-appreciated point. When I first read the term "Polyanna" I made the same mistake as GP. I think if you read "The Prince" to find out what "Machiavellian" meant you'd be no better than when you started. Even terms like "Kafkaesque" have taken on lives of their own and are probably better not thought of as mere literary references.

Machiavelli's "Discourses" is the one that will really confuse a reader looking to understand the colloquial meaning of "Machiavellian". In this book, Machiavelli lays out a vision of a healthy "republic" (or more precisely, res publica) which benefits the people who live in it. Among other things, Machiavelli argues that republics actually benefit from multiple competing factions, and from some kind of checks and balances. Apparently these ideas influenced several of the people who helped draft the Constitution of the United States.

Now why Machiavelli had two such different books on how governments worked is another interesting question...

> adjective

> uk /ˌmæk.i.əˈvel.i.ən/ us /ˌmæk.i.əˈvel.i.ən/

> using clever but often dishonest methods that deceive people so that you can win power or control

(from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/machiave... )

Ymmv, but I think that's far from the point of the book, and isn't even the main topic. It's hard for me to imagine taking a person who'd never heard the term, letting them read the book, and then asking them to propose a definition, would produce anything like the above.