I've heard this advice of "give up" and it comes for years.
Give up on trying to find love and then you get the partner Give up doing a million interviews and then you get the job Give up trying to cure your alcoholic and your partner decides to go to AA on their own
I'm assuming this has something to do with the principal of "non-attachment" or not putting out a vibe of neediness, but it's still curious to me. Wondering if there's more to it than that.
Or possibly, it's just odds that a high percentage of people who had given up after trying really hard, got something. And then they wanted to share their story.
And is there any way to enforce this state? Seems pretty hard to give up on something as a means to get it, so there's an inherent paradox.
Act 1: Hero wants a thing. Hero puts in all their skills and effort. Things get worse.
Act 2: Hero sacrifices everything and consequently loses it all until they run out of things to sacrifice.
Act 3: Hero recovers.
The transition from Act 2 to 3 is when they listen to what a mentor said in Act 1. Oh this mentor was right all along.
A tragedy is usually defined as someone who didn't listen to the mentor. A comedy is when a bunch of people didn't listen to each other and got into deeper trouble until they realized the truth.
I love the Overcoming the Monster plotline. It's a reversal of Tragedy. The Monster is usually superior, but they made mistakes and refuse to admit it. What differentiates the Monster from the inferior Hero was the Hero was willing to admit her mistakes.
What comes from giving up is usually a form of humility, often subconscious. You accept that your successes aren't from your ideas or your individual efforts. You become more open to trying things that change your identity and kill your ego.
Character development only happens with a form of death, letting go of who you were. Graduation ceremonies are a form of funeral - you are no longer a top student, you are now unemployed. A wedding celebrates the death of single you and the birth of married you.
That's how solving problems happens after "giving up", and this is well-documented in cognitive studies. It's called the "default mode network"[1] and it's possible to learn to activate it.
As for your example "Give up trying to cure your alcoholic and your partner decides to go to AA on their own", that's an entirely different mechanism, involving human social relations and self-interest. I don't have a good explanation, but have you ever been in a situation where someone told you to do something that you knew was good for it, but you resisted doing it? Maybe you justified your refusal as being skeptical, or just didn't like being told what to do.
BUT when you stop actively that list of hard requirements goes away. You've given up looking for the unicorn that you invented and now when you find someone close enough you're willing to "settle." That settling isn't because you didn't find the unicorn, it's giving into the reality that the unicorn didn't ever exist. As the philosopher Sir Michael Philip Jagger said, "...But if you try sometimes, well, you just might find you get what you need"
And once we quit trying the flawed mechanism, we allow other, more normal mechanisms to start working.
Suppose it's true anyway: what's the value in getting the thing if you don't want it any more?
You can't convince someone to break an addiction; The more you push, the more it hurts them and the more distance it creates between you. They'll even start lying to you just to keep the peace. Any desire to change must come from within, and must not be met with expectations or conditions. They need a comrade, not a guardian.
There are some things you're better off not trying to control.