A trap is only a trap if you don’t know about it.
If you know about it, it’s a challenge.― China Melville
The understanding that all of my thoughts, feelings, and perceptions are mental processes created by my nervous system is called Meta-Cognitive Awareness. Those who lack Meta-Cognitive Awareness are more certain of their interpretations than they should be, and so are vulnerable to recurring patterns of self-sabotaging emotions [Neurotic Disorders] and appetites [Addictive Disorders]. Consider how the examples of a neurotic and an addictive trap described below look from the Meta-Cognitive perspective as compared with the first-person perspective of the individual caught in the trap:
I. Where Poignancy is the Neurosis
Bad things happen and feeling depressed when they do is not indicative of a mood disorder. However, the tendency to parse negative events into a touching story of the unfairness of the world, or luck so bad that it defies the laws of probability seem designed to arouse pity or sorrow in an audience that consists primarily of the narrator and perhaps a few confidants.
To the narrator, the poignant story seems to be an accurate to description of the events in her life. She is not trying to arouse pity and, in fact, may not share it with anyone else. From her perspective, she is telling it like it is. However, as seen from the therapist’s perspective, her touching narrative is a cause— as well as an effect— of her melancholia. This is a seductive trap and those who have become comfortable in it resist changing their poignant narrative. [To explore a fresh narrative: See Detachment from Outcomes].
II. Addiction: Where Solemn Vows Are Easily Violated
The predicament of a problem drinker, described below, illustrates how the same event [a first lapse] is appraised differently before it happens than in retrospect. Ernest sincerely intends to control his drinking, but he later thoughtlessly violates it. The familiar sequence leads to self-loathing and a sincere intention to control his drinking next time.
Escaping an addictive trap
To make a long story short, Ernest recognizes that he has a drinking problem and vows to quit drinking. Several weeks after making this commitment he has a fight with his wife and relapses. After he sobers up, he feels terrible about relapsing, claims he has learned his lesson this time, and sincerely vows to never make that mistake again. If you are familiar with the challenge of controlling the use of an incentive such as alcohol, drugs, food, pornography, etc. you would not be surprised to learn that Ernest has relapsed after vowing not to many times before and will continue to follow this disastrous pattern until he solves the puzzle of how to get himself to adhere to a commitment made during one motivational state [the desire to be free of his destructive relationship with alcohol] when he is in a different motivational state [the desire for the pleasure or escape from stress that intoxication offers].
Extricating yourself from the trap of an Incentive Use Disorder is such a tricky puzzle that many conclude that it is impossible to solve. Individuals caught in this trap are advised to admit powerlessness over their disease and turn responsibility for the recovery from the problem over to a higher power [Deity, treatment provider, support group]. Most treatment for Incentive Use Disorders in the United States is based on the 12-Step approach of Alcoholics Anonymous, which is quite different than the approach described here.
Choosing a strategy of change that is best matched with the attributes of the individual receiving it is the most important treatment decision. For readers contemplating treatment for an Incentive Use Disorder, click this link: Strategy of Change Matching Self-Test.
Earnest’s vow to quit drinking was in accord with his local motivational state. Since he was unaware that motivation is state-dependent, he assumed that he would always appraise the costs and benefits of drinking as he did at that moment. Despite his previous experience, he assumes that it would be easy to adhere to this vow and so does not bother figuring out how he will cope with the high-risk situations that he is bound to encounter. His history of repeatedly failing to adhere to his vow is not due to stupidity or a disease, but is the result of being taken in by the Soul Illusion. His current bias [either the motivation to drink or the shame of failure] is always invisible to him and he assumes that he sees things as they really are and will always see things as he does now.
Problem drinkers are notorious for appraising the wisdom of a first drink differently before it happens than in retrospect. This perverse pattern of vowing to change and then relapsing, illustrates two corollaries of the Soul Illusion.
- Illusion of Sate Permanence: The fact that he has made this same mistake many times and each time believes that he has learned the lesson this time, and will never make this mistake again illustrates the
- The Illusion of Certainty is illustrated by his willingness to make the vow with little attention to how he will get himself to adhere to it. He is so certain that he has learned the lesson that it will require no effort to get himself to act in accord with it in the future.
Reification seals the trap
Reification refers to treating an abstraction as if it had concrete or material existence. Earnest treats his current appraisal [whatever it is] as if it were true and so he assumes he will always appraise the costs and benefits of a first drink as he does now. In this sense he Reifies his current appraisal and so takes it more seriously than he should. This thinking error is the primary mechanism of addictive and neurotic traps—see Reification and De-Reification.
III. The Imp of the Perverse
Humans hate restrictions— especially of those freedoms they already have. Reactance refers to the motivation to react or rebel against restriction. In one study, two-year-old boys accompanied their mothers into a room containing equally attractive toys. The toys were arranged so that one was easily available to the child while the other stood behind a transparent Plexiglas barrier, out of reach. Naturally, the little boys wanted the one they could not have. Reactance is one explanation for the observation that: Forbidding something increases its desirability. [Click here for an invitation to experience this phenomenon personally].
Moreover, rigid rules, once broken, lead to disinhibition. So if you want to understand what it’s like to be obese, go on a weight loss diet. While you may lose a little weight initially, there is a high likelihood the long-term consequences will be weight gain.
The downside of framing your intentions as a negative
Consider the conflict experienced by Ernest, a problem drinker. Intoxication produces both pleasure and pain; he wants the pleasure of drinking but also wants to avoid the pain (sadly the pleasure comes first and so is more influential—see The Pig]. This predicament is called an Approach-Avoidance Conflict, which he conceptualizes as a conflict between drinking and not drinking. This conceptualization invites the Imp of the Perverse into his mind to do its evil magic. Here’s how it works: Drinking is represented in Ernest’s mind as a concrete image, which elicits the desire to drink. Not drinking is derivative and abstract—there is no concrete image of not drinking. Ironically, the only way Ernest can represent not drinking in his mind is to imagine drinking which elicits the desire to drink. Ironic isn’t it?
If you have not already experienced this perverse phenomenon personally don’t click here because the experience might be too much for you
IV. Relapse caused by lack of perseverance
A pattern of short-term improvement followed by relapse is the most common outcome of to among addictive disorders treatment programs. Mood disorders also show this pattern, although the contrast between between excellent short-term and dismal long-term outcome is not nearly as pronounced. However in both cases, the results of long-term outcome research is disheartening: Some achieve good outcome but many do not. Why?
There are several reasons why people return to old reaction patterns that are doomed to failure. Some of these reasons have already been described in this section. There is another that affects almost everyone who labels themselves with a problem or a weakness in a certain domain. “Nothing succeeds like success,” because folks with a history of success in a particular domain have the confidence to persevere despite discomfort or minor setbacks. Those with a history of failure don’t.