PART 2: The torturous position of knowing and not doing.
In the first part of this series on insight vs action, I introduced the insight/action gap and offered one simple explanation for its prevalence in humans: changing things requires effort and resources, and as long as we’re alive, the evolutionary imperative says “it’s all good.”
In this second part, I want to highlight 2 main things:
1) How we humans are interpretation addicts
2) How a conceptual understanding of a behaviour’s danger does not automatically excavate us from those behavioural habit ruts.
When it comes to problem-solving, we humans come to life. We love to analyse, to interpret, to create spreadsheets, lists and plans. Why? Because interpretation alone is safe and easy, since it doesn’t bring about immediate change nor use as many resources as action. Interpretation is also fairly satisfying. It helps us turn intangible and confusing complexities of our incomprehensibly intricate existence into narratives that are more structured. Talk therapy is an example of a form of human interpretation that helps us rather neatly tie up loose ends. We put feelings into words which in turn helps us put something intangible into something concrete. And this is, I believe, why many people get stuck. We assume that the language funnel is the way to get the problem solved: that if we can just do the funnelling really well, then the insight will follow from that, and then the insight will lead to the actions that change the life in the desired ways.
But what we must note is that therapies that privilege the verbal interaction itself will never directly cause a behavioural shift since discussion about a problem behaviour does not haul us out of the habit of the problem behaviour. In fact, as you may have already released (with your high level of perceptiveness), all of the talking and insight from therapy in the world still doesn’t stop you from picking the smallest banana from the bunch when you’ve taught your brain over and over and over again that this is the appropriate behaviour to take.
I believe that part of the reason we use language to make intangible things more concrete is simply that verbalized intellectual outputs sound pretty impressive. You can’t host a great TED talk and real off a list of practical skills that need to be actioned. Though these would typically represent much more direct and/or profound objectives for a person to act on, this TED talk, a book in this blunt style, or a podcast in this format would sound pretty dull and trivial when placed beside a beautifully formed elaborate metaphor that has been fitted neatly into a well-cultivated semantic field.
The overvaluation of interpretation over action is even more misplaced when the more a given situation is bound up with physical problems that require behavioural remedies. Eating disorder recovery is a sterling example of this. Practical actions are urgent and important in order to change your behaviours, but after time spent on a waiting list, you are only directed towards CBT to chat about what you are thinking. Whilst yes, thoughts do indeed influence behaviours, behaviours are also simultaneously hugely influencing your thoughts. Mindset change and behaviour change are in feedback with each other, yet the societal bias means that the action-to-attitude half of the loop is often neglected. This is deeply unfortunate, given there are so many factors that make it easier to get a recovery process kicked off with a change in behaviour rather than an attempted change in how you think. Merely focusing on thinking can very easily just pile up more and more thinking, which actually never translates. Months later, all you’ve been bloody doing is thinking.
So, where does this leave us?
What’s written above highlights that no number or depth of conversation, nor understanding of causes, dangers, or motivations is going to change the brain from wanting to go down the well-worn pathways. From this stance, it is therefore incredible that traditional treatment routes are still seeming to prioritise problem discussion and understanding, rather than action-taking. For those of us who have been ushered down conventional pathways – such as CBT – we have been invited to interpret, and sometimes even told we won’t be able to act until we have. It can be a real shock to realise just how often action has taken a backseat to reflection, and further, to realise that this was endorsed by the current approach to treating eating disorders. And perhaps this is why many people find coaching a more relevant method of eating disorder recovery, especially when lots of therapy has already been done. Instead of seeking an answer to the question of “why am I like this?” discussion is centred around the hows of surface level action.
My third and forth post in this series will assert some things you are going to have to stop doing if you truly wish to recover and are prepared to take the necessary steps to enable that. See you there!
Comments