This was very interesting to read. Thank you for writing up such a detailed example!
> Jimmy: Sounds like you’re not too happy with your new identity as "fat kid," and are kinda pissed at life for pushing you to accept it. Jimmy: I’m gonna go out on a limb and predict that the reason you’re pissed and haven’t fully accepted it is that "accepting it" kinda feels like "accepting your fate." Jimmy: You don’t want the rest of your life to be this way. The time you already spent messed up is fine. Spending a few more years recovering is fine. Shitty, yes, but fine. Jimmy: It’s the idea that it’s over, and all you got to look forward to is being a cripple in pain forever that pisses you off, and which you don’t want to accept. Jimmy: Am I wrong? Jimmy: Because if that’s the case, then yeah, fuck that. I wouldn’t accept that shit either, and being pissed off sounds like approximately the right reaction. Jimmy: It’s not time to accept that which hasn’t been determined.
> Okay, I think this is the important piece. This is the piece of truth that he could sense but hadn't integrated which would have been lost "just accepting" the pain and feeling okay without doing something with the message. This is why he pushed back, rather than "just" treating pain like any other information. To him, the pain seemed to be saying "Your life is over. You're a cripple now", so if he says "okay", then it's "Okay, I'm a cripple", an expectation of being a cripple, and therefore no ability to work towards not being a cripple. At least, not with his heart in it.
As someone who has struggled with accepting pain for exactly this reason, I feel really seen by this passage
In the last post, I introduced an example where I was talking to someone suffering from chronic pain. Today we will dive into the rest of the transcript. Interspersed are annotations describing my thought process as the interaction unfolded. I cover what I did which seemed to work, and what I did that a cringe at in hindsight. Ten thousand foot overview at the bottom, for those who don't want to wade through the whole thing.
This might be a little difficult to follow, at this point. Originally, I was planning on posting this at the end of the sequence so that you would have the entire 17 posts worth of explanation to put my moves here into context and help understand where they came from and what I mean when I say jargony things like "bid for attention". You might want to revisit at the end of the sequence, and see if you pick up on more of what is going on.
I decided to move it to move it to the front for two reasons. One is that it can help to be primed with examples of the thing to be explained so that you more easily recognize the explanation when it fits. The other is just to demonstrate that when I say things that are very counterintuitive and difficult to believe, there's reason to believe it. It actually works.
Picking up where we left off...
Up to this point I have just been indulging in my curiosity. What’s going on here? What kind of hurt is he, and is his relationship to pain actually causing him problems or is it just injury that I can’t really help with?
Often, the way to help people complaining about “pain” is to understand that it’s not about the pain, and address the injury (forget the finger, look at the moon to which it points). Accept the pain’s bid for attention, give it, and watch their suffering ease as they follow). My cousin’s burn is an example of this, where people were trying to fight the pain because in their minds they had done everything needed to address the injury, and all I needed to do was make sure that in his mind that was true too. The generalization of this that I’ve learned is that generally it makes more sense to stfu about your theories how things work and just focus on being the best person you can be. Care about your friends and family, try to solve their real world problems, and the "psychological" follow.
I didn’t have to tell my cousin my stance that pain doesn't feel like an issue once you've listened to it, I just offered to listen with him. I didn't have to explain CBT to makeup girl and that she shouldn't take irrational feelings seriously, I just realized that her insecurity wasn't rational, and didn't take it seriously. By expecting a lack of suffering, suffering becomes surprising, and you get curious about what's causing it. By the time you walk that road to the end with them, your maps of reality have been updated together so that their expectations and reality can meet again, which is another way of saying "there's no more suffering". So usually I just do that.
This one was a little different. After getting the basics, I had mostly just run out of curiosity. I wasn't surprised that he was suffering, and I kinda felt like “I get it. And yeah, that sucks”. That's not to say that continuing down the road of examining what exactly is causing his suffering would not have worked, just that I wasn't curious so I'd have to fake it and force it. Asking questions when you aren't actually curious what the answer is, because you think you "should" because it will "help" with the psychological problem, is failing to notice the hint from reality that this information isn't important. This is not the way. That's what a lack of curiosity means; it isn't important to you, so far as you can tell.
Since I was out of curiosity, and still wanted to see him get relief, that must mean I think I have something to say. But what do I have to say? It's not "You've integrated this information already, and can safely move on" -- because how the heck do I know. And I can't switch back to "Oh, I should ask, because how the heck is he supposed to know? "Have you learned your lesson?" and "Have you done what you need to do?" aren't particularly productive questions because what the heck did he do wrong? Allow the doctors to treat a condition he had? That's hardly a dumb thing to do, and what are you gonna do, not get the treatment you need? And what the heck is he supposed to do? He tried going to the doctor, and it didn't work, and there isn't exactly an obvious next step that he's avoiding. So far as I could tell, the man had done everything he could see or reasonably be expected to see, and was just trying to get the pain to shut the fuck up for a while so he could rest. Which is completely understandable and completely reasonable.
So I can't "Just be curious, and care about his suffering" because it was too predictable. Can't "Just tell him that he's okay and did everything he needed to" because I don't know that. Can't ask him if he has, because I already know he thinks he has -- and for good reason. I also have a pretty good guess that he's wrong -- which is something it's probably important for him to know, and something I should therefore explain.
Okay, great, so it's my turn to talk. And the thing I need to convey is that he needs to actually listen to the pain and take his problem more seriously, and that he's wrong in thinking he already done that. How do you expect simply saying that to go?
Probably similarly to what I anticipated. It wouldn't make sense. He wouldn't believe me, because he had no place to put such concepts. He might keep the idea "I'm supposed to believe this", which might come out as "I believe you", but it wouldn't be a belief -- it wouldn't be what his brain thinks reality actually is, and therefore wouldn't be the experience his brain constructs for him. Hypnosis is all about getting pieces considered even when they don't fit, so going hypnotic is one option. In context, it would probably mean explaining that the thing I was going to tell him is going to seem very weird, and leaning hard on the importance of suspending disbelief -- which, to a degree I did end up doing a little.
More importantly though, why work so hard to create room for a thing that doesn't fit, which is of limited use when it doesn't fit because he wouldn't even know how to use it to navigate, when I can just explain and create a way for it to fit? That way I don't have to lean so hard on "faith in the apparently absurd" and he'd actually know what to do with it.
So that's what I aimed to do, and that's why, in this case, it did come out looking a lot like "explaining the framework" rather than simply "doing the framework". It just happened to be that in this case, doing the framework involved teaching the framework, because the problem that I was interested in solving wasn't "this guy is suffering" but rather "this guy doesn't know how to navigate his suffering, and is therefore stuck".
So here's what I said.
Rather than simply asserting things at him without justification for why he should care or what my motives are, I'm framing it as explaining where I am coming from, so he can better understand what is interesting to me about it. I frame it this way to him because that's the frame I was operating from. That's just what's true, so far as I can tell.
I don't think he has to stay suffering, and I notice that he is, and I am curious about what it takes so that he ends up navigating out of this stuckness -- which is another way of saying I actually intend to help, if I can, and learn why I can't if I can't.
So I continue on with this explanation of where I'm coming from.
I feel a little embarrassed reusing the same stories, and I will give a more direct explanation later. But it's a good one, and goes to demonstrate the extreme difference between the boring reality and the seeming impossibility (before we notice how boringly normal it is). I start here because "Pain actually isn't a problem, and can't be" is a super important part of my perspective that informs my curiosity and therefore must be conveyed.
It does conflict with how we normally see pain though, so I try to bridge that gap by explaining how it's actually congruent with how we normally treat pain without necessarily realizing it.
The natural childbirth example serves to illustrate that the same principles apply even in supposed "extremes", and in natural cases with someone who hasn't been "hypnotized" or had any other "intervention" tried -- just a mentally resilient woman who is preferring to face reality so that she could better mitigate actual damage to her body. I then went on to explain that a lot of what leads pain to cause suffering is anxiety over not knowing what to do about it, and that the way to not suffer is simply to listen to the pain.
I really wanted to avoid coming off like a delusional "all problems solved with one simple trick!" weirdo, so I made sure to emphasize that I actually do recognize the apparent difficulty and am not flinching away from reality here. It's an open question to me, which I demonstrate by sharing some of the bits which have informed my perception when facing this open question.
This is the "acknowledgement routine", and I put a description of what it actually entailed in this case into this footnote.[1]
I gave the best examples I could think of to demonstrate the limitations (and therefore my awareness of the limitations) and in doing so also validated feelings he might have of "I'm not just a little bitch, I don't know this will work, and if it doesn't that doesn't mean it's my fault" -- which I expected him to have because I would have them and they're very reasonable given the situation. So this serves to preserve security, by giving him a way to make sense of a potential lack of results without having to push back against me.
This is probably unnecessary, but I did want to err on the side of being delicate about what might be a sensitive situation, especially because 1) he seemed sensitive about overwhelming me with long stories about this stuff if I might not be interested, and 2) knowing that I'm about to turn sadist on him and need him to feel safe facing overwhelming pain without flinching. Again, mostly addressing security concerns here by conspicuously showing willingness to not threaten too much.
This is "pacing", to use hypnotist lingo. This is preemptively addressing "Am I missing anything?" so that when it's time to bid for attention, he has fewer objections to voice and more assurance that if his remaining objections were important I'd have noticed them and have taken them into account.
It's also more "security" stuff, working to attenuate any perceived pressure to face feelings he doesn't want to face. I anticipated (correctly) that this might be an issue, because we're so used to being bossed around by others and ourselves about what we're "supposed to" do, and accepting it. "Here's what you need to do to fix your pain problem" is something this all easily rounds to, but is very different and wouldn't actually help.
The fact that he doesn't need to do anything is actually an important active ingredient. He can do whatever he wants. That's what security is. That's what play is. It's what allows you to actually look at reality and figure out what you want to do given the situation. If you have to follow pre-prescribed rules either way then there's no place to look at reality and decide anything differently -- but it is exactly that decision that actually provides the update that does the work here. So if I'm not going full hypnotic and saying "here are your new beliefs", then it's important that he doesn't feel compelled to do anything.
Here's my "payload" curiosity. This is the question I am curious on his answer to, now that I've given the context to understand it, and potentially find a real solution -- coming from his actual embodied beliefs -- rather than reciting what he thinks the answer is supposed to be.
More "walking on eggshells" for security until I get the green light, restating the payload question in different words to try to hit the same thing from a slightly different angle. On reread, those sentences might be a bit hard to follow. Oh well.
Good, he recognizes the thing I'm pointing at. He may not understand all the nooks and crannies yet, but he's found the thing and has an existence proof.
"Try" is a red flag word. "Try" proves that they're tracking the distinction between intending to do a thing and succeeding in doing the thing, which shows they have some expectation of failure. You don't say "I'll try to get myself a glass of water" when you know you can do it, so he's showing here that he has reservations. This can be a passive problem in that he just doesn't get it yet, or it can be an active problem if the expectation is actually pulling him away from success.
Yep, there's a problem. "Trying to convince myself" is ineffective, because if you're not immediately buying what you're selling, you need to be listening to why not. "Trying" just proves to yourself that you're not worth your own trust.
"I wouldn't say it helped" shows that he's going to lose respect (in the meaningful sense of actually valuing my perspective -- I don't think he'd be "rude" enough to confront me on it) if I don't manage to show how this is congruent with my perspective actually becoming useful to him. So I gotta keep that in mind.
I get the impression that he doesn't expect what I'm saying to be of any help, but he doesn't want to sound dismissive or unappreciative of the effort.
This bit was a little forced. It is amusing, but a little too predictable to be as genuinely humorous as I tried to play it off as. This is an unforced error on my part. Oops.
This isn't just a casual chit chat thing here. It's one thing to "do techniques" where you can rely on canned answers and "recite a script", but I'm trying to actually figure out what the truth is on many layers/objects, and therefore what is the action at each step that will bring about the best expected outcome -- so it's cognitively demanding. If you've been through similar cases many times before then you get good priors to lean on and things get easier[2], but here it's new to me and I actually care about getting results rather than a per hour paycheck, so it takes some thought.
Specifically, I have to figure out exactly where he must be coming from to say this, what it takes to get him to where he needs to be, and what I don't know yet. And it's not a one sentence description like "he's coming from a place where he thinks X", it's an ability to put myself in his shoes and simulate his likely responses to things I could say by thinking about what I would say if I were in what I estimate to be his shoes.
Just trying to explain that it's not about telling it's about listening
Three things going on here.
1) More caution on all levels, showing that I'm not trying to push my ideas but genuinely offer them to the extent that I think he'll find them true and useful.
2) Validating his mental strength and willingness to put up with suffering. Often men like this are willing to put up with pain and suffering essentially as long as people expect them to, and need to be told when it's okay to stop.
3) Pointing at the idea that he might be better off actually pushing less, and therefore listening more.
Just trying again to accurately articulate the question I'm intending for him to face, and inviting him to tell me if I'm doing it poorly.
Yes! "I had to read it a couple times to understand" is a great sign. It means they recognize this as a non-obvious thing that requires more extreme attention ("going into hypnosis", to an extent) to grasp, and that he expects that he might have been successful in understanding.
Basically confirming his understanding, and preemptively "Am I missing anything?" on the "distraction" bit so that I can highlight an alternative.
This is another important "payload", this time pointing at a truth rather than a question: "Pain isn't a bad thing". After delivering the suggestion I go on to build more context to help make sense of it so that it's something he knows how to respond to it an also how to hold onto it.
I don't know for sure he's ready to accept this suggestion, so I'm explicitly giving him the choice. Furthermore, since I anticipate that this might be one of those decisions like "just don't be afraid" that feels outside of our control due to poor representation of our reasons to choose one of the potential options, I'm going out of my way to explain why maybe he should take the option that seems obviously wrong. This preserves the ability to weigh the pros and make a reflectively endorsed decision.
Basically explaining the costs of acting secure without excess clarity, so that he can feel secure choosing insecurity rather than closing his eyes to that facet of reality and fighting against his own reasonable desires.
This is what I expected. It might not be 100% true and missing here derails everything, so it's worth making explicit. Also, here's where I feel confident enough that I can push him into the experience of pain and that if I overstep it will be recoverable because it will make sense to him in context.
Okay, I think this is the important piece. This is the piece of truth that he could sense but hadn't integrated which would have been lost "just accepting" the pain and feeling okay without doing something with the message. This is why he pushed back, rather than "just" treating pain like any other information. To him, the pain seemed to be saying "Your life is over. You're a cripple now", so if he says "okay", then it's "Okay, I'm a cripple", an expectation of being a cripple, and therefore no ability to work towards not being a cripple. At least, not with his heart in it.
This is also what would be lost if we had decided to "use hypnosis" to "not feel so much pain" -- or any other technique[3] with that same Goodharted goal. It's a pretty significant thing to lose, which is one of the reasons I don't advocate for trying to use hypnosis, and is why I'm fairly opposed to "using technique" in general. It risks putting the cart in front of the horse.
This was (is!) genuine excitement. Positivity is great, so long as it's actually justified and not inadvertently teaching that you aren't optimistic enough to look at reality. The amusing bit about this optimism is that it can coexist with remarkably low expectations.
To be clear, this is a declaration of maximum entropy priors. I have no idea what would happen and make zero claims. I've just been surprised enough times by weird physiological changes that I stopped expecting impossibility without evidence.
Just guarding against pressuring him into things he's not ready for again. Especially since I am excited about how it could go, and he probably doesn't want to disappoint me after I've put in work trying to help him. But it's not about me, so my excitement isn't a valid driver, and I'm trying to make sure that if he pushes himself it's because he is excited about the potential pay off.
And that's it. That's the intervention that did the work.
Which interestingly enough, he didn't immediately find very helpful. However, later here's how he spoke of the difference:
Okay, this one I was genuinely cracking up about. It still makes me smile to think about.
After a bit more chatting,
Interestingly, that intervention proved to be quite helpful to him despite not feeling like much at first. It reminds me of my own realization with the hurt foot, just on a larger scale. It can be weird to feel the same pain, and also really not want it to be there at time and be motivated to do something about it, and also not be suffering in the same way. We're not used to having to treat pain/suffering/meta-suffering as distinct things, so it takes some time to figure out what's going on.
He still doesn't have perfect solutions to everything, but it actually doesn't make sense to solve everything perfectly, and at some point you gotta go live your life. This is where we left it. If he wants a better solution I can help him find it, and he's just happy to have the solution he has in the meantime. My ego would definitely prefer a more complete solution, but also that's not a good reason, and trying to act on such things isn't a thing that leads to good results in the most meaningful sense.
10,000 foot overview
The way it looked to me is like this:
He didn't know that this kind of suffering could be resolved, so he didn't know that he had something to figure out. So of course he didn't put much work into figuring it out. If he understood this, he'd be motivated to figure out how.
He didn't understand the structure of this suffering, so he didn't know where to look for a resolution. If he understood that the place to look is where the pain is pointing, he'd be motivated to look.
I didn't know if that motivation would be enough on its own, or if his object-level reason for not looking was going to need addressing, but once he had that motivation any obstacle that needed addressing would become more clear because it'd be in the open.
This all turned out to be more or less correct, which is why it worked out the way it did. It did turn out that there were important reasons for him to not simply yield to the pain, which wasn't surprising and was factored in to the approach I took. In hindsight, I feel like I probably should have seen those reasons coming, but hey, what're ya gonna do.
My first response did hit the nail on the head, and in response he explicitly told me that it's why he can't accept it. I immediately pivoted to giving attention to the reasons he couldn't accept it, obsoleting part of the reason he couldn't accept it. I just didn't see the rest of it clearly enough to continue this approach until the whole thing to dissolved without intentional work towards dissolving.
In both this case and the case of my kid cousin with the fire poker, the suffering was resolved with a clear picture of what was going on. With my cousin, all he had to notice is that there was actually no problem.
Chronic pain guy had more things to notice:
"Suffering can be resolved by working through what's going on" -> "This probably means listening to the pain" -> "There are actually good reasons to not listen to the pain" -> "His particular reason is that he thought listening to the pain means accepting that he's crippled forever" -> "He doesn't actually have to accept that in order to listen to the pain".
Once he saw that, there was no longer anything blocking the default path of attending to information that was important to him.
UPDATE: I talked to him some more in September 2025, so just under year later:
In that case, the chain of wishes/explanations went like this "I wish it wasn't that it hurts" (this one felt like "just words"), "It hurts because I broke my foot", "I wish it wasn't that I broke my foot" (this one felt meaningful, which immediately stood out as interesting. "Do I not actually care about the pain!?"), "I broke my foot because I was playing football and shit happens". At that point, the "do you wish it weren't that <cause>?" was no longer "yes". I don't wish that I didn't play football. I like playing and having fun with my family, and a broken foot is a fine price to play for all the physical play of this nature I have done. So no, I do not wish I didn't play football. Similarly, I did not wish that shit didn't happen. That felt like too ridiculous a thing to wish for.
So of course shit happens, and of course I played football. So of course I broke my foot. And of course it hurts. What do you want? Nothing? I still feel the pain. But I don't wish I didn't? It just feels okay now? Somehow? Weird.
This is one way of conceptualizing "technique"; technique is the prior belief that these responses will be appropriate.
This is also what is lost when you rely on pain killers.