Addictive Thinking: Understanding Self-Deception

by Abraham J. Twerski

Distortions of thinking are not unique to addictive disorders, however; nor are they necessarily related to chemical use at all. Thought distortions can be found in people who may have other adjustment problems. For example, one young woman was procrastinating turning in her term paper for a class. “Why don’t you finish it?” I asked. “It’s finished already,” she said. “Then why haven’t you submitted it?” I asked. “Because I need to do some more work on it,” she said. “But I thought you said it’s finished,” I remarked. “It is,” she said. While her assertion appears illogical to most people, it can make perfect sense to someone who thinks addictively. Furthermore, although distorted thinking does not necessarily indicate addiction, the intensity and regularity of this type of thinking are most common among addicts.

Schizophrenic people do not realize that their thinking processes are different from the thinking processes of most other people. They can’t see why others refuse to recognize them as the Messiah or the victim of a worldwide conspiracy. Still, many people, some therapists included, may argue with a schizophrenic person and then become frustrated when the person fails to see the validity of their arguments. But this is like asking a color-blind person to distinguish colors.

Sometimes people with addictive diseases are misdiagnosed as schizophrenic. They may have some of the same symptoms, including • delusions • hallucinations • inappropriate moods • very abnormal behavior All of these symptoms, however, may be manifestations of the toxic effects of chemicals on the brain. These people have what is called a chemically induced psychosis, which may resemble but is not schizophrenia.

A person with schizophrenia, however, may also use alcohol or other drugs addictively. This presents a very difficult treatment problem. A schizophrenic is likely to require long-term maintenance on potent antipsychotic medications. Furthermore, a person with schizophrenia may not be able to tolerate the confrontational techniques commonly effective with addicts in treatment.

someone close enough to observe a late-stage alcoholic (or other drug addict) sees a person whose life is steadily falling apart; perhaps the addict’s physical health is deteriorating, family life is in ruins, and job is in jeopardy. All of these problems are obviously due to the effects of alcohol or other drugs, yet the addict appears unable to recognize this.

Often addicts are taken in by their own thinking, actually deceiving themselves. Especially in the early stages of addiction, an addict’s perspective and account of what is happening may look reasonable on the surface. As discussed, many people are naturally taken in by addictive reasoning. Thus, an addict’s family may see things the “addictive thinking way” for a long time. The addict may sound convincing to friends, pastor, employer, doctor, or even to a psychotherapist. Each statement the addict makes appears to hold up; long accounts of events may even appear valid.

Melody Beattie’s: “A codependent person is one who has let another person’s behavior affect him or her, and who is obsessed with controlling that person’s behavior.”*

The Chair on the Desk While teaching psychiatry to medical students, I had a student who expressed interest in learning more about hypnosis. I felt that the most effective method of teaching this was to hypnotize him and allow him to learn firsthand what a hypnotic trance is and the various phenomena that can be produced under hypnosis. This young man happened to be an excellent hypnotic subject, and in several sessions, I was able to demonstrate the various applications of hypnosis. Because I also wanted him to understand the phenomenon of post-hypnotic suggestion, I said to him: “Some time after you emerge from this trance, I will give you a signal—I will tap my pencil on the desk. At that point, you will get up, pick up the chair on which you are sitting, and place it on my desk. However, you will have no memory that I gave this instruction.” I then brought him out of the trance, and we continued our discussion about hypnosis. After several moments, I nonchalantly picked up my pencil and tapped it lightly on the desk, while continuing the conversation. Within a few moments, the student, obviously uncomfortable, began to fidget. “I have this crazy urge to pick up my chair and put it on your desk,” he said. “Why should you want to do that?” I asked. “I don’t know. It’s a crazy idea, but I just feel like I have to do it.” He paused. “Did you tell me something like that during the trance?” “Yes, I did.” “Then why can’t I remember it?” he asked. “Because when I gave you the ...

When the efforts at control fail, addicts do not conclude, I can’t control my use. Instead, they tell themselves, That method did not work. I must find another method that does work.

The more brilliant a person is, the more ingenious are his or her reasons for drinking, for not being abstinent, and for considering AA or NA worthless organizations.

Addictive thinking is different from logical thinking in that it does not reach a conclusion based on the evidence or the facts of a situation, but just the reverse! The addict begins with the conclusion “I need a drink” (or a drug), and then builds a case for that conclusion, whether it is logical or not, and whether or not the facts support it.

When achieving pleasure or relieving discomfort constitutes the ultimate goal of life, many people, especially youngsters, will turn to chemicals to reach these goals. It is undeniable that mind-altering chemicals may produce a desirable sensation, and to discourage pursuit of this high, we must be able to convince young people that they should sacrifice such pleasure. Since they seem to consider themselves immune to the dangerous effects of drugs, dire warnings are not a deterrent. Telling them to avoid chemicals so that they can grow up to be healthy, productive people who can enjoy life is often met with the spoken or unspoken argument “Why wait? I’m enjoying life right now by drinking.” To further complicate things, our culture thrives on technology that eliminates waiting. We are consumers of micro-waves, fax machines, cellular phones, and instant foods. Even if one can envision “happiness” coming later in life, the prevailing ethos of instant gratification makes a long wait intolerable.

To effectively prevent chemical use among young people, we would have to establish (1) ultimate goals in life other than sense gratification and (2) tolerance for delay. Our culture is not likely to embrace these changes. Instead, our culture embraces addictive thinking.

I told Martin his determination was a good beginning toward recovery, but determination alone could not stop his alcoholism. Treatment was absolutely necessary. I gave him the options of either residential or intensive outpatient treatment.

How is it that people can so blatantly contradict themselves, yet not be able to recognize it even if it is pointed out? In one word, the answer is denial. Much of the denial in addictive, distorted thinking is due to intense resistance to change. As long as someone denies reality, he or she can continue behaving the same as before. Acceptance of reality might commit him or her to the very difficult process of change.

Codependents, for example, may eagerly seek help, thinking experts can tell them what to do to stop someone from using chemicals. They are disappointed when they learn that they can do nothing to alter the addict’s behavior, that they are powerless. When the expert suggests that they look at their own behavior and begin to make changes in themselves, they often back away. They are particularly apt to be turned off when people in Al-Anon tell them, “We don’t come here to change our spouse. We come here to change ourselves.”

Many of the features of addictive thinking can be seen in co-dependents as well as addicts because they stem from a similar origin: low self-esteem.

Most emotional problems that are not of physical origin are related, in one way or another, to low self-esteem. Low self-esteem refers to the negative feelings people have about themselves that are not justified by fact. In other words, while some people have a distorted self-perception that includes grandiose delusions about themselves, people with low self-esteem have delusions of inferiority, incompetence, and worthlessness. Strangely enough, these feelings of inadequacy are often particularly intense in people who are the most gifted.

I have not yet come across any chemically dependent people who did not have feelings of inferiority that antedated their chemical use. Sometimes they feel inadequate or unworthy in every facet of their lives, and sometimes they may feel very competent in their particular area of expertise, but inadequate and unworthy as a human being, a spouse, a partner, or a parent. Some people react to feelings of low self-esteem by escaping from life’s challenges and distresses into chemicals, and some may find a redeeming feeling of worth and adequacy by being the sober and controlling or suffering significant other of a chemically dependent person.

The Rule of the Three Cs Al-Anon endorses the rule of the Three Cs: You did not cause it, you cannot control it, and you cannot cure it.

The self-deceptive features of addictive thinking and co-dependency have much in common. In both, there are often denial, rationalization, and projection. In both, contradictory ideas can co-exist, and there is fierce resistance to change oneself and a desire to change others. In both, there is a delusion of control, and in both there is, invariably, low self-esteem. Thus, all the features of addictive thinking are present in both, and the only distinguishing feature may be the chemical use.

“I can quit any time I want.” If there were a contest for the most common sentence used by addicts, this one would win. Anyone who has observed addicts knows they “stop” countless times and make innumerable resolutions. Abstinence may be for hours, days, or, in some cases, weeks. But, ordinarily, before long the active practice of addiction resumes.

understanding of addictive thinking. Addicts may not seem as illogical as they first appear if we understand one thing: the addictive thinker’s concept of time. Addicts make perfectly good sense to themselves and others when they say, “I can quit any time I want”; an addict simply has a different concept of time than a nonaddict. For everyone, time is variable. Under certain circumstances, a few minutes can seem an eternity, while under other circumstances, weeks and months appear to have lasted only moments. Addicts who claim they can quit any time actually believe it is the truth. Why? Because by abstaining for a day or two, the addict has stopped for a “time.” Indeed, having often abstained for several days, addicts may wonder why others cannot realize the obvious: They can stop any “time.”

The Future in Minutes and Seconds For the addict, time may be measured in minutes or even seconds. Certainly in the quest for the effect of a chemical, the addict thinks in terms of minutes. Addicts are intolerant of delay for the sought-after effect. All of the substances addicts use produce their effects within seconds or minutes.

Addicts tell me they wouldn’t buy a drug, regardless of its great effect and of its low cost, if there were a long delay in the onset of its action. Part of addiction is the immediacy of the high. Delay is not within the addict’s frame of reference. The addict does think about the future, but only in terms of moments, not years. When drinking or using other drugs, addicts do think about the consequences: the glow, a feeling of euphoria, relaxation, detachment from the world, and perhaps sleep. These consequences occur within a few seconds or minutes after drinking or using, and these few seconds or minutes are what make up “time” for the addict. Cirrhosis, brain damage, loss of job, loss of family, or other serious consequences come as the result of a long process and are not likely to occur within minutes. So they simply do not exist in the addict’s thoughts.

the consequences are in a “future” that is not within their conception of time.

When addicts recognize that part of their downfall was intolerance of delay and become willing to wait for the rewards of sobriety, they are on their way to recovery. If they want “instant” sobriety, they get nowhere.

When addicts and codependents fully grasp the one-day-at-a-time concept, they have begun their recovery. They must proceed cautiously, however, because a recurrence of time distortion is reason to suspect the possibility of a relapse. The time dimension of thinking is thus an important consideration for both the recovering addict and the professional in understanding and managing addictive diseases.

the man suggested that alcoholic thinking is every bit as destructive as alcoholic drinking. To illustrate, the man read the questions from a self-test for alcoholism, substituting the word thinking for the word drinking. Here is what he read: Are You an Addictive Thinker? 1. Do you lose time from work due to thinking? 2. Is thinking making your home life unhappy? 3. Have you ever felt remorse after thinking? 4. Have you gotten into financial difficulties as a result of thinking? 5. Does your thinking make you careless of your family’s welfare? 6. Has your ambition decreased since thinking? 7. Does thinking cause you to have difficulty sleeping? 8. Has your efficiency decreased since thinking? 9. Is thinking jeopardizing your job or business? 10. Do you think to escape worries or troubles? The point is that even in the absence of chemicals, distorted, addictive thinking wreaks havoc. Many addictive thinkers come to their conclusions because they reverse ordinary cause and effect. Their judgment becomes distorted, and as a result taking chemicals becomes fully justified. As one recovering alcoholic put it, “I never in my life took a drink unless I had decided it was the right thing to do at the time.” Although addictive thinkers turn logic around, they are absolutely convinced that their logic is valid. They not only resist rational arguments to the contrary, but also they cannot understand why others do not see the “obvious.”

The fact is that chemicals usually cause the problems, but the addicted person believes that problems cause chemical use.

An Inability to Reason with Oneself The most convincing theory on how addictive thinking develops was presented in a 1983 article by Dr. David Sedlak.* Sedlak describes addictive thinking as a person’s inability to make consistently healthy decisions in his or her own behalf. He points out that this is not a moral failure of a person’s willpower, but rather a disease of the will and inability to use the will. Sedlak stresses that this unique thinking disorder does not affect other kinds of reasoning. Thus, a person who develops a thinking disorder may be intelligent, intuitive, persuasive, and capable of valid philosophical and scientific reasoning. The peculiarity of addictive thinking, he says, is the inability to reason with oneself. This can apply to various emotional and behavioral problems, but is invariably found in addiction: alcoholism, other drug addiction, compulsive gambling, sexual addiction, eating disorders, nicotine addiction, and codependency.

Successful parenting requires a knowledge of what a child can and cannot do at various stages of development, and parents should encourage their children to use their capacities.

Parents are encouraged to take an interest in the child’s schoolwork, even to assist in homework. However, when parents do the homework for the child, they reinforce the child’s conviction that he or she is unable to do it. Incidentally, when parents do much for the child that he or she can do alone, they are acting codependently. A child who says, “I can’t do word problems,” and is allowed to get away with it, actually has the feeling of inadequacy reconfirmed.

A person can feel bad or worthless, even though this totally contradicts reality. Feeling insecure and inadequate makes a person more vulnerable to escapism, so often accomplished via mood-altering drugs. The person feels different from the rest of the world, as if he or she doesn’t belong anywhere. Alcohol or other drugs, or other objects of addiction, anesthetize the pain and allow this person to feel part of the “normal world.” Indeed, many alcoholics or other addicts state they did not seek a “high,” but only to feel normal.

The three most common elements in addictive thinking are (1) denial, (2) rationalization, and (3) projection.

Progressive elimination of these distortions is a key to the recovering addict’s making improvements.

The term denial as used here could be misunderstood. Ordinarily, denying something that actually happened is thought of as lying. While addictive behavior does include lying, denial in addictive thinking does not mean telling lies. Lying is a willful and conscious distortion of facts or concealment of truth. A liar is aware of lying. The denial of an addictive thinker is neither conscious nor willful, and the addict may sincerely believe that he or she is telling the truth.

Denial and, for that matter, rationalization and projection are unconscious mechanisms. While they are often gross distortions of truth, they are the truth to the addict. The addict’s behavior can be understood only in the light of the unconscious nature of these mechanisms. This is why confronting the d...

Psychological defense mechanisms are no different. They do not go into action at our direction. We are unaware of their operation, and, until gaining an awareness of them through recovery, an addict can do nothing to stop them. It is therefore futile as well as nonsensical to tell alcoholics or other people with addictions to “stop denying,” “stop rationalizing,” or “stop projecting,” when they are not aware that they are doing so. They must first be helped to become aware of what they are doing.

After thinking about it, I realized that as long as she saw cancer as some kind of abstract concept that did not pose an immediate threat to her life, she could accept the diagnosis. Once the condition began causing pain and shortness of breath, concrete evidence that she was deteriorating, she felt so threatened that her psychological system shut off realization of the truth. She was not intentionally lying nor pretending; she actually did not believe that she had cancer.

Denial as a Defense Looking at denial as a defense, the obvious question is, A defense against what? In the case cited, the woman couldn’t accept the devastating realization that she had a fatal disease and that her life may soon end. In the case of an addicted person, what is so terrifying that the addict’s psychological system opts to deny reality? The answer is that awareness of being an alcoholic or a drug addict is beyond acceptance. Why? • The person may feel stigmatized at being labeled an alcoholic or addict. • The person may consider addiction to indicate a personality weakness or moral degeneracy. • The person may think not being able to use alcohol or other drugs again is frightening. • The person may not accept the concept of being powerless and not in control. It could be a combination of these and other reasons, but the addicted person finds accepting the diagnosis of addiction every bit as devastating as the woman did accepting the truth of her cancer. Until denial is overcome, addicts are not lying when they say they aren’t dependent on chemicals. They are truly unaware of their dependency. Rationalization and projection serve at least two main functions: (1) they reinforce denial, and (2) they preserve the status quo.

Rationalization means providing “good” reasons instead of the true reason. Like

A fairly reliable rule of thumb is that when people offer more than one reason for doing something, they are probably rationalizing. Usually the true reason for any action is a single one.

Rationalization reinforces denial. The alcoholic might say: “I am not an alcoholic. I drink because

People with this type of drug use do not think of themselves as addicts. “I never went out on the street to get high. I need the medication because the pain is unbearable. If I could get rid of the pain, I would not use drugs.” In these cases, examination by doctors usually fails to reveal a physical cause for the persistent pain, and these patients may be told, “You don’t have real pain. It’s all in your mind.” They are often accused of pretending or malingering. What is not generally recognized is that the unconscious mind can produce pain, real pain, that hurts as much as a fractured leg.

Addicts, as well as others with psychological problems, may blame their parents for their shortcomings, something which pop psychology has inadvertently encouraged. Some addicts spend countless hours rehashing the past and tend to use such information to indulge in self-pity and to justify their recourse to chemicals. I have found it helpful to say, “Even if you are what your parents made you, if you stay that way, it’s your own darn fault.

These three major elements of addictive thinking—denial, rationalization, and projection—must be addressed at every stage of recovery.

Contrary to common belief, addicts do not have more conflict in their lives than anyone else—that is, before chemical use messes everything up. Once the addiction is well under way, the chemically confused mind can generate a lot of conflict. Overwhelming conflict is not responsible for chemical dependency. Rather, it is the addict’s distorted perception that makes reality unacceptable.

A Distorted Self-Image The biggest distortion is in the addict’s self-image. In one or more ways, the addict feels grossly inadequate.

When the layers of veneer are peeled off, an addict has an extremely low self-esteem. If the distorted self-concept is not corrected, the addictive thinker will find it difficult or impossible to maintain recovery and could develop psychosis, neurosis, or a substitute addiction.