Mental Traps_ The Overthinker's Guide to a Happier Life - Andre Kukla [41]
(impulse to do X) (do X)
and substitute for it a baroque variety of prescriptive activity:
(impulse to do X) (prescription: “when the impulse to do X is felt, do X”) (do X)
Instead of feeling hungry and then eating, we feel hungry, consult the prescription that we should eat when we are hungry, and conclude that we should eat. Clearly, this is an entirely useless procedure. Its only effect is to disrupt the spontaneous flow of impulsivity. We still eat when we’re hungry, but our actions are “sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought.” Instead of acting like this:
our behavior looks and feels like this:
Our actions are only approximations of impulsivity.
The trap of reading the impulse is another step closer to true spontaneity. Here we no longer interpolate a redundant universal rule between impulse and action. But neither are we yet content to be guided directly by impulse. We deem it necessary at least to translate the impulse into a single prescriptive thought. Instead of:
(impulse to do X) (do X)
we have:
(impulse to do X) (prescription: “do X!”) (do X)
Instead of simply eating when we are hungry, we note our hunger and tell ourselves to eat.
Reading the impulse is an advance over reflecting the impulse, in that a certain amount of useless mental work has been thinned out. We no longer pretend to be following a general law. But we still insist on telling ourselves what to do when we would do the same thing spontaneously. We are like an inept corporate executive who, fearful of losing his grip, insists that all directives be funneled through his office, if only for a rubber stamping. Impulse speaks to us in the language of feelings, and we echo it inanely on the level of prescriptive thought: “Eat … drink … go to sleep … relax … have fun … have an orgasm … smile …”
The last refinement of regulation is the trap of null regulation. Having perceived the useless-ness of even reading the impulse, we vow henceforth to let impulse rule in its proper domain without imposing any intermediate prescriptions whatever. And then when impulse makes itself felt, we invoke the prescription that permits it to rule. We feel hungry or tired, tell ourselves not to prescribe in such a situation, and then eat or rest. We tell ourselves to be spontaneous. We resolve to go with the flow. In effect, we prescribe that we shall not be prescriptive. Of course this directive can never be fulfilled, because it’s self-contradictory. We can no more command spontaneity of ourselves than slaves can be set free by an act of their masters. Slaves must free themselves, and spontaneity can be allowed to emerge only by itself. Instead of achieving genuine impulsivity of this form:
(impulse to do X) (do X)
we fall prey to yet another redundant prescription:
(impulse to do X)
(prescription: “let impulse rule!”) (do X)
Null regulation is prescriptive action in its most exquisite disguise. At no point do we actually tell ourselves what to do, as in the previous varieties of regulation. We simply tell ourselves to follow our impulses. But if we must tell ourselves to follow them, the final authority for what we do is still prescriptive. We’ve likened the trap of reading the impulse to an executive’s having to approve every decision made by his subordinates. In null regulation, the executive only pretends to give his subordinates a greater measure of independence. He no longer explicitly approves or disapproves of their decisions. Instead, he looks at each decision in turn and indicates whether they shall have the freedom to decide in this particular case. The net result is the same as before. Granting freedom of choice on