I've been significant to write virtually this for years, but I lost the link to the article I originally read that inspired me, and I also forgot the discussion, "perseveration". Note that I'm non actually interested in what the truthful definition of insanity may be and don't cover it hither; for that you can read the linked article.

The bogus definition of insanity I'm referring to is this i:

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results.

The start time I heard that cringeworthy "definition" of insanity was in the Life Skills grade of the rehab I attended back in 2009. Information technology struck me as false and so, just everybody else (there were betwixt thirty and forty of us) accepted it credulously. Information technology was used in the context of a statement that claimed you can't stop using drugs past yourself. The gist was that we have all tried, and failed many times, and since the definition of insanity is to do the same matter over and over and expect different results, trying to quit drugs on your own is incommunicable and yous would be insane to recollect yourself able to do so. Of course this is absolute bullshit.

I knew it was bullshit, only dared not say then considering I too knew that nobody would believe me. At least in the context of addiction it appeared true because we had all tried to quit, and all failed. But that would patently be the case, since we were in a rehab (FFS), pregnant the argument depended on a moot point, albeit 1 that would be lost on the class and the counsellor running information technology. Also, disagreeing with the lessons that we were taught would at best lead me to be labelled as uncooperative and "in denial", and at worst, it would gear up me on the path to be kicked out of the rehab. But that doesn't change the fact that the statement is obviously untrue. Think about information technology… If information technology was insane to exercise the same thing over and over, expecting different results, then nobody would always:

  1. Learn to read and write
  2. Lose weight
  3. Meliorate at running, or cycling, or pond, or playing a musical instrument, or their work, or annihilation else that takes practice

Of course there are many other examples, but the point is, if that definition were true, none of us would progress intellectually past two years quondam, and I'd be sitting here drooling on my desk-bound rather than writing this.

Notwithstanding, there is besides a pathological kind of repetitious behaviour, called perseveration. It annoys me that I forgot that give-and-take, because I believe that the using of methamphetamine and the resultant tweaking, is in fact an excellent example of perseveration. I'd go so far as to say that what I have described in the past equally tweaking, is perseveration. The author of the commodity I linked to in the first line describes it as beingness "stuck in a non-productive pattern due to a glitch in brain function" and that is exactly what meth does. In the example of meth, it is a direct psychological side-issue of the drug, which results in a pattern of behaviour that leads nowhere (while users think they accept energy). But that's not what I want to write most today…

Well-nigh of the fourth dimension, when we repeat the same thing, it'due south called perseverance, which Google helpfully tells me is defined equally "steadfastness in doing something despite difficulty or delay in achieving success". In other words, to continue at it, to endeavor and even when you fail, don't give upwards. That contradicts the bogus insanity definition completely, because in reality, you will never become the same result after doing the same thing. Yous will learn, amend, and succeed where you used to neglect. And that sometime adage, exercise makes perfect, is a skilful one. Most of the time, it is necessary to repeat the same affair over and over again. And we larn from our mistakes. So this nonsensical definition of insanity isn't only wrong, it's dangerously incorrect.

The linked commodity too mentions that people use the fake definition of insanity in avoidance, which is a defence mechanism. It'south a manner of coping with difficulties by not coping; an excuse to do nada and to deny personal responsibility for 1's actions. The reason that I have an issue with information technology is, when taught in recovery, it gives addicts an excuse not only not to attempt, only when combined with the 12 steps of woo, it absolves them of both the responsibleness of making poor choices (and using drugs) and also of the necessity to try to change the behaviour. (It's non your fault. Information technology'southward a disease and you can't manage it. You need to practice powerlessness and ask your higher power to salvage y'all… Bullshit!)

Published by Jerome

I am a senior C# developer in Johannesburg, South Africa. I am as well a recovering addict, who spent nearly eight years using methamphetamine. I write on my recovery weblog about my lessons learned and sometimes give advice to others who have made similar mistakes, often from my viewpoint every bit an atheist, and I likewise write some C# programming manufactures on my programming blog. View all posts by Jerome

Published