The Art of Suffering for Nothing

“One of the hardest expressions of self-assertiveness is challenging your liniting beliefs.” Nathaniel Branden, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem

“Would you eat a worm? Or press the button and shock yourself?”

You probably wouldn’t expect to be asked such bizarre questions – but how would you answer anyway?

If you say, “I’d never do that,” maybe you’re right. Maybe you’d never swallow a worm (yuk) or give yourself electric shocks (ouch).

But back in the 1970s, some people volunteered for a psychological experiment only to be shocked to discover they not only had to answer these exact questions, but also act on them – all in the name of advancing human knowledge.

Let’s briefly see how the experiment unfolded: the volunteers were informed that they had been randomly selected to eat a worm and were then left alone to wait in anxious anticipation. After 10 minutes, the volunteers were offered a choice: they could either eat a worm or perform a totally neutral task.

Now, get ready to be blown away by the results: almost 80% of subjects chose to eat the worm. That’s not all: 10 out of 20 subjects also agreed to administer painful electric shocks to themselves after eating the worm.

I don’t know which option is worse, but for me one question remains: why would people do this to themselves if they didn’t have to?

American psychologists Ronald Comer and James D. Laird, who looked into this paradoxical evidence, argued that during the 10-minute interval of negative expectancy, the subjects had prepared themselves for the anticipated suffering by going through one of the following changes in their concepts of themselves and the situation:

1. They deserved the suffering (they must have done something bad in their life).

2. They were brave (being able to eat a worm for the sake of science was something to be proud of).

3. The worm was not too bad (there might have been something even slightly positive about it).

According to Comer and Laird, “much of the apparent stoicism of the worlds’ victims may be due to their reconstruction of their views of themselves and the world,” which is a helpful, short-term solution to “cooperate with the inevitable.”

However, when the threat does no longer exist, these very adaptations “become impediments to the amelioration of the suffering.”

An aspect that I find particularly significant is the fact that only the volunteers who altered the concept of themselves (they deserved the suffering or they were brave) chose to administer electric shocks to themselves after enduring the experience of eating a worm.

How tragic that we sabotage ourselves only to confirm the very beliefs about ourselves that keep us trapped.

Let’s consider the false narrative that convinces us we deserve to suffer.

We may unconsciously have learned this lesson in our childhood due to conditional love, constant criticism, shaming or punishments, emotional neglect, an unpredictable or a strictly moralistic environment, etc.

What can a child understand in the absence of his/her parents’ physical affection and verbal affirmation of love, encouragement, reassurance and praise? They will be left believing that their feelings, needs, worth are secondary. The suffering that invariably follows becomes familiar and eventually taken for granted.

Society’s expectations may further reinforce this limiting belief. In certain so-called meritocratic societies, such as the USA, the just-world hypothesis is particularly influential: it is the apparently comforting but dangerous and cruel belief that the world is fundamentally fair and bad things happen to bad people. In this case, merit reflects moral worth: those who struggle may end up believing they are not good enough and deserve the painful consequence of their own deficiencies.

Not in the least, the cultural environment strongly shapes the conditions in which such a belief can flourish. In mainstream Christianity, for example, suffering is not something believers are encouraged to seek. “Suffering isn’t natural,” said Fr Teofil Paraian, “and neither is the desire to suffer.” As hardship is part of the human condition, enduring it is considered spiritually valuable: it builds character, deepens one’s relationship with God and works toward redemption.

Unfortunately, when interpreted excessively on a personal level, hardship becomes desirable or is accepted blindly – setting boundaries is considered selfish and tolerating abuse is seen as virtuous.

It is when suffering becomes our default response that we choose to stay in dysfunctional relationships, toxic working places, harmful friendships and social circles, despite the fact that we can safely opt out.

What breaks the pattern of self-sabotage is bringing our limiting beliefs to light and understanding them for what they are: outdated survival strategies.

Only from a place of truth will we be able to outgrow limiting beliefs and face suffering differently: with courage and dignity.

As we all know, suffering knocks at our door anyway.

Uninvited. Undesired. Unpleasant.

When we suffer for the sake of suffering, picturing ourselves as martyrs, we’re in deep denial – we won’t get a halo around our heads.

If we don’t have to eat a worm, then let’s not.

Resources:

Ronald Comer and James D. Laird, “Choosing to Suffer as a Consequence of Expecting to Suffer: Why Do People Do It?”