“Flaky breakthroughs” pervade coaching — but no one tracks them

Has someone you know ever had a “breakthrough” from coaching, meditation, or psychedelics — only to later have it fade?

Show tweet

For example, many people experience ego deaths that can last days or sometimes months. But as it turns out, having a sense of self can serve important functions (try navigating a world that expects you to have opinions, goals, and boundaries when you genuinely feel you have none) and finding a better cognitive strategy without downsides is non-trivial. Because the “breakthrough” wasn’t integrated with the conflicts of everyday life, it fades. I call these instances “flaky breakthroughs.”

It’s well-known that flaky breakthroughs are common with psychedelics and meditation, but apparently it’s not well-known that flaky breakthroughs are pervasive in coaching and retreats.

For example, it is common for someone to do some coaching, feel a “breakthrough”, think, “Wow, everything is going to be different from now on,” but feel and act no differently weeks or months later.

Worse, some techniques can even cause bypassing. Such “false breakthroughs” can come with intense positive affect or “cathartic” crying without addressing the underlying issue. (More below.)

Flaky breakthroughs can set people back for years or decades: If someone has a “breakthrough” that unexpectedly reverts, they can become jaded on progress itself. They can learn helplessness and give up on growing. The most depressed person you know has likely had this happen multiple times.

Show tweet

Flaky breakthroughs pervade inner work. Despite this, almost no one — coaches, therapists, retreats, bodyworkers, etc. — tracks whether their breakthroughs last.

Almost no practitioners track whether breakthroughs last.

Earlier this year, I attempted to make a list of “10x Coaches” to refer people to. 20–30 coaches reached out as interested in working with me, and I asked each to share the best evidence that they had facilitated lasting growth for others.

But all anyone could show me were testimonials that basically read, “The session I just had was *really* nice. They had such a kind presence! I felt a big release at the end.” — And I’m glad to hear they’re nice, but immediate reviews do not distinguish lasting growth from flaky breakthroughs.

To show you just how bad it can be, one coach asked me how it was even possible to know if the client resolved their issue long-term:

My response: You ask them.

Coming from physics, I was surprised by the lack of measurement in personal development.

Even among well-respected practitioners, checking for flaky breakthroughs isn’t standard practice. For example, Joe Hudson (Art of Accomplishment) posted a coaching video where he stated they’d discovered “how procrastination can completely dissolve.” When I asked if he’d followed up to verify this, he explained he doesn't track results.

Almost every practitioner I’ve seen doesn't track whether breakthroughs last.

How do they know whether they’re facilitating lasting growth or flaky breakthroughs?

Can we fix this, guys?

What happens during flaky breakthroughs?

Here's my main model:

Let's say someone is struggling with procrastination. A practitioner helps them release a few blocks, and the client feels amazing — lots of insight, big emotional release, etc. But feeling good in the moment doesn't mean they'll actually stop procrastinating. They could have 100 more blocks creating their procrastination. You just don't know.

So when the client hits those remaining blocks in real life, they're blindsided. The “breakthrough” doesn't stick. And because they expected to be “fixed”, they become jaded on growth itself. They start believing their problems are unsolvable and give up entirely.

When a practitioner neglects to remind them, “by the way, more blocks are probably going to come up, this is probably just one of many,” they're failing to set proper expectations. If the client walks away with false confidence, this could be net negative for their long-term growth.

Some practitioners even make this worse by asserting “That’s it.” after the client has felt a single “breakthrough.” For example, imagine how this man will feel if he encounters a totally different procrastination block the next time he sits down to work.

In cases like these, the “breakthrough” was not complete. Maybe it was only 1%. You can’t know until you check later.

Without long-term feedback, practitioners can mistakenly think they're helping — “wow look they just had a breakthrough!” — but just be short-term reward hacking.

This can be especially harmful when techniques bypass the underlying issues rather than address them. For instance, it is possible for a practitioner or retreat to temporarily zap someone (someone who is cognitively insecure) into feeling like their problem never mattered in the first place. The simplest, most common way this happens is via cliche inspirational statements: “You are already perfect,” “Just let go of all resistance,” “Return to the present,” “Just love yourself more.” Statements like these can help in very specific circumstances with long-term integration, but usually they lose their effect (though they may make newcomers cry a few times).

It’s similar to how someone can take psychedelics and temporarily relax one of the tense beliefs they use to interact with the world. But just because someone gets zapped into ~no ego for a short period of time doesn’t mean they can safely replace the use for an ego in all contexts permanently. (Not to say it’s impossible, but it requires integration.) As psychedelic researchers have found, a ”feeling of profound understanding” doesn't guarantee accuracy — insights can feel undeniably true while being completely false.

In general, bypassing seems most prevalent when practitioners come from a frame that assumes a client’s symptoms are simply suboptimal. Never mind that suffering often has a complex and locally optimal purpose. Never mind that social anxiety is usually protecting from outcomes perceived to be worse. The most problematic approaches suggest you tear down Chesterton's Fence while calling it “healing.”

Reduce flaky breakthroughs with accountability

I don't blame practitioners — I blame the system they’re in. Their incentive structure rewards short-term feel-good moments more than lasting change.

If you’re a practitioner interested in reducing flaky breakthroughs, here are my suggestions:

A) Track long-term outcomes

If you're not tracking whether your work lasts 3+ months, you don't actually know if you're helping people.

Almost no one tracks long-term outcomes, which also means it’s very easy to stand out.

Track:

• If their issue is still resolved

• Specific stories of how their life is concretely different now

• Any unwanted side effects, or new issues that emerged

Similarly, wait at least 3 months before collecting testimonials, and share when the testimonial was written. Not only does this show you care about long-term outcomes, but it makes for more convincing testimonials.

Example from a friend:

Show tweet

Long-term data collection is also beneficial for referral marketing.

Finally, third-party perspectives could provide helpful verification. Partners, friends, or family might notice changes the person themselves doesn't see.

B) Align financial incentives with long-term satisfaction

Aligning coach financial incentives with long-term outcomes could encourage better results tracking. For example, pay-on-results or satisfaction guarantee.

C) Stress-test “breakthroughs”

Practitioners could ‘stress-test’ breakthroughs before declaring success. Do the insights hold up even in the most challenging situations and scenarios?

Flaky breakthroughs don’t mean rapid growth is impossible

Some people will read the post above and conclude that growth must always be a slow process, that all claims of rapid resolution of lifelong issues are incorrect. I disagree.

Conclusion

Flaky breakthroughs are common. Long-term feedback loops matter! I’m looking forward to how good practitioners will get once they start tracking long-term outcomes.

Thanks to Brian Toomey for discussions on this topic.