“Flaky breakthroughs” pervade inner work — but almost 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.

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

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 don't know yet.

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 don’t know until 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.) Similarly, 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.”

Update 2025 Sep 19: Another way flaky breakthroughs can occur is when readiness bottlenecks go unaddressed. People who haven’t addressed their readiness bottlenecks aren’t able to invest in integrating their breakthroughs, so they tend to return to old strategies with time.

Rapid growth is (still) possible

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 must be incorrect — I disagree.

Conclusion

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

Thanks to Brian Toomey for discussions on this topic.