.png)
Throughout South and Southeast Asia, mahouts have used the same technique to train elephants for centuries. When an elephant is young, it's tethered to a sturdy stake with a heavy rope or chain. At this age, the restraint is genuinely effective - the baby elephant, despite its considerable strength, cannot break free. After repeated attempts to escape, the elephant eventually stops trying.
Here's where it becomes remarkable though: when the elephant reaches adulthood, capable of uprooting trees and possessing strength enough to easily snap its restraints, it remains tethered to what is often now just a flimsy stake. The physical limitation of its youth has become a mental barrier in maturity. The elephant's conditioning runs so deep that the stakes' presence alone maintains the boundary, even though the actual physical constraint no longer exists.
This reveals a fundamental truth about conditioning: our early experiences shape our perception of what's possible, often long after those original limitations have ceased to be real. The elephant's behaviour isn't about physical capability - it's about learned boundaries and unquestioned limitations.
The tethered elephant offers just one glimpse into how early conditioning shapes behaviour. Let's examine the science behind these self-imposed limitations, drawing from both animal research and psychological theory.
However, there may well be a counter-argument here when it comes to creatures at the other end of the scale: ants. When ants encounter a circular line drawn in chalk or ink, they begin following it in an endless loop - a behaviour driven by their instinct to follow pheromone trails. Yet what makes this particularly fascinating isn't just the initial conformity, but what happens next. After a period, some ants begin to break away from the circle, challenging the artificial boundary. This departure from the pattern typically starts with a few 'pioneer' ants, eventually leading to a complete breakdown of the circular march. Nature, it seems, has built in mechanisms for breaking free from even the most compelling patterns of behaviour. This raises an intriguing question: if ants can break free from their chemical conditioning, what might humans be capable of?
Martin Seligman's groundbreaking research on learned helplessness in the 1960s provides perhaps the most compelling scientific framework for understanding this dual phenomenon. In his most famous experiment, dogs were exposed to unavoidable electric shocks. Later, when presented with an opportunity to escape the shocks by simply jumping over a low barrier, many dogs didn't even try. They had learned to be helpless. As Seligman noted:
"Mind the pattern. A pattern of mistakes is a call to change your life. The rest of the tapestry is not determined by what has been woven before. The weaver herself, blessed with knowledge and with freedom, can change—if not the material she must work with—the design of what comes next.” - Martin Seligman
This research revolutionised our understanding of depression and human behaviour, but more importantly, it demonstrated how easily living beings can learn to accept limitations that no longer exist.
The foundations of such conditioning can be traced back to Ivan Pavlov's work in classical conditioning. While most know Pavlov for his salivating dogs, his broader insights into how organisms learn to associate unrelated stimuli helped explain why conditioning can be so persistent. It's not just about learning - it's about creating neural pathways that become increasingly difficult to override.
It’s what Dr. Anna Lembke talks about when she outlines the place of dopamine in humans (and animals) along with the neural pathways and synapses that require these chemical transmitters. Her interview with Steven Bartlett is an excellent discussion if you want to dig deeper into this:
Source: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4lTzUsyYpJB1NyUd0qU7ov?si=U6N1UqU2RcOoBYAdDmMLgg
Modern neuroscience has expanded on these findings. Research at the University of Cambridge has shown how repeated experiences create neural pathways that become our default responses. Dr. Wolfram Schultz's work on reward prediction error demonstrates how our brains become wired to expect certain outcomes based on past experiences. Just as the elephant learns to associate the stake with immobility and the ants initially stay trapped in the chalk circle, our brains create shortcuts based on past experiences that can limit future behaviour.
Another animal experiment worth having a look at revolves around fish, documented by Austrian zoologist Konrad Lorenz. When a glass barrier was placed between a pike and its prey (smaller fish), the pike would repeatedly crash into the barrier trying to catch them. After hundreds of unsuccessful attempts, the pike learned to stop trying. The fascinating part? When the barrier was later removed, the pike would still not attempt to catch the smaller fish. It had created its own invisible barrier.
Boundary Management & Synaptic Pruning
These examples demonstrate what psychologist Gary Klein calls "boundary management" - we don't just learn what to do, we learn what not to do, often based on limitations that may no longer exist. This has profound implications for human behaviour, particularly in how we approach challenges and perceive our own capabilities. I think it’s worth noting here that many of the boundaries that we face may well be outside of our control. Often, it is psychological by way of pronouncements from an authority figure, whilst in other ways, it genuinely is physiological or environmental. The classic nature vs nurture (or a combination of both) is likely at play when it comes to how we are limited.
The persistence of such conditioning can be explained through what neuroscientists call "synaptic pruning". Our brains strengthen frequently used neural pathways while pruning away those less travelled. This efficiency-seeking mechanism, crucial for learning, can also entrench limiting beliefs and behaviours. I love this idea - by doing things more often, it creates a pathway in our brain; by doing it less often, the pathway decreases. How clever are our brains? All I need to do now is to stop thinking about chocolate, doner kebabs and beer!
The leap from animal behaviour to human society isn't as great as we might imagine. Our own invisible stakes and self-imposed boundaries manifest in remarkably similar ways, though often with far more complex social and cultural dimensions.
You know where I am likely to go here: the British education system. From an early age, we sort children into sets and streams based on initial academic performance, much of which is deeply flawed as a measuring stick. A child placed in the lower maths set at age 11 often internalises this as a fixed reality: "I'm not good at maths". Like our elephant, they become tethered to this early assessment, rarely challenging it even when their capabilities have grown far beyond those early limitations. Professor Carol Dweck's research at Stanford University demonstrates how this "fixed mindset" becomes self-fulfilling:
"In a fixed mindset students believe their basic abilities, their intelligence, their talents, are just fixed traits. They have a certain amount and that's that, and then their goal becomes to look smart all the time and never look dumb." - Carol Dweck
To make my point even more strongly, one 2019 study found that 31.2% of students were misallocated to a higher or lower set than their 11-year-old results would have warranted. The study also found that girls and black students were more likely to be misallocated to lower sets than boys and white students. This is worrying in the highest order because not only are they conditioned into a certain environment, it is often the wrong one based on their actual ability!
Oh and if we take this to its extremes, students who are in bottom sets in Maths (rightly or wrongly) are more than likely not going to get a grade 4 (a GCSE pass in the UK) which will limit all their academic and thus economic future opportunities. Don’t get me wrong: there are many incredible human beings who leave the chalk circle but sadly, many don’t. Indeed, more than ⅓ of all 16 year olds never get a pass in English and Maths, the basic benchmarks of achievement in our system - and this is deliberate in order to maintain the normative bell curve! One day, I will interview Dennis Sherwood who is fighting the battle on this front and states that
“About 4% of GCSE grades in England are WRONG BY TWO OR MORE GRADES? To make that real: every summer, some 200,000 grades are at least two grades adrift. On average, this impacts about 1 student in every 5.” Dennis Sherwood
The workplace offers equally stark examples. Studies from the Chartered Management Institute reveal that 38% of British workers feel stuck in their current roles, not because of actual barriers to progression, but due to self-imposed limitations often rooted in early career experiences. Like the pike swimming in its imaginary tank, they continue to observe boundaries that no longer exist.
Social class in Britain provides another powerful example of conditioning. Despite significant social mobility in recent decades (remember what I said about that last week!), research from the Social Mobility Commission shows that many people continue to limit their aspirations based on their perceived social class. As sociologist Pierre Bourdieu argued through his concept of 'habitus':
"The social world exists, in a sense, twice: in things and in minds, in fields and in habitus, outside and inside social agents." Pierre Bourdieu
Our financial behaviours often mirror this conditioning. Someone who grew up in poverty might continue to make decisions based on scarcity even after achieving financial security. This isn't mere habit - it's deeply ingrained conditioning that shapes how they perceive possibilities and make choices. Even in relationships, we often operate within invisible boundaries created by early experiences. Attachment theory, developed by John Bowlby, shows how our early relationship experiences create templates that influence all future relationships. Like our tethered elephant, we might remain bound by these early patterns long after we're capable of forming different kinds of connections.
The rise of social media has added new dimensions to this conditioning. A 2023 study from the University of Oxford showed how platform algorithms create what researchers call "digital echo chambers" - virtual circles that, like our ant's chalk line, keep us traversing the same limited territory of ideas and perspectives. Perhaps most insidiously, these limitations often masquerade as identity. "I'm not a public speaker", "I'm not creative", "I'm not good with technology" - these statements reflect not inherent truths but conditioned beliefs, often based on long-outdated experiences or arbitrary early assessments.
Consciousness & Limitations
The philosophical implications of human conditioning cut to the heart of questions about free will, authenticity, and the nature of consciousness itself. How can we be truly free if we're so thoroughly shaped by our conditioning? This tension has occupied philosophers for centuries.
Jean-Paul Sartre's concept of radical freedom, whilst a little bit out there like most of his theories, presents an interesting paradox when confronted with conditioning. While Sartre insisted we are "condemned to be free", making choices even when we pretend we're not, our elephant example suggests something more complex. As Sartre argued:
"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does." Jean-Paul Sartre
Yet if our perceived choices are limited by conditioning we can't see, how meaningful is this freedom? Modern philosopher Julian Baggini tackles this in Freedom Regained, suggesting that free will exists not in spite of our conditioning, but through our capacity to reflect on and challenge it:
“You do not find freedom by being the author of your own preferences and wants. You find freedom by being able to reflect on, endorse and express those preferences and wants.” Julian Baggini
This isn’t unlike a quote I have used so many times before from one of the most remarkable people ever to grace this planet, Viktor Frankl. He became a psychiatrist and neurologist after surviving the Holocaust and developed the school of psychotherapy known as logotherapy. His theory centred on the idea that the primary human motivation is to find meaning in life, and that the purpose of psychotherapy is to help people do so.
"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and freedom.” Viktor Frankl
Even though we might not have any say in our circumstances, and Frankl knows this better than most, we have the power to choose our response.
The Buddhist perspective offers another valuable angle. The concept of 'samsara' - cyclical existence driven by habit and conditioning - bears striking resemblance to our modern understanding of behavioural patterns. As Thich Nhat Hanh said,
"People have a hard time letting go of their suffering. Out of a fear of the unknown, they prefer suffering that is familiar." Thich Nhat Hanh
This echoes our elephant's relationship with its stake - the known limitation becomes preferable to uncertain freedom.
Contemporary philosopher Martha Nussbaum's capabilities approach provides a framework for understanding how conditioning affects human flourishing. She argues that true freedom isn't just about removing external constraints but about developing the internal capabilities to imagine and pursue different possibilities.
The emergence of new technologies raises fresh philosophical questions about conditioning. When algorithms can predict (and influence) our behaviour with increasing accuracy, what does this mean for human agency? As one of the four horsemen of the atheist apocalypse, philosopher Daniel Dennett reminds us:
"If you can control the environment of a human being, you can control the human being." Daniel Dennett
This takes on new urgency in our digital age, where our environment is increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence and algorithmic recommendations. The philosophical challenge, then, isn't just about recognising our conditioning - it's about understanding how awareness of our conditioning interacts with our capacity for choice. Are we, like Plato's prisoners in the cave, capable of recognising our own shadows on the wall?
Key Takeaways
1. The Power of Pattern Recognition
Our journey through the science and philosophy of conditioning reveals a fundamental truth: most of our limitations exist primarily in our minds. Like the elephant tethered to its stake, we continue to operate within boundaries established by past experiences, even when those limitations no longer serve any practical purpose. This recognition isn't about casting blame - it's about understanding the profound way early experiences shape our perception of what's possible. The crucial insight here is that recognising these patterns is the first step toward changing them. When we understand how our past experiences have created our current boundaries, we can begin to question whether these limitations still serve us, or whether, like the elephant, we've simply never questioned their necessity.
2. The Architecture of Systemic Influence
Beyond individual patterns lies a broader framework of institutional conditioning that shapes our collective behaviour. The British education system, workplace hierarchies, and social class structures create powerful conditioning effects that become self-reinforcing through both internal belief and external validation. This systemic conditioning is particularly potent because it operates at multiple levels simultaneously - through formal institutions, social relationships, and personal identity. Understanding this architecture helps us recognise how our individual limitations often reflect broader societal patterns. The rise of social media and algorithmic content delivery has added new dimensions to this systemic conditioning, creating digital echo chambers that can further reinforce our existing boundaries.
3. The Mechanics of Breaking Free
Breaking free from conditioned responses requires more than mere awareness - it demands a fundamental shift in how we understand ourselves and our capabilities. This isn't about positive thinking or simple motivation; it's about recognising that our perceived limitations often have more to do with past conditioning than present reality. The process begins with questioning - not just of our limitations, but of our assumptions about what those limitations mean. Like a scientist testing a hypothesis, we must systematically challenge our accepted boundaries, understanding that discomfort in this process isn't a sign of reaching our limits but often an indication that we're pushing against conditioned responses. Neuroscience shows us that this kind of boundary-testing actually creates new neural pathways, literally rewiring our brain's understanding of what's possible.
4. The Nature of Personal Discovery
Perhaps the most challenging aspect of confronting our conditioning is its deeply personal nature. While we can learn from others' experiences, each person must undertake their own journey of discovery. This process requires a delicate balance between challenging our limitations and maintaining practical wisdom. Not every boundary needs breaking; some constraints serve valuable purposes. The key lies in developing our capacity to distinguish between helpful boundaries and limiting beliefs. This distinction often emerges through careful self-reflection, examining our automatic responses to situations and questioning whether these responses truly serve our current circumstances or merely echo past limitations.
5. The Reality of Continuous Evolution
The final takeaway centres on the dynamic nature of conditioning and growth. Our boundaries aren't fixed - they're constantly evolving based on our experiences and choices. This understanding liberates us from the notion that we must make dramatic, once-and-for-all breakthroughs. Instead, like any complex system, our conditioning responds to consistent, intentional adjustments over time. This perspective allows us to approach our limitations with curiosity rather than judgment, understanding that today's boundaries need not be tomorrow's limitations. The process of growth isn't about eliminating conditioning - it's about becoming conscious participants in shaping it, much like a gardener who works with natural processes rather than against them.
Like the elephant finally testing its stake, the journey of understanding and challenging our conditioning never truly ends. Each breakthrough reveals new territories to explore, new limitations to question. The stake that once held us may have been essential for early development, but it need not define our future capabilities. Perhaps true wisdom lies not in completely breaking free from all conditioning - an impossible and perhaps undesirable goal - but in developing the discernment to recognise which boundaries serve us and which merely constrain us. In questioning our limitations, we don't just expand our possibilities; we rewrite the very stories we tell ourselves about what's possible. After all, the most powerful stake isn't the one in the ground - it's the one in our minds. And unlike the physical stakes that once anchored us, these mental tethers can be challenged, tested, and ultimately transcended whenever we find the courage to question them.
Further Reading
Discover more interesting articles here.
