Self-harming and self-sabotaging behaviours, from skin picking to ghosting people, all stem from evolutionary survival mechanisms, according to a compelling new psychological analysis.

Clinical psychologist Dr Charlie Heriot-Maitland, in his upcoming new book Controlled Explosions in Mental Health , explores the biological necessities behind harmful behaviours.

He argues that although these behaviours seem counterintuitive, the brain uses these small harms as a protective dose to prevent further harms. For example, someone may procrastinate starting a project, causing themselves harm, but trying to prevent a higher-stakes harm of failure or rejection.

“Our brain is a survival machine. It is programmed not to optimise our happiness and well-being, but to keep us alive. It needs us to exist in a predictable world. It does not like surprises. It does not want us to be caught off guard,” he explains.

“Being exposed to threats and dangers is bad enough, but the most vulnerable state for us humans is being exposed to unpredictable threat. Our brain cannot allow this, and will intervene to give us more controlled, predictable versions of threat. Our brain would rather we were the arbiter of our own downfall than risk being floored by something external. It would rather we were well-rehearsed in receiving internally-created hostility than risk being unprepared for it from others,” explains Dr Heriot-Maitland.

This protective mechanism operates on a fundamental principle: the brain would rather deal with the certainty of a controlled, known threat, than cope with the possibility of an out-of-control, unknown threat.

The science behind this theory is based on how the human brain evolved, that is primarily for survival rather than happiness. Brains are hardwired to spot danger everywhere, which helped the species survive. However, it now means we are extra attuned to any potential hurts on the horizon – physical or emotional.

Dr Heriot-Maitland suggests this evolutionary tactic of ‘better safe than sorry’, signifies that even though we know it might not be sensible to eat a share bag of chocolates, we do it anyway to avoid the bigger shame of failure.  Another example is even when someone does not really hate us, we might still avoid them anyway instead of facing the bigger potential rejection.

“Our brains have evolved to favour perceiving threat, even when there isn’t one, in order to elicit a protective response in us. We have all inherited a highly sensitive threat-detection and threat-response system,” he explains.

Common self-sabotaging behaviours include procrastination, perfectionism and pessimism.

Perfectionism operates similarly to procrastination, but through different mechanisms. While procrastination diverts attention away from tasks, perfectionists might show a hyper-focus and attention to detail with the hope of ensuring that errors are not being made. The primary motivation is often to avoid failure, but this puts the perfectionist at risk of stress and burnout.

Self-criticism represents another form of self-sabotage, whether trying to self-improve or self-blame to create a feeling of agency and control – these behaviours all involve a neurological hijacking in which the brain’s threat-response system co-opts higher cognitive functions, such as imagination and reasoning.

The threat system utilises these cognitive functions, he explains, which is why when experiencing fear, our imagination can become instantly flooded with fear-related predictive scenarios.

One problem with self-sabotaging behaviours, Dr Heriot-Maitland points out, is that they often become self-fulfilling prophecies.

“If we think we are not very good at something, we may not try our best and then end up performing worse than we would have had we made a different prediction,” he explains.

“Or if we think someone doesn’t like us, and we avoid them, then our fear of rejection may have stood in the way of creating a relationship.”

Even if we can acknowledge these behaviours aren’t helpful, addressing them requires to first understand their protective function rather than simply trying to eliminate them.

Using the metaphor of self-sabotaging behaviour as ‘controlled explosions’, he explains: “The bomb squad are not our enemies. They are protecting something big; something hurt; something wounded or painful.

“In many cases, it may be linked to a difficult life experience – a threat, a trauma or a tragedy. The controlled explosions do harm us though – we must not lose sight of that either.”

Effective psychological interventions focus on processing the underlying emotional pain, he says, although acknowledges this is a ‘tough choice’ and unlikely to be a ‘quick fix’.

Dr Heriot-Maitland explains: “Resolving underlying harm can often involve both of these two aspects: creating safeness around the feared situation and feeling; grieving the loss of having a core need in that situation that was unmet, denied or dismissed.”

Ultimately, the way out of the self-sabotage loop is not through more self-criticism, which compounds the well-worn neural pathways, but through self-compassion, Dr Heriot-Maitland adds.

To utilise the brain’s neuroplasticity and learn new, less harmful habits, people must deliberately choose to recognise and understand the behaviour first, he argues: “To instil these compassionate motivations into a process like this is not just ‘a given’. It takes time, effort, and intentionality.”

By understanding the evolutionary basis for self-sabotage first, he suggests, this offers the chance to recognises the protective function it served, while addressing the harm it has caused without judgement.

Heriot-Maitland concludes: “We don’t want to fight these behaviours, but nor do we want to appease them and let them carry on controlling, dictating, and sabotaging our lives. There are choices we have here.”