Someone can understand the consequences of substance use, love the people their substance use is hurting, and still reach for immediate relief. From the outside, the choice can look like proof that the person does not care enough. From inside the moment, what matters in that later life may no longer be able to steer the next ten minutes.
Immediate relief has an advantage: it is close, familiar, and available now. It can change a painful state within minutes. Health, trust, work, dignity, and presence with one’s children may matter more, yet they sit farther away. They may depend on withdrawal ending, an appointment being available, transportation working, housing remaining stable, another person keeping a promise, and the present self believing that this future person still feels like me.
The future has not necessarily lost its value. It has lost its leverage.
When Knowledge Does Not Govern Action
During the worst years of my alcohol addiction, I knew what alcohol was taking from my health and from my presence with my two children. Information was not missing. Knowing all of this did not reliably get me through the next hour without drinking.
I later spent a year and a half in a therapeutic community. For the first year I had no phone. The days had fixed times for waking, work, meals, meditation, dialectical behavior therapy, physical training, groups, responsibilities, and sleep. The structure did not ask me to construct a convincing five-year future every morning. It placed the next safer action in a room, at an hour, with other people expecting me there. For a while, the schedule carried time for me.
Behavioral science describes one part of this problem as delay discounting: outcomes tend to lose subjective weight as the wait for them grows. Meta-analyses find that people with addictive disorders, on average, discount delayed rewards more steeply. The distributions overlap substantially, and similar patterns appear across several psychiatric conditions. Delay discounting is therefore neither a diagnosis nor a character test. It is one process that helps explain why a person may sincerely value recovery while immediate relief wins the immediate contest (MacKillop et al., 2011; Amlung et al., 2019).
Delay is only part of the distance. A future also loses influence when it is hard to picture, unlikely to arrive, disconnected from the present self, or impossible to reach through an available first action. I call this the temporal agency horizon: how far into the future consequences still feel personal, believable, and reachable enough to influence a choice now. It is a conceptual model developed within Flow Hijacked, not a validated clinical measure.
Research on episodic future thinking supports part of this view. Asking people to imagine specific, personally relevant future events can, on average, reduce the pull of an immediate reward relative to a delayed one. Findings related to substance use are promising but heterogeneous, and an imagined future cannot substitute for medication, psychotherapy, withdrawal care, housing, or dependable human support (Rösch et al., 2022; Collado & Stokes, 2024).
Why a Small Trigger Can Produce a Large Response
A list of risk factors can tell us what is present. It says less about why the same trigger passes quietly one day and overwhelms a person on another. A dynamical-systems view begins with that difference. Responses depend on the person’s current state: withdrawal, exhaustion, threat, connection, expectation, and the alternatives that are actually available. The same conversation can be useful one day and unbearable on another. Change may stall, cross a threshold quickly, and remain shaped by the route that produced it. Some psychiatric researchers use network dynamics to study patterns of this kind (Durstewitz et al., 2021).
In a non-normal system, interacting modes can reinforce one another, allowing a disturbance to grow sharply before the system eventually settles. A related input-output tool, resolvent analysis, asks which patterned inputs the system will amplify most strongly. A large resolvent norm means high gain at a particular frequency or pattern of forcing (Trefethen et al., 1993). Applied to person-level addiction, this is an explicitly labeled systems analogy. No one has established a patient-level neural resolvent for addiction. Here, the mathematics provides a disciplined question about amplification, not a clinical measurement.
Used cautiously, this lens suggests a practical question. Sleep loss, withdrawal, shame after conflict, cue exposure, pain, and isolation may each look manageable when considered separately. When they arrive together and reinforce one another, the resulting urge can be far larger than any one factor would predict. The size of the response may tell us less about the final trigger than about the state into which it landed. Responsibility remains, but the useful clinical question becomes: what made one route so easy to enter and every alternative so hard to reach?
Compassion, in this sense, is causal accuracy. It looks closely at what made a destructive action immediately available and every competing action difficult to enter.
Care Should Change What Is Reachable
When the present is dominated by acute withdrawal, intoxication, danger, psychosis, severe agitation, or overwhelming traumatic stress, a speech about next year may add distance. Safety, medical care, food, sleep, medication when indicated, and reliable human presence can restore enough stability for longer-term choices to become possible.
After stabilization, care still has to make the next safe action easier to reach. A same-day appointment is closer than a referral list. A named person who will answer is more credible than a general instruction to seek help. Transportation can turn an intention into an action someone can actually take. Contingency management brings a beneficial consequence nearer and has strong evidence in several treatment settings, including for people receiving medication for opioid use disorder. Community reinforcement and behavioral activation are designed to make rewarding life outside substance use more available. Housing makes tomorrow less speculative. These supports and treatments play different roles, and no single combination fits every person or every substance use disorder (Acuff et al., 2023; Bolívar et al., 2021).
The useful horizon can be modest. In the next 24 hours, the immediate task may be safety and one honest contact. The next week may need repeated appointments, sleep, and one activity that can still produce interest or belonging. A month may begin reconnecting those actions to a role, a relationship, or a future self. Repeated successes at a shorter horizon can make a longer future credible again.
Families and services can also hold accountability without humiliation. Harm remains real. Boundaries may be necessary. Shame, however, can increase secrecy, threat, and the urgency of escape, further narrowing the time available for a different choice. Accountability and compassion can occupy the same room.
The Future Returns in Pieces
Recovery did not give me a grand future all at once. Ordinary events slowly regained weight: breakfast with my children, a training session, a page I intended to write, a person who would notice if I did not arrive. Their power came from becoming reachable and repeatedly real.
When tomorrow cannot compete, asking a person to care harder may miss the mechanism. Ask what tomorrow is missing here: proximity, credibility, a sense that the future person is still me, or a first step that can actually be taken. Then begin with the condition that can be changed now.
Systems of care sometimes have to carry a future for a while, until the person can carry it again.
Tomer Avraham, PhD, is the creator of Flow Hijacked, a free, independent, and noncommercial Hebrew-English educational project connecting scientific research with lived experience. He writes as an independent educator and a person in recovery, not as a clinician. For more information, email [email protected] and visit flowhijacked.com.
References
Acuff SF, MacKillop J, Murphy JG. A contextualized reinforcer pathology approach to addiction. Nature Reviews Psychology. 2023;2:309-323. doi:10.1038/s44159-023-00167-y.
Amlung M, Marsden E, Holshausen K, Morris V, Patel H, Vedelago L, Naish KR, Reed DD, McCabe RE. Delay discounting as a transdiagnostic process in psychiatric disorders: a meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76:1176-1186. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.2102.
Bolívar HA, Klemperer EM, Coleman SRM, DeSarno M, Skelly JM, Higgins ST. Contingency management for patients receiving medication for opioid use disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78:1092-1102. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1969.
Collado A, Stokes A. Imagining the future can shape the present: a systematic review of the impact of episodic future thinking on substance use outcomes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2024;38:134-152. doi:10.1037/adb0000933.
Durstewitz D, Huys QJM, Koppe G. Psychiatric illnesses as disorders of network dynamics. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging. 2021;6:865-876. doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2020.01.001.
MacKillop J, Amlung MT, Few LR, Ray LA, Sweet LH, Munafò MR. Delayed reward discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis. Psychopharmacology. 2011;216:305-321. doi:10.1007/s00213-011-2229-0.
Rösch SA, Stramaccia DF, Benoit RG. Promoting farsighted decisions via episodic future thinking: a meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2022;151:1606-1635. doi:10.1037/xge0001148.
Trefethen LN, Trefethen AE, Reddy SC, Driscoll TA. Hydrodynamic stability without eigenvalues. Science. 1993;261:578-584. doi:10.1126/science.261.5121.578.
