All Episodes

August 18, 2025 25 mins

The Comfort Trap: How Familiarity Hampers Growth and Progress

In this episode of PsyberSpace, host Leslie Poston explores the concept of comfort and how it acts as a hidden barrier to personal and societal growth. Despite its allure, comfort can prevent individuals from taking risks, learning, and embracing change. The episode digs into the psychological and neurological reasons behind our preference for comfort, and its impact on behaviors, relationships, and social structures. Poston argues that comfort not only stifles innovation and accountability but also perpetuates systemic issues like racism and inequality. She urges listeners to build their capacity for discomfort as a means to foster resilience, creativity, and meaningful progress.

00:00 Introduction: The Hidden Villain in Your Life
00:35 The Comfort Trap: Why We Stay Stuck
03:07 The Neuroscience of Comfort and Resistance to Change
08:28 Comfort in Social Dynamics and Systemic Issues
11:28 The Cost of Comfort: Personal and Societal Impacts
22:43 Building Discomfort Tolerance for Growth and Progress
24:37 Conclusion: Embrace Discomfort for a Better Future

Research

Banaji, M. R., & Jost, J. T. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377-383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589

DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it's so hard for white people to talk about racism. Beacon Press.

Feagin, J. & Picca, L. (2007) Two-Faced Racism. Routledge.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Jost, J. T. (2019). A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 263-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12297

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help? Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M., Pfeifer, J. H., & Way, B. M. (2007). Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. Psychological Science, 18(5), 421-428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01916.x

Oluo, I. (2018) So you want to talk about race. Seal Press.

Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?: And other conversations about race. Basic Books.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937956

Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470216008416717

★ Support this podcast ★
Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Leslie Poston (00:12):
Welcome back to PsyberSpace. I'm your host,
Leslie Poston. This week, we'regoing to talk about a quiet
little villain in your life. Onethat wears soft pants, hates
conflict, and tells you to sitthis one out. I'm talking about
comfort.
Comfort feels good. Of course,does. It's familiar. It's safe.

(00:34):
It's predictable.
But what if I told you thatcomfort might be the reason
you're stuck? It's the reason somany of us don't grow or speak
up, don't take action, and don'tchange. Comfort is not just a
refuge, it's a trap. The pursuitof comfort isn't just something
we do, it's something that oftenstops us from doing anything

(00:56):
else. And when it goesunchecked, comfort becomes a
barrier to growth, a shieldagainst the truth, and a
permission slip for harm.
So today let's take anuncomfortably honest look at why
comfort is the enemy ofprogress. We live in a world

(01:17):
that sells comfort like it'ssome kind of salvation. Every
ad, app, or piece of technologyis designed to make things
easier, faster, and smoother.Our thermostats learn our
preferences, and our phonespredict our words. Our cars
practically drive themselves.
We've made an art form out ofavoiding discomfort emotionally,

(01:41):
physically, cognitively, andeven politically. But here's the
catch. Growth doesn't live inease. It lives in friction.
Psychologically, we're wired toprefer what's familiar, certain,
and what feels safe, but thatvery wiring is what makes change
so hard.

(02:01):
And it's what keeps people,entire societies even, stuck in
patterns that no longer servethem or worse, patterns that
actively hurt others andthemselves. We think of comfort
as neutral, but it's not. It'sselective, and it has a cost.
Too often that cost is progress.Think about it.

(02:23):
When did you last learnsomething that didn't challenge
you? When did you last growwithout feeling some discomfort?
Even physical fitness requiresstress on your muscles to build
your strength. Your comfort zoneisn't just a metaphor. It's a
prison with walls made of habit,convenience, and the familiar

(02:44):
ache of staying exactly whereyou are.
The problem is that we've turnedcomfort into a virtue, confusing
ease with goodness andconvenience with progress. But
comfort doesn't innovate and itdoesn't heal. It also doesn't
solve problems. It just makesproblems easier to ignore. To

(03:07):
understand why we cling tocomfort, let's start with how
our brains are built.
Human brains are predictiveengines. They don't just process
information. They constantly tryto reduce uncertainty. That's
why we feel relief when thingsmake sense or when events follow
a pattern. There's a conceptcalled cognitive ease.

(03:28):
The idea that when somethingfeels easy to process, we tend
to accept it more readily. We'remore likely to believe it, like
it, and even remember it. Butwhen something feels hard,
whether it's a word we don'tunderstand, a complex idea, or a
challenge to our worldview, ourbrains push back. The effort

(03:48):
feels bad, so our brains flag itas unsafe even when it isn't.
And that's why new information,especially if it contradicts
what we already believe, canfeel like a threat.
Not because it is, but becauseit takes energy to make sense of
it. So we'll often reject itwithout even realizing we're

(04:08):
doing it. This built in biastoward comfort leads to mental
shortcuts. Instead of criticalthinking, we reach for
confirmation. Instead ofcuriosity, we reach for control.
Our brains operate on what wecall the principle of least
effort. We're constantly lookingfor ways to conserve mental

(04:30):
energy and take the path ofleast resistance. This isn't
laziness. It's actuallysurvival. Our ancestors needed
to save energy for actualthreats, not abstract concepts.
What's fascinating is that thishappens at a neurological level.
When we encounter informationthat conflicts with our existing
beliefs, the anterior cingulatecortex or the part of our brain

(04:52):
that monitors for conflictliterally lights up like we're
in physical danger. Theamygdala, our threat detection
system, starts firing andmeanwhile, areas associated with
physical pain become active.Your brain is treating
intellectual challenge likebodily harm. But in the modern
world, this efficiency systemtotally backfires.

(05:13):
The things that challenge usintellectually, emotionally, and
morally aren't threats to oursurvival. They're opportunities
for growth, but our brains treatthem like dangers to avoid. This
is part of why facts don'tchange minds, which we've talked
about in an earlier episode.It's why logic doesn't win
arguments and why evidence oftenmakes people double down on

(05:34):
false beliefs rather thanreconsider them. The comfort of
being right, even when we'rewrong, feels safer to the brain
than the discomfort of admittingan error.
Another theory that regularlisteners may have become
familiar with, cognitivedissonance, explains what
happens when we hold twoconflicting beliefs or

(05:55):
behaviors. It createspsychological discomfort, and
rather than resolve thatconflict through growth, most of
us resolve it through avoidanceor rationalization. This is
where motivated reasoning comesin. It's when we bend the facts
to fit our feelings rather thanthe other way around. We're not
thinking to find truth.

(06:17):
We're thinking to protect ouremotional comfort. It's not just
intellectual dishonesty. It'semotional self preservation. And
it's so common. People willfight harder to protect their
self image than they will toimprove it.
They'll cling to harmful beliefssimply because changing them
might mean admitting they werewrong. This is one of the core

(06:41):
reasons that comfort killsprogress because change is
painful and comfort makes painfeel intolerable. Here's what's
happening in your brain whensomeone challenges your beliefs.
Within milliseconds, yourposterior cingulate cortex,
involved in self referentialthinking, becomes hyperactive.
Your brain is essentiallyasking, What does this mean

(07:04):
about me?
At the same time, areasassociated with social threat
activate as if your identity isunder attack. Your prefrontal
cortex, responsible for rationalthinking, actually becomes less
active. You're literally lesscapable of logical thought when
your comfort level isthreatened. Consider how this

(07:27):
plays out in every someone getsactionable, true feedback at
work, but it stings. Instead ofsitting with that discomfort and
asking what they could learn,they start to explain it away.
The feedback giver just doesn'tunderstand them or the situation
was unfair or the criticism waspersonal. And while certainly

(07:48):
there are office situationswe've talked about in other
episodes where you might bebullied at work, etcetera,
sometimes the feedback is trueand your brain isn't letting you
accept it. Or think aboutrelationships. How often do
fights escalate because oneperson can't tolerate the
discomfort of being wrong? Howmany partnerships end not

(08:10):
because of incompatibility, butbecause neither person could sit
with the discomfort of changing.
This pattern is everywhere onceyou see it. Comfort as the enemy
of accountability, of learning,of becoming better than we were
yesterday. Let's apply this ideasocially. In conversations about

(08:32):
race, especially among whitepeople, discomfort is often
treated like injustice. Whensomeone brings up systemic
racism, white listeners may feelcalled out, implicated, or
exposed.
That feeling of discomfort getsinterpreted as being attacked
even when no attack ishappening. Research on white

(08:54):
fragility explores this. Whendiscomfort shows up, it often
triggers emotional reactionslike defensiveness, withdrawal,
or tears. That doesn't justderail the conversation. It re
centers it on white feelings,and in doing so, it protects the
very power structures thatmarginalized people are trying
to change.

(09:15):
One psychologist called racism amoving walkway at the airport.
You don't have to actively behateful to participate. You just
have to stand still. Comfort inthis case is standing still. And
standing still helps the systemstay exactly as it is.
What's particularly insidious ishow this triggers what we call

(09:37):
emotional hijacking. When whitepeople feel uncomfortable in
racial conversations, theirsympathetic nervous system
activates, their heart rateincreases, stress hormones flood
their system, blood flowredirects from the prefrontal
cortex to more primitive brainregions. They're literally in
fight or flight mode makingrational discussion nearly

(09:59):
impossible. But here's the key.This physiological response
isn't triggered by actualdanger.
It's triggered by the threat totheir racial worldview by the
discomfort of potentially beingseen as complicit in racism.
Watch how this unfolds in realtime. Say a person of color

(10:20):
shares an experience ofdiscrimination. And instead of
listening, white listenersimmediately start explaining why
this probably wasn't racism.They're not being malicious.
They're trying to staycomfortable. Because if racism
is still a problem, then theymight have to do something about
it and doing something wouldfeel uncomfortable. So they

(10:43):
minimize, redirect, or try andmake it about intent instead of
impact. They might turn theconversation toward their own
discomfort with being seen ascomplicit. And in prioritizing
their emotional comfort, theysilence the very voices that
could help create change.
This is not just individualpsychology. It's really

(11:03):
structural. Institutions,policies, and systems are
designed to maintain discomfortfor some at the expense of
others. And when thosebenefiting from the system, even
if it's just a small amount,feel uncomfortable? That
discomfort is treated as acrisis that must be resolved,
often by stopping theconversation altogether.

(11:28):
Psychologists conductedexperiments in the sixties after
the murder of a woman namedKitty Genovese who was
reportedly attacked whilebystanders failed to intervene.
What they found was unsettling.When people are in groups, they
are less likely to act.Responsibility gets diffused.
But it's not just this diffusionof responsibility, it's

(11:50):
discomfort avoidance.
Speaking up, stepping in, orhelping someone in distress,
well, these things often feeluncomfortable. You might look
foolish or face backlash. Youmight have to take a stand. And
so people stay silent even whenthey know better. Modern studies
on moral disengagement suggestthat people rationalize an

(12:13):
action to reduce guilt.
They tell themselves it's not myplace or, oh, I don't want to
make it worse, but really whatthey're doing is choosing
comfort over action. And that'snot neutral. That's complicity.
The neuroscience behind this isrevealing. When we witness
someone in distress, our mirrorneuron systems activate.

(12:33):
We literally feel an echo oftheir pain. But instead of
moving us to action, this oftentriggers what we call empathic
distress. Our anterior insulaand anterior cingulate cortex
light up creating genuinediscomfort. To regulate this
uncomfortable feeling, ourbrains deploy coping mechanisms.

(12:53):
We look away, we rationalize whyit's not our problem, or we try
and convince ourselves thatsomeone else will help.
We're literally neurologicallymotivated to avoid the
discomfort of witnessingsuffering, even when that
avoidance enables moresuffering. Think about how this
shows up today. Someone makes aracist or sexist joke at work

(13:14):
and the room goes quiet.Everyone knows it's wrong, but
no one speaks up. Why?
Because speaking up would beuncomfortable or create tension.
It might make the joke tellerdefensive. It might make things
awkward. So people let it pass.They tell themselves they're
keeping the peace, but keepingthe peace for whom?

(13:36):
Certainly not for the peopletargeted by the joke. The
comfort of avoiding conflictbecomes more important than
addressing the harm. Or considersocial media. How often do you
see people sharing articlesabout injustice, expressing
their outrage, but then doingnothing offline? The sharing
feels like action, but it'sactually a form of moral

(13:57):
licensing.
Doing just enough to feel goodwithout the discomfort of real
change. The bystander effectisn't just about emergency
situations. It's about the dailychoice between comfort and
courage. And most people choosecomfort even when we know
better. System justificationtheory helps explain why people

(14:20):
often defend systems that harmthem or harm others.
According to this theory, peopleare motivated to see the world
as orderly, fair, and just evenwhen it's not. Why? Because
believing that the world isunfair is deeply uncomfortable.
It introduces moral obligationand implies that something must

(14:41):
change. And change comes at acost, especially to those who
benefit from the current system.
So people convince themselvesthat inequality is earned, that
poverty is a failure ofcharacter, racism isn't
structural, it's just a few badapples, And these narratives
preserve comfort by protectingthe illusion of fairness. But

(15:03):
illusions don't create justice.They sustain injustice, and they
do it through the very humandesire to feel okay. What's
remarkable about systemjustification is that it
operates even against people'sself interest. We're living that
large right now.
Brain imaging studies show thatwhen people defend unfair

(15:23):
systems, their dorsolateralprefrontal cortex, or the area
responsible for cognitivecontrol, works overtime to
suppress awareness of injustice.Meanwhile, areas associated with
threat detection remainhyperactive when confronted with
evidence of systemic unfairness.Essentially, your brain treats
information about injustice asdangerous and actively works to

(15:47):
maintain the comforting illusionthat everything is fair. This
plays out everywhere. Peopledefend capitalism even when it's
crushing them because imaginingan alternative is uncomfortable.
They support politicians whowork against their interest
because admitting they werewrong would shatter their
identity. They rationalizeenvironmental destruction

(16:09):
because facing the huge problemof climate change would require
changing how they live. Thesystem doesn't have to be good.
It just has to be familiar.Familiar always feels safe to
the brain even if it's slowlykilling us.
Consider how people react tocriticism of American systems.

(16:29):
Instead of examining whether thecriticism is valid, many people
immediately defend the system.If you don't like it, leave, or
other countries are worse. Atleast we're free. These aren't
arguments.
They're thought limitingphrases, comfort mechanisms.
Because if the system is broken,we might have to fix it. And
fixing it will require admittingit was broken in the first

(16:52):
place, and that's uncomfortable.It's easier to defend the
familiar than to build somethingnew and better. There is a
famous anecdote by a sociologyprofessor who ran the same
thought experiment every yearfor quite some time.
He said his students needed totake a vote, which they could do

(17:13):
anonymously. If every student inthe class voted yes, the entire
class would get an a and skiphaving to take the final. But if
even one student voted no,everyone keeps their current
grade and must take the exam.Every year. At least one student

(17:34):
voted no.
Not because they want to takethe final, but because they felt
it's unfair to give an a tostudents who didn't, quote, earn
it. Even though they wouldbenefit from the outcome as well
and it cost them nothing. What'shappening here isn't about
merit. It's about control andthe illusion of deservedness.

(17:54):
It's about the discomfort thatcomes with perceived unfairness
even when fairness would benefiteveryone.
This is a microcosm of howsociety resists collective good.
We'd rather suffer equally thanthrive unequally, and comfort
with familiar rules oftenoutweighs the discomfort of
questioning those rules. Thepsychology behind this

(18:16):
resistance reveals something alittle disturbing about human
nature. When we see otherspotentially getting something
unearned, it triggers what wecall inequity aversion, but only
when others might benefit morethan us. Our brains process this
perceived unfairness through thesame neural pathways that

(18:37):
register physical pain.
The anterior insula becomesactive, creating genuine anguish
at the thought of someone elsegetting ahead without suffering.
You might be hearing some ofthis rear up again in the
context of GLP ones andfatphobia. But here's the twist.
This same neural activitydoesn't occur when we're the

(18:58):
ones potentially benefitingunfairly. The pain is selective.
It only hurts when others mightgain. Think about how this
applies to real world policies.Universal health care would
benefit almost everyone, butpeople oppose it because someone
might get something for nothing.Student loan forgiveness would

(19:20):
stimulate the entire economy,but people who already paid
their loans feel it's unfair.The pattern is always the same.
I suffered, so you should suffertoo. I worked within the system,
so this system must be good.Changing the rules now would
invalidate my experience, andthat's uncomfortable. So people
vote against their own intereststo preserve their comfort with

(19:43):
familiar suffering. They wouldrather everyone struggle than
admit that in the rich worldthat we live in, struggle is not
necessary.
Let's go even further. Whencomfort gets tangled up with
fear, it can become somethingdarker. Research on loss
aversion shows that people fearlosses more than they value

(20:06):
gains. That's why people will goto great lengths to protect what
they have even if it meansdenying others the same. Now
layer in relative deprivation,the belief that someone else is
going to get more than you, evenif you have enough.
That perception leads toresentment, withdrawal, and
sometimes harm. This explainswhy people oppose policies that

(20:29):
would help everyone. Like, wementioned universal health care
or student loan forgiveness, ifthey feel like someone else is
getting too much. They wouldrather no one have help than
experience the discomfort ofsomeone else benefiting more
visibly and getting more. Andthat's how comfort can turn
people against their own bestinterest.
Because comfort isn't just aboutbeing okay, it's about staying

(20:52):
on top. When people perceivethat others are gaining
something they don't have, itactivates their brain's pain
matrix, the same network thatresponds to physical injury, but
it also triggers areasassociated with social rejection
and humiliation. Your brain isliterally interpreting someone
else's gain as your loss, yourembarrassment, and your failure.

(21:13):
This is creating malicious envy,not just wanting what others
have, but wanting to take itaway from them. The relief comes
not from getting more, but fromothers getting less.
Consider how this shows up inworkplace dynamics. Someone gets
promoted, and instead ofcelebrating or learning from
them, colleagues find reasonswhy they didn't deserve it. The

(21:36):
discomfort of someone elsesucceeding gets transformed into
resentment, gossip, or sabotage.Or think about housing policy.
Communities oppose affordablehousing not because it would
hurt them, but because theycan't tolerate the idea of
someone paying less for whatthey paid more for.
Their comfort depends onmaintaining hierarchies, even

(21:59):
artificial ones. This isn't justselfishness. It's scarcity
thinking made toxic. The beliefthat there's only so much
success, happiness, or safety togo around and if someone else
gets more, there's less for me.That's not how progress works.
Progress is not a zero sum game.When everyone has health care,
everyone benefits from ahealthier society. When everyone

(22:22):
has education, everyone benefitsfrom innovation and reduced
crime. When everyone hasopportunity, everyone benefits
from increased prosperity. Yetcomfort with inequality often
trumps logic about collectivebenefit, and people would rather
preserve familiar hierarchiesthan create unfamiliar
abundance.

(22:43):
So what do we do with all ofthis? We build our capacity for
discomfort. Therapists call itdistress tolerance. Mindfulness
practitioners call itnonreactivity. Educators might
call it a growth mindset, butwhatever name you give it, it's
the ability to stay present withdiscomfort.

(23:04):
Hold it, examine it, and learnfrom it instead of running from
it. This is not about martyrdom.It's about endurance. The kind
that allows you to face hardtruths, to admit when you're
wrong, and to listen to voicesthat make you uncomfortable. It
requires unlearning, relearning,and changing even when it's
painful.
Progress doesn't ask us to beperfect. It just asks us to be

(23:27):
brave, to be okay with beinguncomfortable and keep going.
And that means comfort can't beyour compass, not if you want to
grow or not if you want to helpand definitely not if you want
to make anything better. Theresearch on psychological
flexibility shows us that peoplewho can tolerate distress
without immediately trying tofix it, avoid it, or explain it

(23:48):
away are more resilient,creative, and capable of change.
Their brains actually developstronger connections between the
prefrontal cortex and emotionalcenters, allowing for better
regulation under stress.
When you practice sitting withdiscomfort, you are literally
rewiring your brain to handlechallenges more effectively.
You're building what we callcognitive control, the ability

(24:12):
to override automatic responsesand choose more adaptive
behaviors. Start small. Noticewhen you're avoiding something
because it feels uncomfortableand sit with criticism instead
of immediately defendingyourself. Listen to perspectives
that challenge your worldviewwithout needing to argue.

(24:32):
Practice saying I was wrong or Idon't know or I need to think
about that. Get comfortable withbeing uncomfortable because the
other side of discomfort iseverything you say you want,
growth, connection, progress,justice, and change. The
question isn't whetherdiscomfort will come. Of course,
it will. The question is whetheryou'll run from it or learn from

(24:54):
it.
So the next time you findyourself pulling away from
something or someone, turningoff the news, ignoring critique,
staying silent in a crucialconversation, ask yourself, am I
protecting myself, or am Iprotecting my comfort? Comfort
is not neutral, and comfort isnot free. It comes at the

(25:14):
expense of your growth,integrity, and someone else's
dignity. It may feel safe, butdiscomfort is where the good
stuff lives. Thanks forlistening to PsyberSpace.
I'm your host, Leslie Poston,signing off. If you found this
episode useful or better yet, alittle uncomfortable, share it,
rate it, comment on it, tell afriend, and join me next week.

(25:37):
In fact, subscribe so you don'tmiss a week. And remember, stay
curious.
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.

The Joe Rogan Experience

The Joe Rogan Experience

The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.