Tool 94 · Develop yourself
A guided 14 to 20 minute conversation, here in TAIU. The option you removed before you ever compared it fairly.
Examining a door is not the same as opening it.
Why was it excluded?
What you'll explore
A note from Mark
People rarely decide against something in one clear moment. More often they decide once, early, and everything after that happens inside the decision without it ever being reopened.
I ask for the sentence that starts with 'I can't', about something that isn't physically stopping you. That sentence usually points at the door.
The point isn't to walk through it. Some doors are locked for good reasons and should stay that way.
The point is to know why it's locked, rather than to have forgotten there was ever a door there at all.
What you'll get
01
The sentence
02
The reason
03
The plain version
04
The verdict
+
Your TAIU handover, a portable summary of everything the conversation established.
When you finish
This session works on you rather than one part of your life, so nothing is rated. At the end you are asked, once, which part of your life it touched most. You can answer none.
The conversation writes this for you. Keep the sheet, print it or paste it into My Tree. Nothing from the conversation is stored by TAIU.
What now?
01 · Save it
The sentence, named precisely.
02 · Test it
Write the 'I can't' sentence down somewhere you'll see it again.
What I would do
Write the sentence down exactly as you'd say it.
Describe the option in practical terms rather than the dramatised version.
Name the reason it was excluded without dressing it up.
Ask whether that reason still holds, honestly.
Decide whether the exclusion stays, and say why.
Test it
What is the sentence?
What does it exclude?
Does the reason still hold?
The alternative
The usual assumption is that finding an excluded option means you're supposed to pursue it. Often the evidence shows the exclusion was correct all along, built on a reason that is still true and the useful outcome is simply knowing why the door is locked rather than forgetting it exists. The reverse happens too. Somebody examines the option and finds the reason it was excluded no longer applies, a fear that was accurate at twenty three and isn't now and the honest reading is that the door was never actually locked, just unvisited.
Think about this
Take this to Ask Mark
Interpretation, not another copy-and-paste exercise.
Take this to Ask Mark →What helped you?
If you've read, watched, listened to or tried something that helped you think about this differently, we'd like to hear about it.
We review recommendations before sharing them with the community.
Finished the exercise?
Tell us whether it helped and what you discovered. It takes less than a minute.
Next tool
If the door is worth comparing properly
Further thinking
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Leon Festinger
Thinking, Fast and Slow
Daniel Kahneman
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
Erving Goffman
Article
Leon Festinger
The finding that matters here is not that people feel uncomfortable when belief and behaviour diverge. It is what they do about it. Adjusting the belief is far cheaper than adjusting the conduct, and it happens without anybody noticing. If you have quietly stopped believing something you used to act on, this explains the mechanism.
Book
Daniel Kahneman
Why confidence and accuracy aren't the same thing.
Book
Erving Goffman
Goffman watched ordinary social life the way somebody watches a play, and found that all of us run a front stage and a back stage. The front is not a lie. It is the working version of ourselves that a situation requires. Reading him takes most of the moral charge out of the question, and leaves a far better one behind: which of your performances is worth the effort it costs.
Book
Murray Bowen
Bowen's idea of differentiation, staying connected to your family without being governed by it, is the useful frame for most adult family questions.
Book
Barry Schwartz
Schwartz separates maximisers, who need to be sure they have the best available option, from satisficers, who stop once something is good enough. The uncomfortable finding is that maximisers tend to end up with objectively better outcomes and feel worse about them, because every choice carries the shadow of the one they did not take.