Tool 90 · Develop yourself
For after responsibility is settled. Understanding how something happens does not reduce what is owed for it.
A guided 25 to 35 minute conversation, here in TAIU. You can also take it away and use it elsewhere.
01
Copy
Take the TAIU prompt.
02
Paste
Open ChatGPT.
03
Talk
One question at a time.
Copies the TAIU prompt. Paste it into ChatGPT.
You don't need ChatGPT Plus. The free version is fine.
By the decision point it is already too late.
Understanding it changes nothing about what is owed.
What you'll explore
A note from Mark
I have watched people apologise sincerely for the same thing four times, and I have done a version of it myself. What is going on is not usually dishonesty. It is that sincerity is being asked to do a job it cannot do.
The apology happens after. Whatever is going to work has to happen before, and usually much earlier than people expect. By the point where the decision feels like a decision, it has mostly been made.
The occasions where it did not happen are the ones worth an hour. People skip them because nothing went wrong, which is exactly why they contain the information.
And I would keep one thing firmly separate. Understanding why you do something is useful to you and of no interest whatsoever to the person who was on the receiving end of it. They are owed what they were owed before.
What you'll get
01
What actually precedes it
02
What the behaviour pays
03
Why the promises have not held
04
What would interrupt it
+
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 behaviour stated plainly, in one sentence, without category language.
02 · Test it
Write down the last three occasions and the hour before each. Look at the three hours rather than the three events.
Before you take this anywhere
Do not offer this account to the person affected as a reason. An explanation delivered to somebody still carrying the consequence usually functions as a defence.
Where drink, drugs, gambling, compulsion or anything involving somebody's safety is part of this, that needs proper support and not an exercise.
What I would do
Start from an occasion rather than a theory. Theories are comfortable and specific mornings are not.
Look for the conditions, not the cause. Time of day, who was there, what had just happened, what was being avoided.
Take the exceptions seriously. Where it did not happen, something concrete was different.
Find an interruption that acts before the decision, because at the decision point it is already too late.
Keep what is owed separate. Understanding how something happens does not reduce it by anything.
Test it
Ask what was different on the day it did not happen. If the answer is willpower, keep looking.
Ask whether the explanation you have found would satisfy the person affected. If it would, be suspicious of it.
Ask what would have to be true for this not to happen again in six months, and whether any of it is actually in place.
The alternative
The obvious reading is that there is something wrong with you and that finding it will stop this. Both parts are worth testing. Sometimes there is no pattern and two different events have been joined by a shared feeling. Sometimes the behaviour is not the problem and the arrangement around it is, and anybody in that arrangement would be doing something. Sometimes the promise has never failed at the point of decision because it was never a mechanism, only an intention. And sometimes the honest finding is that you have already interrupted it, twice, and have given yourself no credit for either because the story you are running does not have room for it.
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 something has a hold on this
Further thinking
Good Habits, Bad Habits
Wendy Wood
Wanting is not liking
Kent Berridge and Terry Robinson
Identity-based habits
James Clear
Book
Wendy Wood
Wood spent three decades measuring what people actually do rather than what they intend, and her finding is uncomfortable: roughly forty three per cent of daily behaviour is repeated in the same context with almost no decision involved. That reframes the question. Something with a hold on you is usually not a failure of character, it is a piece of your environment doing reliable work.
Article
Kent Berridge and Terry Robinson
Berridge separated two systems that everyday language treats as one. Wanting, the pull towards something, and liking, the pleasure of having it, run on different machinery and can come apart completely. It is the cleanest explanation of a very common report: I do not even enjoy it any more, and I still do it. Useful precisely because it does not require the word addiction.
Article
James Clear
A short piece with one idea in it: every action is a small vote for the kind of person you believe you are, and the tally is more honest than the label. It is the clearest statement of the assumption this exercise runs on, which is that what you did tells you more than what you would say.