Then the replies started to change.

More and more of you have been asking a different question. Not about your own wiring, but about theirs. The colleague who talks over everyone. The boss who finds fault with everything. The relative who says “I’m fine” in a voice that means the opposite. And you didn’t only want to understand them. You wanted to know what to do about it the next time it happens.

So I’ve been working on an answer, quietly, for some time. Today it’s ready.

It’s called Wired Together.

It’s a user manual for dealing with other people, built from your feedback. The starting ten are the most requested, and they are designed to deal with people who are:

• Confrontational

• Dominating

• Critical

• Defensive

• Passive-aggressive

• Dismissive

• Controlling

• Avoidant

• Volatile

• Rigid

Each chapter looks at what you’re seeing, what’s likely driving it and what it sets off in you. Then it looks at the loop the two of you get stuck in, because it’s almost always a loop.

The behaviours we find hardest are usually the ones furthest from our own. If you avoid conflict, the confrontational person feels like a threat. If you say what you mean, the passive-aggressive person feels like a puzzle with pieces missing. Your brain reads the difference as danger and reaches for its oldest moves. Fight back. Back down. Go quiet. And those moves tend to feed the very thing you’re trying to escape.

You can’t rewire the other person, but you can change your half of the loop.

What’s free, and what’s for paid subscribers

The first half of every chapter is free, for everyone. That includes “Where the line sits”, because nobody should hit a paywall before being told it’s fine to leave a room where they’re being shouted at.

The second half is the practical part you asked for, and it’s for paid subscribers:

• What to stop doing, and how to stop doing it

• What to try instead

• Scripts: what they say, and what you could say back

• A way to practice, starting small and safe

• A workbook for every chapter, to download and keep

A starter, not the whole meal

These ten came from your replies, and the next ones will too. More behaviours will follow over the coming months, and paid subscribers get every new chapter as it arrives in full.

So keep telling me. Is there someone in your life who doesn’t fit any of these ten? Reply to this email or leave a comment, and tell me who you’d like a chapter on.

One last thing before you start. Somewhere in these chapters is the behaviour other people find hardest in you. Read with that in mind, and be kind to both of you.

Enjoy!

Neil

Share How We're Wired by Neil Bage

LOOKING BACK

In my very first post, I told you about a professor at a conference. Someone asked how we could help people overcome their behavioural biases, and the professor, clearly frustrated, said they wished people would stop thinking biases could be fixed. They’re just part of who we are.

Every post since has tested that idea against a different corner of life: money, grief, arguments, ambition, and that familiar 3am wake-up call.

Read one at a time, the posts look like separate quirks. Line them up side by side and they start to look like one brain doing a handful of very old jobs, in a world it was never built for.

The group comes first. For most of human history, your place in the group was your survival. So your brain watches your standing constantly and treats anything that threatens it as danger.

That’s why “I’m fine” comes out before you’ve decided whether it’s true. It’s why “yes” comes out when you mean “no”. And it’s why a row about the washing up can leave your heart racing, as your amygdala treats feeling unseen by your partner as a genuine threat.

The same system is behind imposter syndrome and everyday self-doubt. It was built for a group of around 150 people and is now measuring you against everyone on LinkedIn. It’s also why first impressions form in seconds and then refuse to budge.

Now beats later. Your brain processes future-you in much the same way it processes a stranger, which is why the pension so often loses to the holiday. Urgent things shout and important things whisper, so your brain turns towards the shout. Busyness feels like progress because visible motion is rewarding. By the end of the day, your decision-making budget is spent and the easy option wins.

Your brain will even pay to make uncertainty disappear. A guaranteed 2% feels safer than a probable 7%.

We hold on. Losses hurt more than equivalent gains feel good, often estimated at around twice as much. That’s how I ended up staying ten months too long in a job I knew was wrong. Old stories hold on too. Your memory stores the lesson without the date it stopped applying, which is why James was still scanning for exits in a London café years after leaving Afghanistan.

Memories themselves are rebuilt every time we recall them. That’s why Sandy and I remember falling in love with each other so differently. Grief follows the same logic. Your brain’s detailed model of someone you love doesn’t update overnight, and each absence lands as a prediction error, carried by some of the same pathways as physical pain.

We want more. Your brain adapts quickly to every pay rise and milestone, and your comparison group is now everyone. Sometimes we chase goals that were never ours in the first place. Mine was a big detached house. We live somewhere much smaller now, and we’re happier.

Put all of that together and the same few instructions keep showing up:

• Stay in the group.

• Take the certain thing, and take it now.

• Hold on to what you have and to the story you already know.

• Keep striving.

Every one of those kept your ancestors alive. None of them was designed for inboxes or an endless scroll of other people’s achievements.

So the biggest lesson is mismatch.

The wiring works but the world changed.

The second lesson sits at the end of almost every post. The answer was never to fix it. The answer was to notice it, and to swap “what’s wrong with me?” for “there’s my wiring, doing its job.”

That small shift gives you enough distance to choose.

What’s changing?

A few of you have asked for an easier way to find a specific post again, or to see everything on one theme in one place. Looking back like this made it obvious how much the posts talk to each other, so it’s a great request. I’ve now tagged every article under one of four themes:

Self & Identity explores how you see yourself, and what happens to that picture when it gets challenged, praised, or quietly rebuilt without your permission.

Relationships digs into why other people move your brain more than almost anything else does, for better and for worse, often before you’ve noticed it happening.

Time & Habits reveals the loops, delays and grooves your brain runs on, regardless of what you’ve decided about them.

And Modern Life looks at the ordinary friction of a nervous system built for one world, doing its best in a completely different one.

Currently there are:

• 7 articles on Self & Identity [view articles]

• 6 on Relationships [view articles]

• 4 on Time & Habits [view articles]

• 2 on Modern Life [view articles]

The second change is about depth.

You’ll have noticed names like Hal Hershfield and Dan Gilbert appearing along the way. A number of you have asked for more of that: what the research actually says, who ran the study, and how they reached the finding, rather than just the headline.

So in some upcoming posts, I’ll go a little further than I normally do. Not academic. Not complicated. Just enough of the real research underneath the idea that you can see where it comes from, rather than taking my word for it.

None of this changes what the newsletter is, or why I write it. When I started, I hoped these posts would replace shame with curiosity. That’s still the point. The changes just mean it fits you a bit better than it did 20 posts ago.

Oh! And next time, I’ll share something else I’ve been building because of your replies!

One last thing…

…and this is the part I don’t ask for often.

If a post here has ever landed for you, changed how you think about something, or given you the right word for a feeling you couldn’t quite name, I’d genuinely appreciate you sharing it with one person who might need it too.

Forward an email, click the button below, or mention it in passing. That’s it. That’s the whole ask. 🙏🏼

This newsletter has grown almost entirely through people doing exactly that, and it means more than any subscribe button ever could.

Thank you for reading the first 20 posts. Here’s to the next 20.

Until next time, take care.

Neil

Share How We're Wired by Neil Bage

A few months ago, Mirka Cummins asked if I’d write about self-esteem and low confidence through the “How We’re Wired” lens.

It’s a topic I’ve thought about a couple of time before - not least because it frequently comes up in conversations with friends, colleagues, clients, though rarely by name. It’s dressed up as something else: “I’m just not sure I’m the right fit for this role,” or “I don’t think I’m experienced enough yet,” or “Maybe I should wait until I’ve got more qualifications.”

But underneath? It’s the same thing. The quiet conviction that somehow, you’re not enough.

And it’s not just “imposter syndrome”. It’s deeper than that. It’s the internal voice that says you’re not qualified, not ready, not the right person. The one that talks you out of opportunities before you’ve even tried. The one that assumes everyone else knows what they’re doing and you’re just winging it.

I’ve certainly felt it. Standing backstage before a keynote talk, thinking “who am I to be talking about this?” Sending a proposal and immediately assuming they’ll go with someone better. Looking at my CV and seeing gaps and question marks where other people probably see a coherent career.

We call this low self-esteem. Lack of confidence. Self-doubt.

We call it a lot of things, but we rarely call it what it actually is: your brain’s social calibration system doing exactly what it evolved to do.

Here’s what’s actually happening when you feel “not good enough”:

Your brain is running a constant background calculation about where you stand relative to others. It’s monitoring your status, how others perceive you, whether you’re competent enough for the task at hand, the risks of overstepping or underperforming.

This isn’t insecurity by the way. It’s social navigation.

For most of human history, accurately calibrating where you stood in the group was a survival skill. Getting it wrong - being overconfident when you should have been cautious, or challenging someone when you weren’t ready - could get you excluded, injured, or worse.

The person who constantly checked “am I good enough for this?” before acting was more likely to survive than the person who charged ahead assuming they were brilliant at everything.

Your anxious, self-monitoring, “maybe I’m not ready” ancestors outlasted the overconfident ones. That’s why you’re here!

But the real problem isn’t the system, it’s the context.

That social calibration system evolved in small groups of maybe 150 people, where you knew everyone, everyone knew you, and your status was relatively stable.

Now? You’re calibrating yourself against thousands of people you’ve never met, curated highlight reels that bear no resemblance to reality, standards that keep shifting, and domains where competence is subjective and unclear.

You see someone’s LinkedIn post about their latest achievement and your brain registers: “threat to status.”

You’re about to speak in a meeting and your brain scans for evidence you’re competent enough to contribute. It doesn’t find certainty, so it says: “maybe don’t.”

You compare your behind-the-scenes to everyone else’s showreel and your brain concludes: “we’re not measuring up.”

The system that helped your ancestors know when to speak up and when to stay quiet in a small tribe is now firing constantly in a world of infinite comparison and unclear hierarchies.

It’s not broken. It’s just massively overmatched.

The sneaky thing about this system is that it doesn’t present itself as “just a feeling.” It presents itself as truth.

When your brain says “you’re not good enough,” it doesn’t add “...based on a social calibration calculation that might be wildly inaccurate.” It just gives you the conclusion. And because it’s coming from inside your own head, it feels like reality.

Your brain is pattern-matching from past experiences - the times you struggled, failed, or heard criticism - and extrapolating: “If I wasn’t good enough then, I’m probably not good enough now.”

Never mind that you’ve learned and grown, the context was different, or that everyone struggles sometimes.

Your brain’s social calibration system doesn’t care about nuance. It cares about keeping you safe. And in its logic, keeping you safe means making sure you don’t overstep, don’t fail publicly, don’t risk rejection.

So it gives you doubt. And because it’s trying to protect you, it’s very, very convincing.

So what do you do with this?

Not “fix it.” Not “overcome it.” Not shame yourself for feeling not good enough when you “should” just be confident.

You recognise it for what it is.

When your brain tells you you’re not qualified, not ready, not good enough - it’s not because that’s objectively true. It’s because you’ve got social calibration wiring that evolved over millions of years, and it’s operating in an environment it wasn’t designed for.

That doesn’t mean the feeling is invalid. It’s real. But it’s not truth. It’s your brain’s best guess based on incomplete and often misleading information.

Understanding this doesn’t make self-doubt magically disappear. But it changes your relationship with it.

Instead of: “I’m not good enough” You get: “My brain is running its social calibration check and it’s flagging uncertainty”

Instead of: “Everyone else knows what they’re doing and I’m just faking it” You get: “That’s my pattern-matching system comparing my internal experience to everyone else’s external presentation”

Instead of fighting it or believing it wholesale, you can acknowledge it: “I see you, brain. You’re trying to keep me safe. But I’m going to do this anyway.”

Sometimes that’s enough. Sometimes it isn’t, and you talk yourself out of things anyway.

But either way, you’re not broken.

You’re wired this way. And that wiring kept your ancestors socially connected and alive long enough for you to be here, doubting yourself, maybe reading this.

A note on imposter syndrome

I mentioned at the start that this isn’t quite the same as imposter syndrome, though they’re definitely related.

Imposter syndrome is its own specific flavour of this: the feeling that you’ve somehow fooled everyone into thinking you’re competent when you’re actually not, and it’s only a matter of time before you’re “found out.”

That’s a whole article in itself (and it’s coming in a future post). But for now, just know: if you feel like an imposter, that’s not evidence that you are one. It’s evidence that your social calibration system is hyperactive.

Which, again, is not a bug. It’s a feature in the wrong context.

Next time: Twenty posts, and a few changes

Post number 20. Time for a very brief pause to talk about tagging, depth, and why the next 20 articles might look slightly different to the last 20.

What does your self-doubt sound like?

I’m curious to know. When your brain tells you you’re not good enough, what does it fixate on? Your work? Your intelligence? Your appearance? Your right to be in the room?

Hit reply and tell me. Your self-doubt might be the starting point for a future piece.

Until next time, take care.

Neil

Share

Share How We're Wired by Neil Bage

You’ve heard it about the Christmas plans, the filing system, the route to your mum’s, and the way the team runs its Monday meeting. You’ve suggested alternatives. You’ve brought evidence. You’ve even tried letting them think it was their idea.

They listen, sometimes. Then they do exactly what they were going to do anyway.

You like trying things differently, and you change your mind when the facts change. To you, the rigid person can feel like a wall. Every suggestion bounces off. And because you’re flexible, it’s tempting to keep adapting to them until you’ve adapted yourself out of the picture.

You can move someone who doesn’t want to move, one small step at a time.

What you’re seeing

A strong attachment to a position, a routine or a way of doing things. The common signs:

• “We’ve always done it this way” or “That’s just how it is.”

• New ideas met with a list of reasons they won’t work.

• Evidence that contradicts their view gets dismissed or reinterpreted.

• Changes of plan cause real distress, not just irritation.

• Black-and-white thinking: right or wrong, with nothing in between.

• Once they’ve decided, they don’t revisit it.

• Compromise feels to them like losing.

It’s worth distinguishing between rigid about things and rigid about values. Someone who won’t change the filing system is attached to a routine. Someone who won’t bend on honesty is holding a principle. The first is usually workable. The second often deserves respect.

What’s likely driving it

Certainty feels safe. Our brains like predictability. For some people, that preference is very strong. Familiar routines and fixed positions reduce uncertainty, and reducing uncertainty reduces anxiety. Change, even small change, can feel threatening.

Their view is part of who they are. When a belief or a way of doing things becomes tied to someone’s identity, challenging it feels like challenging them. People will defend an identity far harder than they’ll defend an opinion.

It’s worked before. If their way has served them well, they have good reason to trust it. They’ve seen new ideas come and go, and many of them didn’t work.

Loss looms larger than gain. People feel the pain of losing something more strongly than the pleasure of gaining something of equal value. The thing they’d give up is vivid and certain. The thing they’d gain is vague and hypothetical.

Being wrong is expensive. For some people, changing their mind feels like admitting they were wrong, and being wrong feels like losing status. It’s easier to hold the line.

What it sets off in you

When your ideas keep hitting a wall, frustration is the obvious reaction. But there’s something else too. Being repeatedly unable to influence someone erodes your sense that your input matters.

Watch for:

• Exasperation, sometimes out of all proportion to the issue.

• An urge to prove them wrong, with more and more evidence.

• Giving up, and doing it their way with a sigh.

• A feeling of being stuck, or held back.

If you’re flexible, there’s a particular risk. You’re good at adapting, so you adapt. Again and again. And each time, the relationship bends a little further towards their way, until you realise you’ve stopped suggesting things at all.

Then come the verdicts: “They’re impossible.” “I always lose this one.” “Nothing ever changes.” And with those stories, you stop trying, which guarantees that nothing changes.

The loop

Put their behaviour and your reaction together and you get a cycle that runs itself.

1. You suggest something new.

2. They feel the threat of change and resist.

3. You argue the case, often with evidence.

4. Evidence feels like an attack on their position, so they dig in further.

5. The conversation becomes about who’s right.

6. You give up and adapt to them, or you push and it turns into a row.

7. Either way, they learn that holding firm works, and you learn that suggesting things doesn’t.

And round again, a little sooner each time.

Step four is the counter-intuitive part. More evidence rarely moves a rigid person, and it can make them dig in. When a belief is tied to who someone is, a pile of facts against it feels like a pile of facts against them. Your evidence, however good, can end up reinforcing the wall.

Step six costs you either way. Giving up means you lose your voice. Pushing harder means you lose the relationship. Neither gets you change.

Where the line sits

Rigidity is frustrating, but it’s often harmless. It goes too far when it stops other people meeting their basic needs, when it’s used to keep someone else small or dependent, or when rules are enforced with threats or punishment.

If someone’s inflexibility is putting safety at risk, blocking necessary changes that affect others’ wellbeing, or controlling what you can do with your own life, it’s no longer a matter of style. At work, raise it formally. At home, get an outside view from a friend or a counsellor. Chapter 7 covers control in more detail.

Wanting things to change is reasonable.

Read more

You find yourself checking the weather before you speak. What sort of mood are they in? Is now a good time? Is there ever a good time?

You feel things, but you don’t swing with them. Around a volatile person, that steadiness gets tested in ways that are hard to describe. Any one reaction on its own would be manageable. What wears you down is never knowing which one you’ll get.

You can stay steady without walking on eggshells. Here’s how.

What you’re seeing

Emotional reactions that are bigger, faster or less predictable than the situation seems to call for. The common signs:

• Big swings in mood, sometimes within the same day.

• Small triggers producing large reactions.

• Warmth one moment, irritation or tears the next.

• Strong reactions followed by sudden calm, as though nothing happened.

• Apologies, sometimes heartfelt, sometimes not, followed by the same pattern.

• Others around them adjusting constantly: checking the mood, choosing words, timing requests.

That last sign often tells you more than the person’s behaviour. If a whole team or family has learnt to tiptoe, the volatility is shaping everyone.

It’s also worth separating someone who has big feelings from someone who uses big feelings. Most volatile people aren’t choosing their reactions. A few use them, knowingly or not, to control what others do. The difference matters, and it’s covered under Where the line sits.

What’s likely driving it

Their alarm system is sensitive. Some people’s threat response fires faster and harder than average, and takes longer to settle. A small criticism, change or frustration lands like a big one. It’s partly how they’re built and partly what they’ve been through.

They’re running on empty. Tiredness, hunger, pain, worry and stress all shrink the gap between feeling something and reacting to it. Someone who’s volatile at work may be dealing with something hard at home, and the reverse.

They never learnt to name what they feel. Being able to put a feeling into words helps it settle. People who weren’t taught to do that often go straight from feeling to reaction, with nothing in between.

Old wounds. People who grew up around unpredictability often carry it with them. Their reactions may be to the situation in front of them and to something much older at the same time.

Health. Some volatility is linked to physical or mental health conditions, hormones, medication or substances. You can’t diagnose this, and you don’t need to. It helps to remember that what you’re seeing may have causes neither of you can see.

What it sets off in you

Unpredictability is one of the hardest things for a human brain to live with. We’re built to anticipate. When we can’t predict how someone will react, our alarm system stays on low alert, scanning for signs. It’s tiring, even when nothing happens.

Around them, you may find:

• A tightness before you speak to them, or when you hear their voice.

• Rehearsing how to phrase things.

• Relief, almost euphoric, when they’re in a good mood.

• Exhaustion at the end of a day spent managing their moods.

If you’re steady by nature, you can absorb a lot. That’s a gift, and it can also be a trap. Steady people often become the regulator for everyone else, the one who calms things down and smooths things over. It works, until it wears you out.

Little by little, you start to believe: “I have to keep them happy.” “It’s my job to stop them getting upset.” “I’m the only one who can handle them.” None of those are your job. But they can quietly become your life.

The loop

Put their behaviour and your reaction together and you get a cycle that runs itself.

1. Something sets them off, and the reaction is big.

2. You react to their reaction: you calm, placate or retreat.

3. The storm passes, and they may apologise or act as if nothing happened.

4. You learn to avoid the triggers: you hold back news, time requests carefully, shrink what you say.

5. Holding back means problems build up unspoken.

6. When something finally has to be said, it’s bigger, and their reaction is bigger too.

7. You avoid even more.

And round again, a little sooner each time.

Step four is the one that feels like kindness. Walking on eggshells feels protective, but it hands them a huge amount of power over your behaviour, often without either of you meaning to. And it leaves them with less chance to learn that small issues can be raised and survived.

Then there’s step two. When you rush to calm them, you’re doing their regulation for them. It helps in the moment, but it means they never have to do it themselves.

Where the line sits

Someone having big feelings is hard. Someone using their feelings to frighten, threaten or punish you is something else.

If their reactions include breaking things, threats, physical intimidation, harming themselves or others, or making you fear for your safety, that goes beyond any communication technique. Your safety comes first. Leave the situation if you can, and talk to someone you trust. In the UK, the free 24-hour National Domestic Abuse Helpline is on 0808 2000 247. If someone is at immediate risk, call 999.

If you’re worried that their volatility is linked to a mental health crisis, encourage them to see their GP, and in urgent situations call 111 or 999.

You’re allowed to keep yourself safe, even from someone you love.

Read more

Next week becomes the week after. The meeting gets moved twice. When you finally sit down, they’ve got a quarter of an hour before a call, and they spend most of it on something else.

At home, it’s the same conversation about the same thing, the one you’ve tried to have since spring. Every time, there’s a reason it isn’t the right moment.

You’d rather have the hard conversation now than carry it for months. So the avoidant person can drive you up the wall. Problems that could be sorted in an hour sit there for a year. And the more you push, the further they seem to slide away.

The goal is to get the conversation to happen, at a pace that keeps them in the room.

What you’re seeing

A pattern of side-stepping anything uncomfortable. The common signs:

• Meetings about difficult topics get postponed, shortened or derailed.

• “Let me think about it” that never gets a follow-up.

• Changing the subject, joking or suddenly getting busy.

• Decisions left hanging until they’re made by default.

• Agreement in the moment, with no action afterwards.

• Emails with the awkward question go unanswered, while the easy ones get a quick reply.

• When things go wrong, they’re vague about what happened, or quietly absent.

Avoidance can be about conversations (they won’t talk about it), decisions (they won’t choose), or accountability (they won’t own it). Most avoidant people do a mix, but it helps to know which one you’re facing.

What’s likely driving it

Conflict feels dangerous. For some people, a difficult conversation sets off the same alarm that a physical threat would. Their body says “get out”, and they do, by postponing, deflecting or going quiet. It’s the flight response, dressed in a diary invitation.

Avoidance brings instant relief. Every time they dodge a difficult conversation, they feel better straight away. That relief is a reward, and rewarded behaviour gets repeated. Few habits feed themselves as reliably as avoidance.

Fear of getting it wrong. For decisions, avoidance often hides perfectionism. If you never choose, you can never choose wrong. Waiting feels safer than risking a mistake.

Shame. For accountability, avoidance often protects against the feeling of being found out. If they don’t look at the problem, they don’t have to feel bad about their part in it.

They’ve learnt that it works. Often, if they wait long enough, someone else deals with it. Usually that someone is a person like you.

What it sets off in you

When something important keeps getting dodged, your frustration builds. Unfinished business takes up mental space. Your brain keeps returning to open loops, which is why a problem that isn’t being dealt with can feel heavier than one that is.

You’ll probably recognise some of these:

• Impatience, then anger.

• A pull to chase, push and set deadlines.

• Doing their part yourself, to get it done.

• A sense of carrying the relationship, or the project, on your own.

For someone like you, the natural move is to push harder. Name the issue, set a time, follow up. And in the short term, it can work. But often it makes them avoid more, because now the conversation feels even more charged.

You start to conclude: “They don’t care.” “I’m the only adult here.” “Nothing ever gets resolved.” You become the chaser. They become the escaper. And neither of you likes the role.

The loop

Put their behaviour and your reaction together and you get a cycle that runs itself.

1. You raise something difficult.

2. They feel the alarm and find a way out: a joke, a delay, “let me think about it”.

3. You feel brushed off and push harder, with more urgency.

4. More urgency makes the conversation feel more dangerous, so they avoid harder.

5. You escalate further, or take over and handle it yourself.

6. If you escalate, they withdraw. If you take over, they learn the problem goes away when they wait.

7. Next time, they avoid sooner, and you push sooner.

And round again, a little sooner each time.

Step four is where it tips. Your urgency, which is a strength, raises the stakes for them. The bigger and more serious the conversation feels, the harder it is for an avoidant person to walk into.

And step six has a hidden cost. When you sort it out yourself, you get the problem solved and lose the chance to share the load. They never get practice facing things, and you never get a break from doing it all.

Where the line sits

Putting off awkward chats is very human. Avoidance becomes a problem when it leaves you carrying responsibilities that are theirs, puts other people at risk, or leaves you in the dark about things that affect your life: money, health, safety or legal matters.

If someone is repeatedly hiding things you have a right to know, or leaving you exposed to consequences they should be dealing with, it’s reasonable to set a firm deadline, get outside advice, or bring someone else in. At work, if a manager won’t address a problem that’s affecting you, it’s fine to go above them.

You don’t have to carry it alone.

Read more

At work, you were asked to take over the project. You’ve been copied on every email since, and so has your old boss, who’s still replying to all of them.

You offered to plan the holiday. You’re now the person who books what you’ve been told to book.

If you don’t mind how things get done as long as they get done, the controlling person can wear you out. Every small task becomes a test you didn’t know you were sitting. And because you’re easy-going, it’s tempting to let them do it all, until you realise you’re no longer trusted with anything.

It’s time to share the wheel.

What you’re seeing

A need for things to be done in a particular way, and difficulty letting others do them. The common signs:

• Detailed instructions for simple tasks.

• Redoing things you’ve already done.

• Checking in, often, on things they’ve handed over.

• Difficulty delegating, or delegating and then taking it back.

• Strong reactions to small changes of plan.

• Decisions that are technically shared but always end up their way.

• “It’s quicker if I just do it myself.”

There’s a useful distinction between control over tasks and control over people. Wanting the spreadsheet formatted a certain way is about the task. Wanting to know where you are, who you’re with, or what you spend is about you. The first is mostly a style. The second is covered in Where the line sits.

What’s likely driving it

Uncertainty feels dangerous. Some brains find not knowing how something will turn out uncomfortable, close to physically so. Taking control reduces the uncertainty. If they do it themselves, they know how it’ll go.

They’ve been let down before. If people dropped the ball on them in the past, at work or at home, they may have learnt that the only safe way is to do it themselves. Control is what trust looks like when trust has been burned.

They feel responsible. Many controlling people believe they’ll be blamed if anything goes wrong. They’re right more often than you’d think. Holding on tightly is their way of protecting themselves from that blame.

Standards and identity. For some, doing things well is part of who they are. Letting it be done differently feels like letting their standards slip.

Anxiety, showing up differently. Control is a very common way to manage worry. If they’re under pressure elsewhere, expect the grip to tighten.

What it sets off in you

Being controlled triggers a basic human need for autonomy, the sense of being in charge of your own actions. When that’s taken away, even over something small like the dishwasher, it registers. Your brain treats a loss of autonomy as a threat, quietly but persistently.

It tends to show up as:

• A flash of irritation when something you’ve done gets redone.

• A sense of being treated like a child, or a junior.

• • A pull to give up and let them do it.

• Losing confidence in your own judgement over time.

If you’re easy-going, the response is often to let go completely. “Fine, you do it.” It seems like the path of least resistance, and in the short term it is. But it leaves you with less say, less skill and, eventually, a lot of quiet resentment.

The voice in your head gets busy: “They don’t trust me.” “Nothing I do is right.” “Why bother?” And slowly, you stop bothering. Which, from their side, proves that they need to do it.

The loop

Put their behaviour and your reaction together and you get a cycle that runs itself.

1. They give detailed instructions or step in to take over.

2. You feel untrusted and step back.

3. They notice you stepping back and do more themselves.

4. They get more stressed and overloaded.

5. Stressed and overloaded, they check and correct even more.

6. You do less, so you get less practice and they see less of your competence.

7. They have even more reason to believe they need to control things.

And round again, a little sooner each time.

Step six is where it locks in. Every time you let them take over, they lose a chance to see you do it well. Their worry was mostly about uncertainty, and only a little about you. Your stepping back keeps the uncertainty high, because they never get the evidence that things will be fine.

There’s often a sadness in this loop too. Many controlling people are exhausted and would love to let go. They don’t know how.

Where the line sits

Control over tasks can be frustrating, but it’s workable. Control over a person is a different matter.

If someone is monitoring your phone, controlling your money, deciding who you can see, tracking where you go, or making you afraid to make your own choices, that’s coercive control. In the UK, it’s a criminal offence within intimate and family relationships.

It isn’t something to manage with better communication. Talk to someone you trust. In the UK, the free 24-hour National Domestic Abuse Helpline is on 0808 2000 247. In an emergency, call 999.

At work, if control is being used to isolate you, block your progress or punish you, write down what’s happening and raise it formally, through a grievance if you need to.

Your life is yours to run.

Read more

“It’ll be fine.” Eyes back on the phone. Conversation over.

Three weeks later, it isn’t fine. Somebody says, “Why did nobody flag this?”

You did. It just didn’t register.

When you take other people’s worries seriously and weigh ideas before responding, the dismissive person can leave you feeling you’ve spoken into thin air. Your concerns get waved away, your ideas get a shrug and your feelings get “you’re overthinking it”.

What follows will help you make sure what you say lands, and gets recorded when it matters.

What you’re seeing

Someone who moves past what you’ve said without engaging with it. The common signs:

• Quick reassurance that closes the topic: “It’ll be fine.” “Don’t worry about it.”

• Changing the subject straight after you’ve spoken.

• A shrug, an eye-roll, a glance at the phone.

• “That won’t work,” without a reason.

• Minimising feelings: “You’re overreacting.” “It’s not a big deal.”

• Your idea ignored, then later embraced when someone else says it.

• Responding to the tone or the person instead of the content: “You’re always so negative.”

Dismissiveness comes in two flavours. One is about ideas: they don’t engage with your suggestion. The other is about feelings: they don’t engage with how you feel. Both leave you unheard, but they come from slightly different places and need slightly different handling.

What’s likely driving it

They’re overloaded. A brain with too much on it triages ruthlessly. Anything that doesn’t seem urgent gets a fast “fine” and is filed away. Your point was never weighed at all.

Certainty feels good. Once someone’s made up their mind, new information is uncomfortable. Dismissing a worry is a quick way to protect a decision already made. “It’ll be fine” is often less a prediction than a wish.

They’re uncomfortable with emotion. Some people don’t know what to do with feelings, theirs or yours. Brushing them off is the only tool they have. “Don’t worry about it” is an attempt to help, using the wrong tool.

Status. In some workplaces and families, whose voice counts is tied to rank, age or confidence. Ideas from lower down get less attention, regardless of quality. The dismissive person may be following an unwritten rule they’ve never questioned.

Overconfidence. People who are used to being right, or who have succeeded fast, can underrate other views. They don’t think they need the input, and they don’t mean it unkindly.

What it sets off in you

Being dismissed registers as a small social rejection. Your brain is built to notice whether you’re valued by your group, and being brushed aside tells it you’re not. One instance stings briefly. Repeated, it wears you down.

It can look like this:

• A flush of embarrassment, as if you’ve said something stupid.

• A sinking feeling, and a decision not to raise it again.

• Anger, often delayed, when the thing you warned about happens.

• A tendency to over-prepare next time, or not bother at all.

For someone who listens carefully, there’s an extra injustice. You give others your full attention, and you’d expect the same back. When it doesn’t come, it feels unfair as well as unpleasant.

Slowly, a story sets in: “My opinion doesn’t count.” “Nobody takes me seriously.” “I might as well not speak.” You start pre-dismissing yourself, softening your points so much they’re easy to ignore. “It’s probably nothing, but…”

The loop

Put their behaviour and your reaction together and you get a cycle that runs itself.

1. You raise something, carefully and often tentatively.

2. They brush it aside.

3. You feel unheard and drop it.

4. They take your silence to mean it wasn’t important.

5. Next time, you raise things even more tentatively, or not at all.

6. A softer, more hedged point is even easier to dismiss.

7. When a problem you saw coming arrives, they’re surprised, and you’re resentful.

And round again, a little sooner each time.

Look at steps five and six together. Your tentativeness is a reasonable response to being dismissed, but it makes you easier to dismiss. “It’s probably nothing” invites “Then don’t worry about it.”

And step seven is the slow damage. Being right afterwards brings very little satisfaction. Mostly it confirms that you were never listened to, and it pushes you further into silence.

Where the line sits

Being brushed off is frustrating. Being consistently ignored about safety, wellbeing or serious risks is something else.

If you’ve raised a concern about something that could cause harm, at work or at home, and it keeps being dismissed, put it in writing and take it to someone else. At work, that might be your manager’s manager or a formal reporting route. If your feelings are routinely belittled and mocked, so that you start doubting whether your reactions are normal, check your reactions with a friend who knows you well.

Your concerns count, and so do you.

Read more

It’s not fine. You know it’s not fine. The door closes a little harder than it needs to. The email the next morning starts “As per my last message”. The job you asked them to do gets done, technically, on the last possible day and slightly wrong.

You ask what’s wrong. “Nothing. Why would anything be wrong?”

If you’d rather have a row than a frost, the passive-aggressive person is maddening. There’s clearly a conflict going on. You can’t find it, so you can’t fix it.

The way out is to bring the conflict into the open, gently enough that it stays there.

What you’re seeing

Hostility that comes out sideways. The common signs:

• “Fine”, “Whatever” and “If that’s what you want” said in a tone that means the opposite.

• Sarcasm and jokes with an edge. “Oh, nice of you to join us.”

• Compliance that’s slow, minimal or quietly sabotaged.

• Silent treatment, sighs, slammed cupboards, pointed absences.

• Backhanded compliments. “You’re so brave to wear that.”

• Emails copied to people who don’t need to be copied.

• Complaints aired to others, never to you.

The tell is the gap between the words and everything else. The words say yes. The tone, the timing and the follow-through say no.

Be careful, though, not to see it everywhere. Some people are dry by nature. Some are slow because they’re busy. One sarcastic comment isn’t a pattern. Look for repetition and for the gap between what’s said and what happens.

What’s likely driving it

Direct conflict feels unsafe to them. Many passive-aggressive people learnt, often early, that saying “I’m angry” or “I don’t want to” led to trouble. Maybe anger was punished, or ignored, or met with something worse. So the feeling went underground and found other exits.

A difference in power. People often go indirect when they feel they can’t afford to go direct: with a boss, a parent, a partner who earns more, a colleague who’s better liked. Indirect resistance is what people do when open resistance seems too costly.

They don’t know they’re doing it. It’s common for passive-aggressive behaviour to be largely automatic. They’d say they’re “fine”, and mean it. They aren’t lying so much as disconnected from the anger that’s leaking out.

Unmet expectations. Often there’s a grievance underneath: they feel overlooked, overworked or taken for granted. They expect you to notice without being told. When you don’t, the hints get louder.

It works, a bit. Sarcasm gets a laugh. Dragging feet means they get asked less. The silent treatment means someone eventually comes and asks what’s wrong. Indirect behaviour sticks around because it gets small rewards.

What it sets off in you

Indirect hostility is unsettling in a particular way. With an open argument, you know where you stand. With this, you’re left guessing, and your brain doesn’t like guessing about threats.

Signs it’s getting to you:

• A nagging sense that something is wrong, with no evidence you could point to.

• Doubting yourself. “Am I imagining it?”

• Irritation, building into anger.

• An urge to force it into the open. “Just tell me what the problem is!”

For someone who values directness, there’s an extra frustration: you can’t use your best tool. Saying it straight gets you “I don’t know what you’re talking about”, which leaves you looking like the aggressive one.

Before long, you might start reading everything. Every short email, every pause. Or you get cutting yourself, matching sarcasm with sarcasm. You start to think: “They’re two-faced.” “They’re impossible.” “I can’t trust anything they say.” Some of that might even be true, but it won’t get you out of the loop.

The loop

Put their behaviour and your reaction together and you get a cycle that runs itself.

1. Something bothers them, and they don’t say it.

2. It leaks out: a tone, a dig, a delay.

3. You notice and ask directly, maybe with some heat.

4. They deny it. “I’m fine.” Direct conflict is the thing they’re avoiding, and you’ve just offered it.

5. You push harder, or you drop it and stew.

6. If you push, they feel cornered and withdraw further. If you stew, your irritation leaks out too.

7. Now both of you are being indirect, and the original issue is buried under a pile of new ones.

And round again, a little sooner each time.

Step four is the hinge. Your directness, which is a strength, can feel to them like the exact danger they’ve learnt to avoid. The more forcefully you ask, the safer “nothing’s wrong” becomes.

Step seven is the one that creeps up on you. Living with indirect hostility for long enough can make anyone start doing it. You find yourself replying “Noted.” with a full stop that carries a lot of weight.

Where the line sits

A grumpy sigh or a sarcastic comment is irritating but survivable. A sustained campaign is different: deliberately undermining your work, spreading rumours, freezing you out of a group, or making you constantly doubt whether something happened.

If you’re being isolated, sabotaged or made to question your own perception of events, you’re past what better conversations can fix. Keep a simple record of what happened and when. Then share it with someone outside the situation: a friend, a mentor or, at work, HR.

Trust what you’ve seen.

Read more

“I was up until midnight finishing that. Nobody else even looked at the report. And slide four came from finance, so you’d better take it up with them.”

You asked about one slide. Somehow you’re now the person who doesn’t appreciate anyone’s effort.

You’d rather hear about a problem than have it hidden, and you assume others feel the same, which is why the defensive person can be baffling. You offer what feels like a small, fair point, and it lands like an accusation.

Read on for how to say what needs saying so it can be heard.

What you’re seeing

A fast push back whenever something feels like criticism. The common signs:

• Explanations, justifications or excuses arrive before you’ve finished.

• Blame moves sideways: to other people, the deadline, the system, you.

• “Yes, but” is a favourite opening.

• They bring up something you did wrong, often unrelated.

• Small points get treated as big ones. “So you think I’m useless?”

• Feedback is accepted in the room and then ignored afterwards.

• Sometimes they go quiet and wounded instead, which can be harder to deal with.

It helps to separate defensiveness from disagreement. Someone who thinks you’re wrong and says why is disagreeing. Someone who can’t let the point land at all is defending. The first is a conversation. The second is a reflex.

What’s likely driving it

Feedback feels like a threat to who they are. For some people, there’s very little distance between “this piece of work has a problem” and “I am a problem”. When the two are fused, any criticism of the work feels like an attack on the self, and the self fights back.

Shame. Shame is the feeling of being not good enough, and it’s one of the most painful emotions people experience. Defensiveness is often a way of getting the shame out of the room as quickly as possible: by explaining it away, passing it on or attacking the person who brought it in.

Past experience. If feedback in their past came with punishment, humiliation or consequences, it makes sense to treat every bit of feedback as dangerous. They learnt to defend before the blow lands.

Pressure. People who are overloaded, insecure in their role or worried about their job are more likely to hear criticism as one more thing that could tip them over.

Fairness. Sometimes they’re right that it isn’t all their fault. Slide four did come from finance. When people feel unfairly singled out, they defend harder.

What it sets off in you

When your carefully chosen words bounce back at you, your own system reacts. You might notice:

• Frustration, sometimes surprise: “That’s not what I said.”

• A pull to explain your intentions, at length.

• An urge to prove your point, with more examples.

• A feeling of walking on eggshells next time.

If you value directness, there’s a particular sting. You were trying to be honest and helpful, and you’ve been cast as the bad guy. It can feel like your good faith has been thrown back at you.

Gradually, you start adjusting. You soften the message so much it disappears. You go to someone else instead. You let things slide that matter, and then you’re annoyed with yourself and with them. Or you swing the other way, getting blunter because the soft approach “doesn’t work”, which confirms their sense that you’re out to get them.

Then you start telling yourself: “They can’t take any criticism.” “There’s no point.” “I’m always the bad guy.” Each one makes the next conversation harder.

The loop

Put their behaviour and your reaction together and you get a cycle that runs itself.

1. You raise a problem, directly.

2. They hear it as an attack and push back.

3. You explain or add evidence, to make the point stick.

4. More evidence feels like more attack, so they defend harder.

5. The conversation becomes about who’s right, and the original problem gets lost.

6. You decide it isn’t worth it, and stop raising things.

7. Problems build up until something big has to be said, and that conversation goes worst of all.

And round again, a little sooner each time.

Steps three and four are the trap. Your instinct, when a point doesn’t land, is to make it more solidly. To a defensive person, that feels like being cornered. The harder you push the point, the harder they have to protect themselves.

Step six hides a cost too. If you stop giving feedback, the defensive person never gets a chance to get better at receiving it. They’re left with the occasional big hit, which is the version they’re worst at handling.

Where the line sits

Defensiveness is uncomfortable to deal with, but it’s mostly self-protection. It crosses a line when it turns into retaliation: punishing you for raising something, turning others against you, making threats, or rewriting events so you doubt what you saw.

If raising a fair point reliably leads to consequences for you, or if you’re being made to feel your memory of events can’t be trusted, that’s beyond a communication problem. Write down what happened while it’s fresh. At work, a short, factual note to your manager is a good first step.

What you saw counts.

Read more

“It’s good. The second paragraph’s a bit long, though.” “Nice colour. Shame about the skirting boards.” “Lovely. Bit dry.”

Ninety per cent of it was right. They found the ten per cent in about four seconds.

You notice what’s working first, and you assume others do too. That’s why the critical person can be exhausting. Every conversation feels like an inspection. And one small comment can outweigh everything else that was said.

The aim is to hear the note without losing the tune.

What you’re seeing

A habit of spotting what’s wrong. The critical person scans for faults, often automatically, and says what they find. The common signs:

• Praise, if it comes, is followed quickly by “but”.

• They correct small details: grammar, pronunciation, the way you load the dishwasher.

• They notice the problem before they notice the effort.

• Their standards are high and rarely stated in advance. You find out you missed them afterwards.

• They criticise themselves too, often harder than they criticise you.

• When you’re upset, they’re puzzled. “I was only saying.”

Two kinds of criticism are worth telling apart. One is about the work: “This figure’s wrong.” The other is about the person: “You’re so careless.” The first is useful, even when it’s badly delivered. The second is corrosive, and it’s covered in Where the line sits.

Notice too whether it’s everywhere or only with you. Someone who corrects the waiter, the TV presenter and themselves is running a habit. Someone who reserves it for you is doing something else.

What’s likely driving it

Their brain is built to spot problems. All our brains are. Negative information grabs attention faster and sticks harder than positive information, because noticing the snake mattered more than noticing the flower. The critical person simply lets more of that scanning come out of their mouth.

They think it’s helpful. Many critical people believe that pointing out the flaw is the kind thing to do. Why let someone send a report with an error in it? To them, criticism is care. Praise feels like flattery, and flattery feels dishonest.

High standards, mostly for themselves. Some people hold themselves to a standard nobody could meet, and they apply the same ruler to everything around them. Their criticism of you is an echo of the voice they hear all day.

It’s what they grew up with. If the only feedback they got as a child was correction, correction is what feedback means. Saying “well done” might feel odd to them.

Anxiety. For some, finding the fault is a way of controlling risk. If they spot the problem now, it won’t embarrass anyone later. The criticism is a safety check, delivered without the warmth.

What it sets off in you

Criticism, even mild, can land in your body before your mind has weighed it. The same threat system that reacts to a raised voice reacts to disapproval, because being judged by your group once mattered for survival.

So you might notice:

• A drop in your stomach, or heat in your face.

• An urge to explain, justify or apologise.

• The good things that were said disappearing from memory almost instantly.

• A replay loop that runs for hours, sometimes days.

That last point matters. Your brain gives more weight to one criticism than to several compliments. It’s the same negativity bias the critical person is running, aimed at you. So even if they said four nice things and one critical one, you’ll remember the critical one, and so will your body.

Over time, you start to anticipate it. You stop showing them things. You second-guess decisions you’d normally make with confidence. You do the work to their standard rather than yours, and resent it. Or you go the other way and dismiss everything they say, including the parts that would have helped.

And the stories arrive: “Nothing I do is good enough.” “They think I’m useless.” “I can’t win.” Repeat those enough and you’ll start to believe them about yourself, not just about this relationship.

The loop

Put their behaviour and your reaction together and you get a cycle that runs itself.

1. They spot something and point it out.

2. You feel judged, and either defend yourself or go quiet.

3. If you defend, they explain why they’re right, often with more detail.

4. If you go quiet, they assume you’ve taken it on board, and move on.

5. You stop sharing work or plans with them, to avoid the next round.

6. They find out late, when there’s more to fix, and the criticism is sharper.

7. You feel more judged, and share even less.

And round again, a little sooner each time.

Step six is the twist. Hiding things from a critical person usually means they see things later, when the flaws are bigger. Your avoidance, designed to protect you, gives them more to criticise.

There’s a second surprise: many critical people feel unappreciated themselves. They think they’re helping, and they notice that people avoid them. That stings, and sometimes it makes them more critical, not less.

Where the line sits

Feedback on what you’ve done, even when it’s blunt and frequent, can be handled. Attacks on who you are can’t be handled the same way.

If the criticism is about your worth, your intelligence, your appearance or your character; if it happens in front of others to embarrass you; if it’s relentless and leaves you doubting your own judgement about basic things, you’re dealing with a pattern of putting you down. That calls for a firm boundary, and support from people who know you well.

If it happens again, try: “I’m happy to hear feedback on the work. I’m not going to carry on if it’s about me as a person.” Then stop the conversation.

You’re allowed to protect your sense of who you are.

Read more

On the way out, a colleague says, “You were quiet today.”

You weren’t quiet. You were waiting. There’s a difference, and it’s costing you.

You listen first. You wait for a natural pause and assume others will leave room for you. The dominating person can leave you feeling invisible. You have plenty to say. The conversation never stops long enough for you to say it.

Here’s how to find the gap, and make one when there isn’t one.

What you’re seeing

Someone who fills space. The dominating person sets the agenda, holds the floor and steers where the conversation goes. The common signs:

• They talk over others, or start before the last person has finished.

• They answer questions that were asked of someone else.

• Their stories are long, and the conversation keeps returning to their topic.

• Decisions get made at their pace, often before quieter people have spoken.

• They summarise what you meant, slightly differently from what you meant.

• When someone else is leading, they gradually take over.

Two things are worth separating. Some dominating people are simply enthusiastic and fast, and they talk over everyone equally, including people who talk over them right back. Others take control on purpose, to steer outcomes. The first is a style problem. The second is a power problem. Most of what you’ll meet is the first kind, and it responds well to the moves in this chapter.

It’s also worth noticing who it happens to. Dominating behaviour often lands hardest on the people who play by the turn-taking rules. If you were raised to wait to be asked, you’re the easiest person in the room to talk over.

What’s likely driving it

They think out loud. Some people don’t know what they think until they’ve said it. Talking is how they process, so silence feels like being stuck. Shutting you out is a side effect. They’re trying to work something out, at full volume.

They play by different rules. In some families, cultures and workplaces, overlapping speech is normal. Jumping in shows interest. Waiting politely looks like having nothing to add. If that’s the world they grew up in, they’re waiting for you to jump in too, and wondering why you don’t.

Silence makes them uneasy. A pause can feel awkward or even risky. Filling it feels helpful. Many dominating people would be surprised to learn others find them overbearing. They think they’re keeping things moving.

Status and safety. For some, holding the floor is how they stay visible and valued. If they stop talking, someone else might look more capable. Leading the conversation feels like proving they belong.

Responsibility. Some people take over because they feel accountable for the outcome. If the meeting drifts, they’ll be blamed. So they grab the wheel.They think out loud. Some people don’t know what they think until they’ve said it. Talking is how they process, so silence feels like being stuck. Shutting you out is a side effect. They’re trying to work something out, at full volume.

They play by different rules. In some families, cultures and workplaces, overlapping speech is normal. Jumping in shows interest. Waiting politely looks like having nothing to add. If that’s the world they grew up in, they’re waiting for you to jump in too, and wondering why you don’t.

Silence makes them uneasy. A pause can feel awkward or even risky. Filling it feels helpful. Many dominating people would be surprised to learn others find them overbearing. They think they’re keeping things moving.

Status and safety. For some, holding the floor is how they stay visible and valued. If they stop talking, someone else might look more capable. Leading the conversation feels like proving they belong.

Responsibility. Some people take over because they feel accountable for the outcome. If the meeting drifts, they’ll be blamed. So they grab the wheel.

What it sets off in you

When you’re talked over, the feeling is quieter than fear but it builds. A small rejection, repeated. Your brain is tuned to notice whether you belong in a group, and being ignored registers as a social threat. It’s a drip, nothing dramatic.

In the moment, you might notice:

• A rising frustration, with a lid kept firmly on it.

• Rehearsing your point while they talk, so you stop really listening.

• A feeling of shrinking, physically, in your chair.

• A decision, made silently, that it’s not worth it this time.

Then you start to do the maths. Is my point good enough to fight for? Will it look rude to interrupt? What if I get cut off halfway? Each question adds a little more friction, and the gap closes while you’re still deciding.

Afterwards comes the familiar mix. Annoyance at them. Annoyance at yourself. And a story that hardens with repetition: “My views don’t count here.” “Nobody wants to hear from me.” “I’m not a natural leader.” None of those are true, but they start to feel true, and you start acting as if they are.

The loop

Put their behaviour and your reaction together and you get a cycle that runs itself.

1. They talk. You wait for a pause.

2. The pause doesn’t come, or it’s too short for you to use.

3. You stay quiet, or give up halfway when they cut back in.

4. They notice nobody else is talking, so they keep going. Someone has to.

5. Decisions get made without your input. They believe everyone agreed.

6. You withdraw further. You stop preparing points. You check out.

7. Your silence confirms their sense that they need to lead, and they lead harder.

   And round again, a little sooner each time.

Step four is the one to look at. Many dominating people experience silence as an empty space that needs filling. To them, your polite waiting looks like an invitation.

Meanwhile you lose twice. Your idea goes unheard, and your reputation quietly shifts. People start to think of you as someone with less to say, when in fact you never got a turn.

Where the line sits

Talking too much is a style. Deliberately shutting people out, taking credit for their ideas, mocking them when they speak, or using control of the conversation to belittle someone is something else.

If you’re being repeatedly cut off in a way that feels targeted, or your ideas are being presented as someone else’s, that needs addressing directly. At work, raise it with whoever chairs the meeting, or with your own manager. Keep a note of dates, meetings and what happened. Patterns are easier to act on than single moments.

You’re entitled to a fair hearing. Asking for one isn’t rude.

Read more

Everything becomes a debate, and you never asked for one.

If you’re someone who values harmony, who thinks before speaking and would rather let a small thing go than make a scene, the confrontational person can feel like weather. Something that happens to you. You brace, you wait for it to pass, and you count the cost afterwards.

This chapter is about getting out of the weather.

What you’re seeing

Disagreement as the default setting. The confrontational person meets most things with a challenge, and they seem to have endless energy for the argument when you have none. The common signs:

• Disagreement arrives first, often before you’ve finished your sentence.

• Volume and pace rise quickly, and yours don’t.

• Questions sound like cross-examination. “Why?” “Says who?” “Where’s the evidence?”

• They push harder when pushed, and look more alive for it.

• The language is blunt and full of absolutes: always, never, ridiculous, obviously.

• They recover fast. Five minutes later they’re asking what you fancy for lunch, while your hands are still shaking.

That last one is worth pausing on. The gap between how the exchange felt to them and how it felt to you is often huge. For them it was a conversation. For you it was an event.

It also helps to separate two kinds of confrontation. One argues with what you said. The other argues with who you are. “That plan won’t work” is the first. “You’re useless at planning” is the second. Most everyday confrontation is the first kind, even when it lands like the second. This chapter deals mainly with that. The second kind is covered under Where the line sits.

What’s likely driving it

You can’t see inside someone else’s head, and you don’t need a diagnosis. But it helps to hold a few possibilities, because each one makes the behaviour less personal.

It’s how they think. Some people work out what they believe by attacking an idea and seeing what survives. They’re testing your suggestion, out loud and at speed, more than opposing it. A good row feels like engagement to them, even closeness.

It’s how they were raised. In some families and workplaces, arguing is how you show you care, and silence is the real insult. If the dinner table of their childhood was loud, a loud conversation is simply what normal sounds like.

It’s protection. For others, attack is armour. Getting the first blow in feels safer than being caught out, overlooked, taken advantage of or proved wrong. The louder the attack, the more tender the thing behind it tends to be.

They’re under pressure. Stress, tiredness and worry shorten anyone’s fuse. If someone has only recently become combative, there’s usually something else going on that has little to do with you.

And one thing most confrontational people don’t know: the effect they have. People who are comfortable with conflict consistently underestimate how it feels to those who aren’t. They read your silence as calm. They’d be astonished to learn you went home upset.

What it sets off in you

Your brain has an old, fast system for spotting threat. It evolved to keep you alive, and it isn’t good at telling the difference between a raised voice in a kitchen and real physical danger. It reacts first and lets the thinking part of your brain catch up later.

So when someone comes at you hard, your body is already responding before you’ve decided anything:

• Your heart speeds up and your breathing goes shallow.

• Your chest tightens, your face gets hot, your hands or voice may shake.

• Your mind empties. The words you had a moment ago are gone.

That blankness is the most frustrating part, so it’s worth understanding. Under threat, your body puts its resources into survival, and the part of your brain that does careful reasoning and finds the right words works less well. You haven’t become stupid. You’ve become alarmed. The clever answer turns up three hours later because that’s when the alarm finally switches off.

From there, people tend to do one of four things. Fight back, which peacekeepers rarely choose. Get away, by leaving the room or changing the subject. Freeze, and say nothing at all. Or appease: smile, nod, agree, smooth it over. If you’re reading this chapter, the last three probably sound familiar.

Then comes the afterwards. You replay it. You rehearse what you should have said. You’re cross with them and then, more quietly, cross with yourself. And you start to tell stories: “They don’t respect me.” “They’re a bully.” “I’m pathetic.” Repeat those stories often enough and they harden into facts, and the dread of the next encounter starts before it’s even been arranged.

The loop

Put their behaviour and your reaction together and you get a cycle that runs itself.

1. They challenge.

2. Your alarm goes off.

3. You back down, go quiet or change the subject.

4. They take that as agreement, or as you having nothing to say. Often they don’t notice anything happened.

5. Nothing has been resolved, so the issue comes back. And they’ve learnt, without ever thinking about it, that pushing gets a result.

6. You begin to avoid. You stop raising things. You edit yourself before you speak. You leave them off the email.

7. They sense they’re not getting the full picture from you, and they push harder to get it.

And round again, a little sooner each time.

Look closely at step seven. Many confrontational people push because they want a real response. They want to know what you think. Your retreat, the thing you do to calm the situation, is the one move most likely to make them push more.

Meanwhile your silence fills up. It becomes a savings account for resentment, and every so often it pays out, usually over something tiny. You snap about the washing-up. To them it comes from nowhere, which confirms their view that you’re the unreasonable one.

Nobody in this loop is the villain. You’re each doing what feels safe. But only one of you is reading this, so you’re the one who gets to change it.

Where the line sits

Everything in this chapter assumes you’re dealing with someone who argues hard but means no harm. That covers most confrontational people. It doesn’t cover all of them.

Robust disagreement is fine. Shouting, insults, threats and intimidation are something else. So is anything that leaves you afraid to speak, or afraid of what happens if you do. That needs a firm limit. Technique won’t do it.

In the moment: “I’m not carrying on while I’m being shouted at. We can pick this up later.” Then leave the room. You don’t need their agreement to end a conversation.

If it’s a pattern, tell someone you trust. At work, tell someone with the authority to act. Adapting to another person’s style is generous. Shrinking to survive it is a different thing, and you’ll know which one you’re doing.

Read more

Someone asked me to do something last week.

A favour. Not a big one. Just a thing that would take an hour or two of my time.

And before I’d even processed what they were asking, I heard myself say: “Yeah, of course. Happy to help.”

Then, walking away, I thought: why did I just say yes to that?

I didn’t really want to do it. I didn’t actually have time to do it. I could have said no. The truth is, I should have said no.

But “yes” had come out automatically. Like a reflex, and now I was committed.

This is a very common pattern. The request you agree to before you’ve thought it through. The commitment you make because saying no felt impossible in the moment. The boundary you don’t set because the word “no” just won’t form.

We call this people-pleasing. Being too nice. Not having a backbone.

But here’s what’s actually happening: your brain is treating “no” as a social threat.

For your ancestors, maintaining harmony in the group wasn’t optional. It meant survival.

If someone asked something of you, saying no created friction. Disappointment. Potential conflict. And conflict within a small group, as we talked about in the arguments piece, was genuinely dangerous.

The person who said yes, who kept the peace, who avoided creating tension, maintained their position in the group. The person who said no, who prioritised their own needs over others’, risked rejection. Isolation. Being seen as difficult or uncooperative.

So your brain evolved to treat “no” as risky. To feel the potential social cost of refusing before you’ve even consciously thought about whether you want to say yes or not.

And in that split second when someone asks something of you, your brain makes a calculation: is the discomfort of saying yes worth less than the risk of saying no?

Almost always, your brain decides: yes is safer.

So “yes” comes out. Not because you’ve weighed up the request and decided it’s worthwhile. But because your brain is protecting you from social threat.

And then there’s the immediate vs delayed cost.

Here’s the cruel bit about saying yes when you mean no: the cost of saying no hits immediately. The awkwardness. The disappointment on their face. The brief moment of tension.

Your brain feels all of that in the moment. It’s immediate. Visceral. Uncomfortable.

The cost of saying yes? That’s delayed. It happens later. When you’re actually doing the thing you didn’t want to do. When you’re resenting the commitment. When you’re realising you’ve overextended yourself again.

But your brain, as we’ve talked about repeatedly, is terrible at weighing immediate costs against future costs. It prioritises now. Always.

So in the moment, saying no feels worse than saying yes. The discomfort is right there, staring you in the face. And your brain does what it evolved to do: avoid the immediate discomfort.

By the time the delayed cost arrives, when you’re actually having to follow through, it’s too late. You’ve already said yes. And now you have to either do it or go back and create the conflict you were avoiding in the first place.

Your brain sacrifices future-you to protect present-you from discomfort. Every single time.

And some people trigger it more than others.

Not everyone gets an automatic yes from you. There are people you can say no to easily. People where the boundary feels natural, where declining doesn’t create the same spike of anxiety.

But there are others where “no” feels almost impossible. Where the thought of disappointing them, letting them down, creating even a hint of tension, feels unbearable.

Often it’s people who remind you of someone from your past. A parent. A teacher. An authority figure. Someone whose approval once felt essential, whose disappointment once felt devastating.

Your brain recognises the pattern. And it responds the way it learned to respond back then: say yes. Keep them happy. Avoid the conflict.

You’re not saying yes to them. You’re saying yes to the ghost of someone from your past who taught your brain that “no” wasn’t safe.

And your brain, loyal as ever, is still protecting you from a threat that no longer exists.

So what do you do with this?

You stop blaming yourself for being a pushover. You’re not weak. You’re not lacking boundaries.

You’re running a brain that treats “no” as a social threat, and that brain is doing exactly what it evolved to do: keep you safe from conflict.

Understanding this doesn’t make “no” suddenly easy to say. But it does change how you approach it.

Instead of: “Why can’t I just say no like a normal person?”

You get: “Right. My brain is flagging this as a threat. The discomfort I’m feeling isn’t a sign I should say yes. It’s just wiring.”

Sometimes it’s about buying yourself time. Don’t answer immediately. “Let me check my diary and get back to you.” “I need to think about that.” “Can I let you know tomorrow?” The immediate pressure to say yes dissipates. And when the person isn’t in front of you, your brain’s threat response calms down enough for you to think clearly.

Sometimes it’s about reframing what “no” means. You’re not rejecting the person. You’re protecting your capacity. You’re not being difficult. You’re being honest. You’re not creating conflict. You’re setting a boundary that makes the relationship healthier in the long run.

Sometimes it’s about noticing who triggers the automatic yes. Is it everyone? Or is it specific people? And if it’s specific people, what are they reminding your brain of? Once you see the pattern, you can start to separate the person in front of you from the ghost your brain is responding to.

And sometimes it’s about practising on the small stuff. Low-stakes requests where saying no doesn’t feel catastrophic. Building the muscle. Proving to your brain that saying no doesn’t actually destroy the relationship.

The goal isn’t to say no to everything. It’s to understand why “yes” comes out automatically, and create space to choose consciously.

Next time: The wiring behind self-sabotage

When you’re doing well and something in you quietly undermines it. Why your brain sometimes works against the very things you want most.

Who can’t you say no to?

Everyone? One specific person? People who remind you of someone? Authority figures? Friends?

Hit reply and tell me where your automatic yes shows up most. I read every response.

Until next time, take care.

Neil

Share

Share How We're Wired by Neil Bage

About twenty years ago, I was working for a FTSE 100 company, surrounded by people who were earning well and buying big houses! Somewhere in the middle of that, I picked up a very clear goal of my own: buy a big detached house.

Not just any detached house though. A proper one. The kind with a decent driveway and a garden big enough for me to throw BBQ parties and have lots of friends over. I wanted space. Rooms you didn’t need to use every day. The sort of house that said “Neil has made it.”

And I got there. My wife and I saved up, got the mortgage, bought the house.

And it was lovely. Objectively lovely. Everything I thought I wanted.

Except... it wasn’t.

It wasn’t what we actually wanted. It was what I thought we should want. What success was supposed to look like at that stage of life when you’re working for a big company, surrounded by people doing well, and when doing well apparently means doing what everyone else is doing.

Today, we’re in a much smaller house, and we’re a lot happier.

Not because there’s anything wrong with big detached houses. But because my brain had picked a goal based on what looked right from the outside, not what would actually work for us on the inside.

And this isn’t unique to me. You see it everywhere. The promotion that turns out to be more stress than satisfaction. The car that’s more impressive than practical. The retirement plan that assumes Future You will want exactly what Present You thinks they should want.

We set goals all the time. Our brains are brilliant at it. Planning, strategising, working toward something.

The problem? We’re catastrophically bad at predicting what will actually matter to us when we get there.

This isn’t a character flaw. It’s how your brain in wired.

There’s this thing called affective forecasting. It’s your brain’s attempt to predict how you’ll feel about something in the future.

“If I get that house, I’ll feel successful.”

“If I get that promotion, I’ll feel secure.”

“If I hit that savings target, I’ll feel like I’ve arrived.”

Your brain runs these little simulations constantly. It imagines future scenarios and tries to work out how they’ll make you feel.

The problem is, your brain is rubbish at this.

Psychologist Dan Gilbert has spent decades studying how spectacularly wrong we are about what will make us happy. We overestimate how good the good things will feel. We overestimate how bad the bad things will feel. And we completely fail to account for how quickly we adapt to almost everything.

That house? Brilliant for a few months. Then it’s just where you live, and you’re noticing all the DIY that’s needed, the heating bills, the rooms you never use, the commute that’s slightly longer than it needs to be.

That promotion? You’ll be thrilled for about three weeks. Then it becomes your new normal, and you’re already thinking about the next one.

Your brain can’t accurately simulate future emotions because it’s always filtering through your current state. If you’re feeling insecure now, security feels like it will solve everything. If you’re feeling overlooked now, recognition feels like the answer.

But feelings change. Context changes. What you think you want from the future is almost always a response to what you’re missing in the present.

Here’s where it gets worse.

A lot of the goals your brain locks onto aren’t even yours. They’re borrowed. Absorbed. Inherited from parents, culture, social media, the industries you work in.

You think you want the big house because that’s what success looks like in your world. You think you want the corner office because that’s what progression looks like in your company. You think you want a certain number in your pension because that’s what the financial services industry has decided represents “enough.”

But are these your goals, or are they just goals you’ve been handed?

There’s neuroscience behind this too. Your brain has mirror neurons that fire both when you do something and when you watch someone else do it. You’re wired to absorb other people’s desires, to want what you see other people wanting.

This was useful when we lived in small groups and copying what worked for others kept you alive. If everyone’s running away from the thing, you should probably run too. If everyone values this resource, you should probably value it as well.

But now? You’re surrounded by non-stop noise. Thousands of signals about what you should want. Social media. Advertising. Industry norms. Family expectations. Cultural narratives about what a “good life” looks like.

Your brain soaks all this up, and then it presents these absorbed goals as though they’re your own authentic desires.

They’re not.

Your ancestors had pretty straightforward objectives. Find food. Don’t die. Keep your offspring alive. Maybe find a mate if you were lucky.

The goals were immediate, concrete, and survival-based. Your brain evolved to pursue them relentlessly.

What your brain didn’t evolve to do was navigate a world where your survival is basically given, where you have thousands of options, and where the goals that matter most - meaning, connection, purpose - are abstract and long-term.

So your brain defaults to what it knows: pursue status (because status meant survival), accumulate resources (because resources meant security), seek approval (because belonging to the group meant not dying alone).

These things still matter. Of course they do. But they’re not the whole story anymore.

The person who gets the status and the resources and the approval, and still feels empty? That’s not a personal failing. That’s a brain that’s optimised for a world that no longer exists.

Because here’s what your brain struggles with: it’s much better at pursuing tangible goals than understanding what actually gives you purpose and meaning.

Purpose doesn’t have a finish line. Meaning doesn’t come with a completion certificate. These things are ongoing, relational, connected to how you spend your days rather than what you achieve at the end of them.

Your brain wants a target. A destination. Something it can mark as “done.”

But the things that actually matter - connection, contribution, autonomy, growth - those aren’t destinations. They’re directions.

Once you’ve picked a goal, your brain really doesn’t want to let it go.

You’ve invested time. Energy. Identity. You’ve told people about it. You’ve reoriented your life around it.

So even when you start suspecting the goal might be wrong, even when you’re halfway there and realising it’s not what you thought, your brain fights to keep you on the path.

This is the sunk cost fallacy. The more you’ve invested in something, the harder it is to walk away, even when walking away is obviously the right choice.

I see this constantly in my world - financial services. People holding onto investments because they’ve already lost so much. Staying in strategies that aren’t working because changing course feels like admitting failure.

But it’s not just money. It’s careers. Relationships. Life plans. You’ve spent five years working toward something. Ten years. Twenty.

The goal might be wrong, but admitting that it’s wrong feels impossible because it means all that effort was wasted.

Except it wasn’t wasted.

It was information. You learned what you don’t want and that’s incredibly valuable.

But your brain doesn’t see it that way. Your brain sees quitting as loss. So you keep going, even when the destination no longer makes sense.

There’s a specific version of this in financial planning, and it’s one you’ll recognise.

Financial planning is built on goals. It has to be. Retire at sixty. Save this much. Hit that number. Pay off the mortgage. Get the kids through university without a loan hanging over them.

These goals are useful. They give people something to aim at, something to measure progress against, a reason to keep contributing to a pension when the return on that decision is thirty years away and invisible.

But goals are finite. And that’s the bit nobody plans for.

You hit the number. You retire. You pay off the house. And then what?

Financial planners I speak to tell me stories of clients who have spent twenty-five years white-knuckling their way towards retirement, and the day it arrives, they weren’t relieved. They describe feeling “lost”.

The goal had been doing more work than just financial. It had been giving them a reason to get up, a story about who they were, a sense of direction. Once it’s achieved, that direction disappears with it.

This is the same brain wiring used for “buy a big detached house”. Your brain loves a destination because it can mark it done. But retirement isn’t a destination, it’s a beginning of something with no obvious shape. Nobody hands you a plan for what comes after “financially secure.”

This is where my industry gets it slightly wrong, I think. We talk endlessly about the number. Rarely about what the number is actually for.

Because underneath the goal, there’s always a “why” that’s got nothing to do with money. Time with grandchildren. Freedom to work on something that matters rather than something that pays. The ability to say no to things you’ve been saying yes to for decades.

That’s not a goal. That’s purpose. And purpose doesn’t arrive on the day the balance hits the number you’d set. It has to be built, deliberately, alongside the money, not after it.

So the goal still matters. Save the money. Hit the number. Your brain needs something concrete to work toward, and honestly, so does your bank account. But if the number is the whole plan, you’ll get there and feel exactly the thing nobody warns you about: nothing.

The better question isn’t just “how much do I need?” It’s “what do I need it for, and have I built anything to walk into once I’ve got it?”

So what do you do with this?

Well you can start by not assuming your goals are automatically correct just because your brain came up with them.

You start asking different questions.

Not “What do I want?” but “Why do I want this?”

Not “What will make me successful?” but “What does success actually mean to me?”

Not “What should I be working toward?” but “If I achieve this, will I actually care?”

And here’s something that helps: anti-goals.

Instead of only thinking about what you want to achieve, think about what you absolutely don’t want. What kind of life would make you miserable? What trade-offs are you unwilling to make? What does a bad day look like that you’d do almost anything to avoid?

Sometimes it’s easier to know what you’re running from than what you’re running toward.

I knew I didn’t want an hour-long commute. I didn’t want to spend my weekends doing DIY in my house. I didn’t want to feel trapped by a mortgage that required me to stay in a job I’d outgrown.

Those anti-goals were clearer than any positive goal I’d set. And they were more useful.

Because here’s the difficult bit: you have to be honest. Really honest. Not the version you’d put on LinkedIn or tell your parents. The version you’d only admit to yourself at 3am when you can’t sleep.

Your brain will keep picking goals based on what sounds good, what looks impressive, what other people want for you.

Unless you interrupt that process and ask: “Is this actually what I want?”

Sometimes the goal is right. Sometimes it’s worth the effort. Sometimes what you’re chasing will genuinely matter when you get there.

But sometimes, maybe more often than we’d like to admit, the goal is wrong. And the sooner you realise that, the sooner you can redirect toward something that might actually be worth reaching for.

That big house? Lovely place. Wrong goal. The smaller house we’re in now fits how we actually want to live, not how I thought we should be living.

Did I waste those years chasing the wrong thing? I don’t think so. But I wish I’d asked better questions before I started running.

Your brain will keep picking goals. That’s what brains do.

Your job is to question them.

Next time: Why your brain makes you say yes when you mean no

The wiring that makes boundaries feel impossible. Why “I should be able to say no” doesn’t help when your brain is screaming at you to keep people happy. And what’s actually happening when you agree to things you’ll later resent.

What goal are you chasing that might be wrong?

The one that sounded good two years ago but doesn’t quite fit anymore? The one everyone expects of you? The one you’re not sure you actually want but feel too invested to abandon?

Hit reply. I read every response.

Until next time, take care.

Neil

Share

Share How We're Wired by Neil Bage

There’s a particular kind of stupid that comes with being tired.

Not the kind where you don’t know something. The kind where you know exactly what you should do, but somehow can’t quite get there. Where decisions that would normally take seconds feel impossibly heavy. Where you find yourself staring at the menu in a restaurant for ten minutes and genuinely not caring what you order.

I had a week like this recently. Back-to-back commitments, not enough sleep, too much on. By Thursday, I was making decisions like a drunk person. Not because I was drunk. Because my brain had simply run out of capacity to decide.

You know this feeling. The end of the day when even small choices feel exhausting. The weekend after a brutal week when you can barely decide what to watch on television. The way tiredness doesn’t just make you physically sluggish, it makes you mentally stupid.

We call this being tired. Running on empty. Needing a good night’s sleep.

But here’s what’s actually happening: your brain is rationing its most limited resource, and decision-making is the first thing to go.

This isn’t laziness. It’s resource management.

Your brain uses more energy than almost any other organ in your body. About twenty percent of your total energy, despite being only two percent of your weight.

And decision-making is one of the most energy-intensive things your brain does.

Every time you make a decision, no matter how small, your brain uses up a portion of its available resources. The more decisions you make, the more resources get used up. And when those resources run low, your brain starts to conserve.

This is called decision fatigue. And it’s not a character flaw. It’s biology.

Think about the decisions you make in a single day. What to wear. What to eat for breakfast. How to respond to that email. Whether to take that meeting. What to have for lunch. How to handle that difficult conversation. What to cook for dinner. What to watch tonight.

Each one costs something. And by the end of the day, you’ve spent a significant chunk of your brain’s decision-making budget.

Which is why the decisions at the end of the day feel so much harder than the ones at the start. It’s not that they’re more complex. It’s that you’ve got less left to work with.

And when your brain runs low, it doesn’t just slow down. It gets worse.

Decision fatigue doesn’t just make decisions feel harder. It changes the quality of the decisions you make.

When you’re depleted, your brain defaults to one of two strategies. Either it avoids the decision altogether. Puts it off. Delays. Chooses not to choose.

Or it takes the path of least resistance. The easiest option. The default. The thing that requires the least mental effort to execute.

Neither of these is particularly good decision-making. But your brain doesn’t care about good right now. It cares about conserving what’s left.

There’s a famous study that looked at judges making parole decisions throughout the day. Early in the morning, fresh and resourced, they granted parole at a reasonable rate. As the day went on and fatigue set in, the rate dropped dramatically. By the end of the day, they were almost always saying no.

Not because the cases got worse. Because the judges’ brains had run out of capacity to engage with the complexity. So they defaulted to the easiest answer: no.

The same thing happens to you. Every day. You just don’t notice it because you’re too tired to notice.

And sleep doesn’t just restore your energy. It restores your capacity to think.

We tend to think of sleep as physical recovery. The body repairs itself. Muscles rebuild. The system recharges.

But sleep is just as critical for your brain. Maybe more so.

During sleep, your brain consolidates memories, processes emotions, clears out metabolic waste, and essentially resets your decision-making capacity. It’s not just resting. It’s performing essential maintenance.

When you don’t sleep enough, that maintenance doesn’t happen. The waste doesn’t get cleared. The decision-making capacity doesn’t fully reset. And you start the next day already depleted.

Which means the tiredness compounds. Each bad night’s sleep makes the next day’s decisions worse. Which makes you more stressed. Which makes it harder to sleep. Which makes the next day worse still.

For your ancestors, sleep was non-negotiable. The ones who consistently deprived themselves of it made worse decisions, were slower to react to threats, and were less likely to survive.

Sleep isn’t a luxury. It’s maintenance. And when you skip it, your brain’s ability to function doesn’t just dip. It crumbles.

So what do you do with this?

You stop treating exhaustion as something to push through. You’re not weak for being tired. You’re not lazy for struggling to make decisions at the end of the day.

You’re running a brain that has a finite capacity for decisions, and you’ve used most of it up by 4pm.

Understanding this doesn’t give you more energy. But it does change how you manage what you’ve got.

Instead of: “Why can’t I just make a simple decision?”

You get: “Right. My brain is depleted. This isn’t stupidity. It’s resource management.”

Sometimes it’s about front-loading your important decisions. The ones that actually matter? Make them in the morning, when your brain is fresh and has the most capacity. Don’t leave them for the end of the day when you’re running on fumes.

Sometimes it’s about reducing the number of decisions you have to make. Automate the small stuff. Meal prep. Lay out your clothes the night before. Create routines that remove decisions from your day entirely. Every decision you eliminate is capacity you save for the ones that matter.

Sometimes it’s about protecting your sleep like it’s the most important thing on your to-do list. Because in terms of your brain’s ability to function, it genuinely is.

And sometimes it’s about being kind to yourself at the end of the day. You’re not stupid. You’re depleted. And there’s a big difference between the two.

The goal isn’t to never feel exhausted. It’s to understand what exhaustion actually does to your brain, and design your life so your best thinking happens when you’ve got the most to give.

Next time: How your brain picks the wrong goals

When you’re working hard towards something and suddenly realise it’s not actually what you want. Why we’re so bad at predicting what will make us happy.

When does the stupid really set in?

Morning person running out of steam by mid-afternoon? Night owl who can’t function before 10am? Or someone who hits a wall at a specific time every single day?

Hit reply and tell me when your brain gives up on decisions. I read every response.

Until next time, take care.

Neil

Share

Share How We're Wired by Neil Bage

I met someone at an event I was speaking at just over year ago.

We shook hands and exchanged the usual pleasantries. The conversation lasted maybe three minutes.

And within those three minutes, I’d decided: I don’t trust this person.

This feeling of distrust wasn’t based on anything they said or did wrong. It was just that: a feeling. A quiet, instant certainty that something wasn’t quite right.

Months later, someone who knew them well confirmed what my gut had picked up on. They weren’t trustworthy. They’d let several people down in significant ways.

I still find it fascinating that my brain managed to unconsciously figure this out in three minutes. Before any evidence had presented itself.

And I’m sure you’ve experienced this “feeling” too. Meeting someone and immediately knowing whether you like them or not. Walking into a room and sensing the atmosphere before anyone’s said a word. The instant click with some people and the instant unease with others.

We call this gut feeling. Instinct. Reading the room.

But here’s what’s actually happening: your brain is running a threat assessment program that can reach a conclusion in under a second. It isn’t, as you might expect, intuition. It’s actually a phenomenal pattern-matching process working at incredible speed.

Your brain has been collecting data your entire life. Every interaction you’ve ever had, every person you’ve ever met, every situation you’ve ever been in. It’s all stored somewhere, even if you can’t consciously access it.

And when you meet someone new, your brain doesn’t start from scratch. It instantly compares them to everything it’s already seen.

The way they hold themselves. The micro-expressions that flash across their face. The tone of their voice. The way they make eye contact, or don’t. The subtle signals that most of us process without ever being aware we’re doing it.

Your brain takes all of this in, in a fraction of a second, and runs it against its database of past experience. And it reaches a conclusion: safe or threat. Trust or don’t trust. Like or don’t like.

This is called rapid categorisation, and it evolved because your ancestors needed to make these assessments quickly.

In a world where the wrong person could end your life, you couldn’t afford to spend weeks getting to know someone before deciding whether they were safe. You needed to know now. Immediately. Before they got close enough to cause harm.

So your brain got very, very good at making snap judgments. Incredibly fast. Remarkably accurate. And almost impossible to override.

But here’s the problem: they stick.

Once your brain has made its initial assessment, it becomes incredibly resistant to changing it.

Psychologists call this confirmation bias, and in the context of first impressions, it works like this:

Once you’ve decided someone is trustworthy, you interpret everything they do through that lens. They cancel plans? They must have a good reason. They say something odd? They probably didn’t mean it that way. The evidence gets filtered to fit the conclusion you’ve already reached.

But, if you’ve decided someone is untrustworthy? The opposite happens. Everything they do confirms your suspicion. They’re being too nice? They must want something. They did something kind? There must be an ulterior motive.

Your brain made its decision in a second. And now it’s defending that decision against all incoming evidence.

For your ancestors, this made sense. Changing your mind about someone mid-interaction could be dangerous. If you decided someone was safe and then second-guessed yourself, you might let your guard down at exactly the wrong moment.

Better to stick with your first assessment. Better to be wrong and cautious than right and dead.

But in a world where first impressions can be misleading, where people are more complex than a one-second assessment can capture, that stubbornness becomes a problem.

And then there’s the mirror effect.

Here’s something uncomfortable: the snap judgments you make about other people are heavily influenced by yourself.

Someone reminds you of a person who hurt you? Instant unease, even if they’ve done nothing wrong. Someone has a quality you admire in yourself? Instant connection. Someone triggers something from your past, something you might not even consciously remember? Your brain flags them immediately.

Your first impressions aren’t just about the other person. They’re about the patterns your brain has already built from your own experience.

Which means two people can meet the exact same person and have completely different first impressions. Not because one of them is more perceptive. But because they’re running different pattern libraries.

Your first impression is as much about you as it is about them.

So what do you do with this?

You don’t ignore your first impressions. They’re often genuinely useful. Your brain is remarkably good at picking up on subtle signals that your conscious mind misses.

But you also don’t treat them as gospel.

Instead of: “I knew what they were like the moment I met them.” you get: “That was my brain’s initial assessment. It might be right. But it might also be pattern-matching from my own history. Worth staying curious.”

Sometimes it’s about noticing when a first impression is unusually strong. A very intense reaction, positive or negative, in the first few seconds? That might be worth examining. What is it reminding you of? What pattern is your brain matching it to?

Sometimes it’s about giving people more time than your brain wants to give them. Not overriding your instinct entirely, but allowing for the possibility that the full picture is more complex than a one-second assessment can capture.

Sometimes it’s about being honest about what your first impressions reveal about you. The people you instantly like, the people you instantly don’t. What does that tell you about your own patterns, your own history, your own unresolved stuff?

And sometimes it’s about trusting the gut feeling when it matters. When something feels genuinely off, pay attention. Your brain might be picking up on something real. The skill isn’t in ignoring first impressions. It’s in knowing when to trust them and when to hold them lightly.

The goal isn’t to override your snap judgments. It’s to understand what’s driving them, and decide consciously how much weight to give them.

Next time: Why exhaustion makes you stupid

When you’re running on empty and every decision feels harder than it should. Why tiredness isn’t just physical, and what it does to your ability to think clearly.

What was your strongest first impression?

Someone you liked instantly? Someone who set off alarm bells from the start? Someone you got completely wrong?

Hit reply and tell me. I read every response.

Until next time, take care.

Neil

Share

Share How We're Wired by Neil Bage

I met James three years after he’d left the Army.

He’d done two tours in Afghanistan. He’d led men through situations most of us can’t imagine. He’d made split-second decisions that meant his team came home alive.

Now he’s working for an events company in London.

The day we met, he spent fifteen minutes trying to choose a café for lunch.

Not because he didn’t know what he wanted. But because every choice seemingly triggered the same threat-detection cascade that had kept him alive in Helmand Province. His brain would run through every possible outcome - what if this restaurant is too crowded, what if he can’t see the exits, what if something goes wrong - until the simple act of choosing where to eat a sandwich became paralysing.

“I know it’s ridiculous,” he told me. “But my brain won’t let me not worry about stuff”

His brain wasn’t being ridiculous. It was being loyal.

Loyal to the version of James that needed hypervigilance to survive. Loyal to the stories and patterns that kept him alive when life-or-death decisions were actually life-or-death.

The problem? Those stories don’t have an off switch.

Here’s what James’s brain learned in Afghanistan: every detail matters. Every decision is consequential. Letting your guard down gets people killed.

That’s not overthinking. In that context, that’s accurate threat assessment.

But here’s what your hippocampus - your memory system - doesn’t do well: it doesn’t timestamp experiences with “this rule applied then but not now.”

It stores the pattern. It stores the emotional weight. It stores the lesson: this kept you safe.

And then it applies that lesson everywhere.

James’s brain learned that situational awareness is survival. So now, in a restaurant, in a supermarket, in a conference hall, it’s still running the same program: scan for threats, identify exits, assess risk, maintain control.

The wiring that made him an exceptional soldier makes him exhausted in civilian life.

And before you think “well, that’s trauma, that’s different from me” - it isn’t. Not mechanically. We’re all running the same software.

You probably didn’t serve in a war zone. But your brain is doing exactly the same thing James’s is doing.

It’s holding onto stories from your past because those stories contain survival information. They’re templates for how the world works, how people behave, what’s safe and what’s dangerous.

Maybe your story is: “people leave when you need them most.” That story might have formed when you were seven and your parents divorced, or fifteen and your best friend moved away, or twenty-five and a relationship ended badly.

Your brain stored that pattern. And now? It sees that pattern everywhere. Every relationship becomes filtered through that lens. Every moment of distance feels like the beginning of abandonment. Every person who cares about you is just someone who hasn’t left yet.

That’s not you being difficult. That’s your prediction system doing its job, trying to keep you safe by making sure you never get blindsided again.

Or maybe your story is about competence. About having to be perfect because mistakes aren’t allowed. That might have started with a parent who criticised, a teacher who shamed, a moment where failure felt catastrophic.

Now you’re in a meeting and someone questions your idea, and your entire nervous system lights up like you’re under existential threat. Because to the part of your brain holding that story, you are.

The mechanism is identical to James scanning for exits in a café. Different story. Same wiring.

You’d think your brain would notice. You’d think after enough safe experiences - relationships that don’t end in abandonment, mistakes that don’t lead to catastrophe, lunch choices that turn out fine - the system would recalibrate.

But here’s the evolutionary logic that gets in the way: false negatives are more dangerous than false positives.

In survival terms, it’s better to see a threat that isn’t there than miss one that is. Better to assume every rustling bush contains a predator than to be relaxed and wrong once.

So your brain doesn’t wait for proof that the old story is wrong. It looks for proof that it’s still right.

This is called confirmation bias, but that clinical term doesn’t capture what’s actually happening: your brain is trying to keep you safe by staying loyal to the lessons that worked before.

James doesn’t need to have something go wrong at lunch to justify his hypervigilance. His brain just needs the possibility that something could go wrong. That’s enough to keep the pattern active.

Same with your relationship story. You don’t need someone to actually leave. You just need them to seem slightly distant, slightly busy, slightly less available than yesterday. That’s enough for your brain to say: “See? I told you. Everyone leaves. Stay vigilant.”

The story becomes self-reinforcing. Not because you’re broken, but because your prediction system is working exactly as designed.

Here’s what James told me about living with this constant feeling:

“I’m exhausted. I’m exhausted from being on high alert in situations that don’t require it. I’m exhausted from my brain treating every day like a deployment. I’m exhausted from knowing intellectually that I’m safe but not being able to feel safe.”

That’s the cost. Not danger. Not actual threat. Exhaustion.

Your old stories don’t just shape how you see the world. They shape how much energy you have left for living in it.

If your brain is constantly scanning for abandonment, you’re not fully present in the relationships you actually have. You’re too busy defending against the ones you’re afraid of losing.

If your brain is treating every mistake as catastrophic, you’re not learning and growing. You’re too busy trying not to fail.

If your brain is running threat detection at 3am about an email you sent, you’re not sleeping. You’re rehearsing social danger that doesn’t exist.

The stories aren’t keeping you safe anymore. They’re keeping you stuck.

So, what do you do with this?

I’m not going to tell you to “just let go” of your old stories. That’s like telling James to “just relax” in crowded spaces. It misunderstands how the system works.

You can’t think your way out of wiring that operates below conscious thought.

But you can start to notice it. You can start to see the story for what it is - an old program running in a new context.

When you feel your threat system activate - when abandonment fear kicks in, when perfectionism takes over, when hypervigilance makes a simple decision feel impossible - you can pause and ask:

What story is my brain running right now? Where did that story come from? Was it true then? Is it true now?

Not to judge it. Not to fight it. Just to see it.

James has learned to do this. When he feels the surge of adrenaline in a situation that doesn’t warrant it, he doesn’t berate himself for “still being like this.” He acknowledges it:

“There’s my Afghanistan wiring. It kept me alive then. It’s trying to keep me alive now. But I’m in Southampton, not Helmand. There’s no threat here. Just lunch.”

Sometimes that’s enough to let the prefrontal cortex come back online and gently update the prediction. Sometimes it isn’t, and he has to ride it out.

But either way, he’s not broken. He’s wired for survival in a context he no longer lives in.

Just like you.

Next time: The neuroscience of first impressions

When you meet someone and decide within seconds whether you trust them. Why those snap judgments stick, and what happens when they’re wrong.

What story won’t let go of you?

I’m curious - what old narrative does your brain keep running? What pattern from your past keeps showing up in your present, even when you know intellectually it doesn’t fit anymore?

Hit reply and tell me. Your story might help someone else recognise theirs.

Until next time, take care.

Neil

Share

Share How We're Wired by Neil Bage

There’s a thing that happens every morning in my house.

I wake up with a list of things I want to get done. Important things. Things that matter. Things I’ve been thinking about and planning for.

Then my phone pings. An email arrives. Someone needs something. Something feels urgent.

And just like that, the important stuff gets pushed aside. Not because it stopped mattering, but because something else suddenly felt more pressing.

By the end of the day, I’ve dealt with a dozen urgent things and barely touched the important ones.

We all know this pattern. The project that keeps getting pushed back because there’s always something more immediate. The conversation you need to have but never quite get round to. The long-term planning that disappears every time something lands in your inbox.

We call this poor prioritisation. Lack of focus. Not managing our time well enough.

But here’s what’s actually happening: your brain is doing exactly what it evolved to do. It’s just doing it in the wrong environment.

For your ancestors, immediate threats demanded immediate responses.

A rustling in the bushes? Deal with it now. The food running low? Sort it today. Someone in the group acting hostile? Address it immediately.

These things couldn’t wait. Ignoring them, even briefly, could have deadly consequences.

So your brain evolved to prioritise anything that feels immediate, loud, or threatening over anything that feels distant, quiet, or safe.

Neuroscientists call this salience bias. Your brain automatically gives more attention and weight to things that stand out, things that feel urgent, things that demand a response right now.

And in evolutionary terms, this was brilliant. The person who dropped everything to deal with the immediate threat survived. The person who carried on with their long-term planning while a predator crept closer did not.

The problem is, most of what feels urgent in modern life isn’t actually urgent at all.

Your brain can’t tell the difference between urgent and important.

An email notification feels urgent. Your brain lights up. Someone needs a response. Deal with it now.

But is it actually urgent? Probably not. It could wait an hour. A day. Sometimes a week. But it doesn’t feel like it can. It feels like it needs attention right now.

Meanwhile, the thing that’s actually important, the thing that will genuinely change your life if you work on it, the conversation that needs having, the plan that needs making, sits there quietly. Not pinging. Not demanding attention. Not triggering your brain’s salience response.

So it waits. And waits. And waits.

Your brain isn’t ignoring the important stuff because you’re lazy or disorganised. It’s ignoring it because the important stuff doesn’t make noise. And your brain evolved to respond to noise.

Urgent shouts. Important whispers. And your brain will always turn towards the shout first.

And then there’s the completion loop.

There’s something deeply satisfying about dealing with an urgent thing. Responding to the email. Fixing the problem. Handling the request.

It feels productive. It feels like progress. Your brain rewards you with a little hit of dopamine for resolving the immediate need.

The important stuff? It doesn’t give you that hit. Not immediately. The important stuff is slow. It takes weeks or months to see results. And your brain, as we talked about in the busyness piece, isn’t great at rewarding delayed gratification.

So you keep dealing with urgent things because they feel good to deal with. They give you that satisfying sense of having accomplished something. And the important stuff keeps getting quietly sidelined because it doesn’t offer the same reward.

Until one day you look up and realise you’ve been running on the urgent treadmill for months. And the important things are still waiting.

So what do you do with this?

You stop beating yourself up for not getting to the important stuff. You’re not failing at prioritisation. You’re running a brain that evolved to respond to immediate threats, and modern life is full of things designed to trigger that response.

Understanding this doesn’t make the urgent things disappear. But it does change how you manage them.

Instead of: “Why can’t I just focus on what actually matters?”

You get: “Right. My brain is responding to salience. The urgent stuff feels more pressing than it actually is. How do I protect the important stuff from disappearing?”

Sometimes it’s about doing the important thing first. Before the emails. Before the pings. Before anything else has a chance to trigger your salience response. First thing in the morning, when your brain is fresh and hasn’t yet been hijacked by the urgent.

Sometimes it’s about making the important stuff feel more urgent. Deadlines. Accountability. Telling someone what you’re going to do and when. Giving the important stuff some of the noise that the urgent stuff gets for free.

Sometimes it’s about batching the urgent stuff. Giving it a specific window of time rather than letting it interrupt constantly throughout the day. The emails will still be there at 11am. They don’t actually need you at 9.

And sometimes it’s about accepting that some days, the urgent stuff wins. And that’s okay. As long as tomorrow, you try again.

The goal isn’t to never be distracted by the urgent. It’s to understand why it pulls your attention so powerfully, and design your day so the important stuff gets its fair share.

Next time: Why your brain won’t let go of old stories

When the patterns that kept you safe become the lens through which you see everything. The evolutionary logic of staying loyal to lessons that no longer serve you.

What keeps getting pushed aside?

The project? The conversation? The plan? The thing you keep saying you’ll get to “when things calm down”?

Hit reply and tell me what your important stuff is. I read every response.

Until next time, take care.

Neil

Share

Share How We're Wired by Neil Bage

Have you ever been in an argument that started over something small and somehow became about something much bigger, without either of you quite knowing how you got there?

Not a big argument. Not the kind that changes anything. The kind that begins with whose turn it is to do something, or a comment that landed wrongly, and then escalates.

And have you ever noticed, halfway through, what your body is doing? Your heart racing. Your chest tight. Your jaw clenched. You’re physically reacting as though you’re under threat.

Which, in a way, you are. Just not the kind of threat your body was designed to respond to.

You know this feeling. The way an argument can go from calm disagreement to something that feels visceral. Urgent. Almost frightening. The way your body reacts before your brain has even fully processed what’s happening.

We call this getting worked up, or losing our temper, or even taking things too personally.

But here’s what’s actually happening: your brain is treating this disagreement as a threat to your survival.

For your ancestors, conflict within the group was genuinely dangerous.

Not just emotionally. Physically.

If you fell out with someone in a small group, the consequences could be severe. Exclusion. Loss of protection. Loss of access to food, shelter, allies. In a world where your survival depended on your relationships, a serious disagreement wasn’t just uncomfortable. It was a threat.

So your brain evolved to treat social conflict the same way it treats physical danger. The same systems activate. The same hormones flood your body. The same fight-or-flight response kicks in.

Your amygdala, the part of your brain that detects threats, doesn’t distinguish between “a tiger is chasing me” and “my partner just said something that makes me feel unseen and dismissed.”

Both register as: threat. Respond now.

That’s why an argument can make your heart race, your palms sweat, your jaw clench. Your body is preparing to fight or flee. Even though you’re sitting on a sofa.

And then there’s the identity threat.

Most arguments aren’t really about what they’re ostensibly about.

The argument about whose turn it is to do the washing up isn’t really about the washing up. The argument about how to spend the weekend isn’t really about the weekend.

They’re about something deeper. Am I valued? Am I heard? Do you see me? Do I matter to you?

And when those questions feel threatened, your brain escalates.

Because identity, your sense of who you are and where you stand in your relationships, is fundamental. For your ancestors, having a secure place in the group, feeling valued and seen and important, wasn’t just nice to have. It was survival.

So when something threatens that sense of security, your brain doesn’t treat it as a minor inconvenience. It treats it as an existential threat. And it responds accordingly.

Which is why you can go from “I think we should have done that differently” to “do you even care about what I think?” in about thirty seconds.

It’s not that you’re being dramatic. It’s that your brain has detected a threat to something it considers fundamental to your survival.

And conflict triggers a shutdown.

Here’s the cruel bit: the very moment you most need to communicate clearly, your brain makes clear communication almost impossible.

When your threat response kicks in, your prefrontal cortex, the part of your brain that handles rational thinking, perspective-taking, and nuanced communication, goes offline.

Your amygdala takes over. And your amygdala isn’t interested in nuance. It wants to resolve the threat. Quickly. Decisively.

So you say things you don’t mean. You hear things that weren’t said. You interpret your partner’s words through the lens of threat rather than through the lens of what they actually meant.

And they’re doing exactly the same thing. Their amygdala is running the show too. They’re not hearing you clearly either.

Two people, both flooded with threat response, both unable to think clearly, both interpreting everything through the worst possible lens.

No wonder arguments escalate.

It’s not that you’re both being unreasonable. It’s that you’re both running on threat detection software that was designed for a very different kind of danger.

So what do you do with this?

You stop blaming yourself or your partner for arguments that feel disproportionate. You’re not too sensitive. They’re not being unreasonable.

You’re both running threat detection systems that evolved for a world where social conflict could genuinely endanger you.

Understanding this doesn’t stop arguments happening. But it does change how you move through them.

Instead of: “Why do we always end up like this over nothing?”

You get: “Right. We’ve both just triggered each other’s threat response. Neither of us is thinking clearly right now.”

Sometimes it’s about learning to recognise when your threat response has kicked in. The racing heart. The tight chest. The feeling that this conversation has suddenly become urgent in a way it shouldn’t be. That’s your signal. Your amygdala has taken over. And until it stands down, this conversation isn’t going anywhere productive.

Sometimes it’s about the pause. Not walking away in frustration, but deliberately stepping back. Giving your prefrontal cortex time to come back online. “I need twenty minutes. Not because I’m angry, but because I can’t think clearly right now and I don’t want to say something I don’t mean.”

Sometimes it’s about getting underneath the argument. What’s actually being threatened here? Is it about the washing up, or is it about feeling valued? Name it. Not in the heat of it, but afterwards, when you can both think clearly again.

And sometimes it’s about being honest with each other about what just happened. “That got intense. I think we both triggered something. Can we try again?”

The goal isn’t to never have arguments. It’s to understand why they feel so intense, and find ways to keep the conversation going when your brain is screaming at you to fight or flee.

Next time: How your brain decides what’s urgent

When the important thing keeps getting pushed aside by the immediate thing. Why your brain prioritises what’s loud over what actually matters.

What do your arguments really come down to?

Not the surface stuff. The deeper thing. The thing underneath.

Hit reply and tell me. I read every response.

Until next time, take care.

Neil

Share

Share How We're Wired by Neil Bage