This article is part of a series exploring human emotion at work. If you are new here you can read about the motivation for the series by following this link. A look of suspicion emerged on his face as I excused myself to the bathroom for the third time in under an hour. As I frantically typed the unfamiliar terms into my phone a cloud of shame drew over me. Why did he hire me? I don’t know anything. Surely he will realize his mistake and fire me before I get through my first day.
Neuroplasticity to the rescue! You were able to identify your subconscious beliefs through societal/ childhood programming and give yourself what you actually needed at that time (reassurance you're not "bad"), thus creating a new neural pathway (instead of the first voice on loop) and change your perspective. This practice typically involves some form of meditation/ theta state, wondering if that played a part? There's actually a lot of guidance around this, if you're interested in learning more I recommend neuroscientist Dr. Tara Swart.
Neuroplasticity! Yes, thank you for connecting those dots for me. I've found myself going through these exercises quite often over the last couple of years. Meditation has absolutely played a role. It's enabled me to step outside of the automaticity of my thinking and act as an observer. I have seen quite a bit in my own mind from that vantage point. I plan on writing a piece about it in the future.
Thank you for recommending Tara. I haven't come across her work yet and it looks extremely relevant.
I like the way you describe your first and second voices. I definitely have that first voice in my head. It pops up all the time. I'll be in a meeting and someone will ask a question and that voice rings out immediately, before I think anything else.
I don't have the second voice, though. But I should. When I'm not in the moment and think about it, that first voice's claim is usually so implausible that even someone who doesn't know me could argue against it.
First Voice: "You don't know anything."
Any reasonable person: "I don't know you're talking about, but that's very unlikely."
From that position it starts to become a lot easier for me to consider what the second voice, the voice of reason, should say to the first voice.
Identifying the second voice as the "voice of reason" is powerful. It reduces the first voice to an impulse which is the level of legitimacy I believe it deserves.
This reminds me of Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow". The first voice is the fast thinking reaction. The second voice comes after processing the trigger. More credence should be given to the second but unfortunately that first tends to stick. It is an ongoing battle...
Neuroplasticity to the rescue! You were able to identify your subconscious beliefs through societal/ childhood programming and give yourself what you actually needed at that time (reassurance you're not "bad"), thus creating a new neural pathway (instead of the first voice on loop) and change your perspective. This practice typically involves some form of meditation/ theta state, wondering if that played a part? There's actually a lot of guidance around this, if you're interested in learning more I recommend neuroscientist Dr. Tara Swart.
Neuroplasticity! Yes, thank you for connecting those dots for me. I've found myself going through these exercises quite often over the last couple of years. Meditation has absolutely played a role. It's enabled me to step outside of the automaticity of my thinking and act as an observer. I have seen quite a bit in my own mind from that vantage point. I plan on writing a piece about it in the future.
Thank you for recommending Tara. I haven't come across her work yet and it looks extremely relevant.
I like the way you describe your first and second voices. I definitely have that first voice in my head. It pops up all the time. I'll be in a meeting and someone will ask a question and that voice rings out immediately, before I think anything else.
I don't have the second voice, though. But I should. When I'm not in the moment and think about it, that first voice's claim is usually so implausible that even someone who doesn't know me could argue against it.
First Voice: "You don't know anything."
Any reasonable person: "I don't know you're talking about, but that's very unlikely."
From that position it starts to become a lot easier for me to consider what the second voice, the voice of reason, should say to the first voice.
Identifying the second voice as the "voice of reason" is powerful. It reduces the first voice to an impulse which is the level of legitimacy I believe it deserves.
This reminds me of Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow". The first voice is the fast thinking reaction. The second voice comes after processing the trigger. More credence should be given to the second but unfortunately that first tends to stick. It is an ongoing battle...