David’s problem

.

Every time you come across a decision-making fork, the battle that then goes inside you resembles a very famous one. Here’s how so.

The scene is commonplace. You’re living your life and suddenly something gets you thinking: “Should I do it?”. Is the trigger an opportunity, a gap, a problem, a dream, a desire or an idea? Doesn’t matter. Your thoughts are now loud and fast coming. After a while, it almost feels like a battle, though. On one side, the scared and adverse spirit (“You can’t make it. You don’t have what it takes”). On the other, the thirsty and supportive one (“I’d like to ______ . Go for it. You can make it”). What is less common is deciding to follow the supportive voice’s advice and “go for it”. At least, until you come across another “decision-making fork”. One that again requires an answer to: “Should I do it?”.

When you listen closely to this inner battle, the scared and adverse spirit (SAS) seems to come from the head. As, for the thirsty and supportive one (TSO), its home (sort of speak) seems to be somewhere in the guts.

Between the two, the SAS is always the first to make himself heard. He’s articulate. Likes to counter argument. Mostly to find weaknesses and blindspots in whatever crosses his path; an object, a person, an event, an action, a reaction or else. Unless it somehow puts him in a state of wonder or “Awe”. “Wow… what a nice car / pair of glasses / guy / girl / house / mp3 player / landscape” or “What a good idea. It’s genius / how come no one thought of it before”. The TSO tends to be slower in his reactions. Having more trouble finding his words. Like if the best way to express himself wasn’t through words but physical reactions and emotions. Whoever tried to answer “Why do you love me?” knows how hard translating emotions into words, for instance, is a challenge in itself. For the TSO, then, to be as fluent as the SAS is hard. Still, the TSO can counter argue at times but, as you’ve probably guessed it, it’s not his forte neither. He’s very good at giving a general impression on something or someone, though. At finger pointing to precise weakspots, like SAS does? Not so much.

That’s why, in many cases, when both voices get in the same ring over a decision to make, it seems like an extrovert is putting his gloves against someone with a stutter (or any other type of speech impediment).

Because these fights are about resolving ourselves to act or not (upon a desire or a situation), it’s no surprise then than a majority of people choose to ignore, pay no attention or simply give no credit to the kid (e.g. voice) coming from the gutter. David had the same credibility problem when he first stepped in front of Goliath.

When you’re at a decision-making fork, which of both voices do you wish would come up with the best arguments more often? Why?