The Stories in Our Head

Saturday mornings have become my little reset button.

Not the glamorous kind — no fancy latte art, no perfectly curated sunrise photo (my hair is doing its own ministry). Just me, a quiet corner, a bit of breathing space… and a very honest inventory of life.

And if I’m being real, life has been tough.

Not always in the dramatic, headline-worthy way. Sometimes it’s the quieter kind of heavy — the kind where you’re carrying responsibilities, expectations, unanswered questions, and that annoying inner narrator that never shuts up.

This morning, as I sat in that silence, I caught myself thinking:

“Is life really this hard… or is the story I’m telling myself making it heavier?”

That question pulled me into something I read recently (special thanks to Seth Godin who made me look this up from his writing about it) — a little-read pamphlet by Jeremy Bentham (written about 200 years ago). And honestly, it felt surprisingly modern. Here’s the big idea Bentham was wrestling with:

We don’t just live in reality. We live in words about reality.

Bentham makes a distinction:

Real entities: things you can point to or experience directly (a person, a conversation, a deadline, a bill, a sleepless night)
Fictitious entities: things that don’t exist as “objects,” but feel incredibly real because language gives them power (“rights”, “the State”, “success”, “failure”, “reputation”, “guilt”, “calling”, “society”, “the market”, “public interest”)

These “fictions” aren’t lies. They’re concepts.

But Bentham’s warning is sharp:

When you name an abstraction, you start treating it like a force of nature.

“The market is angry.” “Society has decided.” “History will judge.” “I have no choice.” “I’m a failure.” “I’m falling behind.” “I’ll never recover from this.”

And then — quietly — these phrases begin to rule us like invisible laws.

Bentham wasn’t ضد-abstraction. He was ضد-unaccountable abstraction.

(refer below to the PS if you don't understand what these 2 words means - د-abstraction and ضد-unaccountable)

He wasn’t saying, “Stop using big words.”

He was saying, don’t let big words become lazy thinking, manipulative slogans, or mental prisons.

Some fictions are necessary to coordinate life (laws, contracts, responsibilities). But he insisted on a discipline that feels like a leadership practice:

Always “paraphrase” back to reality.

Bentham called it paraphrasis — take a big abstract word and translate it back into concrete people, actions, and real experiences.

If you can’t translate it, the word might be doing something dangerous: creating a myth, shutting down debate, or hijacking your emotions.

So I tried it this morning.

I took a few of my own “big words” and forced them back into reality.

Story: “I’m failing.” Paraphrase: “I had a few outcomes this year that didn’t go as planned. Some people were disappointed. I’m tired. I need help, rest, and a better plan.”
Story: “I’m stuck.” Paraphrase: “There are 3 constraints: time, cashflow, and team capacity. Two of them can be improved within 90 days with focused decisions.”
Story: “I have no choice.” Paraphrase: “I have choices. I just don’t like the cost of the choices.”

And suddenly, what felt like a fog became a map.

Not because the problems disappeared — but because the spell broke.

Leadership thought (and personal thought): your vocabulary is either a cage or a key.

We are constantly framing events with labels:

“Punishment” vs “training” “Betrayal” vs “misalignment” “Failure” vs “feedback” “Threat” vs “invitation” “Too late” vs “not yet” “Burden” vs “assignment”

And that framing is not neutral — it shapes our agency, our energy, our hope, and even how we treat people.

That’s why two people can face the same reality and live in two completely different worlds.

Because the “world” isn’t just what happened.

The world is the story we wrapped around what happened.

So here’s my Saturday morning challenge (for myself first, then for you):

Pick one heavy sentence you’ve been repeating. The one that keeps running in the background like a toxic playlist. Here are the kinds of “heavy sentences” I hear leaders (and honestly, most humans) repeat in their heads — the background soundtrack that quietly drains joy, courage, and clarity:

I’m behind and I’ll never catch up.” “If I rest, everything will fall apart.” “I can’t trust my team—if I want it done right, I have to do it myself.” “If I say no, I’ll disappoint people and lose opportunities.” “I’m not good enough for this level.” “I’m one mistake away from being exposed.” “Everyone expects me to have the answers.” “This season broke me; I won’t recover.” “I don’t have a choice.” “Other people have it easier—why is it always so hard for me?” “I’m failing as a leader / parent / spouse.” “If I slow down, I’ll lose my edge.” “No one really understands what I’m carrying.” And the silent classic: “Once I fix this one thing… then I’ll finally be okay.

Once you have picked your sentence that you've been repeating, then do Bentham’s exercise below:

Translate it back into concrete reality. Who? What happened? What facts can you actually verify? What actions are available?

If the story cannot be cashed out into real people and real experiences… it might not be wisdom. It might just be word-magic. And you don’t need more motivation.

You need better language. Because better language creates a better story. And a better story creates better decisions.

I’m still in a hard season. But today I feel a little lighter — not because life changed…

…but because I challenged the story I was carrying.

What’s one story in your head you suspect is more vocabulary than reality?

PS - If you are wondering what these 2 words means - د-abstraction and ضد-unaccountable - -they’re basically my “rojak-English” shorthand using the Arabic prefix ضد (pronounced didd), which means “against / anti- / opposed to.”

ضد-abstraction = anti-abstraction Meaning: against abstract concepts or big ideas in general.
ضد-unaccountable (more properly: ضد “unaccountable abstraction”) = anti-unaccountable / against ideas that can’t be tested or tied back to reality Meaning: not against big concepts themselves, but against using big words in a way that avoids clarity, evidence, or responsibility (e.g., vague slogans like “for the public interest” with no measurable impact on real people).

So the point I was making: Bentham wasn’t against abstraction; he was against abstraction that isn’t accountable to real-world consequences.

For leaders carrying more than their job titles…

Be part of Malaysia Immersion Week 2026!

Join us for an 8-day journey (June 24–July 1, 2026) designed for leaders who want time and space to connect with like-minded business leaders. You’ll gain VIP access to the Malaysia Leadership Summit, engage in masterclasses with global leaders, and experience cultural immersion that offers fresh perspective on yourself and your team.