KBN

This week I spoke to a woman who, on paper, has rebuilt her life beautifully.

​

Four years ago her long-term relationship ended. It hurt. She does not dramatise it, but the imprint is still there. Since then she has moved countries, redirected her professional focus, constructed stability and independence, and from the outside she looks composed and capable.

​

She told me she wants partnership again. She misses intimacy. She would like to be chosen.

​

But she cannot bring herself to date.

​

When I asked her what stops her, she began to recount stories. The woman murdered after a Tinder date. The Netflix documentary about online fraudsters. The accounts of photographs taken from dating profiles and manipulated into AI pornography. Each example was vivid, extreme and emotionally charged. Each one added another brick to the same internal wall.

​

It is not safe. Better not to begin.

​

What interested me was not the fear itself. Fear after heartbreak makes sense. What interested me was how selective her evidence had become.

​

Out of the enormous, largely uneventful world of people meeting, dating and forming relationships without incident, her mind had filtered almost exclusively for the most catastrophic outliers and allowed them to stand in for the whole. The rare had quietly become representative.

​

Your brain is a filter, not a camera.

​

There is a neurological explanation for this pattern. The Reticular Activating System, a network of neurons in the brainstem, acts as a filter for attention. At any moment you are exposed to more information than you could possibly process, so this system decides what is relevant and what can be ignored. Once you decide something matters, your brain begins to highlight evidence that confirms that focus and to overlook information that contradicts it.

​

If you buy a particular make of car, you suddenly see it everywhere. Not because it multiplied overnight, but because your filter shifted.

​

Fear engages this system powerfully. When you conclude that online dating is risky, your mind obligingly gathers supporting evidence with impressive efficiency. Dramatic stories are more emotionally arousing and therefore more memorable, which makes them easier to retrieve. Daniel Kahneman described this in Thinking, Fast and Slow as the availability heuristic, our tendency to assess probability by what comes readily to mind rather than by statistical base rates.

​

Add a media environment that amplifies the exceptional and the alarming, and the distortion deepens. Rare tragedies receive saturation coverage. Ordinary safety does not.

​

I recognised the pattern because I have done it myself. After painful experiences it can feel responsible to scan for danger, almost intelligent to gather evidence that retreat is sensible. Withdrawal begins to look like wisdom.

When protection becomes self-confinement.

​

In my coaching work I use the Positive Intelligence framework developed by Shirzad Chamine, who drew on neuroscience and performance psychology to describe the internal saboteurs that shape our thinking. We all have a primary saboteur known as the Judge, which criticises ourselves, others and our circumstances, and we often have additional patterns such as the Avoider, who steers us away from discomfort, or the Hyper-Vigilant one, who scans relentlessly for threat and overestimates risk.

​

These saboteurs evolved to protect us. The difficulty is that they are calibrated for survival, not for fulfilment.

After heartbreak, the Avoider makes a compelling argument that if you do not date you cannot be rejected. The Hyper-Vigilant one supplies a curated stream of cautionary tales to support that position. The Judge adds a final layer of self-critique. The mind builds a coherent case for caution, and you experience that case as rational judgement rather than fear.

​

I see this far beyond dating. Senior leaders who hesitate to apply for new roles because being turned down would confirm their private doubts. High-performing professionals who avoid necessary conversations because escalation feels more frightening than stagnation. Capable adults who quietly assemble arguments for staying exactly where they are.

​

Forward movement requires intelligent risk.

​

By intelligent risk I do not mean recklessness. I mean calibrating your response to actual probability rather than to the most vivid story in your memory. I mean distinguishing between an old alarm that was once justified and a present moment that deserves fresh assessment.

​

It is also worth remembering that our collective perception of danger is often inflated by exposure. Overall rates of violence in London remain significantly lower than they were in the early 1990s despite persistent public anxiety, and long-term historical data suggests that deaths from war and interpersonal violence have declined over centuries even though modern media makes conflict feel constant and immediate. Our nervous systems evolved in small communities. They were not designed to process global catastrophe before breakfast.

​

Fear often arrives dressed as fact. The brain is an excellent storyteller. It is not always an accurate risk assessor.

You do not need to eliminate fear before you move. You need to examine it.

​

If this resonates

​

If, as you read this, you can recognise an area of your own life where you have quietly constructed a case for staying put, I would invite you to pause and become curious about the evidence you have been collecting. Are you assessing probability, or reacting to salience? Is this a present threat, or an old alarm still running?

Fear can protect you. It can also confine you. The question is whether it is proportionate.

​

​

​

​