A repeated conflict between your intention and behavior does not reveal one universal cause. Start with where separate episodes stalled, then compare possible explanations: unclear scope, unavailable inputs, capacity, and an anticipated consequence. Kerub’s secondary-gain question is an author hypothesis to test, not proof that you wanted the setback.
A worked situation: Unsent proposals
Fictional example. A reader abandons several client proposals. Avoiding rejection is one possible benefit of not sending; missing scope, health, and workload are alternative explanations to check.
Work through these questions: Unsent proposals
| Question or field | Fictional completed example |
|---|---|
| Repeated behavior? | Unsent proposals |
| Possible protection? | No direct rejection |
| Alternative explanation? | Scope not agreed |
| Evidence to gather? | When each proposal stalled |
| Next available action? | Ask one scope question |
Compare explanations before choosing a corrective action
In the unsent-proposals example, fear of rejection and a missing client brief predict different patterns. Did the proposal stall before the scope was known, or after a ready proposal could be sent? Record what was available at that moment and what would count against each explanation. Keep illness, overload, dependence, and financial limits in the account. A favored psychological story should not displace a documented practical constraint. The task here is to refine a question about contributors; the linked how-to page owns an available-action experiment once that question is clearer.