"My desires don't match reality" or the inverse: "reality doesn't match my desires."

I don't recall exactly where I picked this up; it feels vaguely inspired by Buddhist psychology, but maybe I picked it up in some Stoic readings somewhere. I really don't remember.

This idea has helped me zoom out a little bit from situations that aren't the way I want them, whether that is as big as having serious and painful medical issues or as quotidian as my dinner tasting bland. It can be applied to practically any situation in which I have the impulse to feel frustrated (or angry, or sad, or just about any other unenjoyable emotion). When I feel tempted to get worked up about something, I try to tell myself that all that is really happening is there a mismatch between these two things.

I love NVC for this. Just to pick one example, instead of expressing moral judgments on actions and decisions as bad or wrong (which can come across as judgmental and put people off of whatever preference you wanted to communicate), making it clear what your value preference is. E.g. rather than saying “violence is wrong,” we might say “I value the resolution of conflicts through safe and peaceful means.”

Another concept I love is based on consent culture applied to information/discussion. Would you like to hear more about X? Are you open to hearing feedback on Y? Discussing Z while I play devil's advocate? When I receive unsolicited advice and "impact interrogation" at EAGx events (pretty much always during ad-hoc or speed meeting convos), it can come across as adversarial and makes me feel unsafe at those conferences.

"The narrative I am telling myself about this is..."

I learned this phrase from a very close friend a few years ago, and I've found it helpful to nudge me away from explanation freeze and to remind me that how I view a circumstance is just one view, which not necessarily accurate reflect reality. I've found it particularly helpful for interpersonal situations, in which I think another person has made a mistake, or misbehaved, or which otherwise isn't the way that I want it to be.

But saying I prefer not to smoke helped me quit. 

Now I'm simply not a smoker. 

I'm trying to read Atomic Habits and it has a similar concept:

Imagine two people resisting a cigarette. When offered a smoke, the first person says, “No thanks. I’m trying to quit.” It sounds like a reasonable response, but this person still believes they are a smoker who is trying to be something else. They are hoping their behavior will change while carrying around the same beliefs.

The second person declines by saying, “No thanks. I’m not a smoker.” It’s a small difference, but this statement signals a shift in identity. Smoking was part of their former life, not their current one. They no longer identify as someone who smokes.

Most people don’t even consider identity change when they set out to improve. They just think, “I want to be skinny (outcome) and if I stick to this diet, then I’ll be skinny (process).” They set goals and determine the actions they should take to achieve those goals without considering the beliefs that drive their actions. They never shift the way they look at themselves, and they don’t realize that their old identity can sabotage their new plans for change.