BY KATY ABBOTT
Every creative knows the paralysis of standing before too many options, but there’s a particular kind of decision conflict that goes deeper than simple overwhelm. It happens when we know what we want to choose, but we don’t like the implicationsof that choice.
Neuroscience research shows our nervous systems evaluate potential threats in milliseconds, faster than conscious thought. In my hundreds of discussions with artists, it’s clear that we’re not just assessing the choice itself when we make a decision. We are evaluating, with lightning speed, the implications of each choice.
Here’s a common artist decision: when to say yes and no to invitations.
I’ve had countless conversations with people about how to make a ‘yes or no’ decision. Many of these requests create torturous internal conundrums for the decision maker. The internal conflict creates inertia, overthinking, anxiety, or quick-flash responses that might override the real decision.
What if I say no to this collaboration? What if I trust my creative instincts?
This creates what researchers call approach-avoidance conflict, where we’re simultaneously drawn toward and repelled by the same option. But it’s more nuanced than that.
Often, we’re not conflicted about the choice; we’re conflicted about the consequences of honouring our response.
It feels like indecision, but it’s actually that we know the decision – and just don’t like its implications.
This isn’t mere overthinking, it’s your nervous system’s sophisticated threat assessment working overtime.
When choosing authentically feels psychologically risky, our protective instincts can prevent us from fully examining what we want.
Will others understand my choice?
Will this hurt my career?
Will I be seen as selfish?
Will I be asked again?
Here’s how I’d break it down. Let’s say a musician plays a regular gig for many years, but their current load is very full. They are asked again to play the gig, but feel conflicted. They want to say no, but the implications of saying no feel risky.
The choices:
1. Say no: This could be a gut feeling or intuitive choice, which feels like the right choice.
Yet the implications of saying no include:
- fear of not being asked in the future
- being perceived in a negative way (such as ‘too big for their boots’, or ‘not a team player’)
- rising questions about artistic purpose and direction, which may feel difficult to answer
2. Say yes: A conscious choice. This choice feels safer.
The implications of this choice are:
- overriding intuition (which erodes confidence)
- being resentful of the work
- overly busy
- not deliberately pursuing work that aligns to artistic purpose or artistic integrity
The way through is not to ignore or override internal conflict. The tension tells you something important is at stake.
Even if the choice is number 2, at least it is a deliberate choice rather than a muddy choice.
When we can distinguish between the choice we want to make, and our fears about making it, we create space for more conscious, intentional decisions. And with a little practice and courage, we can address the implications of our decisions so they stop feeling like monsters under the bed, but instead can look them in the eye and smile.
Composer and Artists Mentor Dr Katy Abbott focuses on exploring the dynamics between artistic ambition and personal sustainability.
Have a professional dilemma you’d like (anonymously) addressed in a future column? Email: contact@katyabbott.com
Featured image by Xingchen Yan via Unsplash.
Have your say.