This week I had an insight. Perhaps the biggest of my journey. And I decided to share it while it’s still hot, while I’m still processing it. Because perhaps this is precisely the moment when it can be most useful.
It’s been an intense week. Not complex in the sense of problematic, but rich. Rich with events on multiple levels, work, family, and rich above all with a deep insight about myself.
I don’t want to bore you with the details of the events, also because they would influence the message I want to convey. Nothing serious, but many occurrences on different levels that had an impact. And from those levels, something emerged.
What is a bias
A bias is a mental pattern rooted in the past, family, society, experiences, that guides our reactions without us realizing it. Usually in a negative way, because it comes from wrong imprints.
In my case they weighed heavily. And in fact they still weigh, though less. Especially because rooted in decades, not years.
This week’s insight, using the technique I’ll explain shortly, made me understand the mother bias that influences and still determines many of my actions. But let’s go step by step.
The technique: naming the bias
The technique is simple but powerful. When you feel the bias coming, don’t submit to it. Give it a name.
Concrete example from work. A client reports a bug in our project. Instinctive reaction? Justify immediately, explain why it’s not our fault, respond impulsively, show that we’re competent.
But that reaction comes from a bias. And I named it: “Fear of Others’ Judgment.”
The client is judging me negatively, I must defend myself. I must demonstrate value. I must prevent them from thinking badly of me.
If I name it, “Here it is, the bias is coming,” the brain changes mode. From passive it becomes active. I don’t react, I respond. I take charge of the report, explain what we’ll do, act with clarity. The client is satisfied. I don’t ruminate for hours afterward.
The bias doesn’t disappear. But it loses power. It becomes depotentiated.
The mother bias: “I Depend on Others”
Over the months I’ve named various biases. And in each of them a word emerged: “Others.”
Fear of Others’ Judgment. Fear of Disappointing Others. Fear of Not Being Enough for Others.
My metacognition, together with what mathematics and philosophy have taught me, led me to investigate. To search for a pattern. And I found it.
The mother bias, the one from which all others derive, is this: “I Depend on Others, I don’t collaborate with Others.”
I let my brain go, my thoughts. I investigated my past. And at that point the insight arrived.
The origin: adolescence
I understood a moment in my late adolescence, early youth, where a series of events shaped me and induced these biases.
Adult responsibilities arrived too soon. Family financial management when I should have still been just studying. Confidences as equals when I was a son. Renunciations. Mistakes not mine to manage as if they were mine.
No malice from anyone, I want to emphasize this. But weight. And that weight created patterns: “You must be strong for others. You must solve for others. Your value depends on how much others need you.”
And perhaps a part of me, already then, intuited something. But I didn’t have means and tools.
The catalyst: Amelia
And here I must say something I’ve only hinted at until now. My journey, metacognition, acceptance, verticalization, everything, has a precise triggering moment.
Amelia’s birth. 26 weeks. 710 grams. 109 days of neonatal intensive care.
Amelia fought from her first breath. And I, observing her, understood something. She wasn’t fighting to please anyone. She was fighting to live. Period.
In those months I saw many things. How the State didn’t work. How certain family members reacted. How Greta and I, with Marco who was 5 years old at the time, managed everything.
And something in me unlocked.
I had been a forced hero for years. The one who solves for others, who sacrifices, who depends on others’ need to have value.
Amelia made me pass from hero to anti-hero. Like Sherlock Holmes, like Dr. House, like Sylar in Heroes but without the evil part. Anti-heroes who set boundaries, who recognize that forced heroism damages.
And from there, perhaps, toward the strategist. Like Churchill, whom I define as pragmatic ethical. Like Themistocles at Salamis. Like Emperor Augustus. Strategist who collaborates, not who depends.
No longer “I depend on others.” But “I collaborate with others.”
Amelia overcame everything. She’s doing great. She’s 4 and a half years old. My warrior. And my catalyst.
Depending vs Collaborating
The mother pattern was this: “I Depend on Others, I don’t collaborate with Others.”
What does it mean?
Depending means my value exists only if others need me. If I disappoint them, I collapse. If I show limits, I fail. If I put them in economic or emotional difficulty, I’m worth nothing.
Collaborating means my value is intrinsic. I work with others, not for others. I can disappoint without collapsing. I can show limits without shame. I can be myself with Greta, Marco, Amelia, not exist only for them.
It’s not selfishness. It’s balance.
I can’t be me-the others, where I exist only in function of them. I must be me-with-others, where I exist and collaborate.
The difference is subtle. But it changes everything.
The philosophical tools
And here philosophers I’ve studied for years help me.
Kant says: judge the present, not the past. That person who hurt you 10 years ago isn’t defined only by that action. They’re worth what they are today.
But Gadamer adds: don’t erase the past pain. That would be impossible. Instead, evolve it. Fusion of horizons means this. The wounded boy of then plus the aware man of today equals new understanding.
Not “forget the past” which would be impossible. Not “remain in the past” which would be paralyzing. But “integrate past and present in evolved vision.”
Concrete example: my parents. I don’t erase the difficulties of adolescence. But I don’t judge them only for those. Fusion, I understand then plus I see now equals new relationship possible.
And Ibn Arabi with fluidity between intellect and heart. Not only rationality, naming biases. Not only emotion, feeling past pain. Both, fluid, together. Intellect analyzes, heart integrates, together they evolve.
Not abstract theory. Living tools.
Naming, accepting, evolving
And here’s the process I’m living.
First step: naming. “I Depend on Others” is no longer an unconscious shadow. It has a name. It’s visible.
Second step: accepting. The timeline advances, events have occurred. I’ve understood them, made them mine. I no longer submit to them passively.
Third step: evolving. Now I must bring them to a new stage. From dependence to collaboration. From reaction to response. From rumination to free cognitive bandwidth.
Naming the bias depotentiates it. My brain becomes active on it, not passive. It doesn’t mean “I’ve solved it.” It means “I no longer submit to it.”
Rumination decreases. Cognitive bandwidth frees up. Ideas for managing the problem come. Energy to create, to relax, to live.
In the long run, the bias will become less and less powerful. And that’s positive.
Tools for Marco and Amelia
And for Marco and Amelia I want this. Not protection from mistakes.
Mistakes have happened, happen, and will happen. Greta and I will make them, like anyone.
But tools. From Socrates onward. Thinking, naming, accepting, evolving. Metacognition. Awareness.
If they have tools, the difference shows.
And us? We’ll try to avoid certain mistakes that happened to us. Not all, it’s impossible. But some yes.
Tools make the difference. Always.
Conclusion
Perhaps it was time to say it. Perhaps it was time to explain that thinking, using our cognition, naming biases, accepting them, understanding them leads us to improve and live better tomorrow.
Naming. Accepting. Evolving.
Not eliminating biases, that would be impossible. But removing their passive power. Making them visible. And therefore manageable.
I depended on Others. Now I collaborate with Others.
I haven’t solved it. But I no longer submit.
And cognitive bandwidth frees up. Ideas arrive. Life breathes.