Separate the Story from the Signal
What actually happened — and what's the story I'm adding?
Write down what happened — just the observable facts, no interpretation. Below that, write the story you're telling yourself about what it means. Circle anything in the story that you can't verify with evidence. That's narrative, not information. Decide based on what's above the line.
You're reacting strongly to something and suspect the reaction might be bigger than the event warrants.
The signal is clear, the threat is real, and further analysis would be stalling.
Why it works
Your brain automatically generates explanatory narratives around events, filling gaps with assumptions. Separating facts from interpretation reveals how much of your reaction is to the story, not the situation.
Your brain doesn’t process raw events — it processes interpreted events. Within milliseconds of something happening, you’ve already constructed a narrative: why it happened, what it means, what comes next. The problem is that the narrative feels like fact. ‘They didn’t reply’ becomes ‘they’re angry at me’ so seamlessly that you can’t feel the seam. The two-line exercise forces the seam open. Facts above the line, story below. You’ll often find that the facts are small and the story is enormous. Most emotional overreactions aren’t responses to what happened — they’re responses to what your brain decided it meant.