It’s a lot right now.
Listen to the blog here.
There’s something I’ve been noticing increasingly: people are overwhelmed by the load we’re carrying. This is one part pace, another part volume, and it’s impacting us mentally, emotionally, and even spiritually.
Researchers call it Cognitive Load Coping. It’s one of the big skills for the next decade. Knowledge workers, leaders, just about everyone if we’re honest, need to get better at it. I reckon it’s not a side issue anymore. It is the main game.
So here’s a prompt worth sitting with: What in my IP set, what in my teachings, can I share to help people manage overload? Because when people are overloaded, they reach for shortcuts. They want quick fixes, certainty, and someone else to carry the mental burden for a while.
The other day I noticed myself wanting to shut things down. To make quick decisions, to cut through the mess, to simplify things into categories I could manage. I was overloaded. Too much input, too many competing priorities, and no clear signal.
In those moments, my thinking becomes very binary. It’s a kind of all-or-nothing pattern I’ve come to know well. I want things to be sorted, not open. I want to act, not sit with the mess.
This is what psychologists call a need for Cognitive Closure. It’s the mental shortcut we reach for when the complexity of the world feels like too much. And when we’re in that space, we don’t just seek clarity. We sometimes start to mistake simplicity for truth (Kruglanski, 2004).
Lately I’ve been applying my own advice and trying to look at what’s going on in me through the lens of what’s happening around me. In this case, I started reflecting on the global rise of authoritarianism.
As I was doing that, I came across a line from documentarian David R. Marples: “Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance.” Spot on for the moment we find ourselves in, right? It reminded me that when our capacity for nuance shrinks, individually or collectively, we open the door for more rigid, controlling forms of leadership. Our need for clear lines and simple answers can make us vulnerable to all-or-nothing stories that feel safe but cost us our freedom to think.
We’re seeing more people support authoritarian-style leaders. More suspicion of democratic processes. More appetite for strong, decisive messaging over dialogue and debate. A gradual loss of nuance, not great.
Looking at this through different lenses helped me see the pattern with more depth.
It was a way of holding a bigger space, instead of collapsing things down. When I catch myself reaching for quick closure, one of the most helpful things I can do is ask: How might others I respect make sense of this? Not to defer to them, but to expand the frame.
It’s like sitting with a circle of thinkers, people whose work has shaped how I understand the world, and inviting their perspectives into the room. Even if it’s just a mental exercise, it slows me down. It invites curiosity. It stops me from rushing to the comfort of a single story.
Yuval Noah Harari (2014) might point out that we’re living through a collapse of shared narratives. The old story, of liberal progress, rights, and cooperation, has broken down. In its absence, people turn to simplified answers and strong leaders.
I use this with clients who are stuck in old stories: to help them name what’s gone missing so they can build a new one with more honesty.
→ Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
→ Website
Ken Wilber (2001) would say that in times of stress, we regress. Our capacity for world-centric thinking gives way to the safety of tribe, identity, and black-and-white distinctions. Authoritarianism rides the wave of that retreat.
I use Wilber’s lens when I see a group slipping into us-versus-them. It helps reframe the work as growth, not just conflict.
→ A Theory of Everything
→ Website
Bernardo Kastrup (2019) sees it as a metaphysical drift. When we disconnect from our inner life, we seek control and meaning outside of ourselves. That’s fertile ground for power structures that promise identity, certainty, and order.
I use this idea to remind people that the work of reflection is not indulgent. It’s protective. It keeps us from outsourcing our sense of self.
→ The Idea of the World
→ Website
Brandon Bays (2003) might ask what emotional pain is being avoided. Unfelt grief, fear, and frustration don’t disappear. They shape our politics, our behaviours, our choices. Sometimes the desire for someone to take charge is really a longing to feel safe again.
I bring this into mentoring when big decisions feel reactive. Often, it’s the unfelt emotion that needs attention first.
→ The Journey
→ Website
Marianne Williamson (1992) sees a spiritual crisis. Where love is absent, fear rushes in. And fear, when it goes unexamined, becomes blame, attack, division, everything authoritarianism feeds on.
I use this to help people see that breakdowns in trust or compassion are rarely just practical. They’re a sign that the bigger relational ground needs tending.
→ A Return to Love
→ Website
Each of these lenses brings something useful. None of them hold the entire truth, but together they help paint a more complete picture. Of course, this doesn’t mean the structural, political, or economic levers don’t matter, they do. But for many of us working at the human-to-human level, helping people hold complexity and reconnect to their own clarity is a vital part of the bigger shift.
Sometimes, building perspective is the work.
So what does this mean in practice?
If you’re an advisor, a mentor, or someone others turn to: it means being willing to hold space without rushing to solve. It means resisting the temptation to package complexity into clean solutions too quickly. And it means helping others do the same.
In moments like this, the role of a thought leader isn’t to offer instant clarity. It’s to help people think, feel, and relate more consciously.
That starts by noticing where in ourselves we are rushing to resolution.
And gently choosing, instead, to stay with the work.
Reflective Call to Action
This week, notice where you’re reaching for certainty.
Ask yourself:
What am I trying to simplify too quickly?
What in my IP or my practice could help others manage overload better?
Whose voice might help me hold this differently?
What’s a question I’m willing to sit with a little longer, rather than resolve too soon?
Perspective doesn’t always come from having the answer.
Sometimes it comes from being willing to ask again.
Some ways we can help?
References:
Bays, B. (2003) The Journey: A Practical Guide to Healing Your Life and Setting Yourself Free. London: Piatkus. Available at: Amazon. Website: thejourney.com
Harari, Y.N. (2014) Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. New York: Harper. Available at: Amazon. Website: ynharari.com
Kastrup, B. (2019) The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality. Winchester: Iff Books. Available at: Amazon. Website: bernardokastrup.com
Kruglanski, A.W. (2004) The Psychology of Closed Mindedness. New York: Psychology Press.
Marples, D.R. (n.d.) Quoted in various works. “Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance.”
Wilber, K. (2001) A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality. Boston: Shambhala. Available at: Amazon. Website: integrallife.com/ken-wilber
Williamson, M. (1992) A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles. New York: HarperCollins. Available at: Amazon. Website: marianne.com