I have a friend who has been planning to move to Portugal for six years. He has the spreadsheet. He’s done the research. He can tell you which neighborhood he’d live in, what the visa requirements are, and what rent costs in Lisbon. The trip is extremely well planned. He has also not taken a single step toward actually going, and I’ve noticed over the years that the planning itself seems to satisfy something—that there’s a kind of aliveness that arrives when the subject comes up, something close to what I imagine actually going would feel like. The plan isn’t failing. It’s working. Just not the way plans are supposed to work.
He’s not the only person I know like this. The closer you look, the more of them there are—people carrying detailed, well-tended plans that have been plans for years and show no signs of becoming anything else. Psychology tends to read this as avoidance. But that framing assumes the goal was always the point, and for a lot of these people, it wasn’t. The plan was doing something else from the beginning.
The plan has been doing something for them all along
The plan was never just sitting there waiting to be executed. From the beginning, it was working—producing something, providing something, running an active function in their life. The question is what that function is, because it’s usually not what it appears to be on the surface.
On the surface, the plan is about the goal. The novel they’re going to write, the business they’re going to start, the country they’re going to move to. The plan appears to be instrumental—a map toward a destination. But for a lot of people who carry plans for years without acting on them, the destination isn’t really the point. The point is the carrying. The carrying produces something they need: a sense of direction, a version of themselves that has somewhere to go, a quiet identity as someone with possibilities still open.
This doesn’t make the plan a lie or a failure. It makes it a different kind of thing than it looks like. The plan isn’t waiting to become something—it already is something, and it’s been sustaining them in ways they might not be fully aware of. For people around them, this can look like avoidance. From where they’re standing, it often feels like sustaining something they’re not ready to lose.
They’re holding onto the person they still might become
Acting would resolve something that currently feels better unresolved. Right now, somewhere in their self-concept, there is a version of them who is a novelist, an entrepreneur, a person who lives somewhere else. That version hasn’t been tested yet. It still exists fully, with all its possibilities intact, because it hasn’t been put anywhere that could prove it wrong.
Hazel Markus and Paula Nurius, whose research on the psychology of future selves has been published in the American Psychologist, found that people’s “possible selves”—the cognitive representations of who they might become—function not just as aspirations but as active components of identity. They motivate, they give direction, and they provide an evaluative context for the present self. The hoped-for self isn’t separate from who they are. It’s part of who they are, right now, contributing something to how they experience their own life.
Acting would change that. The possible self would become an actual self—tested, real, with all the limitations that real things have. It would no longer be held in the space where possibility lives. That’s not nothing. For some people, protecting that space is the more important thing, even if they’ve never said so out loud.
More Bolde Stories
The closer they get to trying, the more reasons appear not to
The timing of the obstacles is worth noticing. They don’t arrive evenly across time—they cluster right at the point where something might actually happen. The inquiry gets made, the deadline appears, the moment of commitment arrives, and that’s precisely when the other thing comes up. The timing isn’t coincidental. It’s responsive.
This is different from general avoidance, which would be more consistent. What’s happening is more specific: they’re letting themselves get to the edge, and then finding a way to step back that feels legitimate. The obstacle that appears is usually real—a bad time, a competing priority, something that genuinely needs handling. But the real thing doing the work is the timing of its arrival.
I’ve watched this closely in my own life with certain projects. The research phase ends, and the writing needs to begin, and suddenly there’s something pressing, something necessary, something that could only need handling right now. The resistance knows when to show up. It waits for the approach before it arrives. And because the reasons are always real, it’s easy to honor them and easy to miss that they’re also always there, specifically at the moment where the thing would have to stop being a plan.
The fantasy is already paying out
The thing they’re waiting to experience—the sense of direction, the feeling of being someone who does that thing, the particular satisfaction of a meaningful project—they’re already getting a version of it. Not the full thing, but a real thing. The plan delivers a consistent return that’s enough to make not acting the more rational choice, at least from the inside.
Gabriele Oettingen and colleagues, whose research on fantasy and goal pursuit has been published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found that when people freely fantasize about a desired future without contrasting it with present obstacles, they arrive at a comfortable middle state—enough investment to feel connected to the goal, not enough urgency to act on it. The fantasy produces its own reward, independent of whether anything happens.
This is the mechanism behind plans that last decades without moving. It’s not inertia. It’s equilibrium. The plan is delivering just enough of what they need that the cost of changing anything—the risk, the effort, the loss of possibility—consistently outweighs the benefit. They’re not avoiding the goal. They’re already living adjacent to it in a way that works.
Some people need a horizon more than a destination
There are people who function well with goals primarily as orientation, not execution. The plan gives them a direction to face. It organizes what they notice, what they read, and what they think about. It shapes how they experience ordinary time—not as empty or purposeless, but as happening in relation to something. The horizon does this work without requiring them to walk toward it.
This isn’t a pathology. Some people are genuinely built this way—more energized by possibility than by completion, more interested in the imagining than the doing. The world tells a particular story about how you’re supposed to want the thing you say you want, and execute toward it, and measure your life by what you’ve produced. That story doesn’t fit everyone.
What looks like stuckness from one angle looks like a different relationship with time and goal from another. They’re not failing to act on their plan. They’re doing something else with it that serves them, and that something might be the more honest answer to whatever need the plan was responding to in the first place. The plan was never necessarily supposed to become a project. It was supposed to give them something to be in relation to. And it does.
More Bolde Stories
It stopped being about the thing a long time ago
At some point, the plan becomes something other than what it started as. The novel stopped being a novel and became a way of thinking about themselves. The move stopped being a move and became a relationship they have with the idea of elsewhere. The business stopped being a business and became a container for a particular set of hopes about what their life could mean.
None of that is failure. It’s just drift—the natural way that things change function over time while keeping the same name. They still call it the plan, still say one day, still mean it in some partial sense. But what they’d be losing if they let it go isn’t a goal anymore. It’s a piece of their self-concept. A version of themselves they’ve been living alongside for long enough that it’s become genuinely part of them.
This is why people can carry the same plan for decades without it feeling like a problem. It isn’t a problem, exactly. It’s something they need, in the form of something else. That might be the most honest accounting of what the plan was always for.
