A friend of mine, Lena, called me after a therapy session, still turning something over. She’d gone in with a work situation: she’d backed a colleague’s call on something she hadn’t actually agreed with, and it had cost her. Her therapist asked what had made her go along with it. She said: he just sounded so certain. The therapist said: And how often does that happen?
She was quiet for a moment. A lot, she said. Actually, a lot.
What the therapist had helped her see—and what she was still sitting with when she called me—was that the certainty hadn’t been information. It had been a signal she’d been trained to respond to since childhood: someone sounds like they know, so the decision is over. A house full of “because I said so” doesn’t just produce obedient children. It produces adults who are still listening for the voice that tells them they’re allowed to proceed. Here’s what that tends to look like.
They follow instructions perfectly and freeze when there are none
Put them in a system with clear expectations, and they are exceptional. They show up on time, they read the room, they understand what’s required before anyone has to tell them twice. The issue isn’t competence. The issue is what happens when the task is genuinely open-ended—when the assignment is “use your judgment” or “whatever you think is best.” Those words land differently on someone who grew up in a house where their judgment was never the point.
Research by Joshua A. Weller, Andrew M. Parker, Maureen Reynolds, and colleagues, whose work has been published in Applied Developmental Science, tracked 775 children from ages 10 through 19 and found that those who reported higher levels of parental psychological control showed measurably lower decision-making competence nearly a decade later—independent of neighborhood disadvantage, other parenting variables, and family circumstances. The pipeline from “because I said so” to “I don’t know how to trust my own call” is not metaphorical. It’s longitudinal.
They need someone to point to if it goes wrong
This is the heart of it, and most of them know it, which makes it worse. Before making a significant decision, there’s an impulse to collect enough external validation that if it doesn’t work out, the responsibility is distributed. They asked three people. They did the research. They followed the advice they were given. The decision wasn’t just theirs; it came with references.
It’s not cowardice. It’s a learned response to growing up in an environment where being wrong was a personal failing, not a normal part of trying things.
When the authority in the house was never wrong—or couldn’t be questioned if it was—there was no model for absorbing the cost of a mistake. What got absorbed instead was the lesson: if you can point to someone else’s reasoning, you’re protected.
What it looks like in practice is a very specific kind of paper trail. The decision made only after three people signed off on it. The email where they cc’d two extra people who didn’t need to be there. The text thread they haven’t deleted because it’s proof that someone else thought this was a good idea too.
It’s not incompetence, and it’s not insecurity in the ordinary sense. It’s the specific anxiety of someone who learned early that being wrong without cover was the thing to avoid—and who has been building cases ever since.
More Bolde Stories
They know what’s expected, but not what they actually want
Ask them what they should do, and they have an answer quickly. Ask them what they want to do, and something hesitates. They are fluent in the language of expectations—what a reasonable person would choose, what would look good, what would be hard to argue with—and considerably less practiced in the language of their own preferences. The two things got conflated somewhere along the way. In a house where “because I said so” is the operating principle, what you want isn’t particularly relevant. What’s relevant is what you’re supposed to do.
Koen Luyckx, Bart Soenens, Maarten Vansteenkiste, and colleagues found in a longitudinal study published in the Journal of Family Psychology that parental psychological control was consistently and negatively associated with the commitment-making dimensions of identity formation in college students—specifically, the capacity to form personal commitments and identify with them. Growing up under psychological control doesn’t just leave people without opinions. It leaves them without a reliable internal process for forming them.
It shows up in moments that look minor but aren’t. The menu they study for ten minutes before asking what you’re getting. The career path they took because it was practical and defensible, not because anything in them reached for it. The hobbies that appeared in their life around the time someone whose opinion they valued expressed enthusiasm about them. They are not without preferences. They have preferences. They’ve just spent so long filtering them through what’s expected that the signal gets hard to locate.
They’ve spent years calling their conflict avoidance being easygoing
They don’t like to make a fuss. They go along with the restaurant other people choose. They say “I don’t mind” about things they do, mildly, mind. They have told themselves for years that this is just their personality—low-maintenance, flexible, easy to be around. What’s harder to look at is where it came from. In a house where pushing back had no payoff, where questions were answered with authority rather than reasoning, they learned that their resistance was the problem. The path of least conflict wasn’t laziness; it was survival.
The thing is, it eventually costs something. There’s a version of easygoing that comes from genuine flexibility, and there’s a version that comes from a very old decision that it’s not safe to have needs. They look identical from the outside. They feel different from the inside, in those moments when they swallow something they actually wanted to say and call it not worth the trouble.
The accumulation is what matters. Any single instance—the opinion they didn’t volunteer, the preference they folded on, the plan they quietly abandoned because someone else had already decided—is barely worth noting on its own. What’s worth noting is the shape of it over years. Sometimes they arrive at a point where they realize they don’t actually know what they would have chosen, if they’d been the one choosing all along. That’s not a small thing to realize.
They defer to whoever sounds most certain in the room
In any group decision, they track confidence. Someone speaks without hedging—just states the thing flatly, like it’s already settled—and there’s a pull toward that person that has nothing to do with whether they’re actually right. It’s what Lena’s therapist had named: the certainty wasn’t evidence, it was just loud. And loud had always been the signal she’d been trained to respond to since childhood. Someone sounds like they know, so the deciding is over. They’ll go along with a confident wrong answer before they’ll go along with a hesitant right one—not because they’re passive, but because certainty has always read as permission.
It shows up in meetings where they shift position not because the pushback contained new information, but because the person pushing back sounded sure of themselves. In the way they present their own ideas with a hedge already built in—”I don’t know, maybe this is off, but—”—and then watch someone else say the same thing plainly and get the room. In the way they’ll sometimes give ground to a person they privately know is wrong, feel a brief complicated relief when the deciding is over, and sit with it quietly afterward.
More Bolde Stories
Somewhere in adulthood, the rules run out, and the real work starts
There’s usually a moment. A relationship that requires them to say what they actually need. A job that stops providing a script. A decision with no objectively correct answer and no one to defer to. And the old strategy—find the rule, find the authority, distribute the responsibility—doesn’t work. The moment is uncomfortable in a way that feels disproportionate, because what it’s asking them to do isn’t just make a decision. It’s practice the thing they never got to practice growing up: trusting that their own judgment is something they’re allowed to have.
Some of them get there gradually, in the accumulation of small choices made without checking first. Some of them get there because something goes wrong and they find out they survived it. The process is not clean or linear and it doesn’t arrive with a certificate. But it’s recognizable, this shift, when it happens—the moment a person stops waiting for the rules and starts making them. It feels unfamiliar at first. It feels, eventually, like themselves.
