I remember sitting in what should have been one of the best weeks of my life—something I’d worked toward for a long time had finally come through, everything was genuinely fine—and spending most of it waiting for the part where something went wrong. Not catastrophizing. Just unable to fully land in it. Like there was a thin layer of glass between me and the good thing, and I could see it clearly, but couldn’t quite touch it.
It took a while to understand that this was a trained response, not a character flaw. If you grew up in an environment where good things routinely didn’t last—where stability was temporary, where warmth was followed by something that undid it—your nervous system eventually drew a conclusion. It learned that calm was a phase, not a condition, adn that the correct response to things going well was to prepare for them not to.
You didn’t make this up—something taught you this
The unease isn’t a personality defect. It’s a prediction—and the prediction was formed somewhere, from something. The nervous system isn’t irrational. It keeps records. If, at eight or twelve or fifteen, good things consistently turned out to be temporary—if warmth was routinely followed by withdrawal, if stability regularly gave way to chaos, if the good period was typically the setup for something harder—then the nervous system filed that away. It built a model. And the model says: good things end, usually without warning, and the best thing to do when you’re in one is to stay alert.
That model made sense when it was built. It was accurate enough to be useful. The problem is that models built for one environment don’t automatically update when the environment changes. The prediction keeps running even when the evidence for it has stopped arriving. You moved out of the house that taught you this. You found relationships that don’t operate the way the early ones did. The prediction didn’t notice. It’s still running on the old data, scanning for the thing that’s about to go wrong.
The uneasy feeling isn’t a sign that something is wrong now. It’s a record of something that was wrong then.
You brace because bracing used to help
Staying alert during good periods started to feel like the responsible thing to do. Not because you decided it consciously—because it worked, or worked well enough. Bracing in advance meant you weren’t completely blindsided when things turned. The drop still came, but you were already in a crouch, and the crouch made it slightly more survivable. Over enough repetitions, the crouch became the default. Good things happening became a signal to crouch rather than a signal to relax.
Katie McLaughlin and colleagues, whose research on how childhood adversity shapes the nervous system has been published in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, found that children who grew up in environments involving threat developed specific fear-learning patterns—learning to detect and respond to threat signals faster and more broadly than children who hadn’t. The nervous system adapted to the environment it was in. That adaptation was not a malfunction. It was the system doing exactly what it was designed to do.
What that means is that the bracing isn’t irrational. It was the right move, in the original context, for a long time. It became a problem when the context changed, and the bracing didn’t. The crouch that protected you then is what’s making it hard to stand up straight now.
More Bolde Stories
You keep checking whether you deserve this
The good thing arrives, and somewhere in the processing of it, a question appears that has nothing to do with the good thing itself: whether you’re actually supposed to have it. Not in a dramatic way. In a quiet, nagging way that runs underneath the experience like a low current. Did I do enough to earn this? Is this actually mine? What happens when they figure out I’m not who they think I am?
This isn’t the same as imposter syndrome, though it can look like it from the outside. It’s older than that. It comes from growing up in an environment where good things were conditional—where they arrived when you’d done the right thing and disappeared when you hadn’t, or where they arrived and disappeared without much connection to anything you did at all. Either way, the lesson was the same: the good thing is not just a thing. It’s a verdict, and verdicts can be reversed.
So now, when something good happens, you go looking for the terms and conditions. What did I do to get this? What could I do to lose it? The checking isn’t ingratitude—it’s a habit of mind built for a world where you had to understand the rules of the good thing to have any chance of keeping it. That world is gone. The checking stayed.
You start pulling back before anything’s actually wrong
The pull is subtle, and it starts early. A relationship that’s going well develops a slight coolness you put there. A good thing you’ve been working toward starts to feel less urgent once it’s close. You find small ways to make the good thing slightly less good—less available, less certain—because if it’s not quite as good, the ending will be less of a drop.
This isn’t sabotage in the dramatic sense. It’s not conscious. It’s the nervous system running its risk-management protocol: don’t get fully in, because getting fully in means having further to fall. Keep one foot out. Manage the exposure. The protection is so automatic that sometimes you don’t notice it happening until after it’s happened—until you’ve already created a little distance from the thing that was going well.
The cost is that you’re never quite where you are. You’re in the good thing but not fully in it, because fully in it feels like a vulnerability. The management that was designed to protect you from loss ends up generating its own kind of loss—the experience of the good thing, minus the part where you actually let yourself have it. At some point, the protection and the thing being protected are in such tension that the protection wins more often than it should.
Somewhere along the way, joy started coming with a catch
It’s not that the good feelings stopped arriving. It’s that they started arriving with a shadow. Something good happens and the first thing you feel, or the second thing, is something that undercuts it—a flicker of dread, a reflex toward the worst case, a quick scan of what could go wrong with this. The joy is real. It’s just not clean. It comes with a footnote.
Ruth Spence and colleagues, whose research on how early attachment patterns affect responses to positive events has been published in PsyCh Journal, found that people with insecure attachment styles—typically formed in early environments where availability and stability were inconsistent—didn’t benefit from positive life events the way securely attached people did. The good things were happening, but the well-being boost that securely attached people reliably got from them wasn’t showing up in the same way. The positive events landed differently, or didn’t quite land.
That’s the catch. It’s not that joy is impossible—it’s that the system you developed to protect yourself filters it. Some joy gets through, and some doesn’t, and you often can’t tell from the inside which kind of good feeling you’re having: the real one, or the muted version with the ceiling on it.
More Bolde Stories
Relaxing when things are good is harder than it sounds
The work most people associate with emotional difficulty is getting through the bad periods—tolerating hard things, staying functional under stress, finding your way through. That work is real. But for people who learned early that good things don’t last, there’s another kind of work that’s less talked about and in some ways harder: staying when things are good. Actually letting the good period be good. Not scanning for the threat, not pre-managing the loss, not installing a small amount of distance as insurance.
This is the work of learning to update the model. Of sitting in something genuinely good and choosing, against everything the nervous system is pulling for, to believe it. Not throwing out the vigilance forever—but noticing, in this specific moment, that the prediction isn’t being confirmed. That the thing is still there. That the floor didn’t give way.
That noticing, repeated enough times, is what gradually changes the model. It’s slow, and it’s not always convincing, and sometimes the old prediction wins anyway. But the update happens in moments like that—in the choice to stay, just a little longer, in something that might actually be okay. It doesn’t require certainty. It just requires staying long enough to find out.
