Get real – a look into our own little worlds Published Feb. 21, 2012 By Airman 1st Class Samuel Taylor 436th Airlift Wing Public Affairs DOVER AIR FORCE BASE, Del. -- Many people wander through any given day in their own little world. Though they interact with the same physical world we all share, it is the world between their ears which is kept secret from everyone else. Though I firmly believe in the universal right to free thought, I want to stress the importance of managing the forces that turn thought into action through a concept I call "the two voices." "Two voices?" you might say. "Perhaps a visit to psychiatrist may do you some good, Airman Taylor." No, not like that, but thank you for the concern. The two voices I am referring to are our "reactionary voice" and "active voice." In short, the reactionary voice is a combination of emotions and subjectivity, whereas the active voice comprises practical logic, objectivity and realism. These voices form a system of checks and balances which results in external action, e.g. doing or saying something, or internal action, such as forming an opinion, emotion or idea. Here is where problems can arise in social settings; let's look at an example of an over-active reactive voice that was not put in check by the active voice. Staff Sgt. Smith has always felt tension towards Airman Snuffy. The two never established a friendly professional relationship, and over the year, a combination of negative events of relatively minor significance put Smith at odds with Snuffy. One morning, Smith arrived 15 minutes late at the office with a particularly bad attitude, and accidentally dropped his papers as he walked into his office. Outside his office, Smith heard Snuffy, who was talking with a coworker, chuckle. Enraged, Smith ordered the bewildered Snuffy into his office to grill him on how unprofessional it was to laugh at an NCO and sent him, demoralized, back to his desk. Little did Smith know, Snuffy was simply chuckling at a joke made by his friend, and was unaware of Smith's situation. To a bystander, it might appear that Smith had simply made a mistake; however, let's consider his action as the result of an assembly-line style mental process, and observe how his error in a logical thought process becomes apparent. Smith's reactionary voice probably processed the situation like this: embarrassing situation, plus Snuffy laughing, equals Snuffy laughing at me to further humiliate me because he does not like me. Talk about the whole being more than the sum of its parts. How did Smith come up with such a farfetched conclusion? Smith went into this mental process with a loaded preconception of Snuffy, which led to him reacting based on internal bias versus external, objective fact - the classic case of reactionary voice dominating active voice. Because of the collection of negative traits and emotions Smith attached to Snuffy over the years, almost every mental process involving Snuffy is tainted and biased by a narrative that exists only in Smith's own mind. These internal narratives we weave inside our heads can result in us melding the facts to fit our fancy, rather than adjust our perceptions of others based on objective truth. When one perceives real-world stimuli which they internally narrate, then reacts to the narrative they independently crafted in their mind, are they not operating in a fantasy world from which real-world actions materialize? How is one able to relate to or understand them at that point, when their scope is limited to the result and not the process that created it? Keeping this in mind, ask yourself, "have I ever presumed something - perhaps a glance or comment - to mean more than it probably did, based on personal bias?" "Did I then react to that, internally or externally, based on the act - or my judgment of that act?" Furthermore, think of a time when you knew - or thought you knew - how you were going to handle a conversation with someone before it even began, based on what you presumed they would say and how they would react. Did this internal storyline prevent you from having a real dialogue, instead forcing you into a prejudiced monologue? Is that fair to the other person? Next time, give that chuckling Airmen the benefit of the doubt until you confirm what was so funny. Next time, ask yourself, "Am I narrating and personalizing an issue?" and if so, stop. Develop the ability to active monitor internal dialogue by developing your active voice.