"I can't speak in public," "I can't set boundaries," "I can't delegate": these get said as if they described a fact of the world, with the same certainty as "I can't breathe underwater without equipment." The problem is that almost never are they that. They're judgments — interpretations so automatic they stopped feeling like interpretations at all — and treating them as facts ends the conversation before it starts. There's nothing left to say in front of a fact. In front of a judgment, though, there's always a question still open.
"I can't" is a judgment, not a real limit
A judgment is the interpretation an observer makes about a situation, not a property of the situation itself. The problem isn't having judgments — it's impossible not to — it's mistaking them for facts. When someone says "I can't delegate," they're almost never describing an impossibility: they're describing a judgment they formed a while back, probably from one specific experience, that has since been operating as a fixed truth about who they are. The tell of a judgment disguised as a fact is that it doesn't admit questions: "I can't" leaves no room for "what would I need in order to?"
Change of observer: same circumstance, different actions available
Ontological coaching doesn't work on the circumstance — it often can't be changed — but on the observer interpreting it. When the way of observing something changes, the actions that person sees available in front of it change too. Someone who observes harsh feedback as "an attack" has defensiveness or silence available. That same person, observing the same feedback as "information someone took the trouble to give me," has asking questions, requesting an example, negotiating a change available. The circumstance didn't change: the feedback was identical. What changed was the observer, and with it, the entire territory of possible actions.
There's no correct way to see reality. There are observers who open up actions and observers who close them off.
From "I can't" to "I don't see how": the first move
The difference between "I can't" and "I don't see how" looks cosmetic, but it changes everything. "I can't" is a closed judgment: it leaves no way out, only resignation. "I don't see how" acknowledges the same difficulty but leaves it open with a pending question — what would I need to see, know, or learn for a path to open up? That single question is already an action, and that action isn't available to someone stuck on "I can't." A change of observer almost never starts with an answer: it starts with a question that wasn't being asked before.
Change of observer: in the Ontology of Language, the central work of a coaching process. It doesn't mean changing the circumstance but the way of observing it, so that actions open up that were previously invisible to that person. It isn't optimism or self-help: it's a concrete review of the judgments that hold up what someone believes they can or can't do.
What actually gets trained
Changing your observer isn't "thinking positive" or forcing yourself to feel confidence you don't have. It's specific work on the judgments holding up an "I can't": identify the judgment, check what concrete fact it's based on, look for evidence that contradicts it, and — the step most people skip — design a small, verifiable action that tests whether the new judgment also holds up in practice. Without that last part, changing your observer stays at the level of reflection and never gets around to changing what the person actually does.
Is there something you've been telling yourself you "can't" do, without ever checking where that judgment came from?
Learn about the coaching process Message on WhatsAppFrequently asked questions
"I can't" is a closed judgment that leaves no question pending: it acts as though it were describing a fact of the world, and the conversation ends there. "I don't see how" acknowledges the same difficulty but leaves it open to a question — what would I need to see, know, or learn — which is already an action in itself.
No. Positive thinking tries to swap one judgment for another without examining what either one is based on. A change of observer means identifying the automatic judgment, checking what it's actually founded on, and — most importantly — designing a concrete action that tests whether the new judgment also holds up in practice.
A clear sign is when a phrase like "I can't," "this always happens to me," or "that's just who I am" shows up without you being able to name the concrete fact it's based on. If the judgment feels like a description of the world rather than your own interpretation, you're probably acting from an automatic judgment you never examined.
Comments