Thinking Well & Why · Friday · 57 min

Agenticity — Why You Assume Someone's Behind Everything

Lee lost a parking spot and concluded it was a coordinated conspiracy. Mario, Creek, and Lee examine agenticity—the habit of assigning intentional agency to random events—and why it kills your ability to actually solve problems. Using Michael Shermer, Karl Popper, and the Enneagram as a case study in self-deception, they show how maturity means knowing when something is just stuff that happens. Mario, Creek, and Lee start with Lee's parking spot—a perfect case study in how fast we generate agents and narratives. They examine agenticity, the cognitive pattern of assigning conscious intentional agency to events that may be entirely random, and connect it to locus of control: the difference between believing you control everything or nothing. Using Michael Shermer's work and Karl Popper's philosophy, they show why seeking simple certain answers feels good but costs curiosity. Yesterday's best explanation becomes today's less useful one, and that's not failure—that's how knowledge works. The crucial turn: applying agenticity to Enneagram work. When someone says "Why am I a Four?" or "My mother loved me too much, so now I'm a Two," they're using the Enneagram to stop thinking rather than start it. They attribute behavior to type instead of taking responsibility for change. The hosts connect this to Stockdale's paradox—surviving not through hope in rescue but by accepting circumstances and continuing to act skillfully. Closing challenge: notice when you say "the reason this happened was" and test whether that reason actually holds up. Chapters 00:00 The Universe Conspired Against Lee's Parking Spot 01:19 Agenticity: Why We See Intention Everywhere 02:54 Locus of Control — Internal Agents and External Locusts 07:55 Cheap Certainty and the Cost of Premature Answers 22:42 Karl Popper's Provisional Knowledge — Yesterday's Good Explanation 38:45 How Agenticity Breaks Enneagram Work Resources mentioned in this episode The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths by Michael Shermer The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus Living Beautifully: With Uncertainty and Change by Pema Chödrön Comfortable with Uncertainty: 108 Teachings on Cultivating Fearlessness and Compassion by Pema Chödrön Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...And Others Don't by Jim Collins The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper Connect with us: Awareness to Action Mario Sikora: IG: @mariosikora TikTok: @mariosikora Web: mariosikora.com Pod: Enneagram in a Movie Pod: The Awareness to Action Enneagram Lee Fields: Web: enneagrammatic.com IG: @enneagrammatic Seth "Creek" Creekmore: IG: @_creekmore Pod: Fathoms | An Enneagram Podcast Pod: Delusional Optimism Pod: The Awareness to Action Enneagram Mentioned in this episode: Awareness to Action Podcast Network Podcast Network

0:00-57:05

Play in

transcript

No transcript — this publisher did not publish one.

show notes

Mario, Creek, and Lee start with Lee's parking spot—a perfect case study in how fast we generate agents and narratives. They examine agenticity, the cognitive pattern of assigning conscious intentional agency to events that may be entirely random, and connect it to locus of control: the difference between believing you control everything or nothing. Using Michael Shermer's work and Karl Popper's philosophy, they show why seeking simple certain answers feels good but costs curiosity. Yesterday's best explanation becomes today's less useful one, and that's not failure—that's how knowledge works. The crucial turn: applying agenticity to Enneagram work. When someone says "Why am I a Four?" or "My mother loved me too much, so now I'm a Two," they're using the Enneagram to stop thinking rather than start it. They attribute behavior to type instead of taking responsibility for change. The hosts connect this to Stockdale's paradox—surviving not through hope in rescue but by accepting circumstances and continuing to act skillfully. Closing challenge: notice when you say "the reason this happened was" and test whether that reason actually holds up.