SSF Weekly Reflection #017: By Dr Shungu Hilda M’gadzah | 18October 2026
Courage, Certainty and the Energy of Our Psychological States
What is it that makes someone act when everything around them suggests they might be better off doing nothing? What moves us from awareness to action?
What happens in that moment when we find ourselves doing something we might previously have thought impossible?
And why do we sometimes remain silent, even when we recognise that something is wrong?
I have been thinking about these questions following two extraordinary stories of survival and courage that caught my attention recently.
But they have also taken me back to something I wrote several years ago about the Six Stages Framework (SSF), and to conversations I have had with psychologists and other professionals about racism, uncertainty and the difficulties people experience when deciding whether to speak up.
The more I have reflected, the more I have become interested in what happens before someone takes action.
The thoughts, feelings, emotional energy, hesitation, internal dialogue and growing determination that may be invisible to everyone around them.
Perhaps the moment someone speaks or acts is not necessarily the moment change begins.
Something may already have been moving within them long before anyone else notices.
And perhaps the action itself becomes part of the process through which further change occurs.
Two Extraordinary Stories: The Courage to Survive and the Courage to Act
In September, I listened to the account of Sanjay Sah, a man who survived being trapped for nine days in a tunnel following catastrophic flooding associated with a Himalayan glacier collapse in Nepal.
In a Reuters interview published on 11 September 2026, he described the darkness, the dangers surrounding him and his determination to remain strong.
One statement particularly stayed with me.
He explained that he had not cried because he saw little point in doing so under those circumstances.
He spoke about maintaining motivation, remaining positive and refusing to give up.
I found myself wondering what was happening psychologically during those nine days.
What enabled him to continue?
What thoughts was he holding on to?
What was he telling himself when he had no way of knowing whether he would survive?
And what role did hope, faith, determination and the instinct for survival play in sustaining his actions?
His survival depended on much more than his psychological response. The physical conditions, access to water and efforts of rescuers were critically important. Nor should we interpret his account as suggesting that crying represents weakness or that determination guarantees survival.
Nevertheless, his description of how he approached the experience made me think about the extraordinary resources people sometimes mobilise when faced with danger.
Then there was another story.
On 30 September 2026, Captain Smit Machchhar was seriously injured when his co-pilot attacked him aboard a Flydubai flight travelling from Dubai towards Tel Aviv.
Despite his injuries, the captain managed to open the cockpit door, enabling passengers and other crew members to intervene. The aircraft was subsequently brought safely to the ground.
What struck me most was his explanation afterwards.
He acknowledged that he was fighting to save his own life, but also recognised that he could not allow the passengers to die.
His account was reported in an article published on 2 October 2026 following his conversation with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
That stayed with me.
He was not describing a choice between protecting himself and protecting others. Both mattered.
Something within him enabled him to act despite extraordinary danger, pain and uncertainty.
And his action made it possible for others to act.
I began wondering what happens psychologically when someone becomes so strongly motivated by a particular goal that they mobilise capacities they might not ordinarily recognise in themselves.
In one story, we see the determination to endure.
In the other, we see the determination to intervene.
These are very different experiences. They cannot be explained by one psychological mechanism, and we should not romanticise trauma, danger or survival.
Nevertheless, both raise a question that has become increasingly interesting to me:
What moves us from experiencing something internally to doing something about it?
The Courage Required in Everyday Life
Most of us will never encounter situations as extreme as these.
But there are other moments when we are faced with difficult decisions.
We witness someone being treated unfairly.
We hear a racist remark.
We observe a colleague being humiliated.
We become concerned about how a child is being treated.
We notice that someone is being excluded from opportunities available to others.
Something troubles us.
Yet we hesitate.
Perhaps we are unsure whether we have interpreted the situation correctly.
Perhaps we fear confrontation.
Perhaps we wonder whether speaking up will make things worse.
Or perhaps we look around and assume that somebody else will deal with it.
I am particularly interested in what happens when uncertainty becomes a reason for remaining silent.
As an Educational Psychologist, I understand the importance of evidence, careful formulation and considering alternative explanations.
We should not make accusations without adequate grounds.
We should recognise that people’s intentions and the circumstances surrounding an incident may be more complex than they initially appear.
But I also wonder whether, sometimes, our desire to avoid getting something wrong prevents us from asking the very questions that might help us understand what is happening.
We wait for certainty before speaking.
And while we wait, the opportunity to intervene may pass.
Must We Be Certain Before We Act?
During professional discussions about anti-discriminatory practice, I have often heard psychologists express concern about not knowing what to say.
They want the right words.
They want to be confident that they have interpreted the situation correctly.
They do not want to offend someone, make an accusation they cannot substantiate or inadvertently cause further harm.
These are understandable concerns.
But what happens when the need for the perfect response becomes a barrier to responding at all?
Consider a fictional example.
A professional attends a meeting in which a colleague makes a comment about a family that appears to draw upon a racial stereotype.
The professional feels uncomfortable.
Something about the remark seems inappropriate.
But their internal conversation begins immediately.
Was that actually racist?
Perhaps I misunderstood.
What if I say something and everyone disagrees?
What if I embarrass myself?
Maybe someone else will challenge it.
Perhaps it is not serious enough to raise.
The meeting continues.
Nothing is said.
Yet the professional remains troubled by what happened.
Now imagine a slightly different response.
The professional is still uncertain, still uncomfortable and still concerned about getting things wrong.
But this time they ask:
“I’m not sure I understood that comment. Could you explain what you meant?”
That question does not establish that racism occurred.
It does not require the professional to know another person’s intentions.
But it creates an opportunity for clarification.
And perhaps what happens next will provide the information needed to understand the situation more fully.
This is the distinction I think we need to recognise.
We do not need absolute certainty to begin asking questions. We need appropriate evidence before reaching definitive conclusions.
Sometimes inquiry is the very action that moves us towards greater certainty.
And sometimes we gain understanding because we acted, rather than acting because we already understood everything.
The State of Waiting for Certainty
Within my Coming Out of Caves work, I have explored how people become attached to familiar beliefs, assumptions and ways of understanding the world.
Our caves can provide security, but they can also reinforce resistance to alternative perspectives.
We may become so convinced that our interpretation is correct that we stop questioning it.
However, I have been thinking about another possibility.
What happens when the problem is not that we are too certain, but that we feel we can never be certain enough?
The person who is absolutely convinced they are right may resist further inquiry.
The person who believes they must know everything before acting may also resist movement.
One says:
I already know, so I don’t need to question.
The other says:
I don’t know enough, so I cannot question.
Both positions may inhibit curiosity and constructive change.
This has led me to consider what I am provisionally calling the State of Waiting for Certainty.
It is not a new formal SSF Stage. It is a possible momentary psychological response in which uncertainty, fear of error, anticipated consequences or the need for reassurance prevents movement towards a constructive next step.
Sometimes waiting is entirely appropriate.
There may be insufficient information, genuine danger or a need for specialist advice.
But sometimes waiting becomes an increasingly comfortable position.
We persuade ourselves that we are being thoughtful and careful, when we may also be avoiding the discomfort or responsibility associated with acting.
The distinction is not always easy to recognise.
Perhaps an important question is:
Am I waiting because further information is necessary for a responsible response, or am I waiting because I am afraid of what responding might require of me?
What Happens When We Feel Moved to Act?
Recently, during a professional discussion about the SSF, we explored how the same individual can respond very differently depending on their emotional State, the social environment and their sense of safety.
One person may normally hesitate when confronted with something troubling, yet suddenly find themselves motivated to challenge a particular injustice.
Another may feel deeply concerned but remain silent because of the people surrounding them or the possible consequences of speaking.
These discussions have returned me to a question that I increasingly believe deserves more attention within the SSF.
What activates, intensifies, sustains or inhibits the psychological State we occupy?
And what determines the direction in which that State moves us?
We frequently use the expression being moved.
We say that we were moved by someone’s suffering.
Moved to tears.
Moved to intervene.
Moved to speak.
Moved to change.
I find that language increasingly interesting.
It implies that something has happened within us that alters our psychological orientation.
We may experience anger, compassion, fear, love, responsibility or a powerful sense of injustice.
Something becomes important enough to change what we feel prepared to do.
But the movement is not always visible.
And this brings me back to my earlier work on Emotional Intelligence.
Emotion as Energy in Motion
During my doctoral work, I explored the relationship between emotions and what is sometimes described metaphorically as energy in motion.
I have been revisiting that idea as I consider the distinction between SSF Stages and States.
In my earlier reflection, What State Are You Occupying?, I explored how our psychological States can change in response to emotions, experiences and the environments we inhabit.
I am now beginning to wonder whether we also need to examine the energy associated with those States.
An emotion may be experienced with considerable intensity, but that intensity does not necessarily result in visible action.
Someone who appears calm may be experiencing significant internal activity.
Someone who remains silent may be weighing difficult decisions, rehearsing possible responses, experiencing fear or building the courage to speak.
Equally, someone who appears highly energised may be moving towards an aggressive or harmful response.
We should be careful here. Emotional energy is a metaphor, not a direct measurement of physical kinetic energy. Emotion involves complex interactions between physiological arousal, cognition, motivation, behaviour and context.
Nevertheless, the metaphor provides a useful way of asking what is happening psychologically.
The energy of a State cannot be measured by the volume of someone’s communication or by how visibly emotional they appear.
Silence is not necessarily inactivity.
Calmness is not necessarily an absence of determination.
And heightened emotion does not necessarily mean someone is more capable of acting.
What I am beginning to consider is whether we need to examine not only the State a person occupies, but also the motivational energy associated with that State.
What is activating it?
What is inhibiting it?
What direction is it taking?
And how might the person’s environment influence what happens next?
From Inertia to Latent Readiness
In physics, inertia refers to the tendency of an object to maintain its existing state of rest or motion unless acted upon by a net external force.
Psychological inertia is not the same phenomenon, but the analogy is useful.
People can remain within familiar patterns of thinking and behaving, even when they recognise that change may be necessary.
Sometimes those patterns persist because they are comfortable.
Sometimes because change feels threatening.
And sometimes because people cannot yet identify how to move forward.
But I have become particularly interested in the possibility that movement may begin internally before it becomes visible.
We might distinguish three experiences.
Contained energy
A person recognises something troubling but remains internally conflicted.
They may feel anxious, angry, uncertain or overwhelmed.
They may tell themselves that someone else will act, that the situation is not sufficiently important, or that they should wait.
There may be substantial emotional activation, but little outward movement.
Latent readiness
Something begins to change.
The person remains uncertain, but they increasingly recognise the importance of responding.
Their internal dialogue may shift.
I am not completely sure what to say.
But I know something needs to be addressed.
Perhaps I could ask a question.
Perhaps there is someone I could approach.
The person may still appear silent and inactive to an observer.
Yet psychologically, they may be preparing to act.
Directed action
The person identifies a constructive next step.
They speak, ask, challenge, seek support, offer assistance or initiate a process that may lead to change.
These are provisional distinctions, not a validated sequence of psychological States. Movement may be rapid, gradual, interrupted or reversed.
Someone may act immediately without conscious preparation. Someone else may experience considerable readiness but be prevented from acting by circumstances beyond their control.
The important point is that outward behaviour does not necessarily reveal the movement already taking place within us.
Ready, Steady, Go! — Activating Inclusion
These reflections have led me to another possible formulation within the SSF.
I have been thinking about the familiar phrase:
Ready. Steady. Go!
What if we used it to explore the movement from awareness towards inclusive action?
Ready might represent the moment when something becomes psychologically significant.
We recognise an injustice, experience concern, or begin to understand that someone may need support.
Steady might represent the process of orienting ourselves towards a possible response.
We consider the circumstances, weigh the risks, recognise our available choices and begin preparing to act.
This preparation need not be outwardly visible.
In an emergency, it may happen almost instantaneously. In other situations, it may develop over hours, days or even years.
Go! represents movement into action.
Perhaps it is a question.
Perhaps it is a conversation.
Perhaps it is a formal challenge, an offer of support or a decision to change an established practice.
The action need not be dramatic to be meaningful.
And the process need not occur in three clearly separated steps.
What interests me is the possible emergence of what I am provisionally calling a State of Activated Inclusion.
A momentary psychological orientation in which awareness, concern, motivation and available agency become sufficiently aligned to support an inclusive response.
A person may still feel frightened.
They may still be uncertain.
They may not have the perfect words.
But they recognise that something matters and that there is a constructive step they can take.
I want to be clear that this is an emerging conceptual proposal within the SSF, not a separately established or validated psychological construct.
And it raises an important further question.
What happens to our psychological State once we begin to act?
Sometimes the Change Is in the Movement
We often assume that understanding must come first and behaviour will follow.
We learn more.
We become confident.
We develop greater awareness.
Then we act.
But human development does not always occur in that order.
Sometimes taking an initial step changes what we think and feel.
A psychologist who has always been anxious about challenging discriminatory comments asks a tentative question.
The conversation is difficult, but manageable.
They discover that they can remain respectful while raising concerns.
They reflect upon the exchange.
The next time a similar situation occurs, they may feel more capable of responding.
Perhaps their words come a little more easily.
Perhaps they recognise the need to seek further information rather than remain silent.
And perhaps, gradually, a response that once required considerable courage becomes part of their normal professional practice.
Sometimes movement is not simply the consequence of change. Movement becomes part of the process that creates change.
This possibility is supported by emerging research on anti-racist bystander intervention.
For example, Woo and Roth’s 2025 study of responses to anti-Asian discrimination examined why people intervene in some circumstances but not others. Their findings suggested that experiences of intervening could increase participants’ confidence and willingness to intervene again.
The study was qualitative and involved a relatively small group of participants, so its findings should not be treated as demonstrating a universal process.
Nevertheless, it raises an important possibility.
Taking action may help develop the confidence and motivation needed for future action.
This connects with what I have long thought of as the gears of change.
When I chose the interlocking gears for the Inclusion Psychologists Ltd logo, I was interested in the movement required to bring about change.
Sometimes the gears move slowly.
Sometimes they become stuck.
Sometimes considerable effort is required to set them in motion.
But once one gear begins moving, it may influence the movement of another.
I have been thinking about whether something similar happens when individuals take small steps towards inclusion.
One question leads to a conversation.
A conversation challenges an assumption.
A challenged assumption creates an opportunity for learning.
Learning influences future behaviour.
And repeated behaviour may begin to shape more enduring patterns of understanding and action.
These processes are not inevitable, and they do not always move in one direction.
A difficult experience may discourage future intervention. A hostile response may increase fear. An unsupportive organisation may make speaking up increasingly costly.
But constructive experiences can also strengthen confidence and motivation.
The first gear change may make the next one possible.
The Environments That Activate or Inhibit Us
Of course, these processes do not occur in isolation.
During a recent professional discussion, several people reflected on how conversations, news, social media and peer groups can affect the psychological States we occupy.
Something we read or hear may leave us angry, frightened, inspired or motivated.
We may become increasingly attached to a particular interpretation.
Or we may recognise that our emotional response needs further examination.
This connects with my earlier reflection, Algorithmic Acceleration: Who Is Setting the Speed of Your Thinking?, in which I explored how digital environments can influence the pace and direction of our thinking.
The people around us also matter.
Imagine someone who hears a racist comment among colleagues.
If another person immediately expresses concern, they may feel more confident about adding their voice.
If everyone laughs, they may begin doubting whether they should challenge it.
If speaking up has previously resulted in humiliation or retaliation, the risks may feel considerably greater.
The underlying concern may be similar, but the person’s response may differ substantially.
This is why I think we need to understand the interaction between Stage, State, Environment and Agency.
Our Stage concerns broader developmental patterns.
Our State concerns what is psychologically active in a particular moment.
Our environment influences how we interpret, experience and respond to that moment.
And agency concerns what we are able to choose or attempt within the circumstances we face.
The energy associated with a State may be intensified, inhibited or redirected by those surrounding conditions.
This also explains why remaining silent does not necessarily indicate indifference or a negative SSF Stage.
A person with little power may recognise discrimination but reasonably conclude that direct confrontation would be unsafe.
Their constructive action may take another form.
They might document concerns, seek advice, support someone privately or raise the matter at a later opportunity.
We should not demand that people experiencing discrimination continually expose themselves to further risk in order to demonstrate courage.
Nor should we overlook the greater responsibility held by those with the power to intervene safely and influence institutional practices.
These considerations are also consistent with the COM-B model of behaviour change developed by Michie and colleagues, which examines the interaction between capability, opportunity and motivation in shaping behaviour.
The SSF offers a complementary developmental perspective, inviting us to examine not only whether action occurs, but also what that action may tell us about awareness, psychological States, environmental influences and longer-term direction of travel.
When Psychological States Move Us Towards Exclusion
There is another side to this discussion.
Emotional activation does not always propel us towards inclusion.
Anger, fear, resentment and perceived threat can also contribute to harmful or exclusionary responses.
Someone may encounter an emotionally charged message online and become increasingly hostile towards a particular group.
They may repeatedly discuss these ideas with people who share and reinforce their assumptions.
Over time, particular ways of thinking and responding may become increasingly familiar.
This raises an important question about the negative SSF continuum.
What happens when hostile States are repeatedly activated and reinforced?
Can those experiences contribute to increasingly entrenched beliefs and patterns of behaviour?
I think they can, although the relationship is complex and cannot be explained simply by the intensity of emotion.
This is where the distinction between Stages and States is particularly important.
A highly activated State does not, by itself, establish someone’s underlying Stage.
But repeated experiences, actions and reinforcement may contribute to longer-term developmental patterns.
The same broad processes may also operate in the positive direction.
Repeated experiences of empathy, reflection, constructive challenge and inclusive action may help strengthen increasingly established patterns of inclusive behaviour.
Energy has no inherent moral direction. The beliefs, interpretations, motivations, environments and actions associated with it matter.
And this leads us to another question.
When does movement become momentum?
Accelerated Awareness and the Gears of Change
In my 2022 book, Understanding and Dealing with Everyday Racism: The Six Stages Framework, I referred to Prince Harry’s reflections during his interview with Oprah Winfrey in March 2021.
Harry spoke about doing his own learning and acknowledged that his upbringing had influenced what he recognised about racism and unconscious bias.
But another part of that interview has stayed with me.
Reflecting on how his awareness changed after experiencing the racism directed towards Meghan, he remarked on how quickly someone can suddenly become aware of what they had previously failed to recognise.
You can read the relevant exchange in the published transcript of the Oprah interview.
I find that particularly interesting.
Sometimes experiences that once seemed distant become personally significant.
A relationship, conversation or event may challenge an individual’s understanding so profoundly that their awareness changes much more rapidly than before.
I think of this as a possible example of accelerated psychological movement.
The gears of awareness begin turning more quickly.
But becoming aware is not necessarily the same as changing behaviour.
Someone may experience a powerful awakening and then return to familiar environments that reinforce their previous assumptions.
Another person may build upon that awakening through learning, reflection, relationships and action.
This is why I think we need to distinguish rapid activation of a State from sustained developmental movement along the SSF continuum.
The first may occur within moments.
The second may require repeated experiences, opportunities for reflection and a willingness to change.
And perhaps it is through incremental gear changes that inclusive responses gradually become part of who we are.
From Extraordinary Courage to Ordinary Inclusion
I want to return to the stories that prompted this reflection.
We may be moved by the courage of a survivor or someone who intervenes during a terrifying emergency.
Their actions can remind us of the remarkable things human beings sometimes do under extraordinary circumstances.
But we should not need an extraordinary emergency before inclusion becomes important enough for us to act.
In my 2022 book, I called upon individuals to become ripples of change.
I argued that this required awareness, sensitivity, curiosity, empathy, compassion and bravery.
I also emphasised our responsibility to challenge prejudice, discrimination and racism in the different environments we inhabit.
Four years later, I find myself exploring the psychological processes that may help us fulfil that responsibility.
What enables someone to become that first ripple?
What moves them from awareness into action?
What happens when fear or uncertainty prevents movement?
And how do we develop the capacity to respond constructively without requiring an extraordinary moment of courage every time?
Perhaps this is one of the most important questions for the positive SSF continuum.
When does inclusive action become normalised as part of our everyday responses?
Not because we have stopped thinking critically.
Not because we automatically interpret every uncomfortable encounter as discriminatory.
And not because we believe we must challenge every situation in exactly the same way.
But because curiosity, fairness, reflection, responsibility and the willingness to act have become increasingly familiar elements of our behaviour.
We notice something that concerns us.
We consider what it might mean.
We recognise our responsibilities and the risks involved.
And where appropriate, we take a constructive step.
Sometimes that step will be small.
Sometimes it will be difficult.
Sometimes we will get something wrong and need to acknowledge it, repair the harm and learn.
But perhaps we become more capable of acting inclusively through the experiences of trying.
The State We Enter — and the Person We Are Becoming
The more I reflect on States, the more I think we need to examine not simply where we are psychologically at any given moment, but also the direction in which we are moving.
What has activated the State I am experiencing?
What is sustaining it?
What is inhibiting me?
What is the influence of the people and environments surrounding me?
And what opportunities do I have to move towards a more constructive response?
Sometimes we may experience considerable internal energy without outward movement.
Sometimes we may feel an emerging readiness to act.
And sometimes, perhaps unexpectedly, we find ourselves taking a step that changes what becomes possible next.
These processes can operate in different directions.
They can contribute to compassion or hostility, curiosity or entrenchment, inclusion or exclusion.
The SSF invites us to recognise those possibilities and consider our longer-term direction of travel.
But it also invites us to recognise that our current position need not determine every future response.
We can question familiar assumptions.
We can seek alternative perspectives.
We can learn to recognise when our uncertainty is appropriate and when it has become a barrier.
And we can begin taking steps towards inclusion even when we do not yet have all the answers.
Perhaps one of the most important things I have been reminded of this week is this:
We do not always have to wait until we feel different before we act differently. Sometimes acting differently is part of what enables us to change.
This Week’s Reflective Questions
Think about a time when you recognised that something was wrong but hesitated to respond.
What was happening within you?
Were you waiting for certainty, reassurance, permission or the perfect words?
What role did your environment and the people around you play?
And what might have helped you take one constructive step?
Now think about a time when you found yourself moved to act, perhaps unexpectedly.
What changed within you? What State did you enter? And how did that action influence what you thought, felt or did afterwards?
Perhaps the most important question is:
What would it take for inclusive action to become an ordinary part of who we are, rather than something we only find the courage to do in extraordinary moments?
Because ripples of change begin with movement.
And sometimes the first movement is one that nobody else can see.
Dr Shungu Hilda M’gadzah
Chartered Educational Psychologist | Founder, Six Stages Framework
This reflection explores developing ideas about psychological States, emotional activation, latent readiness and inclusive action within the Six Stages Framework. These are conceptual propositions informed by psychological research, professional practice and reflective inquiry, rather than separately validated psychological constructs.
Further Reading and Research
Foundational SSF publications
- M’gadzah, S. H. (2022). Understanding and Dealing with Everyday Racism: The Six Stages Framework.
- What State Are You Occupying? — Stages, States and Emotions
- Algorithmic Acceleration: Who Is Setting the Speed of Your Thinking?
- Are We Aware of the [Human] Environments We Create? — WR #016
Psychological research
- Woo, B., & Roth, B. (2025). Step by step: Anti-Asian discrimination and bystander intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 75, 86–101.
- Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, 42.
- Fischer, P., et al. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537.
News accounts and interviews
- Reuters (11 September 2026). Trapped nine days in a dark tunnel, Nepali man tells his survival story.
- Channels Television / AFP (2 October 2026). Flydubai pilot describes his actions during the cockpit attack.
- Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s interview with Oprah Winfrey (March 2021) — published transcript.
