“On the fox, and on the professional habit of deciding something is not worth having before you have properly tried to reach it.”
– Somatic Clarity
You know the fable. The fox sees grapes hanging high on a vine. He tries to reach them, fails, and walks away declaring that they were probably sour anyway. It is one of the oldest stories about self-deception in the western tradition — and one of the most recognisable, because most of us have done some version of it ourselves.
The fox is not lying, exactly. He genuinely convinces himself. That is what makes it interesting. By the time he has finished walking away, he may well believe what he is saying. The mind is very good at constructing reasons after the fact — reasons that feel like discernment, that sound like considered judgement, but are actually something else entirely.
The professional version
I see this pattern often in professional life, and particularly around technology. A new platform arrives. A new tool, a new approach, a new way of working. And before anyone has genuinely engaged with it — before they have spent enough time to form a real opinion — a verdict appears. It is overhyped. It is not for people like me. It will pass. The people who use it do not really understand what they are doing.
Sometimes that verdict is correct. Not every new thing deserves your attention, and there is genuine wisdom in being selective. But there is a difference between selectivity and avoidance. One comes from a clear place. The other comes from somewhere closer to anxiety — the anxiety of not knowing yet, of feeling behind, of the effort required to learn something unfamiliar.
Cynicism about new things is often anxiety in disguise. And anxiety, when it speaks, tends to sound very reasonable.
– Somatic Clarity
What it actually costs
The cost of the fox’s logic is not just the grapes. It is the gradual narrowing of what he considers reachable. Each time the same move is made — dismiss, walk away, construct a reason — the circle of what feels possible gets a little smaller. Not dramatically. Quietly. Over time.
I have watched people opt out of entire domains of professional development this way. Not through a considered decision that this area was not for them, but through a series of small dismissals, each one feeling entirely reasonable at the time. And then one day they look up and realise the world has moved in a direction they chose not to follow — not because they examined it and decided against it, but because engaging with it would have required admitting they did not yet know something.
That admission is the thing the fox cannot make. That he tried and failed. That the grapes were simply higher than he could reach, for now.
Engaging with intent
I am not suggesting you adopt every new thing that arrives. That is the opposite error — the reckless adoption that comes from a different anxiety, the fear of being left behind. Neither anxious dismissal nor anxious adoption is what I mean by discernment.
What I mean is something quieter. Engaging with something new long enough to form an actual view. Not a defence of it, not a full commitment — just enough contact to know what you are actually talking about when you have an opinion. Enough to say: I tried this. Here is what I found. Here is why it is or is not for me.
That is a very different statement from: I have decided, without trying, that this is not worth trying.
The grapes were probably fine. That is not a certainty — some grapes genuinely are sour. But the fox did not know. He made a decision from a place of failed effort and retreating pride, and then convinced himself it was wisdom.
The difference between that and actual discernment is not always obvious from the outside. But it tends to be felt, somewhere, on the inside. A slight defensiveness when the topic comes up. A quickness to close the conversation. A relief that is a little too large for what was apparently a simple choice.
Those are worth noticing. Not as self-criticism — but as information.
Read the series>>>
