What It Actually Means to Have Power Over Your Own Life

A few years ago someone asked me what I was building and why. I gave an answer that sounded right. The words were polished, the reasoning tracked, and I felt nothing while saying them. Nothing in that answer was actually mine. I had absorbed it from the ambient noise of what founders are supposed to want, what success is supposed to look like from the outside. It came out fluent and hollow.

That moment wasn’t a crisis. But it raised a question I’ve been sitting with since: what does it actually mean to have genuine power over your own life? Not in the motivational-poster sense. Practically. What’s the difference between someone who is genuinely steering and someone who is just responding quickly?

Is autonomy just about having choices?

No. Autonomy is not the same as having a long menu of options. The experience of genuine agency comes from acting in ways that feel like they originate from you, not from accumulating more choices to scroll through.

The default assumption is that agency equals options. The more choices available, the more free you are. This is the logic behind maximizing optionality: stay flexible, don’t commit, keep every door open. It sounds strategic. It mostly produces paralysis and a vague feeling of being permanently in a waiting room.

Psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan spent decades building what became Self-Determination Theory, and one of its core findings is that autonomy, acting from genuine choice rather than external pressure, is a basic psychological need. Not a reward you get for accumulating options, but a fundamental need like competence and connection. Their 2000 paper in American Psychologist is one of the most cited studies in motivational psychology. The central claim is simple: humans don’t just want freedom from constraint. We want to feel like the authors of our own behavior.

Those are different things. Freedom from constraint means no one is stopping you. Authorship means this is actually coming from you.

You can have complete freedom of movement and still feel entirely reactive. Ping-ponging between other people’s urgencies, organizing your life around other people’s definitions of what matters. And you can operate inside real constraints and still feel genuine agency if the choices you’re making are aligned with what you actually value. Most people aren’t taught to distinguish between these two experiences. We optimize for the first and wonder why the second doesn’t follow.

What gets mistaken for agency

Reactive busyness feels like agency. You’re in motion, deciding things, producing output. From the outside it looks like someone in control.

But motion and direction are not the same thing. I’ve had stretches where I was making hundreds of small decisions a day: product decisions, hiring decisions, which message to respond to first. Zero sense of authorship over any of it. I was reacting. Inputs kept coming and I kept processing them. That’s not power over your life. It’s sophisticated responsiveness dressed up as initiative.

Barry Schwartz, in his research on choice and satisfaction, makes a related point: past a certain threshold, more options don’t increase satisfaction. They produce paralysis and regret. More choices means more opportunities to make the wrong one, more chances to imagine what you gave up. Agency doesn’t scale with the size of the option set.

What it scales with is something more internal: a clear enough sense of what matters to you that you can evaluate options against something real, rather than against each other in a recursive loop where nothing resolves.

The other thing that gets mistaken for agency is being decisive. I’ve known people who were extraordinarily quick at making decisions, who could cut through ambiguity fast and commit without hesitation. Some of them had genuine clarity. Others were just efficient at executing other people’s priorities. Speed of decision is not the same as the decision being yours.

Why the feeling is so often absent

The absence of agency is often invisible as such. It presents as reasonableness.

There’s a concept in psychology called learned helplessness. Martin Seligman’s original experiments in the late 1960s involved dogs that received unavoidable electric shocks. When later given the option to escape, most didn’t try. They had learned that their actions had no effect on outcomes, and that learning persisted even when the circumstances changed. The full mechanism is more complex than the pop-science version, but the core observation holds: repeated exposure to outcomes that don’t respond to your behavior trains you to stop believing your choices matter.

The transfer to humans is unsettlingly easy. Environments that consistently punish autonomy, overcontrolling institutions, workplaces that change direction unpredictably, systems that reward compliance over initiative, train people to stop acting on their own judgment. The internalization is subtle and slow. You don’t notice it happening. You start making smaller bets. Deferring more. Waiting to see what others do before committing. You frame it as prudence.

The absence of agency doesn’t announce itself clearly. It can present as reasonableness (“I’m being pragmatic”), as humility (“who am I to decide”), or as caution (“I need more information before acting”). All of which can be genuine. But all of which can also be learned helplessness wearing respectable clothing.

The tell is a specific feeling: not relief when a decision gets made, but relief when someone else makes it for you. That’s the signal. The thing that was supposed to feel like pressure lifting instead feels like escape.

Growing up in Dhaka and later building products from there, the outside world had very clear ideas about what the right trajectory was supposed to look like. Move somewhere. Join something established. Build credibility in the approved sequence. None of those ideas were wrong exactly. But they also weren’t mine. Distinguishing between “this is the correct advice” and “this is advice I’m taking because I don’t trust my own read” took longer than I’d like to admit.

What does real agency actually look like?

Real agency has a specific texture. It’s acting in ways that feel consistent with your actual values, not in response to external pressure or guilt you’ve stopped questioning.

According to Self-Determination Theory, genuine autonomy is not impulsiveness, doing whatever you feel like in the moment. It’s closer to coherence: acting in ways that feel consistent with your values and chosen identity, rather than in response to external pressure or internalized guilt you’ve long since stopped examining.

In practice, this means being able to answer a small set of questions without flinching. Why am I doing this, the actual reason, not the public one? If the outcome I’m working toward disappeared tomorrow, would I regret having worked toward it? Whose disappointment am I most afraid of, and is that fear doing the steering?

These aren’t comfortable questions. They have a way of revealing when you’ve outsourced the decision to someone else. To what the industry expects. To what would impress a particular person. To what would protect you from a specific kind of criticism. None of that is agency. It’s sophisticated compliance with extra steps.

The visible signal of real agency, at least from the outside, is usually that someone’s choices look slightly odd to others. Not reckless, but not obviously optimized for external validation either. When I decided to stay in Bangladesh and build from here rather than relocating, the most common response was a kind of patient skepticism. That wasn’t a signal I was wrong. It was a signal I was operating from a different set of constraints and values than the people offering the skepticism. Which is roughly what genuine choice looks like from the outside: coherent but not universally legible.

Doesn’t this ignore real constraints?

No. Real external constraints are real. But they’re a separate question from whether you’re acting from your own values within whatever constraints exist.

There’s a real objection here: most people don’t have unlimited resources or options. Saying “just choose what you actually value” can sound like advice that assumes a level of freedom many people don’t have. That’s fair.

But it conflates two things: constraints on your circumstances and constraints on your self-understanding. You can be in a very limited situation and still exercise genuine agency within it, if you’re clear about what matters to you and you’re choosing based on that rather than on what you imagine others expect or what’s easiest to defend.

The opposite is also true. You can have enormous external freedom, money, mobility, time, every option imaginable, and still feel fundamentally passive if you’ve never done the work of figuring out what you actually want. I’ve watched people with extraordinary material freedom spend years waiting. Waiting for someone to tell them the right move. Waiting for consensus. Waiting for certainty that won’t come because certainty is not how decisions work. The constraint wasn’t circumstances. It was self-knowledge.

A researcher named Kennon Sheldon, who has spent years studying self-determination and well-being, found in multiple studies that what predicts well-being over time is not the achievement of goals but whether the goals were authentically chosen to begin with. Goals pursued because of external pressure, even when achieved, don’t produce lasting satisfaction. Achieving a goal you didn’t really want tends to surface the mismatch more clearly than it resolves anything.

Agency is partly circumstantial. But it’s also a capacity you build, or don’t. The building happens at the level of self-knowledge, not option accumulation.

What changes when you take it seriously?

The practical shift is less dramatic than you’d expect. It doesn’t look like a grand declaration of independence.

It looks like slightly different questions before decisions. Less time building consensus for choices that are fundamentally yours to make. More discomfort in the short term, less regret afterward. A cleaner relationship with the decisions you’ve made, even when they don’t work out, because at least they were yours.

It also looks like saying no to things that would have been hard to refuse before, not because the things are bad, but because they don’t connect to anything you’re actually doing. That sounds obvious. It isn’t. The social pressure to stay available, to remain accommodating, to avoid the discomfort of a direct refusal, is real and constant. It operates on anyone paying even marginal attention to how they’re perceived. The capacity to disappoint someone for a principled reason is one of the more underrated skills in building a life you recognize as your own.

One more thing changes, and it’s subtle: the quality of your attention in the work itself. When I’m working on something I chose, rather than something I drifted into, I stay with problems longer. I’m more willing to sit with uncertainty without reaching for distraction. I tolerate ambiguity better because the discomfort of not-yet-knowing feels worth it, not just like friction to escape. That difference in how you inhabit work, how present you can be inside it, is not separable from whether the work was genuinely chosen.

---

Having power over your own life isn’t a destination you reach and then maintain. It’s more like a practice of noticing when the frame has reinstalled itself without you realizing, because it will keep trying. The ambient pressure to live inside someone else’s picture of your life is not a single event you overcome. It’s ongoing. Institutions have pictures. Industries have pictures. People who care about you have pictures.

The alternative to noticing is a slow kind of erasure. Not dramatic. Cumulative. A life that looks like yours from the outside, and wasn’t quite, on the inside. That gap is worth closing, and closing it starts with being honest about when the choices you’re making are actually yours.