What Comes After the Word "What" Is What Really Matters 58%

By Jeffrey S. Nevid74% Ph.D.23% ABPP36%

7/14/2026, 12:34:34 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, False Dilemma, and Appeal to Nature, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 26.9% saturation with 248 hits. Analysis detected 1,289 faulty-reasoning hits from 921 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.7% and a BS Rank of 58% (9,004 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.50% of the article peer group.

What comes after what? 
No, this is not a redux of the classic “who’s one first?” 
comedy routine. 
Nor is it intended as a mere tongue-twister, like Peter Piper picking peppers or Sally selling seashells by the seashore. 
It’s more of a mind-twister, a change of mind that twists the question “What if? 
into “What now?” 
What-if thinking helps us consider the many possibilities that life affords, from the good to the bad and even the ugly. 
But ruminating on the “what ifs” opens a floodgate of worrisome concerns about all the awful things that could possibly happen. 
“Yes, I might get fired.” 
“Yes, I might have cancer.” 
”Yes, the market might crash.” 
Yes, virtually anything bad is possible when you permit your mind to wander into the netherworld of the what-ifs. 
Yet dwelling on negative, even cataclysmic, consequences does little more than focus your attention on your deepest fears and anxieties. 
So here’s a Minute Therapist suggestion that can change your mental framework in less than a minute—replace one little word by substituting “if” for “now.” 
The “what ifs” are built into our mental hardware, as the human brain is designed to quickly identify threatening cues in the environment and to issue commands to our muscles to hightail it out of there or fight off a threatening predator. 
In the recesses of the brain is a sentry that is ever alert to cues of danger. 
It is a brain structure called the amygdala, the fear-triggering center, which acts like a sentry that never leaves its post and is prepared to react to the mere hint of danger—a rustle in the bushes, a scent associated with a predator, or a telltale sound. 
Ancestral humans relied on this internal sensor to keep them alive and kicking, long enough to pass along their genes to the next generation. 
The thinking center of the brain, the prefrontal cortex, allows us to evaluate potential sources of danger more critically and to distinguish between a twisted twig lying in our path and a snake lurking in the grass. 
But what happens when our thinking centers remain fixated on every possible threat, to all the countless calamities falling under the umbrella of “what if?” 
This can lead to becoming immobilized in a state of fear and apprehension. 
Alternatively, we can practice the “what nows,” thinking in a way that focuses attention on what we can actually do in situations we face. 
## Do You Have a Case of the “What Ifs”? 
Sam, a retired dentist, peaked on the “what if” meter. 
His mind was continually spinning “what ifs” that left him feeling anxious and helpless. 
His anxiety also fed on itself, as he fell into a pattern of emotional reasoning, thinking that if he felt this anxious, it must be because things were really spiraling out of control. 
He thought for a moment before it clicked: Feeling so doesn’t make it so. 
He agreed to try a mental twist by substituting “now” for “if” when faced with a problem. 
## “What Now” Is an Action Strategy 
Thoughts are cues for action. 
When we think “what now?” 
we prime ourselves to act, to consider alternative ways of responding to the situation at hand. 
For Sam, thinking “what now” focused his mind on what he could do, not on all the things that could go wrong. 
He applied the ancient Stoic wisdom that there are things we can control and things we can’t, that some things are up to us and some things are not. 
It’s not that we shouldn’t consider the travails of life, but when we do, we need to shift to a “what now” mindset and ask ourselves what we can do when we face life challenges or uncertainties. 
Yes, that pain in my back might be cancer, but what I can do now is have it checked out and not spin my wheels focused on everything that can go wrong. 
Which of these “what if’s” hit close to home? 
* What if it happens again? 
* What if something bad happens, and no one’s there to help? 
* What if there’s something seriously wrong with me? 
* What if I fall apart during that meeting tomorrow? 
* What if I don’t make that sale? 
* What if I can’t fall asleep tonight? 
How will I function tomorrow? 
* My God, what if ______? 
* What if I have a panic attack? 
* What if I have a heart attack? 
* What if_____? 
## Making the What Now Switch 
A simple mental switch from “what if” to “what now” can have profound effects. 
“What now” is a prompt to action. 
It allows us to stop the barney flow of catastrophic thinking by directing attention to what we can do in the here and now rather than ruminating about all the things that can go wrong, which just leaves us spinning in circles. 
So when you hear yourself thinking, “What if?,” give yourself a gentle nudge to substitute the word “now” for “if.” 
*General Disclaimer: The content here and in other blog posts on the Minute Therapist is intended for informational purposes only and not for the diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of mental health disorders. 
If you are concerned about your emotional well-being or are experiencing any significant mental health problems, I encourage you to consult a licensed mental health professional in your area for a thorough evaluation. 
* 
© 2026 Jeffrey S. 
Nevid. 
All rights reserved. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.7%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 1.3%Psychology Today: 3.7%Confirmation Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 2.8%Psychology Today: 2.7%Availability Heuristic3.5%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 2.5%Psychology Today: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias4.2%This article: 8.8%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 7.7%Psychology Today: 2.7%Framing Effect8.8%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.2%Psychology Today: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.6%Psychology Today: 4.4%Optimism Bias2.3%This article: 4.3%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 1.1%Psychology Today: 1.0%Pessimism Bias4.3%This article: 26.9%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 19.8%Psychology Today: 3.9%Negativity Bias26.9%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 8.2%Psychology Today: 5.3%Appeal to Authority22.0%This article: 13.5%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 3.4%Psychology Today: 2.6%False Dilemma13.5%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 1.1%Psychology Today: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.6%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 1.8%Psychology Today: 0.4%Circular Reasoning3.6%This article: 6.6%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 6.4%Psychology Today: 9.3%Hasty Generalization6.6%This article: 3.5%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.9%Psychology Today: 0.1%Red Herring3.5%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.1%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 2.4%Psychology Today: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion4.1%This article: 2.6%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.7%Psychology Today: 0.9%Begging the Question2.6%This article: 2.6%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.7%Psychology Today: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.6%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 9.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 2.9%Psychology Today: 0.5%Appeal to Nature9.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.7%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 5.2%Psychology Today: 3.4%Anecdotal5.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.5%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 2.1%Psychology Today: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.5%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 4.6%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 1.1%Psychology Today: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection4.6%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 2.8%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 7.4%Psychology Today: 6.2%Indoctrination2.8%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Jeffrey S. Nevid: 2.2%Psychology Today: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.7%

921 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.5%attributed speech889writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageMinute Therapist • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Minute Therapist

0%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words100% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%Minute Therapist: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Minute Therapist: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Minute Therapist: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.