1 - Building the Foundation

Toye Oyelese

Welcome to the Mindlessness Clinician Series. If you’re tuning in, chances are you already know my name, but let’s get the introductions out of the way—I’m Dr. Toye Oyelese, family physician out here in British Columbia, and, well, someone who has spent plenty of time both in theory and in the trenches. I want to take today to lay out a foundation—where the SW plus A plus T equals D framework came from and, honestly, why it even exists. Because, you see, it wasn’t born out of one of those moments where you wake up in the middle of the night and go, “Aha! I will revolutionize psychotherapy!” No. It came from necessity—a bit of desperation, if I’m honest.

Toye Oyelese

When I first landed in Canada—let’s just say my Nigerian medical degree wasn’t quite a golden ticket. I rebuilt things from the bottom up, worked through the military, set up in BC, and, for a while, found myself manning this medical facility built for twenty docs—with a grand total of three of us. And I remember those days very clearly, honestly. You wake up and it’s you, your stethoscope, and just this looping tape in your head: “I will survive. I will thrive.” I must’ve repeated those words two, maybe three hundred times a day. I didn’t have some academic theory in mind. I just needed something—anything—that worked, especially when my brain felt fried, when insight and reflection—not available. Like, completely unavailable.

Toye Oyelese

And it hit me—well, after the stress had calmed down a bit—that I’d been doing something that my patients might need. So, I worked backward, asking “Why did this work?” That’s when the clinical framework started to take shape. It’s actually funny, I always say the model was systematized after-the-fact; first came the fires, then the fire extinguisher manual. But this crisis-based origin—it matters. Because how many times do your patients, or even you, find that your usual fancy insight-based therapies just don’t land when you’re in crisis? That’s where this approach grew roots: in the messy, foggy, not-so-insightful real world.

Toye Oyelese

So, let’s get to the foundation—because none of this was conjured from thin air. Self-affirmation theory? Probably the first ancestor worth naming. Claude Steele, 1988. He showed that if you repeat value-based statements—things that center you, even if it feels mechanical—it dials down psychological threats and shifts behavior. And, well, neuroscience has hopped onto that wagon, too—reward centers lighting up, less defensiveness on brain scans. If you’re a research junkie, that Epton meta-analysis from 2015 might ring a bell: brief affirmation exercises, effect sizes around point two six to point three two. Not world-shattering, but reliable, especially for such simple interventions.

Toye Oyelese

Then there’s critical mass theory—again, borrowed. Marwell and Oliver, 1985—these folks didn’t set out to help people change their self-talk, but their work on collective behavior is interesting here. They talk about how a stubborn minority can tip the scale if they hit that “magic” number. In a way, I’ve adapted this to the personal—if you get any two of spoken word, action, or thought lined up, that third piece gets tugged along. That’s really about the mind avoiding cognitive dissonance—it wants things to agree inside, to make sense.

Toye Oyelese

And of course, behavioral activation—if you’ve worked in depression care, you know Mazzucchelli’s work. Basically, do first, think later. Compliance psychology, too—a little forced behavior can, weirdly, nudge beliefs to follow. Even mindlessness itself, as a process, builds on Schneider and Shiffrin’s work from the seventies; repeat anything enough and, eventually, you just do it without thinking. The point is, about sixty percent—give or take—of this model is patchwork. That’s intentional, not a shortcut. The real question for clinicians—you, me, whoever—is, at what point is a clinical tool original? And when should we admit we’re just braiding together good ideas we didn’t invent? I lean toward transparency, myself. I see value in making explicit what’s borrowed and what’s, arguably, new.

Toye Oyelese

Honestly, most “innovation” is just… clever recombination, right? But, now and then, you spot something worth teaching in a new way—something that helps clinicians actually use the mountain of research out there. That’s what I was aiming for, anyway.

Toye Oyelese

Now, about what’s actually novel—sometimes I stumble on my own definitions here, so bear with me. This three-factor model is, as far as I can tell, a new synthesis, at least in how I’ve stitched it together. The metaphor helps: word, action, thought as liquid, solid, gas—levels of control, teachable, kind of sticky in the memory. But maybe the “WILL” linguistic loophole is the bit I get most excited about. Most affirmation models have people say “I am strong,” but the brain, for a lot of people, goes “nah, you’re not.” But “I will” slips past that inner critic. There’s psycholinguistic research showing the brain processes future intentions differently—less fact-checking, if you will.

Toye Oyelese

And, you know, the idea that sheer volume of repetition can bypass the mind’s “critical factor”—that skeptical filter—without all the hypnotic trappings? That’s pretty interesting, I think. Instead of a trance, it’s just so much repetition the mind gets bored of objecting. To be up front though, this hasn’t been tested in controlled trials. That’s a big, red flag. Plenty of clinical observation, personal experience, and theory, but, you know, there’s no shiny randomized study to waive about.

Toye Oyelese

The model isn’t perfect—it oversimplifies, and it sure doesn’t explain every case. I’ve seen it work wonders for some, do almost nothing for others. Take a patient I had a few years back: multiple failed rounds of therapy, knew every cognitive trick, understood their patterns inside-out, and nothing shifted… until we tried this task-based, high-repetition articulation. And, suddenly, something broke through. I always hesitate to generalize from one story, but it makes me wonder: when does a patient need more insight, and when do they just need to do a task until the wheels start spinning again?

Toye Oyelese

And let’s not lose sight of boundaries—this is not a magic bullet. There are patients, especially those with severe or complex conditions, who’ll need more—specific therapies, medication, maybe both. Sometimes, you gotta put on your glasses before you can see the book, right? I like to keep that humility front and center. So, as we wrap for today, just remember: this is a tool, an adjunct, not a replacement for comprehensive care.

Toye Oyelese

That’s where I’ll pause for this episode. Next time, mechanism and rationale—the nuts and bolts, really. We’ll talk about how the three factors interact, why mindlessness helps, and more. Thanks for spending this time with me—I appreciate it. Until then, keep asking questions, and maybe, give “I will survive, I will thrive” a spin yourself. Who knows where it’ll take you?