Grade A Hits
Store credible truths that settle distorted emotional stories
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 97%
Peters calls personally credible stabilizing truths “Grade A hits.” When an emotional story begins to spiral, first let it speak: ask exactly what it fears or is trying to tell you, and say the thoughts aloud if possible. Then distinguish impressions from facts and find a truthful statement that directly addresses the concern. The statement must resonate with the individual; generic praise or forced optimism is unlikely to settle a streetwise emotional response. Save a small set—Peters suggests five—that applies across situations and revisit it when needed. Bartlett describes keeping such statements in his phone. If rational self-talk is unavailable in the moment, a trusted friend can temporarily provide the factual perspective. Peters presents the practice as a management aid, not a panacea or a replacement for clinical or crisis care.
Origin
Extracted from The Diary of a CEO
Core principles
- 01A useful reassurance must be credible to the person using it
- 02Facts can challenge distorted emotional conclusions
- 03Speaking thoughts aloud helps expose what you do not endorse
- 04A small set of reusable truths is easier to retrieve under pressure
- 05The practice can support emotional management without guaranteeing immediate calm
How to run it
- 1
Invite the concern
Ask the emotional part of the mind exactly what it fears, predicts, or wants. Allow the answer to become explicit without acting on it.
Pro tip Say it aloud when privacy allows so you can hear the claim as a listener.
- 2
Extract the claim
Turn the emotional stream into a clear proposition, such as “nobody will love me” or “I cannot handle this outcome.”
Watch out Do not confuse the intensity of a thought with evidence for it.
- 3
Check the facts
Identify what is known, what is uncertain, and what is merely an impression. Look for evidence that directly bears on the claim.
Pro tip Use a trusted friend as an external rational voice when you cannot step back alone.
- 4
Find a resonant truth
Create a factual counterstatement that you genuinely accept. If it feels like empty reassurance, keep looking for a narrower statement you can defend.
Pro tip A probability you believe may work better than an absolute promise.
Watch out Do not replace one unsupported story with another.
- 5
Build the five
Select five broadly useful truths, challenge their wording, and store them somewhere immediately accessible.
Pro tip Keep the wording short enough to retrieve during a strong reaction.
- 6
Reuse without forcing
Read or speak the relevant truth during future spirals and notice whether it changes the reaction. Accept that some experiences require more time, support, or a different response.
Watch out If safety is at risk, seek urgent human help rather than relying on a self-talk exercise.
In the wild
After a breakup, an emotional conclusion says that no future partner will want the person. Instead of answering with unsupported praise, the person identifies a narrower fact they accept: socializing when ready increases the probability of meeting someone. That becomes a usable Grade A hit.
→ The response challenges hopelessness without promising a particular future.
Bartlett says a friend reminded him of relevant facts during an intense post-breakup reaction. Because the interpretation matched facts Bartlett accepted, the outside perspective helped settle the immediate impulse.
→ A trusted person temporarily supplied the rational perspective Bartlett could not access alone.
Common mistakes
Using empty reassurance
Generic praise may be another unsupported impression. Use a statement the person can honestly defend as factual.
Arguing before listening
The method begins by expressing the emotional concern. Challenging it before identifying the actual claim can leave the underlying fear untouched.
Expecting a panacea
Peters says even strong statements will not always settle an emotion. Some experiences require grieving, time, social support, or professional care.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for people who can identify a distressing thought and benefit from a grounded counterstatement or trusted outside perspective.
Not ideal for
It is not emergency support or a substitute for professional help when someone is at risk, severely distressed, or unable to stay safe.
From the transcript
“let's challenge them and let's replace them with truth”
“the truth that resonate with you”
“what I advocate and I like people to get me five”
From the episode
How To Take Full Control Of Your Mind: Prof. Steve Peters, The Chimp Paradox