It sounds simple, and yet, it is quite complicated.

To use data, one needs data.

Getting there requires the simple action of making oneself aware of the data.

More often than expected, that data isn’t welcome.

It is quickly hidden by the inner critic who for example offers a judgment instead of the data itself. Whatever data appeared; the inner critic quickly transformed it.

A logical consequence is that the data isn’t as accessible as assumed. It takes some practice to become aware of the possibility of letting it emerge and to take it in without transformation. It’s not only the inner critic but also our emotional relationship with that data. It tells a story that often leads to the inner critic’s reaction.

Think about expenses. How aware are you of them? In the moment you know that you spent the money, and you might have an idea of how you’ve felt about that expense. It’s one out of several.

The other view most of us have on expenses is at the end of the month. The amount remaining in the account tells a story of how much has been spent.

There is a saying that one may not see the forest for the trees. That’s what happens when one only looks at the individual expenses. The reverse is true too, that is that one doesn’t see the trees for the forest. It’s the situation when one focuses on the total expenses.

A profound use of data is to help us see “the relationship between the trees and the forest.” It is to become aware of what the expenses mean to us and if they truly are what we believe them to be.

This is less about controlling expenses than about developing satisfaction with our choices. It can transform our choices as well as how at ease we are with what we do.

Getting there requires capturing the data for a while, most often also with how we feel about the event linked to the single data.

It’s an approach that isn’t to be confused with performance evaluation. The latter serves another objective and implies the ability to compare.