Ana is a researcher, consultant, and systems thinker exploring the intersection of work, neuroscience, and human behaviour. Leading 99-Day Rewire, she investigates how autonomy and structure shape performance, resilience, and fulfilment in work and life.
We are born into a system that hands us a script, one that dictates how we should learn, work, and measure success. Most of us follow it without question, believing we are in control when, in reality, we are simply playing a role in a structure designed to extract as much from us as possible. Productivity is glorified, burnout is normalized, and any deviation from the script is met with resistance.
The future belongs to those who cut the puppet strings & reclaim the script
For years, I thrived in high-performance environments, overworking, pushing beyond limits, and measuring success through relentless output. It worked, until it didn’t. The burnout cycle became predictable: work, exhaustion, brief recovery, repeat.
I convinced myself I was in control, that I was choosing my path. Truthfully, I was simply functioning within a system designed to extract as much as possible from me while keeping me too tired to question it.
Like many, I relied on Band-Aid solutions, a new certification, another side project, a productivity hack, all in an attempt to regain some semblance of control. But these weren’t solutions; they were just ways to keep functioning within the same cycle without ever breaking free.
The truth is, most of us are living prewritten scripts we never consciously agreed to.
The prewritten script we inherit
From birth, we are handed a societal script:
Get good grades.
Find a stable job.
Work until you can’t anymore.
Retire, if you’re lucky.
But whose script is this?
System Justification Theory explains why people unconsciously defend flawed systems, because change is intimidating (Jost et al., 2004). The brain craves stability, and uncertainty feels more threatening than dysfunction. This is why we glorify burnout and internalize overwork as a virtue, while rest is dismissed as laziness.
Rather than questioning why we are exhausted, we accept the status quo, convinced that if we are struggling, we must not be trying hard enough. But what if exhaustion isn’t a personal failing, but an inevitable outcome of a system that was never designed for individual well-being?
Institutionalisation: How we became blindly compliant
Remember COVID-19? Overnight, the world stopped. We adjusted, we complied, we followed the rules, not always because we deeply understood them, but because we are conditioned to trust authority in times of crisis. This is also called mass conformity. When faced with uncertainty, we instinctively align with dominant narratives, prioritising group cohesion over independent thought (Jetten et al., 2020).
A European study found that even those who privately questioned pandemic restrictions still enforced them on others (Meier et al., 2020). Compliance wasn’t just about health; it was about belonging. This is how institutionalisation works. It doesn’t require force; it operates through social conditioning, fear of rejection, and our need for security in structure, even when that structure is flawed.
And it’s not just about COVID. It’s about how we unquestioningly accept the way we work, live, and measure success.
The online trap: When freedom is just another algorithm
For many, the answer to breaking free from the corporate cycle is online entrepreneurship, freelancing, or personal branding, sold to us as the ultimate path to freedom.
But if you look closer, it follows the same blueprint as corporate life:
Instead of climbing the corporate ladder, we chase engagement metrics.
Instead of promotions, we obsess over visibility.
Instead of bosses, we answer to algorithms.
And the hustle culture we thought we left behind? It followed us online, repackaged as “building a brand.”
Social media operates on the same dopamine-reward system that keeps gamblers hooked (Lorenz-Spreen et al., 2019). Every like, share, and follow triggers a chemical reaction in our brains, reinforcing compulsive behaviours that make us crave more.
We tell ourselves we’re working smarter, but we’re still playing the same game, just on a different board. At the same time, the lines between work and play are blurred, or even nonexistent for some adopting the online culture.
So, the real question isn’t whether you leave the system; it’s whether you’ve actually stopped playing by its rules.
The off-grid fantasy: The escape that doesn’t work
When people wake up to the realisation that the system doesn’t serve them, the first instinct is often to leave entirely.
Move off-grid.
Live in the mountains.
Join an ashram in search of deeper meaning.
But does removing yourself from the system mean you are free, or are you just swapping one set of constraints for another?
Many who attempt self-sufficiency quickly realise:
True independence is physically and mentally demanding.
Psychological isolation can be damaging.
Complete detachment from modern infrastructure comes with consequences.
Research shows that humans are wired for connection, and prolonged isolation can negatively impact cognitive function and emotional well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
The irony? Many who try to leave the system find themselves still relying on it in some way, whether it’s infrastructure or generating revenue through online platforms, only now with fewer resources and higher stress.
The ashram paradox: Trading one system for another
For those seeking spiritual liberation, ashrams and monasteries seem like an alternative path to freedom, detachment from materialism, enlightenment, inner growth.
But if you look closely, many function just like corporate environments:
Strict schedules.
Hierarchical structures.
Rigid belief systems that discourage independent thought.
Extreme detachment can lead to emotional suppression, making it harder, not easier, to achieve true autonomy (Farias et al., 2016).
We don’t just leave toxic work structures, we recreate them.
Not because we want to, but because it’s what we’ve been conditioned to do.
The 99-day rewire: Redefining work, autonomy & well-being
Rather than blindly rejecting traditional work or blindly accepting the digital alternative, I wanted to test what really works. I hope to find a sustainable way of living and working that could potentially be applied to larger groups and organisations to slowly redefine the working day and week, as well as what autonomy really means.
The 99-day rewire is a research-driven experiment designed to track how breaking free from ingrained work models impacts cognition, productivity, and identity.
Cognitive adaptation & neuroplasticity: Can the brain retrain old work-related patterns?
Stress & burnout recovery: How does autonomy affect cortisol levels and nervous system regulation?
Self-determination & identity: Can individuals sustain high performance outside external oversight?
Exploring alternative revenue streams: Can you interact with existing systems in a more optimal way without blindly following corporate constructs?
Over 99 days, I will systematically track:
Heart rate variability (HRV): Measuring stress adaptation and nervous system regulation.
Cortisol levels: Tracking burnout recovery.
Cognitive clarity & mood: Observing shifts in executive function and emotional well-being.
Work & productivity patterns: Testing alternative focus models and autonomy-driven structures.
This is not about proving that traditional work is bad.
It’s about testing whether high performance and well-being can truly coexist without external control.
What this means for you
If you’ve ever questioned whether the way we work is sustainable or if you’ve felt trapped in cycles of burnout and external validation, this journey is for you.
Scientific insights on cognition, behaviour, and neuroplasticity.
Personal tracking data on physiological and psychological adaptation.
Experiments in habit formation, work models, and mental resilience.
Join the experiment
Read the expanded manifesto and follow the full experiment and real-time findings on the 99-day rewire blog.
Explore insights on cognition, behaviour, and neuroplasticity as the experiment unfolds. What is the one thing you believe could change within the systems we operate in that would generate real progress?
Share this with someone who needs to hear it, let’s explore what’s truly possible together. Let’s rewire.
Read more from Ana Gioarsa
Ana Gioarsa, Independent Research & Advisory | Work, Mind & Future Systems
Ana is a researcher, consultant, and systems thinker investigating how work, neuroscience, and human behaviour intersect. With over a decade of experience leading complex projects, she now explores how autonomy and structure can coexist for sustainable high performance. Through 99-Day Rewire, Ana conducts real-time research on behavioural, cognitive, and biological shifts, examining how individuals and organisations can rethink work, creativity, and self-directed systems. She believes true transformation happens at the intersection of structure and autonomy, creativity and function, science and lived experience.
By blending research, consultancy, and writing, Ana challenges conventional work models, offering new ways to think about human potential and resilience in evolving work landscapes.
Bibliography:
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. Teachers College Press.
Farias, M., Newheiser, A. K., Kahane, G., & de Toledo, Z. (2016). Scientific faith: Belief in science increases in the face of stress and existential anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 11-17.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Owen, J., & Worthington, E. L. (2023). The impact of social isolation on psychological development: Examining long-term effects. Journal of Social Psychology, 162(4), 355–370.
Jetten, J., Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Cruwys, T. (2020). Together apart: The psychology of COVID-19. SAGE Publications.
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881-919.
Kolb, B., & Gibb, R. (2011). Brain plasticity and behavior in the developing brain. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(4), 265–276.
Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H., Potts, H. W., & Wardle, J. (2009). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998–1009.
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Mønsted, B., Hövel, P., & Lehmann, S. (2019). Accelerating dynamics of collective attention. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1759.
Meier, H. E., Müller, S., & Wachs, S. (2020). Social conformity and rule enforcement during COVID-19: A European perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1103–1122.
Morris, Z. S., Wooding, S., & Grant, J. (2011). The answer is 17 years, what is the question: Understanding time lags in translational research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104(12), 510–520.
Packer, D. J., Ungson, N. D., & Marsh, J. (2021). Breaking the norm to change the system: Social change and the paradox of conformity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(1), 60–96.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2009). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
van Bavel, J. J., Cichocka, A., Capraro, V., & Sugitani, R. (2020). The role of collective identity in fostering adherence to COVID-19 guidelines. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 491–507.
