"You're always in control" means "others will always hold you responsible, no matter whether you're in control or not". This model is called "virtue ethics" and I consider it disconnected from reality.
If you don't know you're in control, you're not in control. It's as simple as that. In my ideal world, one who has lost their self-control or self-awareness would be helped by one's community to regain them. In reality, when normal people see your self-control faltering, they will either try to protect themselves from you or to take advantage of you. Maybe not murder you outright, but definitely get rid of your presence, which is only going to amplify the disconnect.
That is a positive feedback loop, in the pure physical sense: the more alienated you are, the more alienated you become. It's like pointing a microphone at a loudspeaker.
Any system, including your emotional well-being, generally needs a negative feedback loop: when you get too much of something, you start getting less of it, and when you get too little of something, you start getting more of it.
This is complicated by ideological hijack of the signifiers "positive" and "negative". When they say "positive", they mean "thanks for accepting our groupthink as self-evident, you will be favored". When they say "negative" they mean "you have no right to be critical, you will be disregarded". I consider this use of language untruthful and abusive.
> I choose how, and what, I show to the rest of the world, and if I want a positive feedback loop, it starts with me.
I can't even tell if this is supposed to be 1 or 2 insights, but I can tell you're right about running into the usual self-help territory. To me such sentences are quite intentionally devoid of meaning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...), and following them to their logical conclusion would take one right back where one started, which is the ultimatum we're all born to: embrace the nonsense or perish.