I recently wrote about the three elements I work with in wellbeing: wellness, illness, and what I call dissatisfiers (or hygiene factors). I see them as three separate continuums—three lines running side by side—each behaving differently, each requiring different thinking, and each capable of affecting the others if ignored.
Someone commented on that article saying they prefer to use a Venn diagram to show the three. It’s a common approach, and it works for a lot of people. It’s worth exploring why—because both models try to answer the same underlying question:
How do these three areas relate to each other in real life?
So this reply lays out both approaches:
• what the Venn diagram actually implies
• what the overlap means in practice
• why the continuum model avoids some of those issues
• and why I ultimately prefer the continuum view.
The Case for the Venn Diagram
A Venn diagram is probably the most familiar way people visualise concepts in wellbeing. Three circles, each representing illness, wellness, and dissatisfiers, with overlaps showing where they interact.
But the real question isn’t the picture — it’s what the overlap is saying.
What the overlap actually represents
In a strict Venn model, the overlap means:
There are situations where two (or all three) factors are simultaneously present.
A triple overlap means illness, wellness factors, and dissatisfiers are all influencing a person at the same time.
A double overlap means two of the three are active together — e.g., illness + dissatisfiers, without wellness.
In other words, the overlap represents coexistence — the idea that multiple forces are being experienced at once.
Why people like this model
It feels intuitive. Life is messy. You can have:
an illness
while still doing some wellness practices
while also having life-admin stacking up in the background
And that’s fair. People recognise this picture because it mirrors the feeling of “everything all at once.”
The Devil’s Advocate View
But the moment you push on that overlap, problems appear:
Do all three genuinely coexist in the same “zone”?
Not always. Often one element leads to another rather than sitting alongside it.Does ignoring wellness “overlap” with illness?
Not really. It usually causes illness, which is a different concept.Does illness overlap with dissatisfiers?
Illness doesn’t become a dissatisfier. It simply means dissatisfiers accumulate because you physically can’t deal with them.Does wellness overlap with dissatisfiers?
“Going to the gym” and “your mortgage is overdue” don’t occupy the same psychological space — they interact, but they don’t blend.
In practice, the overlaps blur distinctions that are important in real life. They imply the categories merge, when what’s actually happening is one category triggers consequences in another.
The Case for the Continuum Approach
The continuum view treats each domain as a separate line, with its own logic:
Illness → diagnose, treat, stabilise (professional-led)
Wellness → grow, strengthen, flourish
Dissatisfiers → reduce pressure, clear clutter, fix the day-to-day drag
They don’t live in one shared space. Instead:
Illness can drain wellness (pain, symptoms, limitation).
Ignored wellness can drift toward illness.
Illness can cause dissatisfiers to pile up.
Dissatisfiers can undermine wellness efforts.
But none of these are overlaps.
They are cause–effect relationships, not shared zones.
If you never exercise, you might develop weight-related illness.
But the illness isn’t an “overlap” between wellness and illness — it’s a transition from one continuum into the other.
If illness prevents you from sweeping the floor or managing the house, dissatisfiers grow.
But that doesn’t mean illness and dissatisfiers “coexist as one thing” — one simply pushes the other.
This is why the continuum model fits real behaviour better:
It shows how ignoring one area causes movement into another.
It keeps the categories clean rather than merged.
It respects the fact that illness is a fundamentally different domain to wellness.
It mirrors how people actually experience these things.
Why I Prefer the Continuum Model
I prefer the continuum approach for one simple reason:
It’s truer to how these areas behave.
Illness doesn’t “overlap” with wellness — it limits it.
Wellness doesn’t “overlap” with illness — it prevents it.
Dissatisfiers don’t “overlap” with wellness or illness — they accumulate when either is neglected.
These aren’t blended states. They are transitions, spillovers, and knock-on effects.
Most importantly, continuums let people understand:
where they are
what’s driving the problem
and which direction things are moving
A Venn diagram can’t show movement.
A continuum can.
And movement — not overlap — is the real story of day-to-day wellbeing.