Imagine you are a lawyer in a courtroom, and your client is a driven person who would like to experience more in her life than just what she's experienced thus far.
The question being argued is whether or not she should stay in the status quo or move on.
Start as the defense attorney.
The support for staying exactly where she is will most likely be limited to 'it's comfortable' and 'it's what she knows.' Beyond that, you're probably not going to come up with anything that would stand up very well in her defense. (The old 'what will people think' is not a valid response and will be immediately throw out of court!)
Now imagine you're the prosecutor. What would you come back with to shift the burden of proof? You would talk about how she has a completely other dream that, if she never went for it, she would regret not taking a chance on it for the rest of her life. Her status quo would become her prison. You would talk about how much potential she has because she has knowledge, goals, and a plan to make a difference beyond what she currently does. You might even throw in that it doesn't matter what other people think because other people's opinions are never going to pay her bills or make her happy.
If you take this approach, you'll sometimes find that it's hard to argue for staying where you are. If there's more you want out of life, even if you're not yet sure what it looks like exactly, there are no real good reasons for staying put.
Is it time to shift the burden of proof with yourself?