Why are mistakes more important to us than achievements?
Each of us sometimes falls into the “sin of despondency,” but it manifests itself in different ways. Someone torments themselves with thoughts like: everything is bad, I’m a loser, I can’t do anything, my whole life is a series of failures and wrong choices. Someone tries to minimize mistakes (and subsequent suffering) by spending 10-15 hours choosing a set of forks for 1000 rubles with a salary of 300k+. And others simply refuse to try to do anything even more or less new, living according to an established scenario that has been worked out over the years.
Some people do this more often, some less often. But almost everyone has an aversion to mistakes. A kind of socially acceptable perfectionism that arouses the admiration of management (and periodic bonuses), but greatly complicates outside work life. And this article will be about such thinking, focused on negativity/failures/mistakes.
Disclaimer: Due to my approach to work, it so happens that I usually advise people with intellectual work. In recent years, these have been mainly managers and IT employees. These are people who have spent their whole lives solving any problems “over their heads.” This approach inevitably leaves an imprint on the individual and non-professional life. I am engaged in minimizing the negative consequences of such features. And within the framework of the articles on this resource, I try to summarize my professional experience and provide useful information.
Let's start with a definition. As is customary in psychology, a bad psychologist is one who does not give his own definition to each phenomenon (because, why not?). I will not break this glorious tradition and will introduce my own conceptual definition, which will help us understand this topic:
Negative thinking – a type of thinking in which avoiding mistakes/failures/failures is an absolute priority
Why does such a seemingly irrational position not only exist among a number of people, but is quite widespread? I proceed from the principle that there is nothing absolutely useless in our psyche, while there are a large number of phenomena that, so to speak, go beyond their competence. Functions that were previously in demand, but are now no longer needed, continue to work in changed conditions and produce results that are inadequate to the situation. Or functions that are still relevant today in a clearly defined narrow range of situations begin to spread outside that spectrum (because there is a tendency to extrapolate effective strategies). And “negative thinking” is an example of such a function. Moreover, it belongs to both the first category and the second.
Let's start with the first category. The dominant theory of negative thinking now suggests that it is some kind of atavism left over from ancient times, when relying on negativity was a necessary condition for survival. Here's an example:
Two Flintstones are coming. Both are wearing loincloths, with batons, everything is as it should be. They walk along a path between trees and bushes. Suddenly the bushes rustle, move and even make sounds that are not of plant origin at all. Flintstone No. 1 – brave and courageous, decides not to change the route and continues along the path. Flintstone No. 2 – more fearful and cautious, decides to change the path and go around the strange bush.
Of course, the “secret” of the bushes may vary. There may be a conditional saber-toothed tiger (and then khan to our primitive friend), there may be a conditional saber-toothed hare (and then the Flintstone family will eat), or there may be nothing. But it's a lottery that Flintstone #1 will lose sooner or later.
Over thousands of years and millions of bushes, the population of Type 1 Flintstones declines, and the more wary Type 2 Flintstone becomes the dominant species. A dominant species with a dominant sense of fear. To put it differently (and very rudely, with a hint of provocation), we are all distant descendants of cowards who avoid the bushes. This model of behavior is transmitted at least culturally (folklore, fairy tales, epics, principles, stories, legends, and so on). And over thousands of years, of course, it took hold. There is also a hypothesis (and a number of studies) that genetic transmission also takes place, but I don’t presume to talk about genetics/epigenetics, that’s not my specialty.
We will include another reason for negative thinking in this category – this is the gap between physiological and cultural and technical evolution. There is an interesting hypothesis called the “law of acceleration of historical development,” the main thesis of which sounds something like this: “Each subsequent historical stage is shorter than the previous one.” And if earlier (relatively, until the middle of the twentieth century) one stage lasted longer or was approximately equal to the period of a person’s active life, now cultural and technical paradigms replace each other in 10-15-20 years, forcing people to adapt. But do we have such abilities? But this is a big question. In an article by one of the futurologists (to be honest, I forgot his last name), I found an interesting point – a modern person consumes more unique (precisely unique, this is important) information in one day than a 17th-century peasant did in his entire life. Even if we assume that this is an exaggeration, say, 300 or 3000 times, it turns out that the flow of information (and the need for power to process it) has increased tenfold. But have we (our brain and psyche) evolved that much during this period? I doubt.
Therefore, based on the logic described above, we are constantly in information overload. We (like our parents and grandparents) were convinced at school that there was important information that needed to be remembered. We were prepared to live in a world of information deficiency (I assume that this is due to the fact that educational standards lag behind life), but we live in a world of information overabundance. I still remember that at the university we had a subject called “bibliography”, where we were taught to use card search for books (and this is the beginning of the 2010s). But no one taught how to find the “normal” one among the books. And this question is becoming more and more relevant.
And the last thing in this first section (do you still remember that we are talking about the historical reasons for the formation of negative thinking? Are you still here with me?) is the security of the world. We may have different attitudes towards the politics and social situation in our country of residence, but the average temperature of “security” around the world is rising.
Yes, I agree, looking at the graph above, it is quite difficult to agree with this statement, I understand. But if we take data on the world population from the same year 1950 and calculate the percentage of mortality, rather than absolute values, we get this graph.
If in 1950 (according to data from this website) the mortality rate for the year was 1.95% of the population, but now, based on the results of 2023, it is 0.75%. That is, life has become 2.6 times safer. Or the chance of dying has decreased in the same proportion – here’s how to interpret it. I don’t claim to be the ultimate truth, and I don’t consider myself a data scientist, I’m just showing a trend. Over 75 years, over the life of one generation, our death rate has noticeably decreased. But! Has our psyche (which also depends on culture) managed to adapt to this change and “let go of the reins” a little? Also no. We live in a safer world, but we still treat it as more dangerous.
Let me summarize based on historical background: Historically, the more fearful have survived, the brain does not keep up with the development of society/technology/the world, we treat the world more warily than we should.
Now we can move on to the second category – to the use of negative thinking as a strategy that is beneficial in certain situations, to a wider range of them. First, let’s try to decide where negative thinking is beneficial? Again, we use our conceptual explanation about the priority of the absence of errors over anything. When is this most appropriate?
The answer suggests itself – when the cost of an error is excessively high. That is, when it comes to life, health, large financial and temporary losses. Perhaps a violation of some of your deepest principles or basal values (necessary conditions for happiness). And here avoiding mistakes is reasonable, since it is very difficult to hypothetically assume a win that would cover it. And meeting him in real life is even more difficult.
And here another important point comes up that is worth clarifying. Our attention span and short-term memory are limited. Even if we wanted to, we cannot simultaneously analyze all the incoming information from the outside world and compare it with all the experience we have. Therefore, we are content with only a small part of this spectrum.
And one more nuance. No matter how intelligent we consider ourselves, rational and logical, our brain is much more sensitive to emotionally charged information, which dominates more correct, but “dry” information. This is easily confirmed by going to the cinema to see some horror movie. You realize that you are sitting in a soft chair, and everything that is happening on the screen is just a picture that has nothing to do with you. At the same time, goosebumps, screams, worries – this is what you experience. Although, from a logical point of view, it makes no sense to them. But since our brain places an emphasis on emotions, you may well forget at times that this is not all happening to you and your life.
And since negative information, as we found out earlier, has an emotional charge, your focus of attention gravitates to the left side of the spectrum of information received. Here you can say: “but positive events are also emotionally charged. Why not there?” And here we move on to a curious cognitive distortion called “loss aversion” or loss aversion.
Loss aversion or loss aversion – a behavioral anomaly that manifests itself in conditions of uncertainty and risk. Its essence lies in the fact that people experience more displeasure from a loss than pleasure from receiving an equivalent profit.
Let me summarize based on current prerequisites: It is more difficult for us to endure negativity than positivity, our “RAM” is limited and is given over to more important tasks.
Therefore, the right side of the spectrum cannot compete with the left in our subjective perception. The reward is always less than the loss; more precisely, the impact of the reward on us does not compensate for the impact of the loss. Our psyche stubbornly convinces us that it is more profitable to be nervous, wary and unhappy. And can we go against evolution in pursuit of peace and conditional happiness?
How to work with this?
We can, although to do this we will have to do one important thing – admit to ourselves the subjectivity of our perception and learn to work with it. All the mechanisms described above have a scientific basis and appear in most people, yes. This is objective. But since we are talking about the psyche, which is subjective by default, we are rather talking not about objectivity, but about average subjectivity. And this is something you can work with.
I would like to analyze the method of work using an example, so get ready for a moment of nostalgia for those who are 30+.
I don’t know about you, but in our yard they played like this: two opponents took the same number of chips (usually 1-2, but there were also games with “high stakes”), turned them face down, and then took turns threw them onto the asphalt or other hard surface. Whoever turned over more chips from the blow took the loser's unturned chips. To put it another way, it was a game of plus or minus the same bets (not taking into account the rarity or value of the chips wagered). And you could either win or lose. From the point of view of the mechanisms described above, the thoughts looked something like this:
But the children entered into these battles for chips. Why? Because in addition to the same probability of losing/gaining a chip, they could see other bonuses, subjectively changing the ratio of incentives:
If we transfer this experience to adulthood and somehow try to formalize it into some rules, we will get the following list of recommendations:
We assess the risks of the results, but find the silver lining in the process. This is your win-win amount, you will definitely gain something even if you lose: pleasure, experience, social connections, skills, etc.;
Increase the subjective value of winning. For example, if you receive not just a chip, but the very one that you lack for your collection. Or this will be your 1000th victory. Or the 500th chip. Give dry “profit” (in case of victory) additional meanings, “tie” it to your goals/dreams/desires;
Reduce the cost of defeat. To do this, you can look at the situation through the prism of a larger time period or assess the impact of the defeat on other areas of life.
Here I would like to give a short example off-topic. When there was a lockdown, I was left without work (at that time my client base was small, and financial literacy was completely absent, so I had no cushion). For two months without work (and money), I was simply extremely worried, believing that all my finances and income were overgrown with a beard. But when I summed up the financial results of the period before the New Year, I saw that these two months within the year resulted in only a loss of 7% (if my memory serves me correctly) of income. Yes, it’s unpleasant, but it’s not worth the nerves that I wasted in the moment, looking at a 70-80% drop in income in April-May.
Record your achievements. Since (I hope you have already remembered) our achievements are subjectively less significant than victories, they are often blurred in our personal experience, creating a feeling of constant failure. Therefore, writing lists of victories, successes, successes is good practice.
Another offtopic. One day I was plunged into an abyss of sadness about personal failures. And I decided to count – how many big victories and how many big failures do I have? I pulled up all my archives with contests, competitions and other activities. It turned out that for every 1 victory there are 6 failures. Since then, I have always had the argument in my “blue bowl” that every defeat increases the mathematical calculation of success. Is this a dry rational argument? Unlikely, but it helps resolve the issue of passivity. By the way, about her:
If you do not have enough input to make a decision, then introduce new criteria. For example, this could be a criterion for time spent or a criterion for activity.
Let us analyze the time criterion using the example shown in the first paragraph of the article. A person with a salary of 300k chooses a set of forks for 1000 rubles on ozone for 10 hours. How can the criterion be applied here? It’s trite to calculate the cost of error and the cost of time. If we take the standard number of working hours for 168 and divide it by wages, we get the cost of an hour equal to 1,785 rubles. Now let’s compare this with the cost of the error that we know (1000 rubles). 1000/1785=0.56. We found out what part of the working hour can be spent so as not to end up in the red. In minutes this is 33.6 minutes. Thus, we introduce the criterion that choosing longer than 33.6 minutes will obviously take us into the minus and there will be no point in choosing further. It's like buying insurance for 1 million rubles on a car worth 1 million rubles.
What if I’ve done all this and still don’t dare?
So maybe that's right? After all, the article is not about becoming a daredevil, but about learning to shift the focus of negative thinking closer to the middle of the spectrum. And reading the article does not reduce the risks in your life. And you shouldn’t take all the risks or go to an underground Russian roulette tournament. But at the same time, you can give yourself the impetus to act in safe matters, where activity is more profitable than passivity.
Sincerely
Sergey Maksimov.
Psychologist.
P.S. In my TG channel I answer anonymous questions. Only answers and articles, no memes or spam. https://t.me/maximov_psy
