Know when to step back, to reassess, to go in a different direction

As I make my way through Maria Konnikova's book about learning poker, "The Biggest Bluff," I keep my eye out for insights by this Ph.D. psychologist that pertain to a churchless way of life.

Below are some passages I read this morning that are pertinent to those who are wondering whether they should stick with a religion, spiritual path, or mystical teaching that no longer seems to make sense.

Konnikova speaks of the sunk cost fallacy. Basically, it means that you keep on doing something because you're invested in it. The investment could be money, but it also could be psychological, mental, emotional. 

You're reluctant to give the thing up even though if you had to do it over again, you wouldn't want that thing. But those sunk costs make you think that you need to hold on, even though this is irrational, as in the saying "Don't throw good money after bad." A Wikipedia entry on this subject offers an example:

In an everyday example, a person may purchase a ticket to a baseball game and find after several innings that they are not enjoying the game. Their options at this point are:

• • Accepting the waste of money on the ticket price and watching the remainder of the game without enjoyment; or
  • Accepting the waste of money on the ticket price and leaving to do something else.

The economist will suggest that, since the second option involves suffering in only one way (wasted money), while the first involves suffering in two (wasted money plus wasted time), option two is preferable.

In either case, the ticket-buyer has paid the price of the ticket so that part of the decision should no longer affect the future. If the ticket-buyer regrets buying the ticket, the current decision should be based on whether they want to see the game at all, regardless of the price, just as if they were to go to a free baseball game.

Many people, however, would feel obliged to stay for the rest of the game despite not really wanting to, perhaps because they feel that doing otherwise would be wasting the money they spent on the ticket.

They may feel they have passed the point of no return. Economists regard this behavior as irrational. It is inefficient because it misallocates resources by taking irrelevant information into account.

With that introduction, here's excerpts from Konnikova's book.

Why not exercise some creative thinking in what my journey is going to be?

I am too married to what it is all "supposed" to look like, and not critical enough of the fact that I simply made some decisions earlier on with incomplete information -- and now that I know more, I should change course. No one is telling me to quit poker, merely to reassess where I am.

But somehow I convince myself that swerving wouldn't be a demonstration of my adaptability and flexible thinking. Instead, it would be a hit to my reputation, a demonstration of failure, of a lack of ability.

It's the classic sunk cost fallacy in action: you keep to your course because of the resources you've already invested. 

I've written about it many times. Only it seems that when it comes down to it, I don't quite apply it to myself, right now. In my mind, sunk costs are supposed to be physical. Somehow it doesn't occur to me that they can also be intangible. 

An accurate self-reassessment would have shown that I was nowhere near ready to take on what I had planned, and that the bigger blow to my reputation might actually be proceeding with my set course. No matter.

It's easy to spot sunk costs in others. This person held on to their investment too long. That CEO didn't switch his management strategy in response to a new market environment. That company didn't recognize that their star product was going obsolete.

In yourself, it can become more difficult -- especially when you're dealing not with a concrete action but rather a lack of action.

One of the most important lessons of poker strategy, intimately connected to self-assessment, is this: sometimes, it's the hands you don't play that win you the title. We remember the hero calls. What about the hero folds? What you don't do rather than what you do -- that can be greatness.

The art of letting go can be the truly strong one. Acknowledging when you're behind rather than continuing to put good money after bad. Acknowledging when the landscape has shifted and you need to make a shift yourself as a result. 

It happens all the time in our lives. We find ourselves in an appealing situation -- and then we hold on to it for dear life, even when any objective outside observer would tell us that the appeal is long gone. We start at a promising job, only to be stymied in promotions over and over -- yet we cling to the notion that the job is great.

We embark on a promising relationship, only to find that we have less and less in common with our partner -- yet we forge ahead, refusing to admit that what seemed so right is now wrong.

Sometimes, the most difficult thing of all is to stop playing. All too often, we stay in a hand long after we should have gotten out.

...In 2018, Kaitlin Woolley and Jane Risen demonstrated that people will often actively avoid information that would help them make a more informed decision when their intuition, or inner preference, is already decided. 

They will, for example, avoid learning how many calories are in an attractive dessert, or how much they will be paid if they choose to take on a boring task instead of a more exciting one. Part of them knows that the information might mean they need to change their decision, so they choose to ignore it.

...Never feel like you have to do something just because it's expected of you -- even if you're the one who expects it of you. Know when to step back. Know when to recalibrate. Know when you need to reassess your strategy, prior plans be damned.

Comments

[Sonia]

Wow. This is probably my favorite article that you’ve written so far. Just so apropos to every facet of life really. We tend to forget about the actual cost of intangibles. And intangibles are often far more valuable than something more concrete or “measurable”.

[Laura]

"...it would be a hit to my reputation..." This reason is why people stay in religious orders. I know when I was living in a monastery, I planned to stay come hell or high water so that none of the other nuns could look down on me for quitting. (Thank the stars that the Universe had other plans for me and I was asked to leave).

[Osho Robbins]

The moment you realise that things are NOT as you thought - you have to re-assess and evaluate.

Not make the new facts just fit in by force.

some examples to clarify:

1. Dr Johnson states: I will first examine the man - to see if he passes the test of being a "good human" only then will I proceed to the next stage. If he fails the first test - the cannot be a master.

Most people would agree with this assessment. After all - you are accepting a human to be a master and are about to devote your whole life to this pursuit of divinity. Doesn't it make sense to make sure the guru is worthy?
Charan Singh also used to say, "evaluate first, then decide if you want to follow this path"

Clearly with all the evidence in the media something doesn't quite fit.
Why did Babani die a broken and depressed man, when he spent his whole life in RSSB and was so close to Charan Singh. Does that make any sense? He himself accepted it by saying "It's my karma" - but what example does it set? Why bother doing seva if this is the result?

Why are the poor farmers around the dera making such a fuss? Why are they making allegations if they are not true?
If YOU were that farmer, and your land was taken the same way - I am sure YOU would complain.

Here's the bigger question we should all be asking.

Is HONESTY not part of sant mat? Then why does the dera not BUY the land at market value from the farmers if they wish to expand? Why the obsession with expanding without regard to others?
Nanak himself stayed with bhai Lalu rather than the rich man. The story illustrates that HONESTY is important.
Then the entire issue with the Singh Brothers. Regardless of whatever you might choose to believe - definitely there was dishonesty involved.

Then there was the incident that happened with me. I don't care what anyone believes, I know the truth because it happened to me. And what decision does the guru make?
He publicly announces "I support my sevadars"
what? even when they commit crimes? in this case - theft and assault.

The answer I got from a few satsangis I know was this; "They (sevadars) are not perfect - so I just focus in my seva." Nobody is asking them to be perfect - just have a little normal human compassion instead of being thugs.

So when all this is happening - you have to ask yourself - if this is the net result of decades of NAAM simran and meditation, then clearly it's not working.

maybe it's time to do a U turn

[um]

@ Osho

Have you ever examined yourself and your way of life, your commitments etc in the same way as you do that of others in general and GSD in particular?

[Vinny]

You shall not kill but vehicles /cars, trucks, aircraft created have already killed thousands. And the countries that followed that model , thousands have been killed in accidents. U G Krishnamurti warned about the collapse of western values if they did not step back.

[Osho Robbins]

Have you ever examined yourself and your way of life, your commitments etc in the same way as you do that of others in general and GSD in particular? - um

Yes - always and constantly.

[Spence Tepper]

If you find you are bored, or not enjoying the ball game, withdraw. There is so much entertainment all around, within and outside. Just watching people. Tens of thousands in a ball park. Look carefully and watch their stories emerge into your consciousness. Many beset by life's problems but here, finding a moment of peace. Or a moment of connection with old friends, fathers and sons, mothers and daughters. The last game together before the old man must be placed into a home? The return on college break to this family outing. The tailgate connections... The ticket price to see all this, and be moved by it, is cheap.

I remember my first Red Sox game with Sam. We were losing badly. But the Red Sox, up to that year, were never a great team. We were up at bat, and with two strikes against us, the batter bunt the ball.

As he dashed for first base the crowd roared as if he had hit a triple homer!

I thought, wow, this Boston crowd loves their team! But they were making a statement of affirmation about their own condition, and the nobility of just being able to bunt the goddamned ball, get to first and hang on for just a few more moments of life, and one more nearly hopeless, but never completely hopeless, chance at bat.

Who would ever leave then?