Another thought provoking read. As usual, I have more questions than answers, so here goes.
When you said, “If someone you didn’t particularly admire made this exact decision...would you still defend it?”, my mind immediately reframed the question by replacing “didn’t particularly admire” with “aren’t emotionally attached to.”
Taking that a step further, perhaps the question could even be broadened to any decision that isn’t our own. I’m curious about the focus on someone we don’t admire. Is the idea that our judgment is more likely to be clouded when we admire the person who made the decision?
The other internal debate I’m having is about the difference between making a decision to avoid being fooled twice versus making a different decision because we recognize that repeating the past decision is likely to produce the same bad outcome. How do we recognize the difference?
@Musings of a Retired Guy , this might be my favorite comment on this piece; you found a seam I didn't fully articulate myself. You packed a lot in here, and I want to actually sit with both parts instead of skimming past either one.
On the reframe: You're right that it's about emotional attachment generally, but I'd push on why this specific version (someone we don't admire) does something a fully neutral stand-in wouldn't. Admiration isn't neutral. When we admire someone, we're quietly invested in them being right, because if they're wrong, it reflects on our own judgment in admiring them. So "someone we don't admire" isn't neutral ground. It tilts slightly skeptical, and I think that's the actual mechanism doing the work, not just distance from the decision.
Which is why it's basically the mirror image of the classic "what would you tell your best friend" advice. That one borrows warmth to counteract how harsh we are on ourselves. This one borrows skepticism to counteract how generous we are with ourselves. Same trick, opposite direction, because they're built for opposite failure modes.
That's actually the point, and it's why his broader version ("any decision that isn't our own") is close but not quite right. "Any decision that isn't our own" could still be a decision made by someone we love or respect, which reintroduces the exact halo effect the test is designed to strip out. The test needs the skeptical tilt specifically, because we're already tilted maximally generous toward our own decisions. Two opposite skews cancel out into something closer to honest than a merely neutral stand-in would.
The second question is the one that's actually stuck with me since I read your comment.
My honest instinct at a first pass: the real diagnostic isn't the topic, it's the mechanism transfer. "I got laid off once, so I'm wary of employers" is category-matching (job change = job change). Real risk-recognition would require the new situation to share the actual thing that caused the old failure - not the category, the mechanism. Mark's 2011 layoff (real client story btw) came from a specific company's specific collapse, not from "changing roles" as a category; so nothing about a new opportunity fifteen years later actually carries that risk forward. If he could point to something specific about this new company (financials, leadership churn, whatever) that mirrored the old one, that'd be legitimate pattern-recognition. He can't. That's evidence it's not.
So my rough answer for now: legitimate risk-recognition points to a specific mechanism repeating and not just the category rhyming.
A second marker: legitimate risk assessment is slow and produces numbers. Identity-protection is fast and produces certainty. Mark said no before lunch, no arithmetic. And a genuinely risk-based "no" is conditional; there's some version of the offer that would change the answer. Identity-protection isn't conditional on anything. If no version of the decision would move you, it's not risk management anymore.
The short version: real risk assessment is slow and produces numbers. Identity-protection is fast, certain, and can't name a version of the decision that would change its answer.
If nothing would move you, it's probably not risk assessment anymore. This would be a test in and of itself.
Honestly, this might be worth its own post. Mind if I steal it?
On your first argument, I hear what you’re saying in that perhaps my assumption that I can separate my admiration for someone from my assessment of their decision might be wishful thinking. That’s a fair challenge. I don’t have an accurate sense of how much unconscious bias may be at play in this context.
On your second point about category vs. mechanism in risk assessment, by all means, if you think that’s worthy of a post, please move forward. I’d love to read it.
I appreciate you sitting with that; "wishful thinking" might be exactly right, and honestly, none of us have a clean view of our own bias from inside it. That's kind of the whole reason to write these things I observed over time out loud instead of just thinking them.
And yes, consider it stolen. You'll see it here eventually, and this comment is where it started. 🙏
I don’t consider it stolen. I consider it a very rough idea taken to a much more intellectual level. Thank you for expanding on, and running with, something I struggled to articulate.
I've been reading a lot on how you need to convince your brain when you're working on creating your true identity, and that process starts with small steps that compound until you have convinced your brain that the identity is real. Thanks for another thought provoking piece!
That is such a rich way to look at it. Core identity might really be there all along, underneath all the extra layers and noise we stack on top as we navigate life, decision by decision.
At the same time, it evolves through different seasons. Building on that potential and using those micro-wins to nurture who we're becoming, rather than just defending who we used to be, might honestly be a lifetime's work.
I love that you brought this up. Thanks so much for reading and adding such a thoughtful layer to the discussion!
Since you’re exploring this topic, I just have to mention one of the best pieces I ever read by @Lowcountry Wildfire 🔥, called Worth. That entire Blu series is pure gold of depth and wisdom and I think you will like it a lot; it left me thinking ever since I read it, but here’s the post that came to mind:
The question “If someone you didn’t particularly admire made this exact decision, for these exact reasons, would you still defend it?” Is an excellent way to examine your own decisions as long as you’re being honest with yourself. I’m not sure if it is the same thing, but I had two people independent to my business who I ran some of my important decisions past. I knew they were prepared to disagree with me if they thought i wasn’t right. I was also very aware that some of my decisions were tainted by things that had happened previously. That honesty with yourself or from others can be enlightening.
I always thought that the whole key is “being honest with yourself”, as you said. We really are our own most persuasive con artists when ego gets involved. Alas, it’s far easier to declare than to actually pull off.
Self-honesty is the hardest requirement to meet because we know exactly which buttons to push on ourselves, so having an unvarnished, trusted sounding board to check those blind spots is invaluable. Absolute gold!
Appreciate you sharing that personal glimpse. Thanks so much for reading and adding such thoughtful context!
The uncomfortable part is that these decisions rarely start out as mistakes. They start as completely rational responses to a real shock. The trap is that the circumstances change, but the self-defense rule quietly becomes permanent.
That’s very true, adaptive responses can quietly harden into permanent rules; that transition is so easy to miss! And it's fascinating how it cuts both ways: sometimes it starts as a defense mechanism after a shock, and other times it’s just a gradual shift from "what I do" to "who I am" (like when someone says "I own Bitcoin" vs "I'm a Bitcoin believer," "I run a business," vs "I'm an entrepreneur" "I pick stocks," vs "I'm an active investor". The first describes activity. The second claims identity. And identity is far more expensive to change than activity. That's where decisions also get stuck.)
Really appreciate you adding such a great layer to the discussion!
Elizabeth, the identity-fusion point is real. Once a decision becomes tied to who we think we are, the ego steps in to protect it.
What I’ve found useful is asking whether the decision still holds when ego is set aside and only clarity, integrity, and merit remain. That standard has helped me separate the original reasoning from the story that grew around it.
Thank you for the very kind words and such a thoughtful comment! You framed a wonderful filter here. Holding ourselves to that standard of pure clarity and integrity is powerful, precisely because those things are so elusive when ego is in the driver's seat. A really beautiful way to examine the story vs. the reality, and always a privilege to read your take on these!
Glad no argument from here. The recruiting manager of the other company did send me a condescending email upon my refusal though 🙃 Oo, seems like ages now. Thanks for gathering my recollection of that matter 😊
Definitely, all offers- whether the bird in hand or in the bush need to be run down, number by number. Sometimes, number alone might not be the only deciding factor, well that depends on circumstances hugely.
From my personal experience, I refused a slightly higher paying job at a smaller company - offer letter received. Because the talks of promotion at the current company were underway. Not finalized, still under discussions. But it felt worth taking the risk since the current company was bigger and had more global recognition. So, I would say it was not just ego but something where I looked beyond the salary.
Thank you for sharing this Adneen 🙏.That's a fair pushback, and honestly, you're describing exactly the distinction the post is trying to draw.
Your decision was conditional: promotion talks in progress, bigger company, real career-trajectory reasoning you could say out loud to a stranger and have it still make sense. That's the opposite of what Mark was doing. His "no" wasn't weighed against anything specific; it was automatic, no numbers involved, and there was no version of the offer that would've changed his answer. That's the tell. Yours clearly wasn't automatic; you were actually running the tradeoff.
So no argument from me 😉. Salary is never the only variable, and it shouldn't be. The post isn't really about salary. It's about decisions that can't survive being said out loud, and yours clearly can.
Glad no argument from here. The recruiting manager of the other company did send me a condescending email upon my refusal though 😐 O, seems like ages now. Thanks for gathering my recollection of that matter 😊
Another thought provoking read. As usual, I have more questions than answers, so here goes.
When you said, “If someone you didn’t particularly admire made this exact decision...would you still defend it?”, my mind immediately reframed the question by replacing “didn’t particularly admire” with “aren’t emotionally attached to.”
Taking that a step further, perhaps the question could even be broadened to any decision that isn’t our own. I’m curious about the focus on someone we don’t admire. Is the idea that our judgment is more likely to be clouded when we admire the person who made the decision?
The other internal debate I’m having is about the difference between making a decision to avoid being fooled twice versus making a different decision because we recognize that repeating the past decision is likely to produce the same bad outcome. How do we recognize the difference?
@Musings of a Retired Guy , this might be my favorite comment on this piece; you found a seam I didn't fully articulate myself. You packed a lot in here, and I want to actually sit with both parts instead of skimming past either one.
On the reframe: You're right that it's about emotional attachment generally, but I'd push on why this specific version (someone we don't admire) does something a fully neutral stand-in wouldn't. Admiration isn't neutral. When we admire someone, we're quietly invested in them being right, because if they're wrong, it reflects on our own judgment in admiring them. So "someone we don't admire" isn't neutral ground. It tilts slightly skeptical, and I think that's the actual mechanism doing the work, not just distance from the decision.
Which is why it's basically the mirror image of the classic "what would you tell your best friend" advice. That one borrows warmth to counteract how harsh we are on ourselves. This one borrows skepticism to counteract how generous we are with ourselves. Same trick, opposite direction, because they're built for opposite failure modes.
That's actually the point, and it's why his broader version ("any decision that isn't our own") is close but not quite right. "Any decision that isn't our own" could still be a decision made by someone we love or respect, which reintroduces the exact halo effect the test is designed to strip out. The test needs the skeptical tilt specifically, because we're already tilted maximally generous toward our own decisions. Two opposite skews cancel out into something closer to honest than a merely neutral stand-in would.
The second question is the one that's actually stuck with me since I read your comment.
My honest instinct at a first pass: the real diagnostic isn't the topic, it's the mechanism transfer. "I got laid off once, so I'm wary of employers" is category-matching (job change = job change). Real risk-recognition would require the new situation to share the actual thing that caused the old failure - not the category, the mechanism. Mark's 2011 layoff (real client story btw) came from a specific company's specific collapse, not from "changing roles" as a category; so nothing about a new opportunity fifteen years later actually carries that risk forward. If he could point to something specific about this new company (financials, leadership churn, whatever) that mirrored the old one, that'd be legitimate pattern-recognition. He can't. That's evidence it's not.
So my rough answer for now: legitimate risk-recognition points to a specific mechanism repeating and not just the category rhyming.
A second marker: legitimate risk assessment is slow and produces numbers. Identity-protection is fast and produces certainty. Mark said no before lunch, no arithmetic. And a genuinely risk-based "no" is conditional; there's some version of the offer that would change the answer. Identity-protection isn't conditional on anything. If no version of the decision would move you, it's not risk management anymore.
The short version: real risk assessment is slow and produces numbers. Identity-protection is fast, certain, and can't name a version of the decision that would change its answer.
If nothing would move you, it's probably not risk assessment anymore. This would be a test in and of itself.
Honestly, this might be worth its own post. Mind if I steal it?
On your first argument, I hear what you’re saying in that perhaps my assumption that I can separate my admiration for someone from my assessment of their decision might be wishful thinking. That’s a fair challenge. I don’t have an accurate sense of how much unconscious bias may be at play in this context.
On your second point about category vs. mechanism in risk assessment, by all means, if you think that’s worthy of a post, please move forward. I’d love to read it.
I appreciate you sitting with that; "wishful thinking" might be exactly right, and honestly, none of us have a clean view of our own bias from inside it. That's kind of the whole reason to write these things I observed over time out loud instead of just thinking them.
And yes, consider it stolen. You'll see it here eventually, and this comment is where it started. 🙏
I don’t consider it stolen. I consider it a very rough idea taken to a much more intellectual level. Thank you for expanding on, and running with, something I struggled to articulate.
I've been reading a lot on how you need to convince your brain when you're working on creating your true identity, and that process starts with small steps that compound until you have convinced your brain that the identity is real. Thanks for another thought provoking piece!
That is such a rich way to look at it. Core identity might really be there all along, underneath all the extra layers and noise we stack on top as we navigate life, decision by decision.
At the same time, it evolves through different seasons. Building on that potential and using those micro-wins to nurture who we're becoming, rather than just defending who we used to be, might honestly be a lifetime's work.
I love that you brought this up. Thanks so much for reading and adding such a thoughtful layer to the discussion!
Since you’re exploring this topic, I just have to mention one of the best pieces I ever read by @Lowcountry Wildfire 🔥, called Worth. That entire Blu series is pure gold of depth and wisdom and I think you will like it a lot; it left me thinking ever since I read it, but here’s the post that came to mind:
https://substack.com/@oplowcountry/p-208124831
The question “If someone you didn’t particularly admire made this exact decision, for these exact reasons, would you still defend it?” Is an excellent way to examine your own decisions as long as you’re being honest with yourself. I’m not sure if it is the same thing, but I had two people independent to my business who I ran some of my important decisions past. I knew they were prepared to disagree with me if they thought i wasn’t right. I was also very aware that some of my decisions were tainted by things that had happened previously. That honesty with yourself or from others can be enlightening.
I always thought that the whole key is “being honest with yourself”, as you said. We really are our own most persuasive con artists when ego gets involved. Alas, it’s far easier to declare than to actually pull off.
Self-honesty is the hardest requirement to meet because we know exactly which buttons to push on ourselves, so having an unvarnished, trusted sounding board to check those blind spots is invaluable. Absolute gold!
Appreciate you sharing that personal glimpse. Thanks so much for reading and adding such thoughtful context!
The uncomfortable part is that these decisions rarely start out as mistakes. They start as completely rational responses to a real shock. The trap is that the circumstances change, but the self-defense rule quietly becomes permanent.
That’s very true, adaptive responses can quietly harden into permanent rules; that transition is so easy to miss! And it's fascinating how it cuts both ways: sometimes it starts as a defense mechanism after a shock, and other times it’s just a gradual shift from "what I do" to "who I am" (like when someone says "I own Bitcoin" vs "I'm a Bitcoin believer," "I run a business," vs "I'm an entrepreneur" "I pick stocks," vs "I'm an active investor". The first describes activity. The second claims identity. And identity is far more expensive to change than activity. That's where decisions also get stuck.)
Really appreciate you adding such a great layer to the discussion!
Elizabeth, the identity-fusion point is real. Once a decision becomes tied to who we think we are, the ego steps in to protect it.
What I’ve found useful is asking whether the decision still holds when ego is set aside and only clarity, integrity, and merit remain. That standard has helped me separate the original reasoning from the story that grew around it.
Appreciate the piece. Excellent work. Thank you.
🔥
Thank you for the very kind words and such a thoughtful comment! You framed a wonderful filter here. Holding ourselves to that standard of pure clarity and integrity is powerful, precisely because those things are so elusive when ego is in the driver's seat. A really beautiful way to examine the story vs. the reality, and always a privilege to read your take on these!
Glad no argument from here. The recruiting manager of the other company did send me a condescending email upon my refusal though 🙃 Oo, seems like ages now. Thanks for gathering my recollection of that matter 😊
Definitely, all offers- whether the bird in hand or in the bush need to be run down, number by number. Sometimes, number alone might not be the only deciding factor, well that depends on circumstances hugely.
From my personal experience, I refused a slightly higher paying job at a smaller company - offer letter received. Because the talks of promotion at the current company were underway. Not finalized, still under discussions. But it felt worth taking the risk since the current company was bigger and had more global recognition. So, I would say it was not just ego but something where I looked beyond the salary.
Thank you for sharing this Adneen 🙏.That's a fair pushback, and honestly, you're describing exactly the distinction the post is trying to draw.
Your decision was conditional: promotion talks in progress, bigger company, real career-trajectory reasoning you could say out loud to a stranger and have it still make sense. That's the opposite of what Mark was doing. His "no" wasn't weighed against anything specific; it was automatic, no numbers involved, and there was no version of the offer that would've changed his answer. That's the tell. Yours clearly wasn't automatic; you were actually running the tradeoff.
So no argument from me 😉. Salary is never the only variable, and it shouldn't be. The post isn't really about salary. It's about decisions that can't survive being said out loud, and yours clearly can.
Glad no argument from here. The recruiting manager of the other company did send me a condescending email upon my refusal though 😐 O, seems like ages now. Thanks for gathering my recollection of that matter 😊