On Thursday we went spearfishing and after about 2 hours in the water, I had a decision as to whether or not to get out. I stayed in. After 4 hours, I still didn’t get the fish I was after.
On Saturday we went again. We went to the same spot. After 2 hours in the water, I was cold, I had to decide once again. I stayed in. 15 minutes later I got a decent sized kingfish and so now we have plenty of food once more.
Was the first time I decided to stay in the water a bad decision?
Was the second time I decided to stay in the water a better decision?
I’ve written about the importance of ignoring sunk costs and staying in the water before.
This means that by my own framework, both were good decisions.
The outcome however was completely different?
A good decision can produce a positive or negative outcome, and a bad decision can produce a positive or negative outcome.
We don’t have control of all of the potential outcomes, but we do have control in how we make the decision.
When we confuse the quality of the outcome with the quality of the decision, we shoot ourselves in the foot. We tend to get overly emotional and it hinders our next decision making process.
When we understand that we can make a good decision by ignoring sunk costs and focusing on the situation at hand, then we move beyond this rollercoaster and have something that’s workable going forward.
The ability to frame the choice and the decision effectively and consistently trumps having a few lucky breaks.
