> a mistake is a mistake even if you get away with it.
I've had this exact same feeling making mistakes on a motorbike, didn't get hurt, but scared me shitless for a few weeks nonetheless.
I've had this exact same feeling making mistakes on a motorbike, didn't get hurt, but scared me shitless for a few weeks nonetheless.
Always wear your chaps kids!
Result-oriented thinking has to include some reflection about whether results are being obtained in a way that is repeatable or will work in other situations.
There is something to be said about the false dichotomy of being either for or against results oriented thinking. As you note, understanding why your thinking is correct is a critical component; however, the best way to understand if your thinking is correct is based on results.
One explainer of ROT uses poker as an analogy. (https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-results-oriente...) This is both a poor analogy, if read shallowly (follow a strategy even if there are occasional setbacks), and a possibly useful one (negative outcomes are far more consequential in mountaineering than at the poker table).
In cards (or many financial investments) it's possible to amortize risk over many bets --- you're rarely all-in on any one of them. In mountaineering, you're all-in all the time, and an early minor miscalculation or unwise choice may commit you to disaster. In the former case, taking small hits is sensible, in the latter, it's avoiding any extraneous risk thatis the wise move --- luck eventually runs out, and with high stakes, poor odds, and many bets, the daredevil strategy fares poorly.
You can of course find similar situations in finance and business. Startups, unlike VCs, are all-in on their specific venture. Funders can hedge bets, founders cannot.
In personal finance, there's the question of what size a financial hit a household can stand. For something like 40% of US households, finding funds for an unexpected $400 expense within a month is beyond their means. In a world with a steady rate of $400 shocks possible (medical bills, car repair, towing/impound fees, appliance repair, lawsuit or fines, unemployment, etc.), this means financial ruin is an everpresent looming threat.
I think we're so used to point->counter->point->counter nested trees that we pattern match disagreement even when it's not there.