LSW#35🪟Beware of Existential Asymmetry
How it skews thinking and how to account for it
❝Kings and philosophers shit—and so do ladies.❞
— Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592)
A little crass perhaps, but there’s a deeper point. Montaigne was hinting at a fundamental shortcoming in how we think — existential asymmetry. It affects all aspects of life, but we’re mostly blind to its effects.
Accounting for it can help us be gentler on ourselves, and with a more realistic take on things.
What is existential asymmetry?
Your “data” on yourself is complete (relatively) and easily accessible. In contrast, our understanding of others is always incomplete and mostly inaccessible. We are time-bound, closed systems aka existential.
This means we have intimate knowledge of our own failures and shortcomings, but not of others. In contrast, other’s successes and strengths are readily accessible and visible. However, their failures and struggles are mostly obscured.
Obvious? Very much so. Except we keep forgetting.
But wait, there’s more! Consider these two mechanisms that make existential symmetry particularly potent in distorting our view:
Discounting and hedonic adaptation — We underplay our successes as flukes, or don’t give ourselves enough credit. Even when acknowledged, over time we go blind to their significance. Once we’ve reached a goal, we readjust to a new target, putting us back in deficit mode.
Loss aversion — we give much higher weightage to losses than gains. Winning and losing 100 dollars might be symmetrical in math, but not in how we experience them. Scientists put the effect of loss as 2x that of an equal gain.
When you combine these phenomena with existential asymmetry, the difference in how we experience the difference is 4x or more, instead of 2x. Because our successes simply don’t register, or get counted, in our flawed mental accounting. We quickly adapt to our new level of achievement, while the gap always looms large.
Welcome to the human condition. Montaigne’s line is a memorable antidote against this flaw in our thinking.
Implications and counter-measures
So how do we navigate this asymmetry? Below are some pointers (more like notes to myself).
Mistakes don’t start out as mistakes
This is something I have to constantly remind myself: mistakes often BECOME so, and clearly so, only in hindsight (mostly). Neither do they come with warning labels.
We always have more data on the past than the future (existential time asymmetry). It’s easy to berate ourselves for the bad choices we made. But consider that at that moment in time, given the data you had, that probably was, in fact, a good choice.
Outcomes are not always an accurate reflection of the quality of decision-making.
Envy as a positive
One of the main byproducts of existential asymmetry is envy. It’s why comparison is frequently maligned as the thief of joy.
It’s usually considered a negative, but can also be a positive indicator. How so? Although not always, it can point to what you really value. Unvarnished emotions without the usual facade can hold clues that are worth paying attention to.
From this perspective, envy and comparison can be sources of inspiration, rather than demotivation.
Process blindness
When venturing out on something new, there’s asymmetry again — more information on outcomes, not as much on the process of getting there. The process is mostly hidden.
But our experience is the opposite — a majority of time spent in the process, and a minuscule amount in the outcome.
When comparing options, look for what’s not obvious. Want to become a NY Times bestselling author? What do they do 95% of their time? We might not want to do that, other than maybe the keynote speeches and book-signings.
Pay as much attention to the process, as to the outcomes.
Beware of “movie time”
Process blindness also means we often think in “movie time” instead of “human time” aka reality. Think of Sylvester Stallone in Rocky training hard and getting fit in a 5-minute montage with some inspiring background music (more at the link). Reality doesn’t live up to the speed and perfection of the montages we dream up.
Deploy generous caveats when assessing others’ successes
Everyone’s lives looks perfect, except for ours. Technology has worsened this dynamic compared to when Montaigne was writing. Also note, there’s survivorship bias in play as well— only successes are part of our visible dataset. Failures simply don’t show up on our radar.
Risk, and the price paid, is mostly hidden
Recognize that everyone’s on their own unique journey. You don’t have a complete picture of how someone got it done. We might not be willing to pay the same price, or simply choose not to do what they did to reach a given outcome. Sometimes, the price/risk is invisible even to the person in question.
Gap vs. Gain
When pursuing a long-term goal, the hardest part is that most of the time you’re in deficit compared to where you’re supposed to be. We mostly forget our gains, and focus on the gaps (what’s left to achieve) instead. That’s how evolution wired us.
Instead of ruminating on gaps which comes more naturally to us, proactively give equal weightage to what you’ve already achieved.
✴️ What are some of your strategies for tackling existential asymmetry? I’m curious. Reply, and let me know!
Related Reading
Another dimension of existential asymmetry revolves around doubt and imposter syndrome. They are not necessarily a problem the way culture programs us:
For a contrarian take on the role of confidence in leadership, check out my post: Do Leaders have to be Confident?
That’s a wrap for this edition! If you found this useful, please share.