Don McMinn

 

Counterfactual thinking (CFT) is a concept in psychology that involves the human tendency to create possible alternatives to life events that have already occurred; to consider something that is contrary to what actually happened. It is a hypothetical, fictitious perspective on the past.

CFT uses phrases like “what if” and “if only.”

• • • If only I had buckled my seatbelt before the accident.
    • When aimed at President Kennedy, what if Lee Harvey Oswald’s gun had misfired?
    •  What if we had gone elsewhere on our vacation? We would have avoided the storm.

• CFT can be both positive and negative. Better alternatives are called upward counterfactuals; worse alternatives are downward counterfactuals. When reflecting on an incident, it can be played out for better or for worse. For example, a driver who causes a minor car accident might think: “If only I had swerved sooner, I could have avoided the accident.” In contrast, downward counterfactuals spell out the way a situation might have turned out worse; that is, the same driver could think: “If I had been driving faster, I might now be dead.”

Consider the emotions associated with CFT.

• • • Guilt — I feel guilty about neglecting my children when they were young; if only I had spent more time with them.
    • Regret — If only I had chosen a different career path.
    • Pity — If I hadn’t married so young, my life would have been better.
    • Resentment — What if my son had not been arresrted; things would be so different.
    • Anger and bitterness — If I had ignored my friend’s advice—buy an expensive car—I wouldn’t be in debt.
    • Hope — By analyzing my mistakes, I have learned from them and will be a wiser person.
    • Gratitude — Think what could have happened if my car had not been equipped with airbags.
    • Insight — If only I had studied more, I would have passed the exam.

I love facts—things that are indisputable—so I initially resisted CFT because counterfactual literally means contrary to the facts. What possible benefit can be derived from reimagining history? It is as it was. But CFT can be beneficial. It can:

• • • Improve planning and goal-setting. “Let’s analyze our recent event and think about how we could have done it better.”
    • Help us learn, grow, and assess our behaviors. “If I could have that conversation again, I would change what I said.”
    • Give us hope. “I made a mistake, but I’ll not make that same mistake again.”
    • Boost creativity. “Let’s explore all the ways we could have handled that differently.”
    •  Help create different paths for the future. “Let’s change our strategy.”
    • Make us more proactive. “If I had been more involved, I could have influenced the outcome. Next time, I’ll be more aggressive.”

Know when to stop a particular episode of CFT. There is nothing wrong with taking time to ponder or reflect upon past events, but it’s important to let them go; don’t let them become tapes that are constantly played in your mind. If you continue to linger on and develop a particular counterfactual story, it can morph into a fantasy—an “alternative life”—a make-believe world that is disconnected from reality.

CFT should not be confused with embracing untruth—a claim, hypothesis, or belief that is contrary to the facts. We should never deny what actually happened. We can’t recreate history.

Like many other things in life, CFT has its advantages and disadvantages.

Here’s a good article on counterfactual thinking.

Travel with Friends – 2025

Next years’ Travel with Friends trip will be incredible. The destination is on most people’s bucket list. On October 10 I’ll announce the details of the trip and provide a brochure.

This is a commonly shared frustration. It’s been with us since the invention of the auto, but it’s gotten worse because of mobile access to social media. 

It frustrates me when people are unconscientious, unfocused, and unaware, particularly if they are positioned such that their lack of focus affects other people. For instance, if I’m beside you at a traffic light and you don’t move when the light turns green, no problem, I’ll drive on. But when you’re in the front of the line and don’t move when the light turns green, it adversely affects everyone behind you because we can’t move until you move. 

Let’s apply this “I can’t move until you move” dilemma to leaders of organizations. This problem occurs when a leader (the one out front) is passive or indecisive. Momentum stalls because the leader won’t take his foot off the brake. For a while, the organization may continue to survive—treading water based on previous initiatives and current operational systems—but there’s no forward movement so eventually the group will be stymied.  

Leaders, that’s why you must initiate. Move your foot from the brake to the accelerator. Your followers will not go around you and probably not even honk because they want to be compliant, loyal followers. So it’s up to you to begin. 

Equally damaging is for a leader to press the accelerator before he or she knows the right direction in which to go. This produces unfocused and wasted activity. The solution is for the leader to have clear and compelling vision, communicate well, and then get going.

Remember, leaders: your followers won’t move until you move.  So move

Travel with Friends – 2025

Next years’ Travel with Friends trip will be incredible. The destination is on most people’s bucket list. On October 10 I’ll announce the details of the trip and provide a brochure.

 

Individuals are complex. And when two people are in relationship with one another, complications become exponential. 

John and Julie Gottman offer us help.

The Gottmans are psychologists who run The Gottman Institute in New York City. Their work, based on scientific studies, is devoted to helping couples build and maintain loving, healthy relationships. What they have discovered is significant. Their work focuses on the marriage relationship but their insights are beneficial for all relationships.  

The following is taken from an article titled “Masters of Love,” by Emily Esfanhani Smith, published June 12, 2014 in The Atlantic. In her article, Smith writes about John Gottman’s theory of responding to relational “bids.”

“[In one of his studies] Gottman wanted to know more about how the masters [happily married people] created that culture of love and intimacy, and how the disasters [unhappily married people] squashed it. He designed a lab on the University of Washington campus to look like a beautiful bed and breakfast retreat. He invited 130 newlywed couples to spend the day at this retreat and watched them as they did what couples normally do on vacation: cook, clean, listen to music, eat, chat, and hang out. And Gottman made a critical discovery in this study—one that gets at the heart of why some relationships thrive while others languish.

“Throughout the day, partners would make requests for connection, what Gottman calls ‘bids.’ For example, a husband who is a bird enthusiast notices a goldfinch fly across the yard. He might say to his wife, ‘Look at that beautiful bird outside!’ He’s not just commenting on the bird: he’s requesting a response from his wife—a sign of interest or support—hoping they’ll connect, however momentarily, over the bird.

“The wife now has a choice. She can respond by either ‘turning toward’ or ‘turning away’ from her husband. Though the bird-bid might seem minor and silly, it can actually reveal a lot about the health of the relationship. The husband thought the bird was important enough to bring it up in conversation and the question is whether his wife recognizes and respects that.

“People who turned toward their partners in the study responded by engaging the bidder, showing interest and support in the bid. Those who didn’t—those who turned away—would not respond or respond minimally and continue doing whatever they were doing, like watching TV or reading the paper. Sometimes they would respond with overt hostility, saying something like, ‘Stop interrupting me, I’m reading.’

“These bidding interactions had profound effects on marital well-being. Couples who had divorced after a six-year follow up study, only had ‘turn-toward bids’ 33 percent of the time during the initial study. Only three in ten of their bids for emotional connection were met with intimacy. But the couples who were still together after six years had ‘turn-toward bids’ 87 percent of the time. Nine times out of ten, they were meeting their partner’s emotional needs.

“By observing these types of interactions, Gottman can predict with up to 94 percent certainty whether couples—straight or gay, rich or poor, childless or not—will be broken up, together and unhappy, or together and happy several years later. Much of it comes down to the spirit couples bring to the relationship. Do they bring kindness and generosity; or contempt, criticism, and hostility?”

Simple, isn’t it. Our spouse, children, friends, and coworkers make “bids” for our time and attention. When we properly respond to those bids (and it usually doesn’t take a lot of time), relationships are nourished. When we continually ignore the bids, relationships suffer.

Travel with Friends – 2025

Next years’ Travel with Friends trip will be incredible. The destination is on most people’s bucket list. On October 10 I’ll announce the details of the trip and provide a brochure.

When I’m with my grandson, Benjamin, I always try to say “yes” to his requests. “Papa, will you take me fishing? Will you play with me? Can we go swimming?” Unless it’s impossible or imprudent to do so, I usually say yes.

I do the same at work; when a colleague or direct report makes an appeal, I try to respond in a positive way. 

This approach has helped my marriage. For years, both Mary and I suffered from a “no-mentality.” She would ask me to do something and I would demur. I wouldn’t necessarily say “no” (I’m more cunning than that) but I would hesitate, postpone, ignore, or offer an alternative. In essence, I declined. Mary often did the same to me. Now we try to say “yes” to each other, or at least craft a positive response such as, “What an interesting idea; let’s talk about that tonight.” But if it’s a simple request (Would you clean your study?) I should simply comply.   

In your interpersonal relationships, which word do you tend to say the most: yes or no? What is your default response? I’m not recommending that you be a “yes-person”—someone who agrees with everything that is said and endorses or supports without criticism, every opinion or proposal. I am encouraging you to have a positive, permissive outlook on life, particularly when responding to people’s requests. The alternative is to be oppositional and quick to resist or dissent.

Sir Richard Branson once said: “I have enjoyed life a lot more by saying yes than by saying no.” And I’m sure those around him have also enjoyed that persuasion. 

Here’s a good article from Fortune magazine titled “Five Reasons Why Saying “Yes” Is The Best Decision For Your Career.”