The term counterfactual was coined by Nelson Goodman in 1947. The study ofcounterfactual speculation is a kind of mental model to identify our assumptions decidedly for the substance which they are based on. It is a logical guide to enable us to follow a trail to see whether there was an indicative precedent (in which case it would not be a presumption or counterfactual), and in many cases the trail does lead to an assumption. For example:
If Osama Bin Laden did not order the 9/11 attacks, then someone else did.
If Osama Bin Laden had not ordered the attacks on the world Trade Center, then someone else would have.
The if clause of the first sentence may or may not be true according to the speaker, so the then clause also may or may not be true; the if is asserted by the speaker to be true if the protasis is true. In this sentence the if clause and the then clause are both in the past tense of the indicative precedent. In the second sentence, the speaker is speaking with a certainty that Bin Laden did order the planes to fly kamikaze missions to attack America (according to the speaker, the protasis is false), and therefore the main clause deals with the counterfactual result — what would have happened. The first is subjunctive and the second is conditional.
The idea of counterfactual speculation is especially important to unraveling an irrational response to fear. People tend to create counterfactual simulations believing that everything which can go wrong will go wrong. What if my SWOT Analysis was inaccurate and the market is not as expected? What if all of my planning was for nothing? What if I lose my investment?
This is the law of attraction at work. Predicting counterfactual results can actually become a self-fulfilling prophecy where pessimism draws a negative conclusion closer to us in a situation which might have resulted in a positive conclusion if our focus had been elsewhere. What we choose to entertain tends to attract likenesses. Today’s ideas whether positive or negative tend to become tomorrow’s realities.
So why then do we have counterfactual speculation among us in the first place?
Many psychologists believe that counterfactual speculation is a coping mechanism learned in the process of human evolution where making such assumptions probably helped humans to live longer lives. The theory is that natural caveman brain would dramatize situations intentionally to prepare us for life threatening circumstances.
For the pioneers following the railway west in the late 1800’s being attacked by a grizzly bear was a real possibility. However most of us do not live in areas where we have should have worries of being eaten by predators. In fact unless one lives in Afghanistan, Detroit, Somalia or some neighborhoods in Los Angeles it is unnecessary that one must worry much about violent crime. That doesn’t mean that we should not prepare to defend ourselves, or that we need not lock our doors. It does mean that it is safe to do other things with our lives as well. Modern conveniences like the telephone, firearms and antibiotics help people to live a lot longer than was the case for scores of generations past.
In fact when we look at danger in a positive light we find that people who have faced adversity squarely in the past and overcome it have actually found a mechanism to prime themselves to become winners in the present. It doesn’t matter how we got ourselves into a pickle in the first place. It might be our own faulty maneuvering, it could be intentional or perhaps it is some random circumstances beyond control. Most often it is some combination of those factors. The silver lining is this: Finding out how resourceful we become when we are truly challenged.
The key to overcoming the effects of counterfactual speculation is to externalize and define our fears, i.e., write them down in a journal or discuss them with a trusted companion. The alternative is really pathetic when you think about it. It is to deny the problem or to minimize its outcome on your life. By seeing fear as a separate and distinct entity from who we really are, and who we want to be, we become truly enabled to overcome our overreactions which formerly led us to counterproductive behaviors.
As a 12 year old boy I begged my uncle to take me to the boxing gym where he was an instructor. One day Uncle Bill relented getting my Dad’s approval despite my mother’s (his sisters) protests. So here I was standing in front of a professional fighter in a boxing ring. I hear people speak of butterflies in their stomachs in such situations, what I remember feeling seemed more like a Raven flapping its wings, but what was I so afraid of? I was chicken of getting punched in my face! But I came to realize (not on that first visit unfortunately but after several) was that I was scared of something that ultimately matters very little in the greater scheme of life. When I accepted the risk and inevitability of pain I freed myself to do more with my life than I previously dared to attempt. I discovered that this philosophy works not only in boxing but also for mathematics and relationships as well.
The statement that “if something doesn’t kill you it makes you stronger” is true only for those who embrace the experience and learn from it. You see once you realize that you’ll probably live through danger, you learn to accept it and you begin to prepare for it. In my case I learned to parry, duck, move out of range, take angles and bob and weave. This enabled me to get hit much less and that made the sport so much more fun.
Commentaires