There is an idea that advocates avoiding hasty decision-making and adopting a “wait and see” tactic in situations where the outcome of an event is difficult to predict.
Simply put, if you don’t know how to act, or when the risks of acting rashly are much higher than the risks of waiting, then you should refrain from acting and not exert unnecessary effort, according to this approach. This idea can be seen as a tool in the context of thinking about strategies for success.
The foundation of the idea
The psyche has three basic ways of solving any problem.
The first is to run away when you have the opportunity. There's no point in having a long conversation with a gopnik or trying to reason with a robber in the driveway. Why explain anything to a dog that's chasing you?
The second is to attack. It is used in situations where it is impossible to escape, and your life and health are under real threat. Trying to solve problems in other ways, the psyche at some point understands that the danger is deadly, but there is nowhere to hide. All resources are directed to the last rush, which is most often accompanied by a state of affect. You are ready to fight even with a bear, even with a pack of rabid dogs. Nowhere to go, as they say.
But there is a third option – freezing. In this context, the psyche analyzes external signals and cannot reach a clear conclusion. Does the aggressor see me? Is he going to attack? If I run, will I provoke an attack? If I attack myself, will I cope? Am I in real danger or am I exaggerating? There are many questions, no answers, at least they all seem not so convincing. It is this instinctive reaction, reinterpreted as a conscious waiting position, that formed the basis of this idea. A person does not run away from problems and does not rush to solve them, he takes a waiting position.
A story that illustrates this principle
Political events are rarely of interest to psychologists in themselves, but they often become vivid illustrations for understanding human behavior and decision-making. The actions of various figures can serve as interesting metaphors for describing the workings of the psyche. The history of the Falklands War of 1982 is such a case.
Although the question of the discovery of the islands is still a matter of debate, the first documented landing in 1690 was made by British sailors, who gave the archipelago the name that later became established in the world. However, the Argentines, due to geographical proximity, always considered these lands theirs. The dispute would have remained a dispute, but Great Britain decided to legalize the territories in 1833. The ruling elite of Argentina did not like this very much, and a conflict arose between the countries.
No serious confrontation over the islands was expected until Lieutenant General Leopoldo Galtieri came to power. His popularity among the population was low due to the establishment of a dictatorship and the rapid deterioration of the country's financial situation, but he was in no hurry to resign. For years, the authorities tried to suppress protests and make the people love the ruler, but this did not yield results.
One can argue about which problem worried Leopold more, the loss of the Falklands or the drop in his rating, but in any case, the lieutenant general could think of nothing better than to organize a small victorious war. According to his plan, the people were to enthusiastically accept the victory over Britain in the conflict over the disputed territories.
On April 2, 1982, a full-scale invasion began, which was condemned by the UN. Ten countries voted for the immediate withdrawal of Argentine troops, Panama supported Galtieri, and four countries, including the USSR and China, abstained. But the decision had already been made, the general was not going to back down.
The war lasted two months. Argentina lost more than 100 aircraft and helicopters, 649 soldiers were killed or missing, and about 1,000 were captured. The military government of Leopoldo Galtieri fell, and he himself soon found himself in the dock. After lengthy trials, he died of cancer in 2003, while under house arrest. His name was struck off the list of presidents of Argentina, and the fate of the Falkland Islands was decided in a referendum in 2013. Their status was preserved, it is a territory of Great Britain.
What does this story tell us? Sometimes the best decision is not to rush into decisions or to refrain from certain actions altogether. Refusing rash, catastrophic steps is often the path to success. General Galtieri, faced with the problem of his own declining popularity, ignored the very idea of reasoning and chose the most absurd rescue tool, for which he paid the price. At the same time, he buried hundreds of soldiers and doomed his country to a decade of the most severe financial crisis.
How to apply this idea in practice?
Many people mistakenly believe that the idea of waiting calls for total inaction. Do nothing at all, lie on the stove, everything will somehow work itself out. Don't look for a job, don't get an education, don't discuss relationship problems, ideally don't move at all. But in reality, everything is much more complicated.
First, never make decisions based on emotions. If a conflict occurs, it is wiser to take a break and ask your opponent to calm down so that you can discuss the subject of the dispute with a cool head. The psyche, when overwhelmed with emotions, often loses control and simply does not have time to analyze the incoming signals. Then you will be scratching your head, trying to understand why you said that and what prompted you to start waving your fists. But it will be too late.
Second, never make hasty decisions related to losses. For example, in an effort to get out of poverty, many people go to gambling clubs to hit the jackpot and patch up their financial holes in one fell swoop. A person, finding himself in a difficult situation, has chosen the strategy of “attacking”, that is, throwing all available resources on the principle of “master or perish”. It is foolish, it would be better to do nothing.
Or, feeling the fear of loneliness, a person sets out in search of a soulmate. Lowers the bar, allows his boundaries to be violated, makes all concessions and agrees to any conditions. This is again a tactic associated with solving the problem on the fly. Then it turns out that the type is not yours, and there is no respect, maybe you will be robbed to the bone by a selfish lady or driven under strict control by an aggressive abuser. But you wanted to solve the problem so much that you somehow didn't even consider it!
Third, defeat is the end of the event, not a problem that needs to be “solved” immediately. When I worked as a personal driver a long time ago, my boss, an avid visitor to bookmakers, liked to repeat the phrase: “The father scolded his son not for playing, but for trying to win back.” Brilliant words, because we often face losses, but instead of recognizing and accepting this fact, for some reason we start looking for ways to compensate.
In psychology, there is a name for this: irrational escalation. I will give two brief examples.
The first one is that you bet a thousand hryvnias for the sake of fun on one team winning. But luck turned away from you, and you lost. It's a shame, you want to get your thousand back. You make a new bet to win back the first one. But, apparently, this is not your day, you lose again. And so on until you make a profit. It's very stupid, it would be better if you just accepted the lost thousand and forgot about it. It's important to be able to stop in time.
The second – you started dating a guy, you even liked him and a relationship started. You treated him in this way and that, with words and without words… You rewarded him with physical intimacy, regularly cooked food, cleaned the apartment, told all your friends about the guy's appearance, but then it turned out that he was cheating on you. You would admit defeat and accept the wasted time, but no, most girls will start solving this problem. Or it would be better to do nothing and calmly “leave the chat”.
Fourth, give up negative motivation. This is when actions are based not on one's own desire and feeling of the possibility of realizing one's plans, but on the fact that “it is necessary!” A vivid example is reproductive pressure, when a girl is forced to give birth, convincing her that a normal woman is obliged to become a mother and the clock is ticking. Then we will ask where so many unloved and, in fact, unwanted children come from, but we will refuse to admit that we ourselves put pressure on the fair sex.
Or here's another popular topic – successful success. We are convinced from all angles that a normal person is obliged to be an “achiever”. Get married, get married immediately, buy a car, your own apartment, branded clothes, go to the sea, visit a million countries, make a career. It seems like cool goals, but they are not always real needs. Pavel Durov does not have a private jet, Mark Zuckerberg prefers a capsule wardrobe, someone hates driving a car, someone finds it easier to rent an apartment. We are different.
The pursuit of success leads to the effect of FOMO (fear of missing out), when a person, like a magpie, rushes at everything that shines. He scatters, does this and that, goes here and there. He gets 100,500 loyalty cards, participates in all promotions, attends an endless number of events, invests in dozens of projects. And this idea teaches you to focus on one thing and avoid unnecessary fuss. Fuss is harmful, and often the best solution is to refrain from rash actions.
Instead of a conclusion
Why Leopoldo intervened in the conflict with Britain is still unclear. A small victorious war turned into a disaster. Hundreds of families were left without husbands, fathers and sons, thrown to the slaughter against the armed forces of England. Galtieri himself lost the power to which he had so tenaciously clung. Argentina has spent more than half a century in a protracted crisis, from which it is only beginning to emerge. And it is unknown how long it will take now.
Anxiety and fear force us to compensate for losses, postpone accepting defeat, and settle for crabs when we needed fish. The idea may seem contradictory. Since childhood, we have been accustomed to the fact that to achieve a goal, we need to be active and try a lot. It seems that otherwise we cannot become successful.
Of course, history knows many examples when success was achieved by those who acted quickly, decisively and took risks. But no less often we see how people who consciously choose moderation and avoid unnecessary fuss rise to the top. And they complete tasks not because they are carried away by the current towards a better life, but because they do not shoot themselves in the foot, do not waste their energy on the ephemeral and do not agree to unprofitable offers. They hit one point, wait for the necessary resources to appear and in two steps overtake those who, like a squirrel in a wheel, have been running in circles for years.
