“You can have it all.” You’ve probably heard that expression, but I doubt that many believe it, and with good reason. By choosing one thing, you are by definition eliminating all competing things and therefore can’t “have it all.”
When you decide to attend one college, you are eliminating all of the other colleges that would have accepted you. When you decide on one career, you are eliminating, at least for the time being, all other careers that might interest you. When you choose to marry, you are eliminating the single life (for some, that too is just for the time being). This holds true for every decision we make; choose one, and eliminate all competing alternatives.
Viewed this way, it puts the emphasis on making the right, or at the very least, a good decision. The problem with decisions is that most of the time, they are judged by the result they produce. While it’s true that good decisions tend to produce good results and bad decisions tend to produce bad results, that isn’t always the case.
Visualize (or draw) a horizontal line, with “good decision” above the line and “bad decision” below the line. Now bisect the horizontal line with a vertical line and put “good result” to the left and “bad result” to the right. That will produce four quadrants: the upper left will be “good decision, good result”, the upper right, good decision, bad result”, the lower right “bad decision, bad result”, and the lower left, “bad decision, good result.”
The upper left and lower right quadrants are logical; we expect our results to reflect our decisions and most of the time, they do. It’s the upper right and lower left quadrants that cause some consternation. Most rational people understand the upper right; good decision, bad result. It’s the proverbial “shit happens.” Not always, but sometimes.
The lower left is the one that is most troublesome, because when we get a good result, we don’t always analyze the decision, because, hey, the result was fine, so what’s the problem? Sometimes, plenty.
I once had a prospect say to me “Someone tried to sell me life insurance 20 years ago, but I didn’t buy. That was a good decision.” He thought that the good result (not dying) meant that the decision was good. Nothing could be further from the truth. He made a poor decision and got lucky.
Now make no mistake about it, it is better to have a poor decision generate a good result than a bad result. Even though that prospect had the odds in his favor (he was in his late 40s when I met him, so actuarially, most men in their late 20s won’t die within 20 years), it was still a terrible decision. Yet many people I meet don’t understand that concept.
Perhaps a more graphic example will drive the point home. For what amount of money would you play Russian roulette? There is no amount that could get most rational people to play. Yet if someone plays and wins, that is, doesn’t kill himself, was it a good decision? Most rational people would agree that it was a terrible decision with a good (lucky) result.
So how can procrastinating about your will and life insurance program be considered a good decision just because you haven’t died (yet)? Yes, bad decisions will sometimes produce good results. But it’s not the way to bet.