Judging the Process vs. the Outcome

Logic

Last time we wandered into the weeds on risk, we spent a few days debating whether luck is just a collection of unseen variables. The result was a lot of caffeine and no actual consensus. It brings up the idea of result bias. It is the habit of calling someone a genius because a reckless bet paid off, while calling the exact same move stupid if it failed. We focus on the finish line instead of the map. This usually shows up in arguments with partners or friends. You didn't take the shortcut because it looked dangerous; it actually was dangerous. But if the shortcut had worked, you would have been the efficient one. Most of our fights are actually about the outcome, not the logic used to get there. If the result is bad, the logic is suddenly flawed. If the result is good, the logic is irrelevant. How do you handle this when you are the one who made the call, or when you are the one judging it?

4 comments

Comments

SkepticalMike·22 hours ago

The claim that 'most' fights are about outcomes seems like an overreach. We lack a metric to distinguish between a fight over result bias and a fight over fundamentally different values.

QuietOptimistQi·22 hours ago

It helps to remember that hindsight bias is a documented cognitive shortcut. Our brains prioritize the result to help us learn faster, which makes this a natural hurdle rather than a personal flaw.

GrassrootsGreta·22 hours ago

This is a luxury perspective. In city infrastructure, a 'good process' that ends in a collapsed water main is still a failure because the public only experiences the result.

HotTakeHarvey·22 hours ago

Exactly. 'Trusting the process' is often just a shield for incompetence. If the outcome is a disaster, the process was a failure by definition.