The Association for Psychological Science is reporting that sometimes, quitting may be good for you.

Miller and Wrosch suggest it may be more prudent to cut one’s losses in the face of an insurmountable obstacle. “When people are faced with situations in which they cannot realize a key life goal, the most adaptive response for physical and mental health may be to disengage from this goal,” write the authors.

This goes with a theme that I talk about a lot: knowing when to cut your losses. The example that’s easiest to use is that of an investor who buys stock in a company. He watches the stock go up and he gets excited. Then the stock goes down and he gets worried. The stock value goes up again and he gets confident that while it may fluctuate, it will keep going up.

But then it drops. Slowly, but steadily, it drops a little bit each week. Because he’s sure it’ll go back up, he doesn’t sell it. This loyalty to the sinking stock will end up costing the investor significantly.

There are many possible causes for this logic-defying loyalty to a thing, a person, or a cause in our lives. Sometimes it’s because that thing, person, or cause has given good things in the past and we’re hoping — indeed, expecting — that one day those good things will return. Other times it’s because the object of our loyalty is something we’ve invested in heavily with our money or time or energy, and we feel a need or expectation to get a return on that investment. And sometimes, that thing or person or cause has changed, and we’re really only hanging on to what once was.

This is not to say that perserverence is bad, or foolish. But a reality check is good from time to time. In the face of an unrealistic, unattainable goal, sometimes it’s better to cut your losses.

Please, someone explain to me why some people have to have the last word? What insecure motivation makes people crave — yea, even need — to have the last word on every matter?

I have noticed that even when there is nothing to discuss, the discussion itself will continue on endlessly until the person gets the last word. And what’s worse… what if such people are on both sides of the discussion?

You know the never-ending transactions I’m talking about:

A: I’m sick of talking to you.

B: Alright then don’t talk to me!

A: Alright then I won’t!

B: Good.

A: Have a nice life.

B: I will… without you!

A: Fine by me.

B: Whatever.

{ad nauseum}

If you’re done with someone, be done with them. Telling someone that you don’t want to talk to them is a self-evident falsehood. Arguing with someone over the fact that you’re tired of arguing is an equally nonsensical paradox.

So what makes people crave this so badly? Why do some people feel a need to impress their illogic upon others?

All religions teach (brainwash?) their followers to be “unselfish”. Christians are taught that by doing things for others they are storing up treasures in heaven. The Wiccans believe that any unselfish act will be returned three times over. Islam teaches that performing an act of unselfishness will be praised by Allah in the “record books” as many as 700 times!

It begs the question: Why does your God have to barter with you to get you to do good? And more importantly, doesn’t the knowledge that you will be rewarded for your “good deed”, by nature, make it cease to be an “unselfish act”?

It’s one of the logical paradoxes that really breaks down the foundation of religion as we know it. It’s a universal truth that is brilliant in its simplicity. It’s quite simple: there is no unselfish act.

If, and when, you give money or food to a homeless person, why did you do it? Yes, because that person was hungry, I know. But why does that matter to you? The truth is, you feel bad that the person is hungry, and giving something to them makes you feel better.

And likewise, when you stop on the way home to get flowers or a card or some little gift to bring home to the one you love, why did you do that? Yes, I know, you did it to make them happy. But why? Because it makes you feel good to make them feel good.

Do it in your head. Work the math. Pick any act that you commonly think of as “unselfish” and trace back through the motivation. In the end, it’s easy to see that everything we do is self-serving.

I wonder what would have happened if Alice could have stopped the white rabbit, just for a moment, and asked him where it would lead.

Let’s say life is like a decision tree. The choices you make earliest determine on which fork of the tree you will end. Though you will still make many choices later, your earlier choices have negated a myriad of other possible outcomes. That’s what I believe in. No fate. No destiny. Just a series of outcomes influenced by a series of causes and effects.

Now let’s say you go along planning for an particular outcome. You’re making choices in the present not because of the immediate results, but because in the long-term you’ve decided that you ultimately want to land in a particular sector of the tree. Each day that you get closer to that part of the tree. Each decision puts you closer to your chosen outcome.

And assume that suddenly you come to a new fork — a new choice to be made between two branches, and suddenly you realize that this other one looks pretty damn good, too! And what if you see a short-term gain that beats any of the longer-term stuff you’ve planned for, but you can’t see past this short-term gain.

The risk/reward is higher on the one side than the other. The potential climb is greater, but so is the potential fall. Meanwhile, on the other side, the climb is shorter, but the fall is one you know you can survive.

Do you take of the training wheels and work without a net? Or do you continue to perform tricks that get applause from the crowd but never amazement? That tightrope walk from tree to tree in your back yard will impress your friends, but the one across the Grand Canyon will impress the world.

What if Alice asked that white rabbit where it would lead, and he told her “I can’t tell you where it will lead, but let me tell you where it can lead…”

Today I was turned on to Paul MacLean’s Triune Brain Theory, and I must say that it’s pretty interesting. The idea he puts forward is that the human brain is made up of three seperate brains in one, which are:

• The R-complex, or reptilian brain, which would be the most basic of the three. Developed during early stages in our evolution (in case the name wasn’t obvious enough) the reptilian complex is responsible for basic brain functions such as movement, digestion, reproduction, circulation, breathing, and the execution of fight-or-flight reaction.
• The Limbic system, or mammal brain, which were developed during a middle stage of our evolution. The mammal brain includes the amygdala, responsible for associating events with emotion, and the hippocampus, which provides our long-term memory. Love, hate, fear, joy, pity, rage come from the limbic complex.
• The Neocortex (sometimes called cerebral cortex), or human mind, which occupies five-sixths of the space within our heads. The cerebral cortex gives us communication, logic, operational thinking, and the ability to plan.

The idea suggests that - in spite of how civilized we’d like to think we are - the Neocortex doesn’t run the show. In fact, it’s only when the two underlying brains are not in control that the Neocortex gets to run the show. In modern society, we find our basic needs met, so we’re able to feed our human mind, but order of importance starts from oldest-to-youngest.

This is the part that really starts to get fascinating for me, because it makes so much sense. It explains why, when faced with a dangerous situation, we do things we didn’t know we were capable of - often without emotion, and we often have a very cloudy memory when it’s done. It explains why even the smartest people we know make such horrible decisions when they think they’re in love… or for that matter when they’re irate, as well.

I’m always the one to say that the reason for everything we do is written in our DNA - particularly when I’m talking about relationships and/or sex - but this gives me a whole new depth to the idea. Indeed, it’s really quite fascinating how much of human nature seems to be something we have little ability to do anything about!