Fixing small issues, one at a time

Have you ever heard of the beta-region paradox? I recently came across this concept, and it captivated my attention for a few days.

Let’s imagine a typical day at work. We deal with daily annoyances such as a colleague speaking too loudly, another being slightly impolite, the room temperature being a little bit too high, or continuous interruptions by the same customers asking the same repetitive questions… You get the idea. We are not fulfilled by our job. However, we cope with that. It is not terrible and it could be worse. The alternative would be to leave, but it would look like a step into a risky unknown.

As Shayla Love summarizes in a recent article:

These situations aren’t that bad, and so you don’t do anything about them, whether it be to take action or kickstart psychological processes to cope. This is the ‘beta region’ – the no-man’s land for circumstances that don’t prompt action or response.

To simplify, the beta-region paradox suggests that we can recover more quickly from more distressing experiences than from less distressing ones. More extreme circumstances can drive us to take action and push us towards better situations than the not-so-bad ones we currently endure. In short, a worse situation in the short term can be better in the long term.

Why is it called a paradox? Because in the long term, these minor situations can cause more damage than more traumatic events. As Daniel T. Gilbert and his co-authors write summarizing their research, it can be very dangerous to ignore them.

Consider this example from Daniel T. Gilbert’s article:

Drivers may avoid long trips because they believe that the odds of being involved in an accident are monotonically related to the time they spend on the road. If a trip to another state triggers the decision to wear a seat belt and a trip around the block does not, the paradoxical consequence is that people may be more likely to sustain injuries in automobile accidents when taking short rather than long trips.

Among the many implications of the beta-region paradox, there is one that looks particularly relevant because it highlights a sensitive point: we tend to ignore dangerous situations simply because we don’t recognize them as dangerous. No red flags are waved, so we perceive no imminent danger. At the same time, we take action only when a situation becomes unbearable, with the potential consequence that it might be too late to fix it.

Training as a coach has made me more conscious of situations we might ignore and the potential consequences we could underestimate. My practice reminds me of how biases shape our views of these recurrent situations. It requires a high level of awareness to predict the consequences of minor annoyances in our daily lives. How can we raise our level of awareness? How can we distinguish what is truly problematic and take action before it becomes intolerable?

Addressing ‘small’ issues, one at a time, can help us achieve long-lasting and positive impacts on our lives. Many insightful books illustrate how changing habits through small, sustainable actions is more effective than making big resolutions. Breaking goals down into minor steps can drive long-lasting fulfilment and success to our life.

Associating small changes to ‘minor’ annoyances can go even farther: it can  generate ripple effects and start a virtuous cycle by preventing major and hidden risks. 

If raising awareness of potential dangers behind little annoyances is the habit we want to build, what concrete actions can we take? Please share your views.

–

Thank you for subscribing to my newsletter. I look forward to reading your experiences, comments, and questions.

My name is Matteo. As all of you, I contain multitudes.

Join the conversation or share.

Matteo