0:00

Welcome to the Standard Deviations podcast,

0:02

brought to you by Orion Advisor

0:04

Solutions, and hosted by Dr. Daniel

0:06

Crosby, Orion's Chief Behavioral Officer, a

0:09

New York Times best-selling author. This

0:11

year, Dr. Crosby embarks on a

0:13

compelling exploration of meaning, what it

0:15

is, why it matters, and how

0:18

you can create more of it

0:20

in your life. Each episode will

0:22

only be available for one week.

0:24

So don't miss your chance to

0:26

listen. Tune in regularly and join

0:29

the journey. Although I no longer live

0:31

there, I'm a native Alabama. My grandparents

0:34

moved to Huntsville from Florida

0:36

so that my grandfather, an

0:38

engineer, could be part of the

0:40

space race between the Soviet Union

0:42

and the US. I grew up in what's

0:44

called the Rocket City, attended schools

0:46

named after astronauts who died in

0:48

the line of duty, and grew

0:51

up surrounded by literal rocket

0:53

scientists, whose contributions always made

0:55

me very proud. given my

0:57

family and regional ties to

0:59

the space program, I always watched

1:02

the shuttle launches of my

1:04

childhood with a special enthusiasm.

1:06

That's also why the events

1:08

of January 28th, 1986, were

1:10

so painful to me, when,

1:12

like millions of other American

1:14

children, I witnessed the explosion

1:17

of the space shuttle challenger.

1:19

While there were a host of factors

1:21

that contributed to the tragedy,

1:23

which claimed the lives of

1:25

all seven crew members, including

1:27

famed teacher Krista McAuliffe, in

1:30

the end, the disaster was officially caused

1:32

by the failure of an O-ring seal

1:34

in one of the solid rocket boosters,

1:37

resulting in the breakup of the

1:39

space vehicle. During the previous

1:41

50 launches, the pair of

1:43

rocket boosters separated with beauty,

1:45

a testament to NASA's

1:47

engineering talent. STS 51L's explosion

1:50

just 73 minutes after ignition

1:52

looked much different in the

1:54

Florida sky that fateful late

1:57

January morning. In the weeks and

1:59

months that followed an unusual

2:01

plume caused by the damaged

2:03

O-ring was analyzed and fingers

2:06

were pointed, but was the

2:08

loss of life born out of

2:10

a basic human psychological flaw. The

2:13

status quo bias is the

2:15

tendency of individuals to prefer

2:17

the current state of things

2:19

and resist change. In the

2:21

case of Challenger, NASA officials

2:23

may have fallen prey to

2:26

it. Heading into 1986. The shuttle

2:28

program felt pressure to keep up

2:30

with a schedule that had already

2:32

been fraught with delays and setbacks.

2:34

Fewer missions had been completed

2:37

and confidence in NASA once

2:39

a highly respected government agency

2:41

was on the decline. Facing this pressure

2:44

to perform, those in charge were

2:46

determined to launch Challenger

2:48

despite dangerously cold temperatures.

2:50

Engineers at Morton Thiakol, the

2:53

contractor responsible for building the

2:55

solid rocket boosters, had raised

2:57

concerns about the effect of

3:00

freezing conditions on the O-ring's

3:02

performance and durability. Warnings

3:04

in hand, NASA's decision-makers opted to

3:07

proceed with the launch, which

3:09

had already been postponed three

3:11

times and scrubbed once. Hindsight

3:14

is always crystal clear, but it's

3:16

evident that the status quo

3:18

bias played a crucial role in

3:20

the challenger disaster. The emphasis on

3:23

hitting launch milestones and

3:25

following established procedures led to

3:27

a decision that overlooked critical

3:30

safety concerns, resulting in one

3:32

of the biggest tragedies in

3:34

American aviation and space history.

3:36

Had those in charge disregarded

3:39

professional pressures and past missteps,

3:41

perhaps the reality of the high-risk

3:43

choice to launch would have been

3:46

seen in a different light. Unfortunately,

3:48

not wanting to get off course,

3:51

avoiding rocking the boat and playing

3:53

it safe, politically speaking, contributed

3:55

to a disaster. Paradoxically,

3:58

it was precisely the the desire

4:00

to play it safe that

4:02

made the mission so deadly.

4:04

Likewise, in our lives, some

4:06

of the most dangerous mistakes

4:08

we ever make are hidden

4:10

by their seeming respectability. Sticking

4:12

to the plan, staying on

4:15

schedule, and doing the responsible

4:17

thing can all be high-minded

4:19

sounding ways in which we

4:21

live lives that are so

4:23

much less than they could

4:25

be. Of all the forms

4:27

of running from freedom, This

4:29

conscientiousness may be the most

4:31

dangerous precisely because it is

4:33

the most outwardly respectable. Capitulation,

4:35

the failure to get started,

4:37

is likely to prompt concerned

4:39

inquiries from loved ones, but

4:41

a lifetime spent grinding away

4:43

at an outwardly respectable life

4:45

is unlikely to raise any

4:47

eyebrows, regardless of how distant

4:49

that life may be from

4:52

your most meaningful existence. Nobel

4:54

Prize-winning physicist and extraordinary thinker

4:56

Richard Feynman once remarked, quote,

4:58

the first principle is that

5:00

you must not fool yourself

5:02

and you are the easiest

5:04

person to fool. The unremarkable

5:06

nature of running from freedom

5:08

via conscientiousness is the embodiment

5:10

of Feynman's warning. It is

5:12

simply so easy to fool

5:14

ourselves when the excuses we

5:16

make for half living have

5:18

such... a profound veneer of

5:20

decency. A milktoast respectability is

5:22

one way to live a

5:24

maddening but seemingly upright existence,

5:26

but it's certainly not the

5:29

only way. The Austrian psychotherapist

5:31

Alfred Adler suggested that safeguarding

5:33

tendencies were any defense mechanisms

5:35

that we put up in

5:37

a misguided effort to protect

5:39

our egos and prevent us

5:41

from completing life's duties. Illness,

5:43

anxiety, An outward fragility could

5:45

protect someone by signaling to

5:47

the world. Be careful with

5:49

me. A safeguarding tendency could

5:51

be as simple as telling

5:53

ourselves, I'm not the kind

5:55

of person who or I'm

5:57

not good at. Less obviously

5:59

anger can be a safeguarding

6:01

behavior that incapacitates and distances

6:03

us from achieving our life

6:06

goals. Violence, passive aggression, and

6:08

dismissiveness all have the appearance

6:10

of strength but tend to

6:12

mask a much deeper fear

6:14

and insecurity. I'm not good

6:16

at math. I'm too old

6:18

to go back to school.

6:20

I'm just not a risk

6:22

taker. The economy is too

6:24

uncertain to start a business.

6:26

Oh, I'm just unlucky in

6:28

love. Well, you know how

6:30

folks with blank fill in

6:32

your psychological diagnosis here are.

6:34

If you've ever said any

6:36

variant of the above, as

6:38

I certainly have, you've engaged

6:40

in an Adlerian safeguarding behavior.

6:43

What do you notice about

6:45

all of the statements above?

6:47

In every case, they position

6:49

the power and thus the

6:51

solution. just outside of our

6:53

reach. The emphasis is either

6:55

on a personal trait that

6:57

is perceived as unchangeable, like

6:59

not being lucky in love,

7:01

or an externality over which

7:03

we have no control, like

7:05

the economy. Where there is

7:07

no responsibility to act, we

7:09

can do the safe thing,

7:11

and no one can give

7:13

us a hard time. How

7:15

convenient? But Adler isn't ready

7:18

to let us off the

7:20

hook just yet. He suggests

7:22

that we are brought to

7:24

a crossroads concerning our safeguarding

7:26

tendencies. We can either address

7:28

them head-on, or they will

7:30

morph into a phrase he

7:32

made famous, you may have

7:34

heard of this, inferiority complexes.

7:36

Safeguarding tendencies position our problems

7:38

as skill issues, which we

7:40

predictably cannot take on due

7:42

to a lack of personal

7:44

skill or bad luck. Adler

7:46

says instead that our problems

7:48

are courage issues which are

7:50

less about can and cannot

7:52

and more about will or

7:55

will not. For Adler, the

7:57

key to a fulfilled life

7:59

is to increase your courage.

8:01

He says, courage is not

8:03

an ability one either possesses

8:05

or lacks. Courage is the

8:07

willingness to engage in a

8:09

risk-taking behavior, regardless of whether

8:11

the consequences are unknown or

8:13

possibly adverse. We are capable

8:15

of courageous behavior. provided we

8:17

are willing to engage in

8:19

it. For Adler, the source

8:21

of our most profound problems

8:23

is less about the things

8:25

life is thrown at us,

8:27

and more about the solutions

8:29

we have adopted to try

8:32

to overcome those things. The

8:34

safeguarding tendencies we rely on

8:36

to help smooth our path

8:38

end up becoming our primary

8:40

obstacles. As we learn from

8:42

Adler, It becomes apparent that

8:44

much of what we have

8:46

positioned as moral uprightness may,

8:48

in fact, be simple cowardice.

8:50

It is only as we

8:52

bravely face down our self-deceptions,

8:54

that we will learn to

8:56

view our pseudo-responsive safeguarding behaviors

8:58

as the lies that they

9:00

are, and make more courageous

9:02

choices in their stead. Where

9:04

safety says, I can't, courage

9:06

answers an entirely different question

9:09

altogether and says, I will

9:11

try. By now you're seeing

9:13

that many of the purpose-killing

9:15

behaviors in our lives embody

9:17

a strange paradox. They seem

9:19

to keep us safe, but

9:21

slowly corrode our freedom and

9:23

obscure our mission. Soren Kierkegaard

9:25

said concisely what I've now

9:27

rambled about for a while.

9:29

To dare is to lose

9:31

one's self. There are parts

9:33

of ourselves that are only

9:35

revealed by action. There are

9:37

parts of ourselves that are

9:39

only revealed by risk-taking and

9:41

movement. Sitting still is never

9:43

truly risk-free. All too often,

9:46

it is an act of

9:48

reversal and decay. This is

9:50

one of my favorite podcasts

9:52

yet. I gotta be honest.

9:54

I love them all, but

9:56

I think this one is

9:58

so impactful for so many

10:00

of us. I hope you

10:02

enjoyed it too. If you

10:04

had, I'll ask you to

10:06

do a couple of things.

10:08

First, if you're enjoying this

10:10

series on meaning, I'd encourage

10:12

you to go check out

10:14

my book on money and

10:16

meaning. The name of the

10:18

book is The Soul of

10:20

Wealth. 50 Reflections. on money

10:23

and meaning. And if you're

10:25

listening to this and you're

10:27

enjoying this podcast, please rate

10:29

it, review it, and share

10:31

it. This has been our

10:33

most successful year to date.

10:35

People really seem to be

10:37

loving this series. I hope

10:39

you are and I hope

10:41

you'll tell a friend. Thanks

10:43

so much. We'll see you

10:45

next week. Thanks for tuning

10:47

in to standard deviations. If

10:49

you can't wait till next

10:51

week for more behavioral finance

10:53

insights, visit www.oryan.com. All opinions

10:55

expressed by Dr. Daniel Crosby

10:57

and podcast guests are solely

11:00

their own opinions and do

11:02

not reflect the opinion of

11:04

or endorsement by o' Ryan

11:06

and its affiliate subsidiaries and

11:08

employees. This podcast is for

11:10

informational purposes only. and should

11:12

not be relied upon as

11:14

a basis for legal, tax,

11:16

and investment decisions. The opinions

11:18

are based upon information the

11:20

participants consider reliable.