Defending the ideal

Beautiful but impractical. (Image by Arek Socha)

Doctors and nurses recognize the limitations of human beings and incorporate that into their treatment plans.

That means that a patient might be prescribed a treatment that is less effective but is easier to stick to.

I think that’s a bit paternalistic. As a patient, I’d want all of my options and all of the information whenever possible.

That said, I get it. It’s perfectly reasonable for medical professionals to make decisions based on data, not individual circumstances. Just because I say I’m going to follow the plan doesn’t mean that I will — especially if my track record indicates otherwise.

When it comes to the recommendations I make as a teacher or coach, I do try to share all of the information I have. But because I take human nature into account, my recommendations are not ambitious. And this causes consternation among those who advocate for the ideal over the apparent compromise.

For example, if I were to help someone to quit smoking, I would advise them to begin by slowly counting to ten before each cigarette of the day. Once that habit is established, they could count to twenty.

From there, we would add some little rituals prior to each cigarette. Drink exactly two ounces of water. Brush your hair ten times. Text a friend to let them know you’re thinking about them.

We’re delaying each cigarette just slightly. As we do this, we are getting used to a world without cigarettes, twenty seconds or one minute at a time. After all, quitting smoking is just delaying your next cigarette indefinitely, right? Over time, the delays stack up and we are smoking less.

(By the way, if you don’t smoke but you’re trying to cut back on picking up your phone, you can take this same approach.)

Notwithstanding the fact that delaying a cigarette is a good thing, people would argue that the plan I’ve outlined doesn’t go far enough. If every cigarette is harmful, we have to act with more urgency.

But this isn’t a situation in which the smoker doesn’t have access to the information about how harmful smoking is. No, they know. And if that isn’t enough to make them quit permanently, the situation may be more complex.

Sometimes, it isn’t a choice between the slow way and the ideal way. Instead, maybe the choice is between the slow way and smoking forever.

When someone decides they want to change, they often use that energy to construct a plan based on the ideal: The most efficient, effective way toward the outcome they want.

Unfortunately, the energy that went into creating the plan can’t be sustained every day, so the plan fails. The change required was too big a leap.

Instead, we can construct a plan in which virtually the only change is that we are now following a plan. The plan mirrors what we would do anyway, and we are thus able to stick to it.

This is uncomfortable for the defenders of the ideal. Why would we continue our awful habits of sleeping, eating, or spending?

We’re continuing to do what we’ve been doing because, however unsustainable it may be in the long run, it’s been working for us. Our life is set up around it. It’s what we’re expecting. It’s what we’re used to.

Better to start where we are and go from there than to require us to make a giant leap right from step one. If we could have done that, we probably would have already.

Is this a dim view of human nature? I don’t think so. I think people have an incredible capacity for transformation, but it’s not easy. Maybe there are some areas where we have the strength, conviction, and support to make a dramatic leap, but probably not across the board. It’s reasonable that we might choose our battles, as unglamorous as it is.

I’m idealistic in the sense that I believe that virtually anything is possible for virtually anyone. But I’m pragmatic when it comes to making the dream happen. We can construct a plan that accepts our current reality and doesn’t make any sudden moves. As we trust it, we begin to trust ourselves. And that is how we change and grow, day by day.