Fear, Risk and the Exit

The popular image of courage requires you not to be afraid. But fear is a threat-detection system, not a moral defect; the trouble starts when it is given an unconditional right to steer the route.

The signal can refer to different things:

• physical danger;
• social rejection;
• failure;
• the unknown;
• loss of control;
• a memory of past experience;
• the very possibility of feeling fear.

The first question is not “how do I stop being afraid?” but:

What threat is the fear reporting?

If the threat is physical and real, there is no need to approach it for the sake of personal growth. Retreat, defence and help may be the better decisions.

If the fear concerns a presentation, an introduction, a request or a possible refusal, avoidance often strengthens it. The mind gets its confirmation: the danger was so great that escape was necessary.

Then it helps to move toward not the whole fear at once, but a manageable dose:

• ask one question;
• speak to a small group;
• send one application;
• have one short conversation;
• prepare the way out in advance.

Fear shrinks not after the order “don’t be afraid,” but after an experience in which the person coped, tolerated the discomfort or discovered that the consequence was not a catastrophe.

You can imagine an unfavourable scenario, but you should not automatically treat the worst option as the most likely. Better to consider several:

• the most likely;
• the unfavourable;
• the catastrophic;
• the favourable.

Then work out the probability, the consequences and the ways to protect yourself.

Fear is useful as a sensor. It is poorly suited to the post of sole manager.

Once the threat is recognized, a separate task begins: to weigh not only the possible gain but the cost of loss, the probability and the chance of a second attempt.

A high possible payoff often comes with high risk. But high risk by itself does not create a payoff. You can stake everything on an event with negligible probability and get only a very expensive way to feel decisive.

A good risk is judged on several parameters:

• the size of the possible gain;
• the probability of success;
• the size of the loss;
• the ability to survive the loss;
• the chance to try again;
• the availability of ways to limit the damage;
• the existence of a cheaper route.

The main rule: do not stake what you cannot afford to lose.

Someone with a large reserve can take part in several risky projects and survive most of the failures. Someone with one attempt has to be more careful. The same stake means a different risk for each of them.

Especially suspect is a risk whose whole value lies in the experience of danger itself. Sometimes that is entertainment, and the person is knowingly buying a sensation. But then it helps to name the product and its price honestly.

The biggest risk is not always the risk of not taking risks. Sometimes it is refusal that preserves life, money and the option to choose later.

Absolute avoidance of risk has its own cost, though: missed opportunities, dependence on the old order, skills that were never tested.

In intense experiences, freedom survives better when the main boundaries and the exit route are chosen before the state has degraded your ability to choose.

Love, the thrill of a game, travel, dancing, speed, creative work and adventure give an experience that disappears if you keep watching yourself from outside.

At the same time, freedom inside an event works better when the boundaries were set beforehand.

Before jumping into the water you check the depth and the place to climb out. Before a party you can decide how you will get home. Before a risky hobby, set a money limit. Before an emotionally charged trip, keep a reserve.

It helps to establish in advance:

• what is definitely off limits;
• what damage is acceptable;
• where to stop;
• whom you can call;
• how to get out of the situation;
• which decisions must not be made inside it.

This does not destroy spontaneity. On the contrary, it lets you stop controlling every second, because the main risks are already bounded.

An exit plan is especially necessary where the state itself degrades your ability to leave: alcohol, gambling, infatuation, group pressure, conflict.

The test for “a loss you cannot survive” is done with arithmetic, not with a feeling. Someone putting into another person’s business a sum equal to six months of the family’s living usually estimates the odds and almost never estimates what happens if it goes wrong: how many months remain before the mortgage falls behind, who will have to be told, what kind of job will have to be taken. If that scenario has not been spelled out, the bet was made not after assessing the risk but instead of assessing it.

The exit route is worth choosing in advance for another reason: inside the event a different person will be doing the choosing. Someone who has already lost half does not calculate the way someone who has lost nothing does — and it is the first one who gets the decision about whether to win it back.