Planning to fail.

I have always wondered why people make up excuses for everything, except when they succeed. If I don't live up to expectations, then it must be someone / something else that caused it. When I succeed, it must have been something I did well. Right?

In some of my college psych classes they talked about the concept of cognitive dissonance. Applying it to this situation, it means that you make these attributions of failure/success so that you can mentally deal with the situation. Ultimately, so you can feel good about yourself and not be depressed all the time.

On ESPN.com, Bill Simmons did an article that was an exchange with Malcolm Gladwell. They touched on this subject:

Simmons:

"On Mickelson and Sports Lent, I remember watching one of those 20/20-Dateline-type pieces about him once, and he was adamant about remaining a family man, taking breaks from golf and never letting the sport consume him ... and I remember thinking to myself, "Right now Tiger is watching this and thinking, 'I got him. Cross Phil off the list. This guy will never pass me.'" ....

Gladwell:

"This is actually a question I'm obsessed with: Why don't people work hard when it's in their best interest to do so? Why does Eddy Curry come to camp every year overweight?

The (short) answer is that it's really risky to work hard, because then if you fail you can no longer say that you failed because you didn't work hard. It's a form of self-protection. I swear that's why Mickelson has that almost absurdly calm demeanor. If he loses, he can always say: Well, I could have practiced more, and maybe next year I will and I'll win then. When Tiger loses, what does he tell himself? He worked as hard as he possibly could. He prepared like no one else in the game and he still lost. That has to be devastating, and dealing with that kind of conclusion takes a very special and rare kind of resilience. Most of the psychological research on this is focused on why some kids don't study for tests -- which is a much more serious version of the same problem. If you get drunk the night before an exam instead of studying and you fail, then the problem is that you got drunk. If you do study and you fail, the problem is that you're stupid -- and stupid, for a student, is a death sentence. The point is that it is far more psychologically dangerous and difficult to prepare for a task than not to prepare. People think that Tiger is tougher than Mickelson because he works harder. Wrong: Tiger is tougher than Mickelson and because of that he works harder."

That is a thought provoking dialog, in relation to endurance sports... especially running. Running is pure. I would make the claim that it is the purest of all the sports, even with all the technology being incorporated into shoes and other gear.

In a running event you can't blame a flat tire, a tight rim or an old club head. Running involves you and space. That space may be defined by climate, weather patterns or terrain, but the space is the same for all runners. We each find our own way through that space.

This makes running a marathon either a very satisfying event or a devastating day. We either feel good about what we were able to accomplish, accept the fact that we were not good enough to meet our expectations, or make up excuses. Like the student realizing they are stupid or attributing it to the alcohol, in Gladwell's explanation.

It also means, a perspective that views the process of doing as more important than an obession of achieving, can lead to more fullfillment and happiness in an age-grouper's running life.

I have thought about this question over the years when I hear stories of races run well and races run not-so-well. And I need to think about it some more. But I really believe that if we are 100% honest, we all self-sabotage on occasion. The ability to quickly side-step that mental process and move ahead can lead us beyond even our best expectations.