I think the framing mostly works, but there’s a nuance worth mentioning.
The psychology and utility theory don’t depend on someone having literally zero options. They hinge on a belief about time and impact. Specifically, whether any options are expected to change the outcome fast enough to matter.
When progress is slow, uncertain, or punishing, the brain discounts those paths. Under those conditions, options that preserve hope or offer an unrealistic jump forward start to dominate, even if the odds are terrible. That belief is wrong, but it can also be adaptive in environments where improvement does not reliably translate into relief.
For example: you see it when founders accept dilution or bad capital because runway extensions no longer feel meaningful. You see it when operators stick with strategies that are clearly failing because the alternative paths look equally non-viable. You see it in relationships where leaving feels like trading one form of instability for another. You see it in career decisions where someone takes a moonshot because the steady path no longer feels like progress.
What matters isn’t whether a “better” option exists on paper. It’s which options the person has mentally removed from the set because they no longer believe they lead anywhere.
It's a really great story. Thanks for sharing.
I think the framing mostly works, but there’s a nuance worth mentioning.
The psychology and utility theory don’t depend on someone having literally zero options. They hinge on a belief about time and impact. Specifically, whether any options are expected to change the outcome fast enough to matter.
When progress is slow, uncertain, or punishing, the brain discounts those paths. Under those conditions, options that preserve hope or offer an unrealistic jump forward start to dominate, even if the odds are terrible. That belief is wrong, but it can also be adaptive in environments where improvement does not reliably translate into relief.
For example: you see it when founders accept dilution or bad capital because runway extensions no longer feel meaningful. You see it when operators stick with strategies that are clearly failing because the alternative paths look equally non-viable. You see it in relationships where leaving feels like trading one form of instability for another. You see it in career decisions where someone takes a moonshot because the steady path no longer feels like progress.
What matters isn’t whether a “better” option exists on paper. It’s which options the person has mentally removed from the set because they no longer believe they lead anywhere.
this is beautiful
Hope without a system is just variance.
When you stack process, reps, and accountability, hope turns into probability.
Sad storry. But You Made the Resoning pretty relateable.
Yes.. it really hit hard.
It made me rethink how I judge “bad” decisions; sometimes it’s not recklessness, it’s hope when all the clean options are gone.
Empathy changes everything.