As a stress researcher, I developed the notion of the Logic Cube as a way of assessing how individuals deal with a stressful situation. The Logic Cube identifies 4 types of responses to stress: Intrepid, Timorous, Prudent, and Foolhardy. Which describes you best?
Have you ever wondered why people sometimes follow dubious approaches to making important decisions? Often, we can be quite stressed out by the prospects of engaging on a given course of action, and so we abdicate the responsibility we have for making a good choice to some external source. Some are good ones: parents, a spouse, a boss. Some are more dubious: "because that's what 'they' say", some guy/girl you just met, or a Magic 8 Ball (by the way, Mattel, I will not be marketing a competing commercial product).
The Magic 8 Ball is a toy developed to give affirmative, negative, or non-committal answers based on random chance. People who use one are essentially seeking the resolution of a decision-making impasse by taking a random answer in order to move forward towards a course of action. Of course, using the Magic 8 Ball without discipline will only lead to more dithering, not action. Fellow PT blogger Dr. Timothy Pychyl discusses procrastination as a kind of decision-making paralysis in Procrastination, guilt, excuses, and the road less traveled on his procrastination-oriented blog "Don't Delay".
As a scientist, my answer to the Magic 8 Ball is the Logic Cube. Students of psychology will be familiar with the definition of four quadrants between two dichotomous variables on perpendicular axes. The Logic Cube is generated by adding a third dichotomous dimension, resulting in eight sections.
Stressful situations can be encountered as either a challenge to be met, or a threat to be mitigated, following Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman's work (1984). Stress levels will reflect the degree to which the person under stress perceives he or she has the resources to deal with the situation at hand. The three dimensions I classify as relevant are: the objective assessment of resources, the subjective perception of resources, and projective value of success/cost of failure.
In the objective dimension the goal in mind is rated as consisting of quantifiable demands that are either attainable or unattainable. External assessment by peers or parents, proven situation factors, or simple objective resource counts can indicate whether a challenge can be met or not. This dimension also relates to a literature on the "statistics of the environment", the given objective characteristics of a situation.
In the subjective dimension the individual's perception is rated as believing he or she has sufficient resources or insufficient resources. An individual reflects on their own internal experience, knowledge, history, and feelings as to whether they are up to facing a stressor. This dimension is also reflected in self-confidence or self-doubt.
Finally, in the "projective" domain, the potential pay-off for success or cost of failure allows the situation to be rated as "high stakes" or "low stakes". I call this dimension "projective" because it forecasts into the future the value of a present action.
(Note: this use of "projective" is not to be confused with the standard use regarding "projective tests". In this traditional usage, the projecting is not being done onto future value, but rather refers to a projection of meaning onto non-specific stimuli for purposes of clinical assessment.)
The objective and subjective dimensions generate four quadrants, which can be associated with traditional moral conceptions of approaches to stressful situations. (see table insert).
The addition of the value of success or cost of failure merely modifies the interpretation of these four categories. If the situation involves High Stakes, then being correct in adjusting objective demands and subjective perception is important, and so these are given the favourable adverb qualifiers "Heroically" and "Laudably". Mismatch in objective demands and subjective perceptions are problematic when the stakes are high, and are named accordingly.
High Stakes Cross-Section
Dangerously Heroically
Foolhardy Intrepid
Laudably Criminally
Prudent Timorous
When the stakes are Low, then it is perhaps less necessary to accurately link the objective and subjective evaluations, since the low stakes situations in life can be considered practice runs when it's o.k. to try something different and make mistakes. The respective categories are playfully named below with this consideration in mind.
Low Stakes - Cross-Section
Charming Posturing
Foolhardy Intrepid
Tediously Forgivable
Prudent Timorous
Various other interpretations can be applied, and I would welcome commentary and suggestions. For example, "Posturing Intrepid" could be renamed, "slow and steady wins the race", where correct lining up of objective and subjective assessments in repeated low stakes situations could add up to eventual big gains. Tediously Prudent could similarly be renamed "risk averse", or a "long-term conservative approach", to appropriate some investing lingo.
So, next time you're about to reach for your own version of a "Magic 8 Ball", consider: Do the externals point to this being attainable or unattainable? Do I feel I have the wherewithal to make a go of it? And finally, is this a situation with high or low stakes? Then see which Logic Cube section fits your situation. This may be a better indicator of the advisability of a course of action than a randomly floating die. When I consider the potential of this more rational approach to improve basic decision-making, I can feel there's logic in the air...
