Playing To Win Instead Of "Not To Lose"

You only win if you're playing to win.

Many are playing “not to lose” instead of to win. Playing “not to lose” is different than pursuing victory. If you’re playing to win, your goal is to win. If you are playing "not to lose," the goal is not to win, but to avoid losing. In this game, if you haven't lost, you've won, even if you haven’t actually scored any wins.

In a previous article, I talked about how the mind does not understand a negative. If I say to you “don’t think about a purple elephant” what do you think of? That’s right, whatever follows the negative “don’t.” Likewise, if I say “try NOT to lose” what is your mind unconsciously being told? I’ll give you a hint - it wasn’t told to focus on winning.

When someone makes their goal “not to lose” their mind creates a picture of all the ways they could experience failure and sets out to avoid those various scenarios. For example, they might say something that offends people get “canceled,” so a person focused on “not losing” will avoid ever saying anything controversial.

The problem with playing “not to lose” is that winning requires risk. Publishing a book, making a movie, launching a political campaign, holding an event, etc. all have an element of risk. If you do something, it could fail. A person playing “not to lose” won’t do any of those things, because they risk failure.

However, doing nothing is also a form of failure. Do you know what they call someone who never wins or accomplishes anything? A loser. The “not to lose” strategy is a guaranteed path to actually losing. If someone takes a big risk, they might fail. If someone never takes any risk, they will definitely fail.

Many playing the “not to lose” strategy know this. To avoid the appearance of being a loser, they will take the appearance of action. They’ll have a social media presence and a website where they post agreeable statements. With social media, it’s easier than ever to appear to be doing something, when one is actually doing nothing. Those playing “not to lose” might tell you that they are “activists” but if you ask what action they’ve taken, prepare to be underwhelmed.

This article is about a mindset, not any particular person or group, but I’ll bet your mind is already generating examples of people and groups that fit this pattern. The biggest tell of those coming from the “not to lose” mindset is that they only take low-risk moves and avoid the high-risk actions that could actually create a win.

Those with the “not to lose” mindset would not be a problem for anyone but themselves, except that they are often threatened by actual attempts to win. An attempt to win risks loss, which is what “not to lose” people want to avoid at all cost. Those playing “not to lose” will not only sabotage their own chances of winning but may interfere with others attempting a different strategy.

If you take any kind of calculated risk, expect those playing “not to lose” to be in your comments with messages about how “concerned” they are about how what you’re doing might negatively impact them. “Not to lose” players might even attempt to undermine winning projects, because their fear of loss is so great that they can’t stand risk of any kind. They won’t directly oppose you - that would be too risky - but they will maneuver behind the scenes to get others to oppose you until public opposition is no longer a risky proposition. People with the “not to lose” mindset are a liability to the victory of any movement and those actually trying to win.

Since publishing Children’s Justice and Hegemon Media, I’ve gotten a few messages from those playing “not to lose.” They worry that my writing risks a negative reaction. What they miss is all of the potential upsides, because we are coming from completely different mindsets.

I’m aware that my current writing makes some risky statements. However, if these ideas were popularized and received widespread adoption, it would be a massive win. If these ideas were even known and debated, it would be a massive win. Most other social justice ideas are also hotly debated, with significant portions of the country refusing to accept them entirely. Yet, whether or not the public accepts those ideas, they do know them. If these viewpoints were simply known it would be a win.

I’m also aware that many will become angry or attack me for my current writing. That is not even a risk, but an expected outcome. I’ve consciously chosen a high-risk, high-reward, polarizing strategy. Polarizing statements and actions are those loved by some and hated by others. When people hear an agreeable statement, they might nod with lukewarm approval, but most will forget it. When people hear a polarizing statement, some will love it, others will hate it, but they will remember and talk about it. You will only experience overwhelming positive wins if you’re willing to allow some people to polarize against you.

Children’s Justice and this publication itself are already polarizing. Some who’ve read Children’s Justice have described it as a life-changing book. I’ve had people reach out with offers of support, money, and new friendships. I’ve also had hit pieces shared by people who were previously friendly towards me merely over articles they read on this site. This was expected.

Note that what I’m doing now is calculated risk. While there are people who make offensive or triggering statements for their own sake, I do not believe this is an effective method of social change. My current writing has goals beyond provocation. The reaction of opposition is secondary to those aims. I’ve determined - to paraphrase our favorite medical organization - that the benefits of this approach outweigh the risks.

I’m not going to explain the full risk calculation here. Even if I did, those with a “not to lose” mindset wouldn’t accept my calculation. What constitutes “acceptable risk” is not objective, but based in the subjective values of the person calculating. My values are different than those with “not to lose” values. I value winning. They value safety, even if it means missing out on potential accomplishment.

Rather than justify the risk of a strategy that could lead to victory, I’d like to flip this question around. Suppose we played everything “safe.” No one ever said anything that could be construed as offensive. No one ever gave a quote that could be taken out of context. We always had our facts correct. Every person and organization behaved respectably. We did everything “right” according to the “not to lose” strategy. Would we win? Would that actually accomplish our goals? Or would we just not lose?