A Cautionary Approach to Adopting New Insights, Methods, and Practices

Guest post by Jarred Boyd, PT, DPT, MSAT, Director of Rehabilitation for the Memphis Grizzlies

Introduction: The Hidden Cost of New Insights

The acquisition of newfound knowledge or methods can be both an inspiring and transformative experience, expanding one’s competence and offering novel or updated strategies for problem-solving.

However, this pursuit may bring with it an unforeseen risk: the overestimation of benefits and the underappreciation of the potential downsides. This cognitive bias—where we see only the upside of new ideas—can blind us to the second-order consequences (the consequences of consequences) that may arise from their application.

This may partially be a consequence of the sunk cost fallacy, which occurs when we’ve invested considerable time pursuing domain specific information and mental bandwidth developing projects, ultimately feeling compelled to continue on that path, despite the potential of diminishing returns or unforeseen risks.

The sunk cost fallacy leads to an overcommitment to a chosen course of action, making it difficult to course-correct or abandon the investment, even when it no longer serves our best interests. It stifles our ability to distinguish the upside from the downside, believing the upside will inherently yield a higher net return than what the downside could be.

When we acquire new knowledge or methods, we are often enticed to expedite the application of these concepts without sufficient deliberation. The allure of immediate benefits – be it effectiveness or efficiency – can constrain our sensemaking as we work under the premise there is little to no downside that warrants consideration. This is particularly true when the new idea appears to provide a discrete solution to a discrete problem. However, this approach may neglect the influence that occurs across seemingly disparate yet interconnected systems. Additionally, we may fail to supply these interconnected systems with the requisite resource(s) to handle the changes mediated by new methods or practices.

In the quest to expand our circle of competence, via adopting new processes or systems, we may inadvertently create unfavorable consequences. By taking caution in adopting newfound methods, and practices, we may be better protected not only from the sunk cost fallacy but also recency bias, the latter a result of assigning more credence to the most recent information.

Effectively integrating new insights requires patience and critical scrutiny, resisting our natural impulse to act prematurely. While the excitement of novel approaches can be compelling and acquiring new insights can be convincing, the interconnected nature of complex systems demands a more measured response.

Rushing to apply new knowledge without careful reflection can lead to unintended consequences, making it essential to critically assess both its benefits and potential downsides.

Reflecting Before Acting: The Case for Appraisal

To mitigate the risks associated with over-adopting new methods or practices, it is essential to adopt a reflective and evaluative approach before rushing to implement change. This involves pausing to appraise the full scope of the potential impact—both positive and negative—on all systems involved. By considering the second-order effects of our decisions, we gain a more nuanced understanding of how a new method or knowledge might intersect with existing frameworks, structures, and processes.

A key consideration in the appraisal of whether to adopt, reject, or delay the integration of new insights, practices, and methods is the concept of consequentiality and reversibility, as outlined in Clear Thinking by Shane Parrish. While new methods may be effective and credible, every decision carries an opportunity cost. Evaluating whether we are willing to accept that cost—and whether the decision can be reversed—can enhance our confidence in the choices we make. If adopting a novel approach leaves little room for reversibility, particularly when the potential downside is high, it warrants deeper scrutiny. A decision that cannot be undone means we must fully own its consequences, making it critical to assess its long-term (second order) impact before committing.

For example, consider ACL rehabilitation. A clinician may become overcommitted to novel neurocognitive interventions—focusing on cognitive load and sensory weighting to address sensorimotor deficits—at the expense of a well-rounded, multi-modal approach. While these interventions have merit, neglecting foundational neuromuscular and tissue-specific reconditioning in favor of sensorimotor training alone could consequentially delay optimal force-
generating capacities. Although this misstep is reversible with directed training, it may unnecessarily prolong an athlete’s return by failing to develop essential constituents of impulse that are required to contend with the demands of the sport. By weighing consequentiality and reversibility, we can make deliberate, high-quality decisions – ensuring that our pursuit of innovation does not come at the expense of effectiveness.

Another example can be found in tendinopathy management. Tendon stiffness plays a key role in the neuromechanical expression of jumping and sprinting, but this does not inherently mean that stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) activities, such as plyometrics, are the most effective stimulus for tendon adaptation. The literature suggests that strain magnitude, applied for a sufficient duration, is a primary driver of tendon-specific mechanical adaptations. In contrast, SSC activities primarily reflect strain rate, where the brevity of loading may limit the mechanical strain stimulus necessary for tendon adaptation. However, overinvesting in high-strain magnitude loading – typically achieved through heavy external loads – can lead to an overestimation of its effectiveness in preparing the athlete and an underappreciation of its limitations. Neglecting plyometric training in favor of isolated tendon loading risks failing to develop the functional behavior of the tendon. More critically, it may degrade the broader musculoskeletal system’s tolerance to high impact ground reaction forces and eccentric stress—lowering the athlete’s systemic envelope of function.

While this oversight is reversible with directed training, it may unnecessarily prolong the reconditioning process—a luxury that time-sensitive return-to-play scenarios often do not afford. Without adequate plyometric exposure, the athlete may not tolerate the peak impulse and eccentric loads inherent to sport, increasing the risk of stress-strain exceeding forces or suboptimal performance. As with ACL rehabilitation, strategic balance is essential: tendon-specific loading should not come at the expense of dynamic, sport-relevant adaptations that sustain long-term resilience.

In this context, decision-making becomes an exercise in weighing potential benefits against risks. The critical question is: Does the anticipated upside – whether in the form of increased efficiency, innovation, or problem-solving capacity – outweigh the potential downside, especially when considering their broader impact on interconnected systems? The process of decision-making is not merely about selecting the “best” option in isolation, but about recognizing the broader context and interdependencies that will shape the final outcome.

However, at times, appreciating large scale implications can be quite challenging as we develop rigid attachments to methods and systems. This can lead to myopic views about the most presumably viable solution – constraining our adaptability and halting consideration of alternate approaches or the integration of “novel” and “traditional” approaches.

Effective decision-making requires balancing the potential benefits of new methods with their broader, long-term consequences—ensuring adaptability and avoiding rigid overcommitment to a single approach

Discernment in the Application of New Knowledge

A critical safeguard against the over-adoption of new ideas is discernment—the ability to systematically evaluate the impact of new knowledge on both the primary system and the interconnected structures it influences. By assessing how new methods interact across multiple levels, we mitigate the risk of inadvertently creating new problems while ensuring that short-term benefits do not overshadow long-term consequences. Too often, we focus narrowly on the positive effects of an intervention within a specific domain without fully considering its broader implications. A holistic approach to decision-making demands an awareness of interdependencies and the foresight to anticipate unintended disruptions. This is where the mental model of inversion proves invaluable.

Rather than asking,

“How do I achieve the best outcome?”

inversion prompts us to ask,

“What would cause failure or unintended consequences?”

By reframing our thinking in this way, we challenge our biases, reduce blind spots, and improve the quality of our decisions – particularly when integrating novel insights.

Consider hamstring reconditioning, specifically in the case of a biceps femoris strain. Some practitioners may instinctively favor the single-leg Romanian deadlift (SLRDL) as the primary loading choice over an eccentric isokinetic seated leg curl, believing it to be the superior option due to its biomechanical relevance. This preference often stems from research highlighting the role of trunk flexion as a mediator of hamstring injury, leading clinicians to prioritize exercises that reinforce trunk-pelvis control.

While SLRDLs may enhance single-limb center of mass control and horizontal trunk deceleration, relying on them as the primary reconditioning stimulus may lead to an underdevelopment of force-generating capacity in the hamstrings. The issue lies in load sufficiency—SLRDLs, while beneficial for proximal control, may not provide the high-force eccentric loading necessary for architectural and neuromuscular adaptations. Without adequately preparing the tissue for the high peak forces at long muscle lengths encountered during sprinting (e.g., terminal swing phase), an athlete may return with an under-developed kinetic profile, jeopardizing tissue integrity and performance.

Conversely, eccentric isokinetic hamstring curls offer a more direct pathway to increasing fascicle length and shifting the angle of peak torque, both of which are critical for affording protection and augmenting performance. By incorporating both isolated and integrated loading strategies, practitioners can optimize hamstring function – balancing tissue-level adaptations with kinematic coordination rather than being constrained by a singular philosophy.

When deciding whether to adopt a new system or insight, it is crucial to establish a margin of safety—a protective buffer against potential negative outcomes. A margin of safety ensures that even if an initial decision proves suboptimal, there remains sufficient flexibility to course-correct without significant setbacks. This principle is particularly relevant in complex, high-stakes environments where over-investment in a singular approach can lead to unintended consequences.

Incorporating a margin of safety requires both inversion and adaptability—scrutinizing potential failure points while leaving room for adjustments as new evidence emerges. This measured approach tempers the impulse to fully commit to novel insights prematurely, instead promoting strategic integration that accounts for both benefits and risks.

Effective decision-making requires discernment, inversion, and a margin of safety to ensure that new methods enhance performance without creating unintended consequences.

The Necessity of Second-Order Thinking

The pursuit of new knowledge and methods is inherently valuable, but it is crucial to approach this pursuit with humility, reflection, and discernment. The application of second-order thinking – considering not only the immediate outcomes but also the ripple effects on broader systems – can help us avoid the traps of the sunk cost fallacy, recency bias, and unbridled optimism. By evaluating the potential consequences of our decisions more rigorously, we can make more informed choices, reduce the risk of unintended outcomes, and ensure that the methods we adopt service our long-term intentions.This is where second-order thinking becomes critical. Second-order thinking urges us to consider not just the immediate, obvious outcomes of our decisions, but also the ripple effects that may unfold.

What are the potential unintended consequences of implementing this new method?

Are we inadvertently exacerbating existing problems or creating new ones in systems we hadn’t initially considered?

Failure to engage in second order thinking often results in a failure to fully appreciate the complexity of the systems we are interacting with, leading to suboptimal decision-making. By running thought experiments we intentionally slow down our thinking, improving our ability to forecast potential outcomes and either accept or reject the integration of said new method/practice.

The integration of new “practices” may necessitate a demand that is unable to be supplied at the rate, frequency, volume, or intensity required, leading to unfavorable second order effects.

For example, consider a basketball team adopting a faster pace of play. The immediate upside such as more scoring opportunities, may seem obvious, but without second-order thinking, we may overlook the biomechanical consequences. A faster pace increases the velocity and volume of sprinting, thereby elevating the aggregation of eccentric stress on the hamstrings, particularly during shank deceleration. While mechanical stress is not inherently injurious, failing to anticipate this demand could lead to an underprepared neuromuscular system.

Second-order thinking forces us to ask:

“Are we adequately preparing the hamstring complex to meet the increased sprinting load, or are we exposing it to a demand it cannot currently supply?”

If the required adaptations—such as morphological changes to tendon and muscle architecture or improvements in eccentric impulse capacity—cannot be developed in parallel with the shift in play style, then the pursuit of this strategy may not be viable. Alternatively, if we acknowledge the increased demand and proactively adapt training methods to fortify the hamstrings, we create a margin of safety that allows for sustainable performance gains rather than unintended breakdowns.

By engaging in second-order thinking, we shift from reactive decision-making to strategic foresight, ensuring that innovations are implemented with a clear understanding of both their benefits and potential risks.

Conclusion

By allowing ourselves the time to sit with new information—examining its potential chain reactions—we safeguard against shortsighted decisions that may yield unintended consequences. In doing so, we shift from reactive adoption to strategic implementation, ensuring that our choices will contribute to sustainable, long-term progress rather than temporary and tenuous outcomes.

Ideas Influenced By

1. Duke, A. Thinking in bets. S.I.: Penguin Publishing Group, 2018.
2. Parrish, S. Clear Thinking: Turning Ordinary Moments into Extraordinary Results. Portfolio, 2023.
3. Parrish, S. The Great Mental Models: General Thinking Concepts. Vol. 1. Farnam Street, 2019
4. Grant, A. Think again: the power of knowing what you don’t know. Viking, an imprint of Penguin Random House LLC, 2021.