Counter-Factual, Counter-Fantasy

The distance between what we spontaneously feel ‘should’ happen and what actually does happen becomes the yardstick our disappointment and frustration.

The concept of a ‘counter-factual’ is key to evaluation and good decision-making.  It helps us answer the question “what would have happened if the intervention (e.g. treatment, medication, program) hadn't been implemented?” When a new medication is being tested, for example, one group of participants will get a placebo, while another gets the real deal. The placebo group provides a 'counter-factual' to the treatment group, allowing researchers to measure the impact of the new medication.

 The challenge I’ve recently realized is my tendency to unconsciously confuse a counter-fantasy for a counter-factual. In most situations I can spontaneously feel what should happen; how the new software should behave, the time it should take to respond to an email, the decision the committee should make.  

These ‘shoulds’ are one form of a counter-fantasy. They only exist in my mind (and often our unconscious) but nonetheless become the fixed and emotionally relevant point against which I measure what actually does happen. The distance between these spontaneous imaginings and real-life results becomes the depth of my disappointment and breadth of my frustration. To make matters worse, I often exert considerable energy and feel sustained tension in an effort to get actual reality to live up to these spontaneous assumptions. 

A counter-factual provides a very helpful point of reference while a counter-fantasy often leads to disappointment, frustration and lost energy. Being attentive to the difference is a good step toward saving wasted energy and strain.