Welcome to the Action Digest, where we bring you more action than a Hans Zimmer soundtrack.

Behold this week’s upcoming hacks and insights:

• ⬟ We learn the psychological bias that can turn our determination into our downfall.

• 📦 We unbox a technique used by rocket scientists to get unstuck when things aren’t working.

• 🎯 A dramatic 18th century naval battle teaches us the difference between flexibility and recklessness.

P.s., you can check out editions 1-23 here in case you missed them, including insights such as the mindset that helped an entrepreneur build seven different billion-dollar companies, how Steve Jobs cultivated great creative taste, and why success might be much closer than we thought possible.

Seriously, there are some gems you’ll appreciate in these earlier editions ;-)

1. Did you hear that, General?

On Thursday July 17th 1941, it felt inevitable that the United States would be pulled into World War II.

At the time, the U.S. military was a logistical mess, spread across a spattering of different office buildings. 

So when a Congressman signaled to General Brehon Somervell that the country would need a new office space for the war effort, the General sprang into action. 

He vowed “to construct a building big enough to house the entire War Department—a nerve center for the enormous military force gathering to fight a global war.” 

If Somervell got his way, it would be the largest building in the world.

Not even 24 hours had gone by before he chose the perfect location for his masterpiece: Arlington Farm. It was a large and beautiful spot next to Virginia’s famous Arlington Cemetery.

The land was shaped like a pentagon and so it made sense for the building to have five sides. Somervell hired an architect that same day and had blueprints drawn up over the weekend ready for Monday. 

That’s barely four days of planning for one of the nation’s most ambitious projects.

The plans were soon approved by congress and work on the Pentagon was scheduled to begin by September 1st—a little over a month away. 

Then the outcry began. 

Once people learned of the proposed location, protests erupted on all fronts. 

…Somervell’s building would desecrate the most beautiful views of Washington DC. 

…It was disrespectful to fallen soldiers buried in Arlington Cemetery. 

…The surrounding roads and bridges were not equipped to handle tens of thousands of new workers. 

And, as many pointed out, there was a depot less than a mile away that was a much better location. 

Too late!

Somervell waved off the critics and pressed ahead with his plan.

But the backlash only intensified.

The critics were so vocal that President Roosevelt himself got roped into the debate. 

The President listened carefully to both sides and then, to Somervell’s dismay, ordered him to abandon Arlington and move the Pentagon to the depot instead.

Except Somervell wouldn’t listen. 

After days of meetings, he still wouldn’t back down from his Arlington plans, effectively arguing with the President of the United States. 

Roosevelt invited the General to drive to the depot site with him and listened as Somervell continued to make a desperate pitch for Arlington. 

Finally, Roosevelt said, “My dear general, I’m still commander-in-chief of the Army!” Shortly after, pointing to the depot site, Roosevelt reemphasized, “Did you hear that, general? We’re going to locate the War Department building over there.” 

That settled it. 

Somervell moved construction to the depot site, where the Pentagon is located today. 

So what in the world drove General Somervell to become so wedded to his first idea? 

It turns out that his response is common. 

Sometimes it’s called the “sunk cost fallacy,” other times it’s referred to as “escalating commitment,” but the key observation is that we can become increasingly attached to a course of action once we’ve started pursuing it. 

It could be a project, a person, or an idea, but he effect is so strong that it can push us to defy the most powerful person in the country, even when we’re clearly wrong! 

The cure that Somervell desperately needed—and the antidote to escalating commitment—is “cognitive flexibility.” 

Cognitive flexibility is the ability to consider multiple different options and to change your mind in response to changing circumstances. 

Somervell had multiple opportunities to show flexibility and abandon his terrible plan.

He could have simply considered more options before committing to the first one that came to mind.

He had multiple opportunities to hear what the critics were saying and change his course. 

So what can we do to avoid following in the footsteps of Somervell?

That’s the theme of today’s edition. 

Read on to learn three strategies for keeping an open and flexible mind.

_{Based on the source: The Pentagon - A History}

2. When thinking outside the box doesn’t work, get yourself a new box.

In 2021, Elon Musk reportedly wanted to “stab his eye with a fork” over the Starship rocket engine. 

“Over the previous weeks,” Walter Isaacson, Elon’s biographer writes, “Musk had been cycling through periods of despair and fury about the Starship’s Raptor engine. It had become complex, expensive, and difficult to manufacture.” 

The engine needed to be 10 times cheaper in order to be viable but the company’s efforts were failing. In response, Musk decided to simply abandon the Raptor and “declared that they were going to shift their attention to making a whole new engine.” 

Isaacson continues: “The point of leapfrogging to a new engine was to get everyone thinking boldly. ‘Our goal is the great adventure engine,’ [Musk] said in a pep talk to the team. ‘Does it have a chance of success above zero? If so, put it in! If we find that there are changes we made that are too adventurous, then we will back up.’”

One month later, “just as suddenly as he had forced his team to focus on a futurist 1337 engine, Musk turned their attention back to revising the current Raptor engine into a leaner and meaner Raptor 2. ‘I’m moving the SpaceX propulsion focus back to Raptor,’ he announced in a 2 a.m. text message.”

So was the month-long pursuit of a new engine helpful? Or was it an impulsive waste of time that had to be walked back? 

“As usual with him,” Isaacson concludes, “it was a mix of both. It served a purpose of forcing new ideas, including getting rid of various shrouds and skirts, that would be incorporated into his goals for an improved Raptor.” 

Within the span of a year, SpaceX was successfully churning out one Raptor engine per day—the engines that would power Starship’s first successful mission earlier this year. 

Sometimes thinking outside the box isn’t enough. 

Sometimes the answer lies in a completely new box.

Either the new box contains the answer you’re seeking, or you will return to the old box with the fresh perspective necessary to move forward. Flexibility means being willing to scrap what you’re doing and starting fresh. It also means being open to returning to an old draft with fresh ideas. 

Be steadfast on your destination but flexible with your path.

3. The science of being wrong

Why didn’t General Somervell just switch to the superior location once it was pointed out to him? 

Why couldn’t he just say he changed his mind? 

Why was that so hard? 

Perhaps it’s because changing our minds is an inherent admission that we’re wrong. 

After all, if we’re right about something, why would we need to change our minds? 

Professor Adam K. Fetterman studies the science of identity, understanding, and belief. Many of his studies have looked at what happens when we admit we’re wrong to others. 

According to Fetterman’s research, one reason we often fail to admit we’re wrong is because we’re scared that we’ll hurt our reputation. We ask ourselves: won’t people think less of us if we admit we made a bad call? 

Somervell was certainly a proud man who valued his reputation. 

And yet Fetterman’s research suggests that this is literally a backward mindset. 

• Scientists who refused to admit that they failed to replicate a study suffered a much greater hit to their reputation than when they were honest about it. 

• When participants admitted that they were wrong on Facebook, they made better impressions and had higher reputations than those who didn’t fess up. Users were also more likely to keep interacting with people who admitted they were wrong. 

It seems that admitting we’re wrong can actually improve our reputation. 

But even when being wrong does hurt our reputation, the damage is much less than refusing to admit to it. Somervell’s stubbornness endangered his reputation with the President much more than what simply changing course would have done. 

Don’t let the fear of being wrong obstruct your ability to be flexible and change your mind. Changing course does far less damage to our reputation than rigid denial ever will.

4. Working with a bias towards action is the ultimate competitive advantage

When you study the world’s most prolific creatives, athletes, businessfolk, etc, you see the same pattern over and over again.

Working with a bias towards action is the ultimate competitive advantage.

That means always knowing your next move.

And it means building a habit of turning your ideas and notes into action steps.

The Action Method journaling system makes it easy to do exactly that.

Each page includes a dedicated Action Zone that encourages you to stay action-oriented.

That means getting more done, seeing more results, and feeling more satisfaction.

You can pick up or replenish your supply here. 

We’ll leave you with this…

Thanks for subscribing, and sharing anything you’ve learned with your teams and networks (let us know what you think and share ideas: @ActionDigest).