As humans we want disconfirming evidence before making a choice, but not after making it.

When choosing between options we're open to disconfirming evidence, and even seek it out.

But once we've decided and there's no going back and we've bound ourselves to the option we chose we become closed to disconfirming feedback.

The more that it feels like there's no going back ("we all agreed as a 1000 person organization that this was the right approach, I can't re-litigate it") the more we don't want disconfirming evidence.

A kind of kayfabe.

It's easier to be wrong but consistent than to be right but inconsistent.

This shift before and after making the choice is profound but subtle.

It's easy to miss that we even change our priorities at all.

But disconfirming evidence is always a good idea.

If we don't get disconfirming evidence, it's possible the idea that we've committed to will be very expensive for very little payoff… or could even lead to a game over situation.

The only time that disconfirming evidence isn't important is if there are many "good enough" solutions and it's more important to pick one than to pick the best one.

We often feel that we can't go back and open up a choice we made… but it's almost always possible to go back.

And we can always go back. It's never too late for disconfirming evidence.