I have a hard time distinguishing between what is good and what is great, but I can tell you without a shred of doubt what is bad. Interestingly, it is human nature to assuredly, quickly, and acutely know the “bad” much more so than the “good.” Not surprisingly, there is an evolution-benefiting reason for highly sensitized negative-phile receptors and highly specific positive-phobic receptors. From rancid wine to rabid dogs to decomposing odors, we universally quickly identify the bad. While there may be great variability in what we individually think is good, nobody likes “bad” spoiled food or a “bad” foaming-at-the-mouth mammal. There is good reason for it: housed within the basement of our brains lives the evolutionarily preserved small almond-sized amygdala, a behind-the-scenes power broker who cares little for authority, marshaling out protective behaviors. The amygdala immediately senses threats to survival, whether it be bacteria-ridden food to putrid odors from disease-infested sites. Ultimately, our primitive subconscious mind is designed to quickly steer away from dangerous situations and acts and avoid death.

However, our developed consciously controlled frontal cortex is more complex … it adds the fears of pain and the meaningless existence associated with death. What happens after we cease to live and what purpose we serve on earth are the unanswered unknowns that humanity has grappled with since the onset of recorded time. Our negotiated response to the fear of mortality and a nihilistic existence comes via multiple channels. Biologically, we hurdle over mortality by passing DNA on to offspring; religiously, we earn a permanent spot in an idyllic garden; culturally, ideologies and creative relics may survive in museums, libraries, or in those who are influenced by us long after our last breaths are taken. But, I argue what we really fear is not death or nihilism but the unknowns invariably linked to them. The irony being once the unknown is known, fear takes flight. When the “bad” we fear actually happens, we adapt and move on. And unless it is an existential act leading to death from which we cannot respond, we rarely look back on a bad experience with regret. Rather we are more likely to comment on the great learning experience gained from it. And truth be told, more often than not bad experiences leads to good experience. It is the reason we feel stronger and more confident going back on a roller coaster or the taking on of a tough case similar to that which we may have previously struggled through. Although we inherently recognize that death and demise are more likely to those pioneers who grapple with the “bad,” we trust, favor, and follow the one who has been there before and has the “scars” to prove it.

However, regardless of a distant admiration, we can’t help but be sensitive to the negative and migrate toward the comfort of the middle of the herd. And while those who venture forward successfully are celebrated, they are just as easily disparaged when they falter. From investigative journalist to personal injury attorneys to “Yelpers,” we love to seek out the bad, quarantine and vindicate it. And it is even better when blame can be leveled at one person. As if the housing crisis, global warming, and North Korea were all due to the actions of one. Fault is far more institutionalized, yet it is hard to prosecute a faceless institution, and quite easy to target one person. It is the precise reason why we pay so much for individual malpractice insurance. Regardless of the people, systems, or just frank randomness involved in a bad outcome, logic is cast aside in favor of a scapegoat.

Media preys on humanity’s overly sensitized ego to the “bad.” Look no further than the streaming headlines on your favorite news channel or the covers of any grocery store gossip/fashion magazine. From travel warnings to Y2K to storm watches! Yes, occasionally a Hurricane Katrina is missed. But I would suggest more times than not our local meteorologist is less accurate than we think, unless they live in San Diego where every day it is sunshine and rainbows.

And no profession is more universally cognizant of worse-case scenarios than medicine. The Hippocratic oath can be distilled down to three words: “Do no harm.” The ability to quickly recognize and prepare for the bad has probably served the profession well. But there may be a corollary. Physicians develop into highly risk-averse individuals, probably good for insurance salesmen—but might that also lead to weakened initiatives? When it comes to new ventures, it is always easier to find a thousand reasons why not to do something than why to do it. I am not suggesting taking on irresponsible risk or gambling away the farm. But I am suggesting we are anchored in a profession that leans toward the conservative and against progress, and hinders pushing beyond comfort zones. Every once in a while, it is good for the soul to be a bit Nietzschean. Live dangerously. Jump out of a plane, hire a new employee, start a practice in the Caribbean.

If we are to progress as individuals and as an aesthetic field, we have to recognize the human tendency, compounded by our professional traditions, to be overly sensitized to the “bad” with a disproportionate fear for negative consequence. Both of which stifle advancement. Perhaps, greater self-awareness to seek out the positive, to find reasons why a deal, partnership, romantic interest, or a new treatment would work, will lead to advances in our field. And personally, we might benefit as well by living a life we would live over and over again.

The views expressed in opinion pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of BeautyMatter.