process vs. outcome focus.

if one is focused on outcome and good outcomes arise,
regulation of process is in danger of becoming too relaxed.
if one is focused on outcome and bad outcomes arise,
regulation of process is in danger of becoming too strict and tight.
when regulation of process is too relaxed or too tight, outcome suffers.

//edit// and of course,
when one adjusts process in reaction to a difference in outcome that does not even arise from a misapplication of process...
then both process and outcome suffer. //edit//

thus, outcome focus leaves one vulnerable to unintentionally creating bad outcomes whenever outcomes vary-- which is going to happen, inevitably.
thus, outcome focus leaves one vulnerable to a maladaptive, negative spiral of regulation.

if one is focused on process and good outcomes arise,
one continues to apply proper technique.
if one is focused on process and bad outcomes arise,
one continues to apply proper technique.
when one continuously applies proper technique, outcome is optimized (over the long run).

thus, process focus is robust in the face of inevitable variation in outcome.
thus, process focus protects one against maladaptive, negative spirals of regulation.

thought of in another way,
outcome focus overreacts to inevitable, natural variation in outcome.
whereas process focus remains steadfast in the face of this variation.

in the long run, if process focus still continues to yield bad outcomes,
then process will be adjusted accordingly, on the basis of experience, and the iterations will continue.
because process focus never *ignores* outcomes. it just protects one from overreacting to them.

process and outcome are always intimately interconnected.
the process is shaped in order to bring about the desired outcome.
the outcome is shaped by what processes generate it.

so a focus on outcome never completely ignores process.
and a focus on process never completely ignores outcome.
if outcome focus completely ignored process, it could not properly be called "outcome focus."
if process focus completely ignored outcome, it could not properly be called "process focus."

what is "outcome focus"?
it is making outcome one's primary concern. process is just an intermediary that happens to be useful for shaping outcome.
what is "process focus"?
it is making process one's primary concern. outcome is just an intermediary that happens to be useful for shaping process.

so what is the difference between "process focus" and "outcome focus"?
it is a difference in emphasis, in the allocation of attentional resources.

why is the difference in emphasis significant?
because outcome is never constant.
it varies over time, sometimes being much better than usual, other times much worse.

why? because process is never constant either.
and also because outcome depends on many things other than one's performance of process.
such as perhaps the weather, or what one ate that morning.
trivial and unknown things in a vast, unfathomable web. process is just one strand in the web.

Thanks for this, Brian. I can tell that you put a great deal of thought into it.

In my opinion, meditation should be primarily focused on practicing the chosen technique, and practicing it well. Mastery of a technique, which can only occur if done properly, will bring results -- so long as the technique is one that has already been shown to provide consistent and reliable results.

I think there is a special place for "outcome" focus in dharma practice, which is interconnected with "process" focus, as you have already pointed out. Keeping the outcome in mind is a good motivator. It keeps us focused. It keeps us from developing practices that aim away from our desired result. But the "outcome" focus should be more of a contextual backdrop than a practice method, for obvious reasons. If we just sit around thinking about the result, and never put any work into getting there, the desired results will not happen.

So, use the "outcome" to remind yourself what you're after. But when it's time to practice, only practice.

~Jackson

hey Jackson, yeah, I think we're in agreement. One must keep in mind both process and outcome, technique and goal-- because it is almost incoherent to mind one while ignoring the other. Pursuit of one already presupposes pursuit of the other.

So the question is not which one to attend to, but how to place balance and implement them in a way that is most conducive to good practice.

An "outcome focus"-- which I define as "making outcome one's primary concern, where process is treated as just an intermediary that happens to be useful for shaping outcome"-- can lead to maladaptive patterns of execution of technique. If outcome is one's primary concern, then (consciously or unconsciously) one can "exhale" and slack on technique when current outcomes are very good. Because, after all, the technique is viewed only as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Likewise, an outcome focus gives one too much incentive to tighten up and overreact when outcomes become undesirable. Because, after all, it's not ultimately about maintaining proper technique according to outcome focus. Technique is negotiable, results are not.

So while keeping outcome in mind is important, pursuing it with an "outcome focus" in this technical sense is setting oneself up for trouble.

The problem is that heavily goal-oriented endeavors tend to promote outcome focus, which is actually counterproductive to achievement of that outcome.

Conversely, "process focus"-- which I define as "making process one's primary concern, where outcome is treated as just an intermediary that happens to be useful for shaping process"-- reinforces one's likelihood to use outcome in a useful, diagnostic way while still making process/technique the primary focus of one's attentional and regulatory resources. In fact, this is the optimal way to achieve the desired outcome.