You’ve probably been asked what you wanted to hear first—the good news or the bad news—enough times to recognize it as the prelude to a let down that it is. More often than not, the bad news is the dominant factor in the equation by which the good news was canceled out long before you were even presented with the question. By that point, any honorable mention the good news may receive simply serves as dressing to enhance the disappointment, a simple little reminder of how great things could have been if you’d gotten what you wanted, but you didn’t.

In situations in which the good news rules, the bad news is more likely to be swept under the rug or mentioned as an afterthought than it is to be brought up in the introductions, which is why we should all know better than to get our hopes up when presented with both varieties of news up front. That practice is misleading and must be banned, along with Internet spammers, TV psychiatrists and other things that suck. Here’s why:

Firstly, it not only allows you to entertain the momentary illusion of being in control but it practically forces you to by giving you a reason to hope. Hoping against hope is an inborn human tendency upon which political parties, weight loss gurus and marriage counselors are designed to capitalize, but that’s still no excuse for presenting innocent people with good news/ bad news scenarios.  False representations or interpretations of reality, whether voluntary or compulsory, original or courtesy of network television should not be encouraged.

Secondly, it allows the presenter of the question to assume a God-like position in the matter, whether they personally had anything to do with limiting your selection of options or not. If they didn’t, they have no right to tickle their ego in this manner. In cases in which they did actually have a hand, giving you the opportunity to briefly savor the notion that your preference actually counts, allows them to write off your subsequent disappointment as something you brought upon yourself by your naivety and optimism. This comes in handy for them when you act on the urge to kill the messenger, in which case they’re the innocent victim who did what they could to help, while you’re just the asshole who couldn’t handle disappointment. In case you’re ever offered a choice between a God complex and a martyr complex, they are both bad news.

Only an idiot would chose to get the execution over with first before enjoying their last meal but that doesn’t necessarily keep us from occasionally asking for the bad news first in the off-chance the local anesthetic of good news would make up for the pain of a double root canal of bad news after the fact. Why is it then that we’re never satisfied with just getting the bad news out and over with and saving our hopes and dreams of beating the odds for someplace like Vegas where they might actually stand a chance?

I personally chalk it up to the indomitable human spirit and our indefatigable curiosity. Ever since the time our ancestors took a chance and opted for whatever was in cave number 2 instead of just going with the rock-by-the-river and tree branch-with-clothes peg-combo and wound up winning fire, we have been holding out against all reason and better judgment for another lucky break. It is not with epic conquests or scientific breakthroughs, but with decisions fueled by fantasy that we might someday get more than we deserve for no good reason that we have shaped our history, and will forever continue to do so. Two crossed fingers at a time.