We argue that the feedback traditionally used to indicate negative outcomes causes future detrimental performance because of the default goal of "win maximization." In gaming paradigms where participants intentionally performed as well ("win maximization") and as poorly ("loss maximization") as possible, we showed a double dissociation where actions following wins were more consistent during "win maximization," but actions following losses were more consistent during "loss maximization." This broader distinction between "goal-congruent" and "goal-incongruent" feedback suggests that individuals are able to flexibly redefine their definition of 'success', and provide a reconsideration of the way we think about 'losing'.