5 ms·

Making decisions blindly is far worse than hesitation. I agree that you can't let new information keep you from making a decision forever, but it's valuable to

Making decisions blindly is far worse than hesitation. I agree that you can't let new information keep you from making a decision forever, but it's valuable to take a bit of time to fully consider the repercussions this information may have on you.

vinhboy 17y ago
I would agree with you when it comes to life and death situations, like in a war or something. But in an office building, I don't see this being a problem. Having long meetings to discuss the virtue of different options is more often a waste of time and productivity.
- aero142 17y ago
  That isn't the only option though. I would prefer that the person closest to the problem make the decision, which isn't usually the person most willing to make a decision.
cookiecaper 17y ago
It's obviously valuable to evaluate your options, but there's a point where it becomes useless. Like most other things, this just needs to be done in balance; you can spend all day arguing why OO is better than procedural and vice-versa, or whatever you're arguing about, and in the end a decision still has to be made. It's much more useful to get out there and do something, basically anything, than it is to wax on about that thing's implications for an unreasonably long time. Everything should be considered, but then a decision should be made pretty quickly.
olliesaunders 17y ago
I'm one who likes to think things through to some kind of conclusion before acting. Often the conclusion can be "I'm not going to reach any sort of meaningful conclusion if I wait on X, so ..." And it's very rarely too difficult to complete that "so ..." part.
khafra 17y ago
The amount of time you spend considering the data shouldn't depend primarily on the magnitude of the decision. It should depend on your beliefs about how much another marginal unit of delay will cost you, vs. how much another marginal unit of considering data will benefit you. For instance, if you're wondering which new ballpoint pen to buy, that's trivial next to strategic decisions in war. But it still might be worth comparing reviews on Amazon.com to increase your chances of getting something ergonomic which won't annoy you in some way. Likewise, if you're Stanislav Petrov, you may have to make the most important decision in the history of mankind based on incredibly limited information, but with a large delay-dependent penalty if you just go with the flow until you can evaluate a sufficient amount of information. Contrariwise, if you slip while climbing a tree, you don't stop to work on a coherent theory of quantum gravity even if you're only a few feet off the ground, however more accurate that might make your actions; you just grab in the general direction of a branch.

vinhboy 17y ago

I would agree with you when it comes to life and death situations, like in a war or something. But in an office building, I don't see this being a problem. Having long meetings to discuss the virtue of different options is more often a waste of time and productivity.

aero142 17y ago
That isn't the only option though. I would prefer that the person closest to the problem make the decision, which isn't usually the person most willing to make a decision.

cookiecaper 17y ago

It's obviously valuable to evaluate your options, but there's a point where it becomes useless. Like most other things, this just needs to be done in balance; you can spend all day arguing why OO is better than procedural and vice-versa, or whatever you're arguing about, and in the end a decision still has to be made. It's much more useful to get out there and do something, basically anything, than it is to wax on about that thing's implications for an unreasonably long time. Everything should be considered, but then a decision should be made pretty quickly.

olliesaunders 17y ago

I'm one who likes to think things through to some kind of conclusion before acting. Often the conclusion can be "I'm not going to reach any sort of meaningful conclusion if I wait on X, so ..." And it's very rarely too difficult to complete that "so ..." part.

khafra 17y ago

The amount of time you spend considering the data shouldn't depend primarily on the magnitude of the decision. It should depend on your beliefs about how much another marginal unit of delay will cost you, vs. how much another marginal unit of considering data will benefit you. For instance, if you're wondering which new ballpoint pen to buy, that's trivial next to strategic decisions in war. But it still might be worth comparing reviews on Amazon.com to increase your chances of getting something ergonomic which won't annoy you in some way. Likewise, if you're Stanislav Petrov, you may have to make the most important decision in the history of mankind based on incredibly limited information, but with a large delay-dependent penalty if you just go with the flow until you can evaluate a sufficient amount of information. Contrariwise, if you slip while climbing a tree, you don't stop to work on a coherent theory of quantum gravity even if you're only a few feet off the ground, however more accurate that might make your actions; you just grab in the general direction of a branch.