4 ms·

For me it should be intuitive. My test is "Will I accept either outcome if I flip a coin?". Is so, flip the coin. If not, pick the option that prevents me from

For me it should be intuitive. My test is "Will I accept either outcome if I flip a coin?". Is so, flip the coin. If not, pick the option that prevents me from flipping a coin.

rileymat2 4y ago
But the original question remains, how do you know that until you have analyzed it?
- ryanklee 4y ago
  For certain types of decisions, one can safely rely on prior experience. I know to a high degree of certainty that most entrees at a moderate to high quality restaurant have roughly the same value, therefore choosing quickly is best because there's little to discover and little to gain from the discovery. Many aesthetic choices or choices of mere preference are like this. Other classes of issues are known in advance to be both trickier and yield real, effective outcome differences, these are often big life decisions that act as life's value centers, e.g., which house, which partner, which employer, etc. It's of course possible to be wrong in either direction -- this difference matters though i think it doesn't and vice versa -- but in general, we tend to be pretty good about taking seriously the things that really are serious, but pretty bad at not wasting time on things that don't matter much. This shows up in the paradox of choice, but really just imagine someone hemming and hawing over two brands of cereal in the aisle at Trader Joe's and you get the picture. So the practical problem isn't really "how do you know until you analyze," because we more often fall into opposite the trap and waste time systematically attempting to optimize choices where there is little value to be gained. We should step back in more cases and remind ourselves that most differences make no difference at all. Save your time and energy for the ones that do.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    A similar problem occurs on the big questions too, like when choosing an employer or university. On big questions often times much of the differences are unknowable. Big decisions are often like icebergs. Most of the important stuff is hidden below the surface. No matter how much you analyze the tip you still have an essentially 50% chance of getting the decision wrong. It's really hard to make a major decision knowing that you have a 50% chance of getting the decision wrong, but over-analyzing the tip of the iceberg is not going to improve your decision making.
  - fizzynut 4y ago
    I think the process of making good decisions about "big" things should involve practicing making many more decisions about smaller things and evaluating the outcome. There are a lot of insightful heuristics from decision making that can make big decisions much better/easier/etc. I don't think people would spend any more time on big decisions if they made faster/fewer decisions with little "value" to gain, if anything I think their habit of making fast decisions would mean they spend less time/worse on the big ones!
    - ryanklee 4y ago
      For sure, sharpening analysis chops is a good reason, but in a world of finite time, and an overabundance of important decisions to make regarding one's life, there's no shortage of analysis fodder to begin with. And no doubt that sometimes it's just nice and pleasurable and interesting to deliberate over anything at all, making small things grand, but it's also good to know when it's actually optional.
beckingz 4y ago
Flip a coin and it will make your decision for you.
tacitusarc 4y ago
Personally, I like the strategy of flipping a coin as soon as the preference is not obvious, and then picking the other one if you realize you don’t like the coin flip.
- Folcon 4y ago
  I love this approach, it's effectively a forcing mechanism for revealing preference.
galaxyLogic 4y ago
The issue is it is hard to know whether the two (or more) choices are equally good. If you have no way of knowing which choice is better then you would flip the coin of course. The problem is there typically is a way to possibly learn more about which is better, AND HOW MUCH, by studying the choices. The "How much" -part is crucial. One choice might lead to core meltdown. Often such study does not provide any further information about which is better. But it might. You just don't know. Except if you are lucky and the answer is immediately obvious. So if it looks like you have two choices A and B, it is more typically the case that you in fact have THREE choices: 1. Choose A 2. Choose B 3. Spend more time studying which is better, and how much, A or B
- Shorel 4y ago
  My algorithmic approach: You spend a fixed amount of time, if no choice could be made during this period, then flip the coin. The fixed amount of time could be as short as five seconds. Or the amount that makes sense to you, and you feel comfortable with. If it's one week for you, then it is.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >The issue is it is hard to know whether the two (or more) choices are equally good. If the choice doesn't matter much, then both options are equally good. E.g. "should I get this pair of shoes or that? I like both". Just get one and get on with it. "Should I go to Paris or Vienna for a short trip?" Just pick one and get on with it. Still people obsess for these kind of choices for needlessly long... The case discussed, were people waste time they shouldn't, is (a) when the choice doesn't matter much or (b) when you do know that either option would be more or less fine (which is basically a variant of (a)). If (c) you can't tell if they're equally good AND chosing the right one does have a BIG impact, then this case doesn't fall under the advice of TFA or what we discuss here. Rather, it's an "ipportant choice" and people should think it over...
  - galaxyLogic 4y ago
    Yes of course if you "know" that the choice doesn't matter and you still obsess with it then it is your fault. I don't know how much that happens in practice, and I wouldn't blame people much for doing that because maybe they enjoy doing it. Based on my own experience as a SW developer I have found that more often it is hard to know beforehand whether a design-choice matters much or not, and how much. I suppose that is also the reason for much of "Technical Debt". People make less than optimal design choices not because they are bad designers, but because trying to evaluate the benefits of each choice would be too time-consuming.

For me it should be intuitive. My test is "Will I accept either outcome if I flip a coin?". Is so, flip the coin. If not, pick the option that prevents me from flipping a coin.

rileymat2 4y ago

But the original question remains, how do you know that until you have analyzed it?

ryanklee 4y ago
For certain types of decisions, one can safely rely on prior experience. I know to a high degree of certainty that most entrees at a moderate to high quality restaurant have roughly the same value, therefore choosing quickly is best because there's little to discover and little to gain from the discovery. Many aesthetic choices or choices of mere preference are like this. Other classes of issues are known in advance to be both trickier and yield real, effective outcome differences, these are often big life decisions that act as life's value centers, e.g., which house, which partner, which employer, etc. It's of course possible to be wrong in either direction -- this difference matters though i think it doesn't and vice versa -- but in general, we tend to be pretty good about taking seriously the things that really are serious, but pretty bad at not wasting time on things that don't matter much. This shows up in the paradox of choice, but really just imagine someone hemming and hawing over two brands of cereal in the aisle at Trader Joe's and you get the picture. So the practical problem isn't really "how do you know until you analyze," because we more often fall into opposite the trap and waste time systematically attempting to optimize choices where there is little value to be gained. We should step back in more cases and remind ourselves that most differences make no difference at all. Save your time and energy for the ones that do.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  A similar problem occurs on the big questions too, like when choosing an employer or university. On big questions often times much of the differences are unknowable. Big decisions are often like icebergs. Most of the important stuff is hidden below the surface. No matter how much you analyze the tip you still have an essentially 50% chance of getting the decision wrong. It's really hard to make a major decision knowing that you have a 50% chance of getting the decision wrong, but over-analyzing the tip of the iceberg is not going to improve your decision making.
- fizzynut 4y ago
  I think the process of making good decisions about "big" things should involve practicing making many more decisions about smaller things and evaluating the outcome. There are a lot of insightful heuristics from decision making that can make big decisions much better/easier/etc. I don't think people would spend any more time on big decisions if they made faster/fewer decisions with little "value" to gain, if anything I think their habit of making fast decisions would mean they spend less time/worse on the big ones!
  - ryanklee 4y ago
    For sure, sharpening analysis chops is a good reason, but in a world of finite time, and an overabundance of important decisions to make regarding one's life, there's no shortage of analysis fodder to begin with. And no doubt that sometimes it's just nice and pleasurable and interesting to deliberate over anything at all, making small things grand, but it's also good to know when it's actually optional.

beckingz 4y ago

Flip a coin and it will make your decision for you.

tacitusarc 4y ago

Personally, I like the strategy of flipping a coin as soon as the preference is not obvious, and then picking the other one if you realize you don’t like the coin flip.

Folcon 4y ago
I love this approach, it's effectively a forcing mechanism for revealing preference.

galaxyLogic 4y ago

The issue is it is hard to know whether the two (or more) choices are equally good. If you have no way of knowing which choice is better then you would flip the coin of course. The problem is there typically is a way to possibly learn more about which is better, AND HOW MUCH, by studying the choices. The "How much" -part is crucial. One choice might lead to core meltdown. Often such study does not provide any further information about which is better. But it might. You just don't know. Except if you are lucky and the answer is immediately obvious. So if it looks like you have two choices A and B, it is more typically the case that you in fact have THREE choices: 1. Choose A 2. Choose B 3. Spend more time studying which is better, and how much, A or B

Shorel 4y ago
My algorithmic approach: You spend a fixed amount of time, if no choice could be made during this period, then flip the coin. The fixed amount of time could be as short as five seconds. Or the amount that makes sense to you, and you feel comfortable with. If it's one week for you, then it is.
coldtea 4y ago
>The issue is it is hard to know whether the two (or more) choices are equally good. If the choice doesn't matter much, then both options are equally good. E.g. "should I get this pair of shoes or that? I like both". Just get one and get on with it. "Should I go to Paris or Vienna for a short trip?" Just pick one and get on with it. Still people obsess for these kind of choices for needlessly long... The case discussed, were people waste time they shouldn't, is (a) when the choice doesn't matter much or (b) when you do know that either option would be more or less fine (which is basically a variant of (a)). If (c) you can't tell if they're equally good AND chosing the right one does have a BIG impact, then this case doesn't fall under the advice of TFA or what we discuss here. Rather, it's an "ipportant choice" and people should think it over...
- galaxyLogic 4y ago
  Yes of course if you "know" that the choice doesn't matter and you still obsess with it then it is your fault. I don't know how much that happens in practice, and I wouldn't blame people much for doing that because maybe they enjoy doing it. Based on my own experience as a SW developer I have found that more often it is hard to know beforehand whether a design-choice matters much or not, and how much. I suppose that is also the reason for much of "Technical Debt". People make less than optimal design choices not because they are bad designers, but because trying to evaluate the benefits of each choice would be too time-consuming.