2 ms·

> "neither of the two choices is clearly better" "Clarity" is dependent on what level of information you already have and what analysis you've already done. I

> "neither of the two choices is clearly better" "Clarity" is dependent on what level of information you already have and what analysis you've already done. In some circumstances, you've already done whatever investigation, research, and thinking can reasonably be done. If the choice is still hard, then the choice is likely to be of similar value either way and you may as well choose arbitrarily. But in other circumstances, there's still investigation, research, or thinking that can be done (at a level of effort which is reasonable based on the importance of the decision.) In that case, one choice or the other may become clearly better if you are patient and diligent in the decision-making process. So be as patient as the decision warrants.

baddox 12y ago
Yeah, I don't think paulsutter's post holds up to much scrutiny, except in the limited case where you have to make a decision immediately, or in the near future before you have time to do any meaningful research or calculation on the problem. A problem is difficult when its potential consequences are serious and the best option is not obvious. But the best option can be non-obvious for two very different reasons: either it requires a lot of information and thus a lot of work to gather that information (like choosing a medical treatment), or it depends on randomness or other variables outside your control and understanding (like choose your lottery numbers, assuming someone gives you a lottery ticket). For the latter case, it's pretty clear that you can choose randomly and shouldn't worry about your decision. For the former case, it's reasonable to "worry" in the sense that you should feel an urgency to gather the required information efficiently. Of course, it's not really that simple, because you have to optimize the cost of gathering information against the potential cost or gain from the decision itself. Also, the two reasons from the last paragraph are more like a continuum, because "randomness" is often effective randomness, i.e. you can't feasibly predict the outcomes despite them being deterministic.
Fargren 12y ago
If the research has a cost (and you know this cost), then you actually have three options: original option A, original option B, and research + correct option (or knowledge that both options are the same). If you can at least bound the costs of options A and B, you can make a pretty good guess as to whether the research is worth doing. If it's not, then choosing at random is the optimal choice, and you should not regret it.

baddox 12y ago

Yeah, I don't think paulsutter's post holds up to much scrutiny, except in the limited case where you have to make a decision immediately, or in the near future before you have time to do any meaningful research or calculation on the problem. A problem is difficult when its potential consequences are serious and the best option is not obvious. But the best option can be non-obvious for two very different reasons: either it requires a lot of information and thus a lot of work to gather that information (like choosing a medical treatment), or it depends on randomness or other variables outside your control and understanding (like choose your lottery numbers, assuming someone gives you a lottery ticket). For the latter case, it's pretty clear that you can choose randomly and shouldn't worry about your decision. For the former case, it's reasonable to "worry" in the sense that you should feel an urgency to gather the required information efficiently. Of course, it's not really that simple, because you have to optimize the cost of gathering information against the potential cost or gain from the decision itself. Also, the two reasons from the last paragraph are more like a continuum, because "randomness" is often effective randomness, i.e. you can't feasibly predict the outcomes despite them being deterministic.

Fargren 12y ago

If the research has a cost (and you know this cost), then you actually have three options: original option A, original option B, and research + correct option (or knowledge that both options are the same). If you can at least bound the costs of options A and B, you can make a pretty good guess as to whether the research is worth doing. If it's not, then choosing at random is the optimal choice, and you should not regret it.