soon2bepro
05-07-2006, 12:23 PM
First, I want to clarify that this post is about decision errors/mistakes, and not about conclusion errors/mistakes.
The difference is that a conclusion is understanding, it's about finding or figuring, and ultimately trying to know the state of reality, or the process by which something works; Whereas a decision is a choice, it is a process of selection between two or more courses of action.
I realize some of you will give different definitions of what a mistake is; I will (in most cases) either explain why, with that definition that doesn't exist, or why every decision is a mistake (which, depending on the definition, can have a different "error level").
To speed things up, I will give the 3 basic definitions that I have found and what my argument for each of them is:
A) A mistaken decision is one where the subject chooses that which is not the best choice he/she could've made in his own best interest, he/she could've made a better decision but he/she didn't.
B) A mistaken decision is that which leads the subject to something which was not what he/she predicted/wanted.
C) A mistaken decision is a term for referring to the measurement of difference between what a subject predicted/wanted and what actually happened. The greater this difference, the bigger the mistake.
A), which I found is the most common, implies that the subject made a choice which was not the best he/she could've made in his/her own interest.
In this case, I think this is stating something irreal. If the subject could've made a better choice, he/she would've made it; since every human decision seeks what's best for the individual making the decision.
Now let's analyze a few counter-arguments that some of you will provide:
1) The subject did not have enough information about the situation; and/or made a conclusion mistake, thinking something was true/correct when it wasn't. Therefore he/she couldn't make the better choice, but he/she could've if these obstacles were cleared.
2) The subject didn't have enough mental capacity to analyze the information he/she had. Therefore he/she couldn't make the better choice, but he/she could've if he/she was smarter and/or had help.
3) The subject didn't invest enough time/effort analyzing the information/situation. Therefore he/she couldn't make the better choice, but he/she could've if he/she had.
4) The subject knew what the best choice was, but made another out of a whim.
You see, all of these suggest that the subject could've made a better choice were the situation, or the subject himself/herself different. This is eluding the argument. This particular subject made the best choice he/she could've made for him/herself in that particular situation.
In 1), if he/she didn't choose to get more information on the subject, that was also a decision, and the reason why he/she didn't do it is that that was the best choice he/she could've made for himself/herself(comparing benefits and prejudices). In 2), if he/she didn't choose to look for help, it is also for the same reason. In 3), if he/she didn't choose to invest more time/effort, the reason is still the same. In 4), the whim alters this subject's short term 'wants' enough to make his decision different, even if later on he/she will regret this (it is in fact not the same subject who regrets the past decision, but I will get to that later)
And by the way, you can't judge a decision such as 3)'s to be one that doesn't bring the best result to the subject's interest, since you would probably be measuring only the profits/benefits from investing this time/effort, and not the losses/prejudices to the subject from doing so. Just like you usually can't judge a decision made out of a whim to be the one that doesn't bring the best benefit/prejudice ratio, since satisfying a whim is also a benefit, even if only a short-term one.
This is extremely common, that is why I added this here. In any case, I will restate this point later on in this post.
B), which is also common but not nearly as much as A), implies that any decision that doesn't provide the best results to the subject's needs/intentions, is a mistake.
Since we do not know everything, we can't tell if a particular decision's results are the absolute best. Most times (if not all) we can't even predict with 100% accuracy that a particular decision (or action) will result in a particular outcome. We must then assume that there is always a course of action with a better result, hence a better decision. It becomes clear now, that under this definition, every decision that we make should be regarded a mistake, or at least be considered that the odds it's not a mistake are extremely remote, bordering the impossible line.
C) is more rare, and it's an extension of B. It implies that “mistake” is not a black and white term, and that there's rather an error level scale.
The extension of my argument for B is then pretty obvious: That every decision is a mistake to a certain degree, and there are mild mistakes and more severe ones.
I think most of you will feel more comfortable, if any, with C, or some variation of it. But I want to add something on that (which can also apply to B, a little).
What I want you to have in mind is that, going by C, you are judging only the result(s), and not the decision itself. I'll show you what this means.
This definition implies that a mistake is something that doesn't have to do only with internal factors. It's not just the subject's doing. In other words, a mistaken decision doesn't have to do only with the decision itself. In fact the decision is only a part of what matters when judging if the decision itself is a mistake. It is the result that will ultimately show how much of a mistake a decision was.
Since we can't predict most things (or anything) with 100% accuracy, we must assume there's a degree of probability that we're wrong in everything, or in mostly everything.
This means that we must judge our predictions in expectation. Ultimately, what this means is that even if a choice X had better expectation than a different choice Y at the time of making the choice; the results can be quite different. It may later turn out that Y resulted in a better situation (for the subject) than X; though statistically X would be best.
By using C, you're implying that a mistake is something that, to a human being, happens more or less at random. Suppose a subject has a choice X that, as far as human knowledge goes, is probabilistically a zillion times better 99.99% of the time (better for the subject, of course!), and another choice Y that is only better than X's results 0,01% of the times, and only a tiny bit better. By C's definition, once the subject chooses X, if the result is that 0.01% of the times where it would've been best to go for Y, he/she made a mistake choosing X.
All of this last point can be argued against by the argument that it is only because of this very lack of knowledge that this apparently random factor comes into play here, and that the result is only necessary to prove how good the decision was on it’s own (again, the value of the decision needs be confirmed because of this lack of knowledge, which make it impossible to make a perfect analysis of the decision with a perfect prediction of the results). But you should have in mind that even if this is a good counter-argument, it doesn’t eliminate the fact that unless the subject (or maybe the analyzer) is omnipotent, this definition will always judge a mistake by it’s results rather than the decision itself.
A couple of points I wanted to add:
<u>The problem of making the subject’s interests our own, or rather trying to make our own interests the subjects’ when analyzing a decision:</u>
When analyzing a subjects’ decision, we must be as objective as possible about what the desired results are; this can often prove to be very hard, or even impossible, but what we must have in mind, is that the subject’s interests are not our own’s, by the same token, neither are our interests the subject’s. This means that it is up to the subject himself/herself to say whether a result is beneficiary or not, and how much so.
<u>What a subject is:</u>
A human being consists of the sum of their genetic and biological information, and all experiences/outside stimuli.
Something that I want to point out, is that a subject A at a given time and situation T, is something. He/she is only equal to himself/herself at T, but at T+1, “he/she” will be someone else. We can say it’s still subject A, but in fact it’s not. Changes have happened and now the subject is different. In fact we can go as far as to say it is not the same individual. Let’s call him A+1 instead.
What this means is that A’s interests are not exactly the same as A+1’s. Meaning an action that could grant a positive result for A, could also grant a negative result for A+1, or vice-versa.
Usually, imprinted in A’s interests are A+1’s (since instinctively A sees A+1’s benefits/prejudices as his/her own). But this interest, like many others, goes against other interests of the subject. A must weight a balance and choose between what’s best for A, A+1, A+2, etc. It is never an easy task, and often we find that A+1 “forgets” about what positive or negative effects did a particular decision have on A, and judges the decision solely on the effects it had on himself/herself.
Just to add something on this last issue, this is a personal problem for me. I can’t find the “right” balance. Sometimes, ideologically, it seems as though it doesn’t make sense to worry about my future interests. Other times it’s just the opposite. For now, while seeking an answer, I just let myself go, knowing I’m making a decision almost solely on feelings, with almost no regard for thought.
I guess I could make another thread for this issue; but I’ll see how this one goes.
Long post /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Waiting for your replies (please put thought in them, else I’ll spend very little or no time answering).
The difference is that a conclusion is understanding, it's about finding or figuring, and ultimately trying to know the state of reality, or the process by which something works; Whereas a decision is a choice, it is a process of selection between two or more courses of action.
I realize some of you will give different definitions of what a mistake is; I will (in most cases) either explain why, with that definition that doesn't exist, or why every decision is a mistake (which, depending on the definition, can have a different "error level").
To speed things up, I will give the 3 basic definitions that I have found and what my argument for each of them is:
A) A mistaken decision is one where the subject chooses that which is not the best choice he/she could've made in his own best interest, he/she could've made a better decision but he/she didn't.
B) A mistaken decision is that which leads the subject to something which was not what he/she predicted/wanted.
C) A mistaken decision is a term for referring to the measurement of difference between what a subject predicted/wanted and what actually happened. The greater this difference, the bigger the mistake.
A), which I found is the most common, implies that the subject made a choice which was not the best he/she could've made in his/her own interest.
In this case, I think this is stating something irreal. If the subject could've made a better choice, he/she would've made it; since every human decision seeks what's best for the individual making the decision.
Now let's analyze a few counter-arguments that some of you will provide:
1) The subject did not have enough information about the situation; and/or made a conclusion mistake, thinking something was true/correct when it wasn't. Therefore he/she couldn't make the better choice, but he/she could've if these obstacles were cleared.
2) The subject didn't have enough mental capacity to analyze the information he/she had. Therefore he/she couldn't make the better choice, but he/she could've if he/she was smarter and/or had help.
3) The subject didn't invest enough time/effort analyzing the information/situation. Therefore he/she couldn't make the better choice, but he/she could've if he/she had.
4) The subject knew what the best choice was, but made another out of a whim.
You see, all of these suggest that the subject could've made a better choice were the situation, or the subject himself/herself different. This is eluding the argument. This particular subject made the best choice he/she could've made for him/herself in that particular situation.
In 1), if he/she didn't choose to get more information on the subject, that was also a decision, and the reason why he/she didn't do it is that that was the best choice he/she could've made for himself/herself(comparing benefits and prejudices). In 2), if he/she didn't choose to look for help, it is also for the same reason. In 3), if he/she didn't choose to invest more time/effort, the reason is still the same. In 4), the whim alters this subject's short term 'wants' enough to make his decision different, even if later on he/she will regret this (it is in fact not the same subject who regrets the past decision, but I will get to that later)
And by the way, you can't judge a decision such as 3)'s to be one that doesn't bring the best result to the subject's interest, since you would probably be measuring only the profits/benefits from investing this time/effort, and not the losses/prejudices to the subject from doing so. Just like you usually can't judge a decision made out of a whim to be the one that doesn't bring the best benefit/prejudice ratio, since satisfying a whim is also a benefit, even if only a short-term one.
This is extremely common, that is why I added this here. In any case, I will restate this point later on in this post.
B), which is also common but not nearly as much as A), implies that any decision that doesn't provide the best results to the subject's needs/intentions, is a mistake.
Since we do not know everything, we can't tell if a particular decision's results are the absolute best. Most times (if not all) we can't even predict with 100% accuracy that a particular decision (or action) will result in a particular outcome. We must then assume that there is always a course of action with a better result, hence a better decision. It becomes clear now, that under this definition, every decision that we make should be regarded a mistake, or at least be considered that the odds it's not a mistake are extremely remote, bordering the impossible line.
C) is more rare, and it's an extension of B. It implies that “mistake” is not a black and white term, and that there's rather an error level scale.
The extension of my argument for B is then pretty obvious: That every decision is a mistake to a certain degree, and there are mild mistakes and more severe ones.
I think most of you will feel more comfortable, if any, with C, or some variation of it. But I want to add something on that (which can also apply to B, a little).
What I want you to have in mind is that, going by C, you are judging only the result(s), and not the decision itself. I'll show you what this means.
This definition implies that a mistake is something that doesn't have to do only with internal factors. It's not just the subject's doing. In other words, a mistaken decision doesn't have to do only with the decision itself. In fact the decision is only a part of what matters when judging if the decision itself is a mistake. It is the result that will ultimately show how much of a mistake a decision was.
Since we can't predict most things (or anything) with 100% accuracy, we must assume there's a degree of probability that we're wrong in everything, or in mostly everything.
This means that we must judge our predictions in expectation. Ultimately, what this means is that even if a choice X had better expectation than a different choice Y at the time of making the choice; the results can be quite different. It may later turn out that Y resulted in a better situation (for the subject) than X; though statistically X would be best.
By using C, you're implying that a mistake is something that, to a human being, happens more or less at random. Suppose a subject has a choice X that, as far as human knowledge goes, is probabilistically a zillion times better 99.99% of the time (better for the subject, of course!), and another choice Y that is only better than X's results 0,01% of the times, and only a tiny bit better. By C's definition, once the subject chooses X, if the result is that 0.01% of the times where it would've been best to go for Y, he/she made a mistake choosing X.
All of this last point can be argued against by the argument that it is only because of this very lack of knowledge that this apparently random factor comes into play here, and that the result is only necessary to prove how good the decision was on it’s own (again, the value of the decision needs be confirmed because of this lack of knowledge, which make it impossible to make a perfect analysis of the decision with a perfect prediction of the results). But you should have in mind that even if this is a good counter-argument, it doesn’t eliminate the fact that unless the subject (or maybe the analyzer) is omnipotent, this definition will always judge a mistake by it’s results rather than the decision itself.
A couple of points I wanted to add:
<u>The problem of making the subject’s interests our own, or rather trying to make our own interests the subjects’ when analyzing a decision:</u>
When analyzing a subjects’ decision, we must be as objective as possible about what the desired results are; this can often prove to be very hard, or even impossible, but what we must have in mind, is that the subject’s interests are not our own’s, by the same token, neither are our interests the subject’s. This means that it is up to the subject himself/herself to say whether a result is beneficiary or not, and how much so.
<u>What a subject is:</u>
A human being consists of the sum of their genetic and biological information, and all experiences/outside stimuli.
Something that I want to point out, is that a subject A at a given time and situation T, is something. He/she is only equal to himself/herself at T, but at T+1, “he/she” will be someone else. We can say it’s still subject A, but in fact it’s not. Changes have happened and now the subject is different. In fact we can go as far as to say it is not the same individual. Let’s call him A+1 instead.
What this means is that A’s interests are not exactly the same as A+1’s. Meaning an action that could grant a positive result for A, could also grant a negative result for A+1, or vice-versa.
Usually, imprinted in A’s interests are A+1’s (since instinctively A sees A+1’s benefits/prejudices as his/her own). But this interest, like many others, goes against other interests of the subject. A must weight a balance and choose between what’s best for A, A+1, A+2, etc. It is never an easy task, and often we find that A+1 “forgets” about what positive or negative effects did a particular decision have on A, and judges the decision solely on the effects it had on himself/herself.
Just to add something on this last issue, this is a personal problem for me. I can’t find the “right” balance. Sometimes, ideologically, it seems as though it doesn’t make sense to worry about my future interests. Other times it’s just the opposite. For now, while seeking an answer, I just let myself go, knowing I’m making a decision almost solely on feelings, with almost no regard for thought.
I guess I could make another thread for this issue; but I’ll see how this one goes.
Long post /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Waiting for your replies (please put thought in them, else I’ll spend very little or no time answering).