The Decisionmaking Thread

[Howard Treesong]

I was discussing success with an old friend of mine recently. As part of that discussion, it seemed to us that the decision of what to have for dinner is qualitatively no different from JFK's decision to play brinkmanship with the Soviets during the Cuban Missile crisis. Of course, the only consequence of the first is my own gastronomic pleasure, while the consequence of the second is the fate of the human race and perhaps all life on the planet. Why does the fact of consequences really make a difference in the ways we make decisions? In a related point, isn't the magnitude of consequence of our decisions a significant measure of success? And if so, why?

Discuss.

[ArturiusX]

More vested parties and the huge amount of variables in the Cuban missle crisis is why its a different decision than to a dinner, qualitatively.

Dinner doesn't involve game theory.

[Tupacia]

While the process of making a decision in both instances is the same (cost/benefit analysis, past history, etc.) the stakes dictate that you should pay much more attention to the brinkmanship decision as opposed to the dinner decision. If you mess up dinner, you may get an upset stomach or a mediocre meal. If you mess up nuclear deterrence, everyone will die. There is also the fact that one is a public vs. private decision which I think plays a role. If you mess up in public, it ruins your reputation and your writeup in the history books. I don't think this is anything terribly profound.

Do you think about the decision to buy a candy bar out of a vending machine more than you do the purchase of a home? Of course not.

In regards to your second point, I think the ability to make tough decisions is key no matter what field you are in.

[RoundersQuote]

Fold or hang tough. Call or raise the bet. These are decisions you make at the table. Sometimes the odds are stacked so clear, there's only one way to play it. Other times, like holding a small pair against two over cards, it's six to five, or even money, either way. Then it's all about feel, what's in your guts.

[Shadowrun]

The 1st part of your question i think was adequately answered by the first 2 responses.

The 2nd one is a lot more interesting to me.
Assuming "magnitude of consequence of our decisions a significant measure of success" holds true would you rather

A: Have your decision potentially cost 50 people $1,000 each.
B: Have 1 person lose 50,000.

Another example (lets assume everything i say is true), an unmarried CEO if he does a bad job causes his employees ~150 to get fired.
vs.
A man with a family who if he doesnt work the family starves.

[WhoIam]

[ QUOTE ]
Fold or hang tough. Call or raise the bet. These are decisions you make at the table. Sometimes the odds are stacked so clear, there's only one way to play it. Other times, like holding a small pair against two over cards, it's six to five, or even money, either way. Then it's all about feel, what's in your guts.

[/ QUOTE ]
My first thought was "wtf" but then I looked at your username and couldn't stop laughing.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fold or hang tough. Call or raise the bet. These are decisions you make at the table. Sometimes the odds are stacked so clear, there's only one way to play it. Other times, like holding a small pair against two over cards, it's six to five, or even money, either way. Then it's all about feel, what's in your guts.

[/ QUOTE ]
My first thought was "wtf" but then I looked at your username and couldn't stop laughing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love RoundersQuote (too).

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
Fold or hang tough. Call or raise the bet. These are decisions you make at the table. Sometimes the odds are stacked so clear, there's only one way to play it. Other times, like holding a small pair against two over cards, it's six to five, or even money, either way. Then it's all about feel, what's in your guts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an avid follower of your posts and this is your best work.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
Fold or hang tough. Call or raise the bet. These are decisions you make at the table. Sometimes the odds are stacked so clear, there's only one way to play it. Other times, like holding a small pair against two over cards, it's six to five, or even money, either way. Then it's all about feel, what's in your guts.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very close to being a sweet response, but for the fact that it doesn't deal with the consequence question. It does go to the issue of how we make decisions and answers that nicely (analysis for easy decisions, gut feel for the tougher ones). NH, sir.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
I was discussing success with an old friend of mine recently. As part of that discussion, it seemed to us that the decision of what to have for dinner is qualitatively no different from JFK's decision to play brinkmanship with the Soviets during the Cuban Missile crisis. Of course, the only consequence of the first is my own gastronomic pleasure, while the consequence of the second is the fate of the human race and perhaps all life on the planet. Why does the fact of consequences really make a difference in the ways we make decisions? In a related point, isn't the magnitude of consequence of our decisions a significant measure of success? And if so, why?

Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

taking your last point first, i think the magnitude of the consequences of ones decision is more a measure of ability to impact than of the qualitative measure of success.

however, there seems to generally be a strong correlation between impactful & successful over time so i'd agree with that 2nd point. i didn't wanna get into the qualitative argument over "what is success" so putting that aside & focussing on impactful is probably easier.

the 1st point though, i think was thuroughly discussed via the historical pathway to expected value (the consequences of ones decision in terms of how they impact us need also be considered in addition to the probability of that event...that preceeded the widespread use of insurance & annuities as ways for govts to raise money)

if, instead, you're asking about the physiological pathways toward decision making then i don't see a difference since humans tend to act in a fairly consistent manner accross the species, no matter what the result of the decision is. i.e. if you are so inert as to be unable to decide to get up or brush your teeth, then you cannot possibly bring yourself to make the decision of whether or not to give in to, or engage in brinksmanship with, your enemy.

so in that sense i do not think the consequences matter that much in terms of the physiological methodology behind decision-making(aside from pulse rate changes and the like)

Barron