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.

[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

[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.

[hobbes9324]

Essentially, I make decisions for a living.

Some are trivial - which antibiotic to use, in a case where
there are three or four pretty good choices.

Some are not - do I TPA the guy with a stroke who is improving slowly (for a bunch of reasons this is a VERY complicated area)

The thought process I go thru is much different for the two types - for the first, if I know we're out of Avelox, but we have Rocephin, I might use the latter, even though I would ordinarily use Avelox - I don't want to wait for the order to go thru to the pharmacy and wait for the "right" drug.

For the second, I'm making a hopefully educated guess about something that by definition has no "right" answer - just a somewhat muddy set of probabilities. As another poster noted, you follow your gut. My gut's pretty good....but I don't have any illusions that I'm not guessing about something that may turn out terribly for the patient.

MM MD

[traz]

House?

[hobbes9324]

No vicodin habit, but otherwise, pretty close, at least according to our nurses.....lol.

MM MD

[captZEEbo]

a lot of this also has to do with incomplete information. What to have for dinner has more complete information "I have 5 choices and about 5 different outcomes". Cuban Missile Crisis has like tons of choices and tons of outcomes. It's also based on sometimes vast, widely different assumptions.