Many decisions we have to make on a day to day basis are much easier than we treat them as. This is a partial guide to how you can recognise that and start lowering the cost of decision making.
I thought of this post at the weekend while watching "The Rescue", an (excellent) documentary about the Tham Luang cave rescue. The rescuers had to make (or rather, convince the officials in charge to make) an "easy" decision of your second sort: either they could go with an extremely risky plan in which some (and quite possibly all) of the boys in the cave were likely to die, or they could wait for the end of the monsoon, in which case all the boys were essentially certain to die. Complicating the problem, the officials had promised that only completely safe methods of extracting the boys would be considered. Thankfully, the rescuers found a way to convince the officials to let them try: they invited the officials to a rehearsal of their plan. This showed them that the crazy-sounding plan actually had some thought behind it, and made them think it had at least some chance of success.
It also came up in the context of an advanced driving course I'm currently taking. I have always used turn signals regardless of whether or not I can see anyone around who might benefit from them - this is one of the "easy decisions in unsafe environments" you mention. It takes ~0 effort to make a turn signal, and the cost of not doing so when I have failed to notice another road user who might benefit from it is potentially quite severe. But the course insists that I should only make turn signals when I can see someone who might benefit from it, and on the test I will be required to say e.g. "I am signalling left for the benefit of the brown Subaru behind me". I think this makes some sense while learning, as a way of forcing the student to pay attention to their surroundings and think about the needs of other road users. However, once I've passed the test I intend to revert to "always signal" immediately.
Yeah, agreed on both counts: Always signalling seems clearly the best solution to me, but I can see the argument for a learning environment. Often one learns better by doing things that are harder than the real thing.
Interesting to read this as I just used one of my easy decision making methods - choosing where to get lunch (what's the nearest decent burger) and choosing what to order (asked the server). A large part of my personal wellbeing comes from making easy decisions fast and ensuring I'm not overusing my brain for then
Yes, definitely. The goal of identifying easy decisions is very important for freeing up brain space and emotional energy to use on other things.
It's interesting how your lunch algorithm is exactly the opposite of the one I suggest, in that it's practically a novelty avoidance algorithm. I think that's perfectly legitimate too - the difference is probably how much you care about expanding your options in that space, and going for lunch is perhaps not something to prioritise learning about the wide range of possibilities on.
On the contrary, I'd say the "ask the waiter" algorithm is not novelty avoidance, but rather novelty embrace. For all you know, the waiter will say, "Well, today I recommend the giblets on rye, with a side of couscous," which is a lot more daring (assuming you order it) than, " Oh, I'll have a cheeseburger and fries."
I think "Nearest decent burger" is a pretty strong novelty avoidance algorithm, and while "ask the waiter" is at least somewhat novelty seeking I think typically it will result in a lowest-common-denominator recommendation (the waiter has a stronger incentive to recommend something you won't dislike than something you'll love, so will recommend a widely popular choice), though that can depend a lot on the conversation you have and what you do with their response.
I'd agree that "nearest decent burger" is limiting at the outset, so the giblets-couscous recommendation (which you might hate) is unlikely. But in general asking for a waiter's opinion strikes me as more open to serendipity than falling back on the same-old same-old.
I thought of this post at the weekend while watching "The Rescue", an (excellent) documentary about the Tham Luang cave rescue. The rescuers had to make (or rather, convince the officials in charge to make) an "easy" decision of your second sort: either they could go with an extremely risky plan in which some (and quite possibly all) of the boys in the cave were likely to die, or they could wait for the end of the monsoon, in which case all the boys were essentially certain to die. Complicating the problem, the officials had promised that only completely safe methods of extracting the boys would be considered. Thankfully, the rescuers found a way to convince the officials to let them try: they invited the officials to a rehearsal of their plan. This showed them that the crazy-sounding plan actually had some thought behind it, and made them think it had at least some chance of success.
It also came up in the context of an advanced driving course I'm currently taking. I have always used turn signals regardless of whether or not I can see anyone around who might benefit from them - this is one of the "easy decisions in unsafe environments" you mention. It takes ~0 effort to make a turn signal, and the cost of not doing so when I have failed to notice another road user who might benefit from it is potentially quite severe. But the course insists that I should only make turn signals when I can see someone who might benefit from it, and on the test I will be required to say e.g. "I am signalling left for the benefit of the brown Subaru behind me". I think this makes some sense while learning, as a way of forcing the student to pay attention to their surroundings and think about the needs of other road users. However, once I've passed the test I intend to revert to "always signal" immediately.
Yeah, agreed on both counts: Always signalling seems clearly the best solution to me, but I can see the argument for a learning environment. Often one learns better by doing things that are harder than the real thing.
Interesting to read this as I just used one of my easy decision making methods - choosing where to get lunch (what's the nearest decent burger) and choosing what to order (asked the server). A large part of my personal wellbeing comes from making easy decisions fast and ensuring I'm not overusing my brain for then
Yes, definitely. The goal of identifying easy decisions is very important for freeing up brain space and emotional energy to use on other things.
It's interesting how your lunch algorithm is exactly the opposite of the one I suggest, in that it's practically a novelty avoidance algorithm. I think that's perfectly legitimate too - the difference is probably how much you care about expanding your options in that space, and going for lunch is perhaps not something to prioritise learning about the wide range of possibilities on.
On the contrary, I'd say the "ask the waiter" algorithm is not novelty avoidance, but rather novelty embrace. For all you know, the waiter will say, "Well, today I recommend the giblets on rye, with a side of couscous," which is a lot more daring (assuming you order it) than, " Oh, I'll have a cheeseburger and fries."
I think "Nearest decent burger" is a pretty strong novelty avoidance algorithm, and while "ask the waiter" is at least somewhat novelty seeking I think typically it will result in a lowest-common-denominator recommendation (the waiter has a stronger incentive to recommend something you won't dislike than something you'll love, so will recommend a widely popular choice), though that can depend a lot on the conversation you have and what you do with their response.
I'd agree that "nearest decent burger" is limiting at the outset, so the giblets-couscous recommendation (which you might hate) is unlikely. But in general asking for a waiter's opinion strikes me as more open to serendipity than falling back on the same-old same-old.
This is probably true. Certainly it's more open to serendipity than just ordering the burger.
Indeed, and I use it specifically for lunch, long as ceteris paribus the quality is within a range :-)