Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People spend too much time on decisions with equally satisfying outcomes

robkhenderson.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 129 posts

Re: People spend too much time on decisions with equally satisfying outcomes

#71

Post by Pelam »

chii wrote: post #29
brian_cloutier wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a paradox but it can be irrational. When the two choices have similar utility the cost of distinguishing them is high and the benefit of making the correct choice is low. There is a crossover point where it does not matter which option you choose, putting more effort into your decision can only leave you worse off, and this article claims we tend to continue putting in the effort well past that point.

> this article claims we tend to continue putting in the effort well past that point. it's because people have the irrational belief that their thinking and reasoning more about a problem/decision makes their outcome better. I think the common symptom found in software is design analysis paralysis. A software team end up using tonnes of time fretting about design choices (often as a committee), rather than just use t…

This! Often (actually almost always) time it self is valuable for multiple reasons. Spending precious time in the "meeting room" instead of progressing towards (almost any) implementation can decrease the overall value and increase the risks.

Also some people strongly prefer action over deliberation, especially by a committee so there is also a psychological cost to the team to consider.

With software and a capable team, there can still be an illusion that decisions are cast in stone and can't be changed later, while the opposite is true.

Implementing a solution that is almost there and then making corrections can be both more satisfying and lead to very good results. This of course requires the psychological freedom an flexibility to quickly acknowledge errors in thinking and design and not holding on to "the plan" too tightly.

Re: People spend too much time on decisions with equally satisfying outcomes

#72

Post by [deleted] »

jquery wrote: post #54
changoplatanero wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend was spending forever trying to decide which of two toothpastes to buy at Target. The cost of avoiding calculating which is better by just buying both was only $3. In cases like that I think it's irrational to spend so much time thinking about it.

A grandmaster logician descends from logic heaven to tell you it was actually rational and asks you to figure out why that it so. What is your response?

[deleted]

Re: People spend too much time on decisions with equally satisfying outcomes

#73

Post by someweirdperson »

changoplatanero wrote: post #26
brian_cloutier wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a paradox but it can be irrational. When the two choices have similar utility the cost of distinguishing them is high and the benefit of making the correct choice is low. There is a crossover point where it does not matter which option you choose, putting more effort into your decision can only leave you worse off, and this article claims we tend to continue putting in the effort well past that point.

A friend was spending forever trying to decide which of two toothpastes to buy at Target. The cost of avoiding calculating which is better by just buying both was only $3. In cases like that I think it's irrational to spend so much time thinking about it.

Price is not only money for the purchase. Aferwards, it increases the effort of cleaning teeth, on the left using one, and on the right using the other, over the next 5 years, before making a final choice based on results at the dentist.

At which point both of them will have been upgraded with different ingredients.

Re: People spend too much time on decisions with equally satisfying outcomes

#74

Post by 1penny42cents »

This is only irrational when the outcomes are well-understood to be equally satisfying.

The candy bar exercise is a good example of when it’s irrational.

The problem is that similar-seeming outcomes may be just that: _seemingly_ similar.

The university decision is a bad example of when it’s irrational. The search space is infinite, the variation in possible outcomes is high, and it’s very easy to overlook one or more critical factors.

The skill is then to be able to identify the threshold when all outcomes can be considered well-understood and when time spent deciding costs more than time sooner started.

When things are moving slow and surprises keep popping up, one could be acting irrationally in the way the author describes. When things are moving fast and surprises are minimized, no need to worry about spending too much time decision-making.

Re: People spend too much time on decisions with equally satisfying outcomes

#75

Post by someweirdperson »

klyrs wrote: post #55

I spend eons shopping for things, and it's not a mistake. The trick is, there's a third option: I don't buy most things I want to buy . I have my criteria, and I won't purchase something I don't want. I'll look again in a month or so. This is an incredibly effective way to save money. But, obviously, it doesn't work when you really need something -- then, I try to tally points for and against, and accept that I'll be…

Not buying one of two equally bad choices is the best choice. My strategy for buying when something is really needed (or just really wanted): Do not choose from the similar options. If there's almost equal items at almost the same price, those are usually low-end quality. At the higher end things are usually more distinguishable, and usually more satisfying, too.

Re: People spend too much time on decisions with equally satisfying outcomes

#76

Post by adhesive_wombat »

I was told (in a CPU architecture lecture) this is a problem in branch prediction too. With two very similar branches, the time taken to decide starts to outweigh the benefits so something has to step in and say "they're obviously basically the same, just choose the first one" (or some other heuristic maybe to about bias, I don't recall).

Re: People spend too much time on decisions with equally satisfying outcomes

#77

Post by someweirdperson »

bitwize wrote: post #51
bluedino wrote: post #17

You think guys like Bill Gates think about what they are having for dinner? They don't debate it with their wives. Food just appears. The cook knows what they like and they probably stick to that. I would consider myself "filthy rich" when food just appeared for me.

Other elites use a trick I call Smurfette's closet: fill your closet with identical copies of a single outfit (much like Smurfette has a closet full of that one dress she wears). That way you won't be paralyzed by picking out what to wear. Barack Obama and Steve Jobs have done this.

I have 100 identical socks. Absolutely recommended, not just to avoid the need to choose.

Re: People spend too much time on decisions with equally satisfying outcomes

#78

Post by adhesive_wombat »

fellowniusmonk wrote: post #31
Waterluvian wrote: post #16

My “anti shampoo aisle” strategy (that drives my wife mad) is to stop at the first item that satisfies my requirements. “You didn’t even look at the back of the menu!!” “Good point. I’ll start reading menus from random locations each time.”

I like this! I have a slightly different one but I'll try yours next time I am out. Mine is: 'I like being surprised, if you have any love it or hate it "controversial" items I'd like to try that, otherwise surprise me :-)' Along with a genuinely friendly demeanor it is almost always a delight. Worst case scenario they just give me the most popular item on the menu, occasionally I get something weird tasting but neve…

I did something like this at a French restaurant (in the UK) and received dire warnings about the andouillette being quite different to what I might expect.

Apparently they get sent back more often than they're eaten. I thought it was delicious (certainly not good if you don't like tripe!) and demolished it. The waiter confided that it's the one food that most reminded him of home, which was a human moment I still remember that I wouldn't have had if I'd ordered a steak frites.

Re: People spend too much time on decisions with equally satisfying outcomes

#79

Post by creakingstairs »

Pelam wrote: post #71
chii wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this article claims we tend to continue putting in the effort well past that point. it's because people have the irrational belief that their thinking and reasoning more about a problem/decision makes their outcome better. I think the common symptom found in software is design analysis paralysis. A software team end up using tonnes of time fretting about design choices (often as a committee), rather than just use t…

This! Often (actually almost always) time it self is valuable for multiple reasons. Spending precious time in the "meeting room" instead of progressing towards (almost any) implementation can decrease the overall value and increase the risks. Also some people strongly prefer action over deliberation, especially by a committee so there is also a psychological cost to the team to consider. With software and a capable t…

I’ve argued for just building POC approach at times and worked out great sometimes. I found the issue was usually with management. Many have been extremely reluctant to throwing away code. Even though writing POC and re-doing everything will take the same time as planning for ages and doing it once.

Re: People spend too much time on decisions with equally satisfying outcomes

#80

Post by trombonechamp »

I did my PhD on this topic.

One classic result from biophysics is that, if all of your decisions have a fixed level of difficulty, then what the author suggests is (mathematically) proven to be suboptimal: if a decision feels more difficult, you actually should spend more time on that decision. (Keywords to search for: drift diffusion model[2], sequential probability ratio test[3])

The technical term for what the author is suggesting one should do (not spending so much time on decisions with equal outcomes) is an "urgency signal", or just "urgency" for short. If you are using an urgency signal, then you will spend less time on difficult decisions (i.e. ones with near equal outcomes) than you would without an urgency signal, but still more than you would easy decisions. (For easy decisions, you spend approximately the same amount of time regardless of whether you have an urgency signal.) In the extreme case, for an infinitely strong urgency signal, you will spend equal time on both easy and difficult decisions. (See Paul Cisek's work, e.g., [1].) Conceptually speaking, you need time to detect that the current decision has near-equal outcomes.

It was only recently (mathematically) proven that if you have different levels of difficulty in your decisions, it is optimal to use an urgency signal [4,5]. So since most sequences of decisions aren't all equally difficult (as in the study referenced here), in practice, people will use an urgency signal in decision-making.

Of course, both the desired accuracy and the urgency signal depend on how the decision is being evaluated: if your goal is to make an accurate decision (e.g. buying a house), then you will have a weaker urgency signal and require more evidence before you make a decision. By contrast, if you prioritise decision speed, you will show more urgency signal and require less evidence to make a choice. (The technical term is "speed-accuracy tradeoff".)

Current work suggests that when you are making some decision for the first time, you will not use an urgency signal, but as you become an expert at making those decisions, you will gradually develop an urgency signal [6]. This makes sense conceptually: if you know approximately how hard you can expect these decisions to be, you will recognise the situation where they have approximately the same utility and adjust your strategy accordingly.

[1] https://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/37/11560

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-alternative_forced_choice#...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_probability_ratio_t...

[4] https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2017-16730-001.pdf

[5] https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-017-1340-6

[6] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00100...

Post reply on HN