Big Decision Ahead? Don’t Confuse Difficulty With Urgency

A good life is the result of good decisions.

When faced with a life-changing decision, we typically seek advice from the nearest person, procrastinate or rush into an unexamined solution.

We lack rituals and procedures.

All tough decisions are essentially about weighing value and purpose.

Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky, and other experts have clarified the specific ways in which decision makers are likely to be biased.

No amount of deliberation can ever guarantee that you have identified the “right” option.

The purpose of a decision is not to find the perfect option but get you an optimal choice that can help you get to the next one.

“Sometimes decisions are hard, not because one choice isn’t clearly better, but because the hard choice is also the right one, says Scott Young.

Difficulty vs. urgency

When you are overwhelmed by the urgency, magnitude, and complexity of a choice, you are likely to procrastinate or rush through it.

A smarter approach for making difficult decisions is to break down the process into manageable steps that you can tackle over time.

Before you rush to make a call on a tough issue, gather the facts (for and against your current assumptions), give yourself time to think through your options (process what you’ve found), and then make the call.

“In the end, if you don’t give yourself the time you feel you need to make a judgment or choice, you will undermine your satisfaction and your subsequent experience.

You will regret your decision, even when it is completely unwarranted, writes Heidi Halvorson is a motivational psychologist and author of No One Understands You, and What To Do About It

Don’t panic in times of crisis, or when you think your career, life or business is on the line. Keep calm and think through your options.

For many people though, impulsive decisions stem simply from getting caught up in what they want right now without thinking ahead, never thinking about the potential consequences or the long-term impact.

Take an outsider’s perspective

Many judgment errors can be eliminated simply by broadening your frame of reference.

The quickest, easiest, most effective way to do this is by involving someone who thinks very differently from you.

It’s amazing how many poor decisions can be avoided simply by asking one other person for their opinion.

A fresh perspective changes everything.

An impressive amount of empirical research backs up his observation.

Taking an out- sider’s perspective has been shown to reduce decision makers’ overconfidence about their knowledge (Gigerenzer, Hoffrage, & Kleinbölting, 1991)

Decision makers may also be able to improve their judgments by asking a genuine outsider for his or her view regarding the decision.

Searching for evidence that could prove you wrong is a painful process but it works.

If you’re wrestling with a difficult decision, consult a friend or colleague who’s been in your situation before.

Their insight will likely be significantly more valuable than almost any research.

Choice overload is a trap

Too many choices exhaust us.

And when you have too many scenarios to consider, you are likely to abscond from making a decision altogether.

Researcher Barry Schwartz calls this “choice overload.” We tend to avoid making important decisions when we have too many choices.

“As the number of options increases, the costs, in time and effort, of gathering the information needed to make a good choice also increase,” writes Schwartz.

“The level of certainty people have about their choice decreases. And the anticipation that they will regret their choice increases,” says Schwartz.

When you reach that level of stress in a decision-making process, you procrastinate, overthink and delay important decisions.

Jane Porter of Fast Company explains, “Given the endless options of which route to take, we can sometimes end up going with the more conventional path simply because it’s the easier way to go.”

By all means, consider all your options, but narrow your most important options to help you make a better choice in the future.

A study from New York University found that “restricting the choice of creative inputs actually enhances creativity.”

Use the OODA loop

Military pilots are known to rely on the OODA cycle/loop (observe, orient, decide and act) when making decisions.

The OODA loop was developed by military strategist and United States Air Force Colonel John Boyd. Boyd applied the concept to the combat operations process, often at the operational level during military campaigns.

There is no rush.

But every step is calculated based on careful observation.

The OODA loop has become an important concept in litigation, business, law enforcement, and military strategy.

Consider a fighter pilot being scrambled to shoot down an enemy aircraft.

The pilot decides to “get into the sun” above his opponent and acts by applying control inputs to climb. Back to observation — is the attacker reacting to the change of altitude? Then comes orient: Is the enemy reacting characteristically, or perhaps acting like a noncombatant? Is his plane exhibiting better-than-expected performance?

Most of us are under enormous pressure to act quickly, to show that we’re doing something and in control, but it’s important to stop and think every now and then.

Inaction (for orientation purposes) is sometimes more important than quick execution. Decision-making is about more than appearing decisive.

It’s also about managing the context to achieve an optimal outcome.

In any decision-making process, the winner isn’t the one who reacts most quickly, but the one who decides how to act most effectively.

Think in years, not days

Use the 10/10/10 rule.

“People who overweight the first-order consequences and ignore the effects that the second- and subsequent-order consequences will have on their goals, rarely reach their goals.” — Ray Dalio

Every decision has an impact on the next one.

Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger and many other known figures swear by the 10/10/10 strategy.

Ask yourself the following three questions:

How will I feel about it in 10 minutes?
How will I feel about it in 10 months?
How will I feel about it in 10 years?

Most of us are conditioned to respond as quickly as possible in many situations, however, it’s vital to consider the long-term consequences of your decisions.

Milton Friedman once said, “The best measure of quality thinking is your ability to predict the consequences of your ideas and subsequent actions.”

Trust your gut “brain”

In the business worlds, you hear a lot of talk about intuition, “trusting your gut.” It’s less simple than you might think.

Professor William Duggan believes that there are three different types of intuition:

Ordinary intuition is just a feeling, a gut instinct. Expert intuition is snap judgments, when you instantly recognize something familiar, the way a tennis pro knows where the ball will go from the arc and speed of the opponent’s racket… The third kind, strategic intuition, is not a vague feeling, like ordinary intuition. Strategic intuition is a clear thought… That flash of insight you had last night might solve a problem that’s been on your mind for a month.…Expert intuition is always fast, and it only works in familiar situations. Strategic intuition is always slow, and it works for new situations, which is when you need your best ideas.This difference is crucial, because expert intuition can be the enemy of strategic intuition.

Learn to trust your expert intuition (based on experience) when making choices about familiar problems.

Build a decision-making system

“We don’t always have control over outcomes, but we do have control over our process,” says Amy Summerville, a psychology professor at Miami University.

Sometimes you don’t have the luxury of time to extensively consider all the different scenarios and options.

What you need in a situation like that is a solid decision-making model.

Medics, boxers, footballers, and firefighters think on their feet.

In the heat of the moment, they don’t have time for deviating thoughts.

The pressure of the moment forces their minds to focus on what needs to be done now.

They process information so quickly that “rapid cognition” — decisions that spring from hard thinking based on sound experience — can feel more instinctive than scientific.

If they make mistakes, they recover quickly.

These are two ways to build a better decision-making system:

1. Understand pattern recognition

Most of what we face each day is similar to other scenarios we have already experienced. By understanding this, it’s possible to quickly map a range of previous experiences and their outcomes.

Leverage those to arrive at the most viable decision…fast.

Over time, as you continue making decisions, your speed and quality will improve.

2. Use the 2 minutes rule

For most decisions, it’s much better to pick an option, and just move on, and the two-minute rule can help.

Give yourself a timer that helps you focus on the decision rather than having your mind wander and get distracted.

If you had two minutes to make a decision, how will you decide?

It doesn’t even have to be two minutes, necessarily, it just has to be a short amount of time, and you have to force yourself to pick a side by the time it runs out.

Use this approach if you suck at making small decisions fast (where to eat, which movie to watch, what to eat for dinner etc.).

With the pressure of a time limit, you’ll need to get to the heart of the matter faster and collect the pros and cons quickly, which you might not otherwise do.

Key takeaway

The only way you’re going to get better at making smart and better decisions is by practising making decisions every single day.

And learn to own your choices and the outcomes they generate. It ‘s the only way to be in control over your life.

If you start making this part of your daily routine, you may feel more confident in your actions and decision-making skills.

It’ll take time and practice, but once you get the hang of it, you will make an informed decision in any situation.

*This articles originally appeared on

The Global Attention Span Is Getting Shorter

It’s not your imagination: keeping up with the sheer amount of content that’s available today — whether it’s Twitter, the news, or the latest show on Netflix — is getting harder. As a result, the length of time that content remains popular — a rough measurement of the global attention span — is decreasing, according to a recent large-scale analysis published in Nature Communications.

The authors evaluated a total of 43 billion tweets and analyzed the top 50 trending hashtags in the world every hour on the hour, from 2013 to 2016. They then calculated the time the hashtags remained popular and found that in 2013, a hashtag remained in the top 50 list for an average of 17.5 hours, but the figure had dropped to 11.9 hours by 2016.

This attention contraction isn’t just a product of the internet. For instance, the researchers analyzed how long certain words and phrases remained fashionable in 100 years of literature made available by Google Books. They found that catchy terms were used in books for an average of six months in the 19th century, but only stuck around for a month by the 21st century.

“I think a lot of people are feeling a kind of exhaustion with all the things that you have to keep up with.”

“The public interest is getting saturated quicker with one topic because there’s more content produced in the early stages of a trend,” says study co-author Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, who studies modern information systems at Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Germany. For example, in the 1980s, a blockbuster film — defined as a steep increase in ticket sales from one week to another — was released on average every four months, but that time has shrunk to between one and two weeks in 2018, according to the study.

This means that we are becoming interested in trends more quickly, but are also losing interest in the same content more swiftly, says Sune Lehmann, another study co-author, who is a physicist and mathematician at the Technical University of Denmark. The only media sources whose content isn’t becoming unpopular more quickly, according to the study, are scientific research papers and Wikipedia.

“I think a lot of people are feeling a kind of exhaustion with all the things that you have to keep up with,” Lehmann says.

But he speculates it will be difficult for companies to adapt to the increasing pace of social systems if they also aim to make a profit in an attention-driven economy. “The problem, as I see it, is that there are aspects of experiencing rapidly incoming news that are exciting and exhilarating,” he says. “Any site that sells ‘slow news’ needs to deal with the fact that it is challenging, difficult, and sometimes boring to deeply understand a complex problem.”

One implication of a short public attention span may be that it’s harder to hold people accountable, says Lorenz-Spreen. For instance, he explains that it may be increasingly difficult for journalists to conduct in-depth research for news stories due to pressures to break news stories first, and the knowledge that news stories have a short shelf life. And any issued corrections or clarifications might be less likely to reach readers because they’ve likely moved on to other content by the time mistakes are noticed and fixed.

Lorenz-Spreen thinks communication needs reshaping to help people deal with information overload. One intervention, he says, might be to shift journalistic norms away from novelty and towards quality — stories with more background research, or other journalistic news values.

Sebastián Valenzuela, a journalism and mass communication scholar at the University of Wisconsin Madison who was not involved with the study, says institutions, such as governments, are not ready for such fast turnaround. In the scientific world, he says, it may be risky if researchers actively choose to study trendy topics that hit the headlines, but aren’t as important as other pressing issues that demand more time and effort.

For Valenzuela, the silver lining of a shorter collective attention span is that it means individuals, who previously found it harder to contribute to public discourse, can now attract attention more easily. “The traditional gatekeepers of culture, news, and information are losing power.”

But he doesn’t think the issues of faster turnaround and shorter collective attention spans can necessarily be fixed. What’s needed, Valenzuela says, is for institutions to be more flexible and adaptive. “Organizations need to invest more heavily in technology and human capital to filter and process information,” he adds. “If technology is the culprit of information overload and attention volatility, technology is also part of the solution.”

*This article originally appeared on OneZero at

The Tyranny of Convenience

“I just boarded an international @JetBlue flight. Instead of scanning my boarding pass or handing over my passport, I looked into a camera before being allowed down the jet bridge,” MacKenzie Fegan tweeted last week. “Did facial recognition replace boarding passes, unbeknownst to me? Did I consent to this?”

The quick answer? Yes and no.

Yes, facial recognition did replace boarding passes for international travelers in some U.S. airports recently, and — if the Trump administration has its way — it will be the default check-in method in many more airports by 2020. And no, Fegan did not overtly consent to this specific use of facial recognition. Nor did anyone else, presumably. In a subsequent tweet, JetBlue told Fegan that passengers can “opt out of this procedure,” suggesting that JetBlue considers consent to be implied by default.

If we take the airline’s word for it, JetBlue assumed that its passengers would find biometric check-in more convenient than the conventional method.

Part of the answer as to why JetBlue might have made that assumption — that people would actually want their faces to serve as a boarding pass, instead of a piece of paper or their smartphone — appears in a press release JetBlue linked to in its response thread with Fegan.

Back in November, when biometric boarding was introduced at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport, JetBlue’s senior vice president of customer experience was quoted praising the technology as “a testament to the airline’s ongoing work to create a personal, helpful, and simple experience.” If we take the airline’s word for it, JetBlue assumed that its passengers would find biometric check-in more convenient than the conventional method.

In the ongoing and growing opposition to the seemingly dystopian world technology companies are building, convenience is often overlooked. But it’s convenience, and the way convenience is currently created by tech companies and accepted by most of us, that is key to why we’ve ended up living in a world we all chose, but that nobody seems to want.

Convenience is signing up to a social media platform to keep in touch with friends and family and keep abreast of current events, and then discovering that the personal information you’ve been required to upload to enable your account has been used to micro-target you with disinformation.

Convenience is buying a digital assistant for your home to make hands-free information searches easier, and later finding out that employees of the company that makes it are able to listen to the commands you’ve been giving it — or that its recordings of the ambient sounds of your home have been mailed to someone you don’t know.

Convenience is downloading a weather app to check whether you need to pack an umbrella, only to later realize that the app’s code makes it easy for someone to track your movements with such specificity that no amount of anonymization of the data would hide that it was you entering a Planned Parenthood, or riding along with the mayor of New York City.

Convenience is watching one video online by someone who thinks the world is flat, and tumbling down a rabbit hole of aggressive and increasingly swivel-eyed conspiracy videos until you end up believing that Hillary Clinton is a lizard from another planet. Better yet, convenience is sitting your child down in front of a supposedly child-friendly video only to discover a while later that the same autoplay function has dug up videos of their favorite cartoon characters being mutilated.

Convenience is driving a car for a ride-hail company because it promises flexible hours, only to find yourself making less than minimum wage and subject to phantom price surge promises, the absolutism of personal star ratings, and constant surveillance, including messages that prompt you to get back to driving like a notification that your phone is unmounted.

Most importantly, convenience is a value, and one we hold personally.

Convenience is booking a flight online quickly and cheaply, only to discover upon arriving at the airport that you are required to subject yourself to a facial recognition “procedure,” where your image is captured and automatically checked against a federal database, affording you little recourse if it happens to mismatch, in order to board your plane and embark on your trip.

Convenience is allowing the “if, then” logic of an algorithm to shape the music you hear, the books you read, the information you see, the news you read, the things you watch, and the people you interact with.

Convenience is the powerful marketing tool deployed by utopian evangelists to describe a world of total ease and seamless interactions that deliberately masks a frantic race to monopolize a near-bottomless well of behavioral and biometric data. It is the device used to reduce our personal agency, strip us of personal choice, and ultimately render us helpless to the terms and conditions to which we have unwittingly clicked “I agree.”

Most importantly, convenience is a value, and one we hold personally. Ultimately, this is why it keeps winning, outweighing the more abstract ideas like privacy, democracy, or equality, all of which remain merely issues for most of us. That’s why Fegan’s encounter matters. Her moment of realization at the airport is one we will all face one day: the instant when we realize that the convenience we value is not only inseparable from those issues, but that, taken far enough, that they can’t exist simultaneously. Convenience doesn’t simply supercede privacy or democracy or equality in many of our lives. It might also destroy them.

*This article originally appeared at OneZero on