Quotes About Decision-making

Futureoriented people believe that when you choose a behavior, you choose its future consequences, but Zajonc, Bargh, and many others in social psychology have demonstrated that sometimes you do not choose a behavior. Sometimes a behavior chooses you based upon the environment in which you find yourself.

Yet even Christians who are dismissive of art continue to use it. Doing so is inescapable. Every time we build a sanctuary, arrange furniture in a room, or produce a brochure, we are making artistic decisions. Even if we are not artists in our primary vocation, there is an inescapably artistic aspect to our daily experience.

In order to decide, judge; in order to judge, reason; in order to reason, decide (what to reason about).

Don't try to solve serious matters in the middle of the night.

Crimes are committed when men take an idea that seems like a good idea and then can't think of good enough reasons why it might not be a good idea.

dispersal of power to different decision-making bodies (Chapter 7). â–  the results and consequences

Historically, these have included making treaties, the appointment and dismissal of ministers, dispensing

Power to determine the direction of policy is not confined to the blunt weapon of appointment and dismissal. It

Maybe sometimes we don't do the right thing because the wrong thing looks more dangerous, and we don't want to look scared, so we go and do the wrong thing just because it's dangerous. We're more concerned with not looking scared than with judging right.

Leadership is not equivalent to office-holding or high prestige or authority or decision-making. It is not helpful to identify leadership with whatever is done by people in high places. The activity we have in mind may or may not be engaged in by those who are formally in positions of authority. This is inescapable if we are to develop a theory that will be useful in diagnosing cases of inadequate leadership on the part of persons in authority.

Forget the old advice to think twice. Superforecasters often think thrice—and sometimes they are just warming up to do a deeper-dive analysis.

The foundations of our decision making were gravely flawed," McNamara wrote in his autobiography. "We failed to analyze our assumptions critically, then or later."5

The difference between heavyweights and amateurs, she said, is that the heavyweights know the difference between a 60?40 bet and a 40?60 bet.

There's also the "premortem," in which the team is told to assume a course of action has failed and to explain why—which makes team members feel safe to express doubts they may have about the leader's plan. But the superteams did not start with leaders and norms, which created other challenges.

Snap judgments are sometimes essential. As Daniel Kahneman puts it, "System 1 is designed to jump to conclusions from little evidence."13

The politicians would be blind men arguing over the colors of the rainbow. If the government had subjected its policy "to a randomized controlled trial then we might, by now, have known its true worth and be some way ahead in our thinking," Cochrane observed.

two hundred studies—has shown that in most cases statistical algorithms beat subjective judgment, and in the handful of studies where they don't, they usually tie. Given that algorithms are quick and cheap, unlike subjective judgment, a tie supports using the algorithm. The point is now indisputable: when you have a well-validated statistical algorithm, use it

WE ARE ALL forecasters. When we think about changing jobs, getting married, buying a home, making an investment, launching a product, or retiring, we decide based on how we expect the future will unfold. These expectations are forecasts. Often we do our own forecasting.

We have all been too quick to make up our minds and too slow to change them.

in most cases statistical algorithms beat subjective judgment, and in the handful of studies where they don't, they usually tie. Given

The point is now indisputable: when you have a well-validated statistical algorithm, use it.

The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces.

We can assume that most people, most of the time, are moral creatures. But imagine that this morality is like a gearshift that at times gets pushed into neutral. When that happens, morality is disengaged. If the car happens to be on an incline, car and driver move precipitously downhill. It is then the nature of the circumstances that determines outcomes, not the driver's skills or intentions.

I have been primarily interested in how and why ordinary people do unusual things, things that seem alien to their natures. Why do good people sometimes act evil? Why do smart people sometimes do dumb or irrational things?