Decision-Making

Outline

It’s better to express an issue as an open-ended question, other things being equal.
- Closed-ended Questions
  - Should X be done?
Capital Punishment, an Example
- Closed-ended Question
  - Should capital punishment be abolished?
  - Options: Yes, No
- Open-ended Question
  - How should the very worst crimes be punished?
  - Options: capital punishment, life imprisonment without parole
- Consider the argument that capital punishment deters capital crimes. In considering the closed-ended CP question you may ask merely whether CP deters capital crimes. In entertaining the open-ended question, however, you’re more likely to ask the important question: does CP deter capital crimes more effectively than life imprisonment without parole?

How to Make a Big Decision, Steven Johnson, New York Times
- “One important insight that has emerged from the research is the importance of generating alternatives to any course of action you are considering.
- Professor Paul Nutt and other researchers have demonstrated a strong correlation between the number of alternatives deliberated and the ultimate success of the decision itself. In one of his studies, Professor Nutt found that participants who considered only one alternative ultimately judged their decision a failure more than 50 percent of the time, while decisions that involved contemplating at least two alternatives were felt to be successes two-thirds of the time.
- The upshot is clear: If you find yourself mapping a “whether or not” question, looking at a simple fork in the road, you’re almost always better off turning it into a “which one” question that gives you more available paths.”

Arguments for and against options are normative arguments:
- A normative argument is an argument, based on reasons, that a particular action should (or shouldn’t) be done.

In Billion Dollar Lessons: What You Can Learn from the Most Inexcusable Business Failures of the Last 25 Years Carroll and Mui recommend a Devil’s Advocate Review for major business decisions.
- “Human beings are hard-wired for bad decision making in complex situations. We home in on answers before examining all the facts, and then seek evidence to confirm our answers. We are adversely influenced by emotion, loyalties, and groupthink. However, decision making can be improved by encouraging conflict and questioning assumptions. A devil’s advocate review should be built into the strategy-making process.”