Happy New Year and a Return to Blogging

Once again, I'm back; this time after a 5 month hiatus. I've been away for several reasons. I just finished some remodeling work in my house, which took a lot longer than I thought. My house is almost 100 years old, so there's always something to be done, and it's never as simple as it starts out to be. Then, too, I had to enjoy the summer. But, it's the new year, and it's time get back on the horse. I do enjoy blogging. It just takes so much energy.

The New York Times has an interesting article entitled, "The New Year's Cocktail: Regret with a Dash of Bitters." It's about New Years Day descent into regret about choices not made:

An opportunity, that is, to forestall the traditional morning-after descent into self-examination, that lonely echo chamber of what should and could be.

Ghosts roam around down there, after all, and they are the worst kind — alternate versions of oneself. The one who did not quit graduate school, for instance. The one who made the marriage work. Or stuck with singing, playwriting or painting and made a career of it.

Lost possible selves, some psychologists call them. Others are more blunt: the person you could have been.

This is a lyrical, but a-grammatical passage, which is somewhat surprising for the Times. But I like the metaphor of the ghosts. Looking at those ghosts may make us say, "If only I had done this differently, my life would have been WONDERFUL!!"

Ecch. When I start thinking that way, I always get in contact with my inner H. L. Mencken. Yeah, I could have stuck with singing. And today I could be living in a dump asking myself why I didn't go to grad school.

Life is about choices. Every time we make a choice, we cut off one universe of possibilities and embrace another universe of possibilities. I think of these possibilities as paths, and we walk along the path set by our previous choices. The great joy of life is how those paths take us to unpredictable places. Sometimes the places are enjoyable, sometimes they're not. When we find our path taking us to a place we don't want to be, all we can do is make new choices.

Because of this idea, I've been trying to stop referring to good or bad decisions. A decision puts us on a path which itself is infinite, so it never “turns out.” It simply opens up some choices and closes off others. I can make a decision very carefully, by considering all the options, seeking advice, and carefully selecting a plan of action. It can still put me on a path that takes me to a bad place. Once I see that I'm coming to a bad place all I can do it make new choices. But I will never know what would have happened if I had made a different choice and not taken that path.

Ultimately, our lives are the totality of the choices made and the paths taken. When we take a path, we make it real. The paths not taken exist only in the realm of imagination. So, if you ever find yourself wondering, "Why was I so stupid as to make that choice?" just remember the old line. "It seemed like a good idea at the time."Then go and make more decisions and make some new paths real.

More on Decision Making

I have been plowing through a monograph on adolescent decision-making by Valerie Reyna and Frank Farley, and I found a discussion related to my previous post on decision-making. In the article, they discuss the normative analysis of decision-making:

More formally, the normative analysis of a choice identifies the options in the decision makers’ best interests, given their goals and the information available to them, all integrated by the application of a rational decision rule. Customarily, that is an expected utility rule, which multiplies the utility (or attractiveness) of each outcome by the probability of its being obtained for each option. In these terms, rationality is a matter of consistency with a set of rules, such as transitivity (e.g., individuals who prefer A to B and B to C should also prefer A to C), because following such rules can be shown to result in reaching the decision makers’ goals (i.e., maximizing the attractiveness, to that decision maker, of the chosen option; von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944; Yates, 1990). Whether people actually adhere to such rules or pursue their own best interests is a detail left to descriptive research as opposed to normative analysis.
(p. 9)

A normative analysis of decision making recognizes that a "good decision" is one that is well-made. The decision-maker considers the alternatives and estimates the probability of achieving different outcomes. The decision-maker then selects the outcome by weighting the attractiveness of the outcome and the probability of achieving the outcome.

Reyna and Farley go on to say:

Normative analyses also recognize that people may rationally pursue goals that others dislike (e.g., adolescents who care more about good times and social approval than adults think is appropriate). Normative analyses recognize that people may make choices with unhappy outcomes because no better options were feasible (e.g., when dealing with bullying or sexual coercion). Normative analyses recognize that bad outcomes may follow good decisions, when chance intervenes, just as good luck may reward poor choices. Indeed, there is a term in decision analysis, outcome bias, for confusing the quality of decision processes and the consequences of decisions (Ritov & Baron, 1995). (p. 10).

This is exactly the point I was making when I described how decisions put us on unpredictable paths. The quality of our decision-making processes affects the likelihood of pleasant consequences, but it cannot guarantee it. Outcome bias confuses the quality of the decision with the path on which the decision takes us.

Outcome bias is so attractive because it is comforting. If I make the "right" decisions, my life will be perfect. If I'm unhappy with where my decisions are taking me, it's because I made the "wrong" decision. It is possible for me to predict the future and make only good things happen to me.

Giving up these unrealistic beliefs and accepting the true nature of decision-making is anxiety-provoking:

• It is anxiety-provoking to believe that you can make decisions well, but have them take you to bad places.
  
• It is anxiety-provoking to believe that you can be in a situation where there are no "good" choices; only least-worst choices.

So, we strike a bargain with ourselves. We would rather feel the guilt and regret of having made "bad choices," than to accept that sometimes--no matter how good our decisions are--bad things will happen to us.

Some people embrace this belief through a toxic spirituality, which I've discussed before: If I am a good person, God will keep bad things away from me. If bad things happen to me, it must be because God is angry at me. This thinking can be almost magical: If I'm good to my family, God will reward me at work.

So, these beliefs give us an illusion of control over our lives and fend off the anxiety that the unpredictability of life engenders. Ultimately, to live happily, we must give up these illusions. We have to recognize:

• If we make decisions carefully, we have an improved likelihood of taking an enjoyable path, but nothing is guaranteed.
  
• If our decisions take us down an unpleasant path, it is always possible that, around the next bend, better things will happen.
• If we are unhappy with the path we are on and are convinced that it won't improve, we can make more decisions and take new paths.
• It is rare that a well-made decision will take us down a catastrophic path. It can happen, as in the person who decides to stay late at work and is then hit by a drunk driver on the way home. The probability of such an event is so low that it is not worth worrying about.
  

And finally, the unpredictability of life is not only threatening, it is also exciting. As I look back on my life, my favorite memories are of those decisions that set me on unpredictable paths. So, instead of embracing outcome bias, I embrace the adventure of life.

References

Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006). Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making. Implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(1) (monograph).

Ritov, I., & Baron, J. (1995). Outcome knowledge, regret, and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 119-127.

von Neumann, J., & Morgensern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Yates, J. F. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Old Tappan, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ford, Nixon, and the Decisions We Make

The death of President Gerald Ford has reopened an old debate: Should he have pardoned Nixon for the crimes he committed during the Watergate scandal? The debate has bubbled up in both the blogosphere and in the letters to the editor in most newspapers. It's not necessary for me to provide any links; the debate is everywhere. It got me thinking about decision-making and the guilt we have when our decisions go wrong.

Many of my clients come to me saying, "If only I had done X instead of Y, things would have been better." For example, "If I stayed with my old job, and not taken that new job, I wouldn't have been fired, and I'd be able to pay for my kid's college today. My kids are suffering from my bad decision."

In order to help my clients with their guilt, I teach them about the reality of decision-making. Ford's decision to pardon Nixon is an excellent example. To make the decision, Ford asked himself, "What are the most likely outcomes if I pardon Nixon, and what are the most likely outcomes if I don't? Which outcomes would serve the greater good?" Ford thought that pardoning Nixon would bring the Watergate scandal to a quick end. Nixon deserved to be punished, but resigning in disgrace was enough punishment for him. I'm sure he knew people would disagree with his decision, and that would have political consequences for him.

In contrast, Ford thought, if Nixon were to be prosecuted, the investigation, the trial, and the appeals would drag on for years. There was no guarantee that Nixon would have been convicted. This, too would have political consequences for the Republican Party. Or, if Nixon was convicted, would it be overturned on appeal? So, Ford decided to pardon Nixon, thinking this would serve the greater good.

Today, Ford's critics argue that the country needed Nixon to be tried for his crimes if the country to truly recover from Watergate. They argue that pardoning Nixon increased cynicism about government by showing the powerful were above the law. Some say that the more recent scandals stem from that cynicism. They conclude that all the problems Ford was concerned about were worth it for the country to heal.

The old admonition, "Hindsight is 20-20," is relevant here. But, even in hindsight, notice that time only goes forward. There is no way for us to go back again, and find out what would have happened if Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon. So, we don't really know "what would have happened if...."

Imagine this scenario: Ford doesn't pardon Nixon. There's a long, drawn out, O. J. Simpson-esque trial, and Nixon is found guilty. He appeals, and his conviction is overturned because the jury wasn't impartial. The prosecutor, knowing a lost cause when he sees it, doesn't try Nixon again. How much cynicism would that engender? What would happen then?

At this point in the scenario, I'm overwhelmed by the possibilities. It's impossible to know what would happen next, especially as we become more removed from the original choice. Each choice opens up new choices and new possible outcomes.

OK, so we never have any way of knowing "What would happen if...." Does that mean we can't evaluate our decisions at all? Is there anything like a good or bad decision? Is this another fuzzy-headed liberal way of avoiding consequences? No. We can evaluate our decisions, but we have to change the way we look at them.

First, let me summarize:

1. When me make decisions, we are guessing about future outcomes. We cannot know how every possible decision might turn out.

2. We can never know what would have happened if we made a different choice.

3. All we can ever know is how our choices have affected us and are affecting us. Tomorrow, things might change completely.

4. Past choices continue to affect us. They open up some choices to us and limit others.

It is therefore unrealistic to evaluate a decision as "good" or "bad". Choices don't "work out." Instead, they put us on paths. Those paths may take us to places that are more or less desirable, but until we die, those paths don't end. Instead of asking, "Did I make a good decision?" I should instead ask:

1. Did I make the decision well? Did I consider a range of possible alternatives, consider my values, consult others, and think through my decision carefully? Or, did I just jump into it without any forethought?

2. Am I happy with the path I'm on as a result of my decisions?

Notice the implications here. We can make a decision carefully, and be unhappy with where it took us. In the same way, we can make a decision impulsively, and it takes us to some very good places. Overall, though, if we make our decisions carefully, we have a better chance at being happy with the path we take.

So, when my clients ask, "How could I have been so stupid as to do that?" I teach them it's OK to say, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." Because time only goes forward, we can't go back and change our decisions. However, we can always make more decisions and find better paths for our lives.

President Ford made a decision which may have cost him the presidency. That path must have been a difficult path for him. Personally, I agreed with the choice he made, although for other reasons, I voted against him. I respect him deeply, though. Despite pardoning Nixon, Ford still restored confidence in the presidency. He did it by making other choices throughout his presidency. I'm going to miss him. After the mess Bush has made, we desperately need another Gerald Ford.