When it comes to making decisions, Western societies tend to value reason and rational thought. The assumption is that good decisions are based upon careful consideration of all relevant facts. Whenever possible, important factors and potential outcomes should be quantified. The more data-driven the process, the better.
If reason is the foundation of good decision making, emotion is perceived as its enemy. Emotional decisions are seen as impulsive, reactive, and irrational. Emotions are thought to interfere with making good decisions by distorting the salience of particular information, thus creating bias in the decision maker. We are therefore encouraged to set our feelings aside when making decisions, lest they interfere with the process.
Science has started to challenge these assumptions in recent years. There exists a growing body of evidence suggesting that - far from interfering with the decision making process - emotions are an invaluable source of information.
According to Seo and Barrett, there are two factors that determine how emotions influence decision making: how people experience their emotions and what they do with them. The "how" refers to the intensity or strength of a given individual's emotional experiences. "What they do with them" refers to the level of emotional awareness of a given individual and the degree to which his feelings influence his judgment.
This model acknowledges that emotions have the potential to interfere with one's ability to make good decisions; they can influence our perceptions and create bias. As an example: Suppose a person is extremely uncomfortable with risk and uncertainty. He is presented with an investment opportunity that entails a small level of risk over the short term but a strong likelihood of success over the long term. He is uncomfortable with uncertainty; whenever he thinks about the risk associated with this opportunity he becomes anxious. Instead of taking advantage of this opportunity he instead selects a no risk option, even though this selection will earn him less money. His decision to go with the less favorable (and less rational) option is based entirely on his anxiety.
On the other hand, when given a proper role emotions can be an essential part of the decision making process. Research, in fact, suggests that it might be impossible to take emotion out of the equation. One study included participants with impairment in brain areas associated with perception of emotion. When presented with several options and given factual information about each, they found it difficult to develop a preference for any one option over another. As it turns out, preference is, at its core, an emotion. Without emotional input, one cannot develop preferences; it is quite difficult to make decisions without preferences.
In summary, emotions can both facilitate and interfere with good decision making. What do we do with this apparent contradiction? Fortunately, there is a (relatively) simple solution. The key is emotional awareness (mindfulness of emotions). Studies show that the impact of emotional bias on decision making is completely negated when people can recognize their feelings and reflect upon their relevance to the situation at hand.
Using the earlier example, a person could say, "I'm feeling anxious about taking this risk. This is probably because I am uncomfortable with uncertainty; taking risks always makes me anxious. My anxiety is based on habit, not on fact. I will take the risk because it is the better option."
Here's a link to an article that gives some good tips on using emotion in the decision making process:
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jenniferlerner/files/govt_exec_edit_6-151_ks_999wds-_pz_6-28.docx.final_.pdf
Showing posts with label decision making. Show all posts
Showing posts with label decision making. Show all posts
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Regret
It is impossible to go through life without ever experiencing regret, even when we intentionally avoid doing things we'll later wish we hadn't (or intentionally seek to do things we know we'll regret not doing). We are human; we make mistakes. Our mistakes beget unpleasant outcomes. In the midst of coping with the consequences of our bad decisions, it is only natural to wish we'd made different choices. This is regret: to feel a sense of personal responsibility for the way things turned out and to imagine that things would be better if we'd only decided differently.
Regret is a natural consequence of being free to make choices. Studies have shown that the very act of choosing almost immediately leads to regret and causes the unchosen option or options to appear more attractive. Because there is regret associated with each unchosen option, more options leads to more regret. Researchers have found that we anticipate this regret and take it into account everytime we make a decision. When tasked with choosing from a large number of options, the amount of regret we anticipate can seem a bit daunting. This is consistent with evidence suggesting that the more options we have, the less likely we are to make any choice.
Of course, deciding not to choose is also a choice. We opt out of making a decision so we won't have to face the regret associated with the options we did not select. And so we are spared, at least in the short term. We have not, however, successfully avoided our regret; we've merely postponed it. Here I borrow a quote from Gilovich and Medvec: "As troubling as regrettable actions might be initially, when people look back on their lives, it seems to be their regrettable failures to act that stand out and cause greater grief."
The research gives some credence to my own personal decision-making philosophy. (Not that the "philosophy" itself was developed with this in mind. Still, it's nice when there's actual evidence to support the quirky way I do things). When faced with multiple options, I gather a small amount of basic information about each of them. (Notice the emphasis on small and basic). This allows me to rule out any options that clearly aren't a good fit. At that point, I am typically left with several equally attractive alternatives.
The way I see it, if all options are equally attractive then it really doesn't matter which one I choose. It's unlikely that gathering more information will help. You see, the more I learn about each option, the more attractive they will all seem. This will make it more difficult for me to choose one over the others. So I just pick one. It doesn't matter how; maybe I'll write them all down on little slips of paper, put them in a bowl, mix them up, and pull one out. Maybe I'll cut out pictures of them, lay them out in a circle around me, close my eyes, spin around, come to a stop, and point. Whatever. I just pick one. And once I've made my choice, I fully commit to it. I don't second guess myself. I don't keep looking for other possible options "just to see" if I could've gotten a better deal. I make my selection and commit to it; then I move on.
Have I managed to eliminate all traces of regret from my life? Um, no. I'm human, after all. Like everyone else, I'm a work in progress...
Regret is a natural consequence of being free to make choices. Studies have shown that the very act of choosing almost immediately leads to regret and causes the unchosen option or options to appear more attractive. Because there is regret associated with each unchosen option, more options leads to more regret. Researchers have found that we anticipate this regret and take it into account everytime we make a decision. When tasked with choosing from a large number of options, the amount of regret we anticipate can seem a bit daunting. This is consistent with evidence suggesting that the more options we have, the less likely we are to make any choice.
Of course, deciding not to choose is also a choice. We opt out of making a decision so we won't have to face the regret associated with the options we did not select. And so we are spared, at least in the short term. We have not, however, successfully avoided our regret; we've merely postponed it. Here I borrow a quote from Gilovich and Medvec: "As troubling as regrettable actions might be initially, when people look back on their lives, it seems to be their regrettable failures to act that stand out and cause greater grief."
The research gives some credence to my own personal decision-making philosophy. (Not that the "philosophy" itself was developed with this in mind. Still, it's nice when there's actual evidence to support the quirky way I do things). When faced with multiple options, I gather a small amount of basic information about each of them. (Notice the emphasis on small and basic). This allows me to rule out any options that clearly aren't a good fit. At that point, I am typically left with several equally attractive alternatives.
The way I see it, if all options are equally attractive then it really doesn't matter which one I choose. It's unlikely that gathering more information will help. You see, the more I learn about each option, the more attractive they will all seem. This will make it more difficult for me to choose one over the others. So I just pick one. It doesn't matter how; maybe I'll write them all down on little slips of paper, put them in a bowl, mix them up, and pull one out. Maybe I'll cut out pictures of them, lay them out in a circle around me, close my eyes, spin around, come to a stop, and point. Whatever. I just pick one. And once I've made my choice, I fully commit to it. I don't second guess myself. I don't keep looking for other possible options "just to see" if I could've gotten a better deal. I make my selection and commit to it; then I move on.
Have I managed to eliminate all traces of regret from my life? Um, no. I'm human, after all. Like everyone else, I'm a work in progress...
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Why people have kids
I've often wondered why so many people decide to have children. That's not to say I don't want one myself -- I do. It's just that if you asked me why, I'd find it hard to articulate.
It seems like the logical choice for most people would be not to have children. For one thing, raising a child is extremely expensive - about $235,000 from birth to high school graduation, according to the most recent estimate. Children are also a lot of work. The time parents spend caring for a child is time not spent engaging in hobbies, self-care, or other enjoyable activities. Having a child shifts a couple's attention away from their relationship with each other, often causing them to neglect it altogether.
Child rearing is a thankless job. It is a rare child indeed who appreciates all the things her parents do for her. Sure, she might come to appreciate it once she becomes an adult, but this is not guaranteed. Nothing, in fact, is guaranteed when raising a child. It is one of the riskiest investments a person can make; it requires a huge commitment of time, energy, and resources up front with few short term returns and only the possibility of long term returns.
Some may argue that children bring immesuarable happiness into the lives of their parents. While this may be true, evidence suggests that people with children are no happier overall than people without them. Some studies even show that parents report lower levels of happiness than non-parents. Given all the costs associated with raising a child - and if children don't bring joy to our lives - then why are so many of us eager to become parents?
This is not a question we often ask ourselves. Having children is almost a given, part of a list of things we are "supposed" to do in life. Any newlywed couple will tell you that the questions about having children start almost as soon as the cake is cut (and sometimes before). A couple's desire to have children is assumed.
To Chrstine Overall, author of Why Have Children? The Ethical Debate, this seems counterintuitive. Why, she wonders, are people expected to give reasons for not wanting to have children but are not asked to explain why they want to have children? No one, she points out, says to a proud new parent, "Why did you decide to have this child?" The decision to procreate is the "default" option; if you want to "opt out," you have to explain why.
The decision to have a child, Overall argues, is an ethical one. There are both good and bad reasons for choosing to procreate. We have an ethical obligation to consider these issues, both as individuals and as a society. "...The burden of justification," she argues, "should...rest primarily on those who choose to have children, not on those who choose to be childless." (For more, check out Christine Overall's New York Times post, "Think Before You Breed" at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/think-before-you-breed/).
Overall's stance is, in my opinion, a moderate one. She asks us to examine our reasons for wanting a child before deciding to procreate. In his article, "Is There a Moral Obligation to Have Children," Saul Smilansky makes the more extreme argument that, at least in "first world" countries, most people have an ethical obligation to procreate. While I disagree with his central premise, he does provide some compelling reasons in favor of deciding to have children. Smilansky believes that children bring value to the world and to the lives of their parents. He reasons that if people are inherently valuable then creating a new person amounts to creating value. He also points to interpersonal relationships as "one of the major sources of value in the world." There is an emotional attachment between a parent and child that does not exist in any other relationship.
Smilansky also see parenting a an unparalleled avenue for personal growth. Through being a parent, a person becomes less self-centered and more focused on the needs of another. Parenting sometimes requires a person to sacrifice his own personal wants and needs for those of his children. A good parents learns to do this without becoming bitter or resentful. Parenting teaches a person to give without expecting anything in return.
Smilansky goes on to talk about parenting as a moral obligation to society as a whole. He points out that not having children places a greater burden on the children who are brought into the world, as they will ultimately be the ones supporting the economy and providing for society's care and services. He also sees having children as a familial obligation in the form of passing on our genes (and the traits associated with them). I find these arguments less compelling, perhaps because I am less interested in the implications of procreating on society and am more interested in the decision to procreate (or not) on a personal level.
I do believe that people should think seriously about why they do or do not want to have children before making a decision one way or another.
For those of your who have or want to have a child or children, what were/are your most compelling reasons? For those who have decided not to have children (or who are leaning in that direction), what reasons led you to your decision?
It seems like the logical choice for most people would be not to have children. For one thing, raising a child is extremely expensive - about $235,000 from birth to high school graduation, according to the most recent estimate. Children are also a lot of work. The time parents spend caring for a child is time not spent engaging in hobbies, self-care, or other enjoyable activities. Having a child shifts a couple's attention away from their relationship with each other, often causing them to neglect it altogether.
Child rearing is a thankless job. It is a rare child indeed who appreciates all the things her parents do for her. Sure, she might come to appreciate it once she becomes an adult, but this is not guaranteed. Nothing, in fact, is guaranteed when raising a child. It is one of the riskiest investments a person can make; it requires a huge commitment of time, energy, and resources up front with few short term returns and only the possibility of long term returns.
Some may argue that children bring immesuarable happiness into the lives of their parents. While this may be true, evidence suggests that people with children are no happier overall than people without them. Some studies even show that parents report lower levels of happiness than non-parents. Given all the costs associated with raising a child - and if children don't bring joy to our lives - then why are so many of us eager to become parents?
This is not a question we often ask ourselves. Having children is almost a given, part of a list of things we are "supposed" to do in life. Any newlywed couple will tell you that the questions about having children start almost as soon as the cake is cut (and sometimes before). A couple's desire to have children is assumed.
To Chrstine Overall, author of Why Have Children? The Ethical Debate, this seems counterintuitive. Why, she wonders, are people expected to give reasons for not wanting to have children but are not asked to explain why they want to have children? No one, she points out, says to a proud new parent, "Why did you decide to have this child?" The decision to procreate is the "default" option; if you want to "opt out," you have to explain why.
The decision to have a child, Overall argues, is an ethical one. There are both good and bad reasons for choosing to procreate. We have an ethical obligation to consider these issues, both as individuals and as a society. "...The burden of justification," she argues, "should...rest primarily on those who choose to have children, not on those who choose to be childless." (For more, check out Christine Overall's New York Times post, "Think Before You Breed" at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/think-before-you-breed/).
Overall's stance is, in my opinion, a moderate one. She asks us to examine our reasons for wanting a child before deciding to procreate. In his article, "Is There a Moral Obligation to Have Children," Saul Smilansky makes the more extreme argument that, at least in "first world" countries, most people have an ethical obligation to procreate. While I disagree with his central premise, he does provide some compelling reasons in favor of deciding to have children. Smilansky believes that children bring value to the world and to the lives of their parents. He reasons that if people are inherently valuable then creating a new person amounts to creating value. He also points to interpersonal relationships as "one of the major sources of value in the world." There is an emotional attachment between a parent and child that does not exist in any other relationship.
Smilansky also see parenting a an unparalleled avenue for personal growth. Through being a parent, a person becomes less self-centered and more focused on the needs of another. Parenting sometimes requires a person to sacrifice his own personal wants and needs for those of his children. A good parents learns to do this without becoming bitter or resentful. Parenting teaches a person to give without expecting anything in return.
Smilansky goes on to talk about parenting as a moral obligation to society as a whole. He points out that not having children places a greater burden on the children who are brought into the world, as they will ultimately be the ones supporting the economy and providing for society's care and services. He also sees having children as a familial obligation in the form of passing on our genes (and the traits associated with them). I find these arguments less compelling, perhaps because I am less interested in the implications of procreating on society and am more interested in the decision to procreate (or not) on a personal level.
I do believe that people should think seriously about why they do or do not want to have children before making a decision one way or another.
For those of your who have or want to have a child or children, what were/are your most compelling reasons? For those who have decided not to have children (or who are leaning in that direction), what reasons led you to your decision?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)