How we make decisions...

[Foreigner]

I've been faced with a difficult life choice and I am gradually coming to terms with the way that I make my decisions. But I don't want this thread to be about me, I am doing this to get a better picture of how other people make their decisions.

I've debating within myself about whether or not logic is relevant to decision making. Some people seem to make major life changes based on overriding intuitions or gut feelings - an inner "knowing" that defies whatever it is their mind is telling them, and they do it.

Other people are cautious planners and seem to logically weigh all the factors before eventually choosing the path that seems the most rational, logical, and practical. They will consult their support resources like friends and family in order to get their opinions, and then include them in the decision making process much like an arbiter would.

Some use a mix of these approaches. Their logic and intuition must agree or the choice can't happen.

A friend recently pointed out to me that no matter what choice you make, it should "feel right", regardless of what your logic is telling you about it. She suggested that mind is ultimately an obstacle and you should follow your heart. I suppose this makes some sense because no matter what I decide, logic can be used to justify it. My concern though is that gut feelings can't necessarily maximize utility, whereas logic can; yet maybe what is ultimately in my best interest cannot be deduced logically and it something that my non-linear intuition has a grasping of.

Is it possible that making a choice that does not "feel right" might logically be better? Is it possible for logical choices to go against gut feelings and still be for the highest good? Is the most harmonious choice ALWAYS what your gut is telling you, despite all else? Can intuition mislead us? Is this all a false dichotomy?

This is probably a spiritual question as much as it is a philosophical one.

 

[Pagey]

A friend recently pointed out to me that no matter what choice you make, it should "feel right"

I tend to agree with this, but I definitely don't think that suggests logic must be dismissed entirely either. I think gut feeling should really only factor in towards the end of the decision process; weigh out all the different factors logically, get people's opinions etc. and decide in as objective a way as possible what the best course of action would be - and then compare it to your actual feelings. In my experience and from what I believe, it's never a good idea to go completely against your gut instinct. Compromises can work easily if the logical arguments are convincing, but if it really feels wrong, no matter what your brain may have figured out, I think the chances of it going well are slim.

Just my 2c - hope that helps.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Although I'm sure the OP is more than aware of these, I thought I'd post them for the benefit of all. This is pretty much how it was put in a philosophy class I sat in on:


"Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning originates from the philosophy and mathematics and is the most obvious form of reasoning. Deduction is a method for applying a general rule (major premise) in specific situations (minor premise) of which conclusions can be drawn. Example:
Major premise: All humans are mortal
Minor premise: Socrates is human
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal

Immediately the obviousness and straightforwardness of the conclusion can be drawn from the premises above of the example of deductive reasoning. Notice that deductive reasoning no new information provides, it only rearranges information what is already known into a new statement or conclusion.


Inductive Reasoning

The antithesis of deductive reasoning is inductive reasoning. In this form of logical reasoning specific conclusions are generalized to general conclusions. A famous hypothesis is ‘all swans are white’. This conclusion was taken from a large amount of observations without observing any black swan. Inductive reasoning however is a risky form of logical reasoning since the conclusion can as easily be incorrect when, looking at the swans example, a black swan is spotted. However, nowadays inductive reasoning is a commonly used type of reasoning in physics and philology.


Abductive Reasoning

Abductive reasoning is the third form of logical reasoning and is somewhat similar to inductive reasoning, since conclusions drawn here are based on probabilities. In abductive reasoning it is presumed that the most plausible conclusion also the correct one is. Example:
Major premise: The jar is filled with yellow marbles
Minor premise: I have a yellow marble in my hand
Conclusion: The yellow marble was taken out of the jar

The abductive reasoning example clearly shows that conclusion might seem obvious, however it is purely based on the most plausible reasoning. This type of logical reasoning is mostly used within the field of science and research."


"Analogical Reasoning

Analogical reasoning is a method of processing information that compares the similarities between new and understood concepts, then uses those similarities to gain understanding of the new concept. It is a form of inductive reasoning because it strives to provide understanding of what is likely to be true, rather than deductively proving something as fact. This method can be used by both children and adults as a way to learn new information or as part of a persuasive argument.

The reasoning process begins by a person determining the target domain, or the new idea to be learned or explained. It is then compared to a general matching domain, or an idea that is already well-understood. The two domains must be similar enough to make a valid, substantial comparison. Specific qualities are chosen that belong to the matching domain, then related items are searched for in the target domain to tie the two domains together. For example, food’s effect on the human body can be an analogy to gasoline’s effect on a car because they are both responsible for making entities function correctly.

Analogical reasoning is based on the brain’s ability to form patterns by association. The brain may be able to understand new concepts more easily if they are perceived as being part of a pattern. If a new concept is compared to something the brain already knows, it may be more likely that the brain will store the new information more readily."

So gut instincts, as you put it, would generally be one of the forms of reasoning listed above, in my opinion.

 

[ebola?]

I tend to have very muted intuitions and 'gut-feelings', so I have to logically weigh variables if I am to decide anything; I can't wait for things to "feel right", as they never will.

ebola

 

[exists]

I make decisions by using a mixture of both "gut instinct" and logic. With perfect logic, you can never fail, but... our subconscious minds are very powerful, and this, I believe, is where gut feelings come from.

Whether we realize it or not, we send "queries" to our subconscious all the time, and it works constantly behind the scenes to produce answers for us. One of the conscious mind's jobs, therefore, is to use logic to make sense of what the subconscious is telling us. Verify, verify, verify, that is what we must do. If we cannot use logic to figure what our inner heart is telling us, then at least try to determine how strong the feeling is. If it's a very powerful feeling, then maybe you should pay attention to it. But whenever possible, always try to work through the situation using logic!

 

[Bob Loblaw]

A friend recently pointed out to me that no matter what choice you make, it should "feel right", regardless of what your logic is telling you about it. She suggested that mind is ultimately an obstacle and you should follow your heart.

No offence, but that's some of the worst shit I've ever heard in my life.



I view facts, think about what my long term desires are, listen to what I want to do right now & then make a decision

 

[ebola?]

But you have to have desire and intuition to guide where reason should be directed in the first place.

ebola

 

[RedRum OG]

i dont know if i agree with the whole gut feeling thing, sure it can be useful in some circumstances as a last minute tie breaker, but otherwise i think humans have a notoriously bad track record with using their feelings to make decisions, especially important ones.

a lot of peoples intuition points them towards believing in ridiculous outdated santa-clause type religions, a surprising majority of the earth. i believe there may be some sort of greater connection out there, but i sure dont think there is a bearded white man sitting in a cloud wearing a white robe, pissed off at all humanity. or a god that doesnt want women to show their face in public. and it seems hate is also a disgustingly common knee jerk reaction people feel towards each other all the time, with all the violence on small and large scales that happens.

when i was a junkie what i felt in my gut was a bad decision 100% of the time, and somewhere in the background of my brain my conscious was trying to use logic to get me to do the right thing.

maybe im being overly negative, but IME people shouldnt be trusted unless they are totally invested in cold hard logic

 

[EliCash]

But you have to have desire and intuition to guide where reason should be directed in the first place.

ebola

There was a man, Elliot, that upon having a tumor removed from his brain became entirely rational. It was crippling. He would literally spend hours deciding whether to write something in blue or black ink because he could not rationally choose between the two and had lost the ability to feel that gut feeling the rest of us use to actually decide.

I heard about Elliot's case here btw: http://www.radiolab.org/story/91642-overcome-by-emotion/

 

[Jerry Atrick]

I think it's a stretch to believe we all see things in black and white all the time, as logical or gut. I think we use both. We may draw more from one or the other depending upon the situation. But barring any conditions like Elliot's, I don't think a person can say, "I am logical," or "I follow my gut."

 

[L2R]

anyone who picks anything other than both is either lying or delusional.

 

[alasdairm]

related reading:

Myers-Briggs - which are you?
What is your Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)?

i would imagine people are, as with most things, on a spectrum. it's hard to imagine somebody using one or the other exclusively.

alasdair

 

[alasdairm]

related reading: Making descisions based on your gut vs head

alasdair

 

[desertshore]

I tend to have very muted intuitions and 'gut-feelings', so I have to logically weigh variables if I am to decide anything; I can't wait for things to "feel right", as they never will.

+1... even if cognitive scientists tried (with some success) to show that decision-making is almost always emotion driven. Which could make sense also from a logical-utilitarian point of view as well, as personal wellbeing and happiness usually are the utility functions we strive to maximize in our life... (yes, I know that emotion-based decision making can fail spectacularly)

 

[ebola?]

i would imagine people are, as with most things, on a spectrum. it's hard to imagine somebody using one or the other exclusively.

Right, BUT with the Meyers-Briggs material you linked, it's a bit hard to think of the 'types' in terms of spectra (I know that this is only tangential to your point; sorry). Each given type actually points to a rank-ordered list of the top 4 favored/competent cognitive functions. Eg, it rarely makes sense to claim to present on the J/P border, as most (all?) xyzP and xyzJ type pairings will have NO preferred functions in common. BUT people's tertiary and quaternary functions do indeed provide nuance to behavior otherwise often guided near monolithically by the lead and secondary functions. Eg, as an INTP, I often find myself indecisive and socially oblivious, but my quaternary Fe can help me get a feel for social contexts and the ramifications of my decisions that I won't EVER glean through simple iterative deployment of Ti and Ne (my primary and secondary). When in closed, reciprocal relation, my Ti and Ne seem to come up with multiple, equally valid courses of action, each based on different sets of different sets of axioms establishing what results are favorable or unfavorable and also what consequences I can expect wrought of which actions and why. But I have trouble picking a single course of action and actually executing it.

So I have this tiny, quiet 'gut', but I really need to develop further as a well-rounded person to cultivate its use in guiding decisions. As things are, I am utterly dominated by my primary function, with even my secondary a distant runner up. Because Fe, my only extrovertedly directed judging function, remains just quaternary, indecision will likely lurk continually in my life.

ebola

 

[In Dubio]

Double post.

 

[In Dubio]

How on earth could logic not be necessary for making decisions? Except in bizarro circumstances like being Luke Skywalker using the force? Sadly I don't have Obi Wan teaching me and have to make do with stuggling with the same ideal of utility maximization in the face of uncertain decisions regarding goals, ideas, beliefs, actions etc. Let me take a shot at the ideal decision making strategy. Maybe it's related to the concept of programming AI? An AI would struggle with the same decisions regarding 'what do I want?', 'What decisions do I need to make to get it?' which I think is related to the OP.

It occurred to me that the 'what do I want?' question is related to intuition and the 'how do I get it?' is related to logical steps necessary to achieve it. Anyone agree?

Is it a simple case of making a quick estimate of [p(action completed) x p(action successful)*utility of result.] for each action towards every goal, and estimating the utility of each goal?

 

[ebola?]

Most people don't think like that.

ebola

 

[In Dubio]

Are most people subconsciously thinking like that? Thinking might not be the ideal word, but you get the idea. How else would a gut instinct work? It would have to sort through an enormous amount of information that the conscious mind couldn't deal with, and make a guess of sorts.

 

[ebola?]

Not really. Behavioral and decision science demonstrates people to typically rely on fuzzy heuristics and mostly affective input from very rough unconscious processing via limbic pathways. Limbic responses are mostly just classically and operantly conditioned unless frontal cortical areas provide additional input to them; evolution impelled us to develop cognition that's generally 'good enough' to allow one to successfully navigate life and reproduce. We weren't impelled to root cognition in validity-preserving processing via strict logical rules.

ebola