How do you make a decision? Do you have a process, or do you just wing it / go with your gut feelings?
I’m an intuiter (is that word)…or intuative that is, so I often will go with my gut and rationalize it later. Usually I don’t have to rationalize because my gut leads me pretty well….especially when I’m driving, I’m good at guessing directions.
The problem is that I’m also a thinker (ENTP if you want all the letters), so over my tenure at the university I have systematically attempted to eliminate my gut, and replace it with a set of equations. This is better for some things I think, and I’ve managed to maintain some or most of my spontenatity, but what I’m concerned with is how other people see that.
Is the way you make decisions a process, can you improve that process, do you have a specific process for improving that process?
If not, how do you know you aren’t arriving at the wrong conclusions because you started with the wrong assumptions.
Jeff said he sorta starts on a trajectory based on some intial fact and his feelings about something and then is only moved from that slightly by presented arguements / facts discussions. He was making the point that over time this can lead to a change in thinking, but it keeps him stable in the face of the blowing winds of arguements.
That bugged me a little. I mean that isn’t a wholly wrong approach to that kind of thing and there is even wisdom in it (i.e. not ending up wishy-washy about things). But what if you are wrong. If you missed a big chunk of facts. Isn’t that what allows the Micheal Moores of the world to use the “Ends justifying the Means” kinds of reporting and lying? Is there a way to approach a problem completely humble, but still solid when you need to be?
I don’t know the answer to all this…and I’m not critcizing Jeff…we all have our own ways of doing things and that is good, but should we all strive to improve, and that doesn’t appear to leave room for much more than very small improvements? That is sorta my goal in life, to learn as much as I can about as many topics as I can, and improve my processes for learning and decision making and continue refining that effeciency for the rest of my life. I would kinda like to be an advisor to someon important some day, or maybe be an important policy or law maker, and I think that is a really good skill to have if you want to do that. I don’t think you can do that effectively with just a single soap-box kind of issue. But if we cut out our feelings, or emotions and make decisions with a formula, where does that leave room for God. And if we are just on a trajectory, even if we listen to God, how do we get over ourselves to change the direction of that trajectory in the face of our own stubborness. (that isn’t a stab at Jeff…cuz I run into that very problem with myself which is part of why I want to refine this process)
I’ve decided to treat as many arguements as I can as true, and then analyze them and see if they remain true. Now you wouldn’t know this to talk to me, cuz I’ll fight you to the bone if I think your wrong about something. But what you don’t see is me going home and processing over what you said and thinking about it, changing my mind sometimes or adjusting my arguement to account for the points you raised, and then later using my revised arguement in a discussion. I was arguing with Josh about Micheal Moore the other day, and I had to think that in light of all the good things he has done that Josh presented me does that justify the means (lies, deception, praying on emotions instead of using facts, etc…). I think it doesn’t, but the point is I think I pissed of Josh for a bit in arguing with him, but he doesn’t know I went home and thought about it later.
This is hard, because some arguements just aren’t true or I’ve delt with them so many times they just fall apart in my mind too quickly to allow me to learn anything about them. (I get that way with liberal fiscal policy and the total lack of factual evidence to back it up) Also I rule out extremist trying to get me pissed about something. Those people try to tap-dance on your emotions to get you to see things their ways. They are also the people that will end up flat out lying to people to get them to believe things.
Anyway, this process is getting better, and making me a better person I think. I listen more to people, I yell less (unless I’m just having a fun time arguing), I read more news now like I did when I was in High School, but I read it with a more open mind (I was too busy in college to read a lot of news…if you argue with me I’ll bring up a lot of stuff from the late nineties to back up my opinion, and my lack of time for reading is why). I also try to read more opposing viewpoints than I used to. I think if you can’t play devils advocate and convince a reaonably intelligent person (or un-intelligent if you aren’t good at making an arguement) that the opposite of what you believe is true is in fact true (get enough “true’s” in there for you) than you shouldn’t be making too much of a case for it since you haven’t thought about the converse of your beliefs and how that really works. (I don’t actually do this on a regular basis, I just think a lot about the topics a lot from different angles, but I have before to prove to myself that I could)
That is part of why I read largely atheist communities and news groups. There are some really smart people on
Anyway, what is your process for making choices, forming opinions, and allowing different people more and less sway over your opinions? Do you have a process? Have you ever thought about that process before now? And how in life to you set about improving your-self, or bettering your thought process to yield opinions that don’t have to be changed as often? How do you stay humble when you think you are getting good at it, so you can keep it open to change? (that last one is my biggest fault in my process) And finally when is your gut led you better than your brain, and how do you keep one from over-ruling the other in important choices.
(I have an example of my gut over my brain with this thing I’ve been doing with Laurens family, it doesn’t make a ton of rational sense, but my gut tells me to keep with it….that may prove to be folly eventually, but just for contrast that is one situation for my friends to think about)
ca_chick says
I may comment more later. I haven’t yet thought through your entire post, so wasting your time with crap answers isn’t what i’ll be doing.
That said, i really like that point on being able to convince someone or at least argue effectively about something you do not believe. I try to do that. (It really pisses people off, though, especially when we agree but i’m trying to stretch their brain.)
leque says
well, here’s a long answer for you. i know jeff’s answer might bug you, but i think it’s a pretty accurate description of how all people actually make decisions and live out life.
we are sinful.
we are babies.
we are raised by parent(s).
they have a history.
they have beliefs.
they have a value system.
they have a culture.
they have a race.
they have a socio-economic status.
they have an educational level.
they have family traditions.
they have a neighborhood.
they have a language.
they are sinful.
we pick up on all of this, probably before the age of 5!
they put you on your trajectory. this is a trajectory that you did not consciously choose to take on when you were born unless you want to convince me that you were fully cognizant of all the decion-making processes of life upon leaving the womb and entering the cold harsh world. it would be funny to see a fully articulate baby pop out.
so as you grow, you encounter people outside your family, you gain friends, you get to know their parents, you move away to somewhere, you go to school… and you are already behaving, thinking, perceiving, and living out of a worldview that you unknowing picked up from everything that gave you input when you weren’t thinking about getting input and what kind of input it was you were getting.
it seems to me the rest of our adult lives are spent unveiling the worldview we have picked up and seeing in the harsh light of adulthood why we act and think the way that we do, and let ourselves be changed in those places that God brings conviction and when we see ourselves acting in a selfish or hurtful manner. well, i suppose not everyone does this, but the person who desires to mature wants this it seems.
i believe in the great power of diversity that Paul talks about in regard to the body of Christ, how there are many parts and all are made for different things. the more we are around those and take seriously those that function and think in an entirely separate realm than we do, especially those that we know to be godly, i think the more we’re able to be transformed and have our decision-making process refined. it’s caught, not taught. it’s the default actions we take, not the words we spout. etc etc.
you’re already on a trajectory. is it based on something entirely wrong? yeah, sin. we’re all trying to reverse the natural trajectory of our lives and turn it more and more toward Christ. and there are incredibly beautiful and glorious and wonderful things about the trajectory you’ve been on your whole life, as much as there are incredibly terrible and ugly things about it. you are on a trajectory, whether you like it or not.
in regard to moving toward change, it is my personal experience that those with the most success in shifting the trajectory of their lives the most powerfully toward Jesus view the “baby steps” of daily decision-making as a work of God’s glory instead of looking to the fireworks of the “cold turkeys” to bring a bright and temporary flash.
so i make decisions and come to resolute conclusions very very very very slowly.
not sure if i answered exactly your question since it seemed like you had several buried in your post.
bigcat2k says
Hmmm…
well said, but what I was asking had much of this taken forgranted built into the question (in my head anyway). I think this is a lot longer than your average post. Does that mean I get a gold star for asking a good question? 🙂
I wasn’t thinking about trajectories of life, about which you make many good points, but more of when we are confronted with a situation where we have no experience before, or we do have experience but we wish to be “better” or more efficient. Either way we have to put aside our assumptions or our past if it doesn’t aid us, and sometimes even when we think it is aiding us, in order to not make poor choices, or to not have to find ourselves in a situation where we are making major changes to compensate for poor decision making skills, or our in-ability to formulate wholistic or systematic opionions about a given situation.
I’m proposing that everyone has a method for this process, sometimes it is just based on our past or our “trajectory” as you were using the term. I’m saying that if we want to break free of our trajectory, or analyze it to make sure it is the right one, there is exists the possibility that we can do that without taking baby steps.
I do have to say that the changes that come very very slowly are often the ones that are most beneficial because they are the deep changes, the changes that really are getting rid of our past, our parents, our deep but incorrect assumptions, and that is important. But my post was more about forming opinions and descion making.
dk_siberian says
Hmm.
Well, I started reading your post. But I’m not sure I care for Myers-Briggs so much anymore. I like the enneagram system a lot better. It’s simpler, in a strange sort of way.
I think I’ll go take one now and put it up as a post.
bigcat2k says
LOL
My post has almost nothing to do w/ myers-briggs. It has so much more to do with how we make decisions. I was just using that as a point to jump from…it really has only a very small amount to actually do with that method of personality analysis.
Besides I imagine 4 letters isn’t enough to describe you, but I tend to be a simpler person, so it works OK for me.
I actually decided once that it is eiree how easily I can be described by an analysts interpretation of ENTP.
My favorite line of one was “you generally have a light-hearted disposition except when you are being bothered by life in general”
Seth and I were looking stuff up one day and laughed for a long time when we read that….his comment was “yep, that sounds like Ben” or something along those lines.
bigcat2k says
Good, I’d like to hear them….make sure you answer, cuz a psychology students answers would be fun to hear.
rockyrockstar says
see, i totally live out of my gut. like, i do what i feel the winds of the spirit inside me telling me to do (bet you’ve never heard me talk like this before). and my interpretation of the wind of the spirit is all wrapped up in my beliefs.
so if my beliefs keep changing, i’ll chase my tail in circles. so i let the rudder move slowly. but over time it leads to radical changes.
(in 10 years i’ve gone from fundamentalist theology to charismatic theoogy to third wave theology to liberal theology to neoorthodox theology to semi-open theology to reformed theology to reformed enacted inaugurated kingdom theology. but slowly.)
j
divisionbyzero1 says
When it’s really big, I usually pray about it and wait for an answer. When it’s not really big, I sometimes forget to pray.
That was an utter simplification.
God has provided us His word and people to teach us how to live holy lives. Depending on your tradition, your line of examples is variably long or short. Knowing all this stuff (the Bible, the teachings of the Church, the lived examples of those who have come before us), makes it all the easier for God to point out what He wants me to do in a given situation(i.e. how to put all that theory into practice).
When it comes to arguments and debate, I think it’s key to keep in mind how “set” the opposition is on the various points. Sooner or later (especially on the internet), it becomes apparent that no amount of good points will effect the slightest change on an opponent. When I hit that point of realization, I typically let it end because it’s doing no one any good, so I don’t put a whole lot of stock in getting the last word. Still, if it’s a particularly important topic (say, abortion) I try not to let the slightest point go un-refuted but even then, brick walls fly up quite often and the debate no longer is a useful place for my time and energies.
Knowing when to bow out for another time is about the only way I think I manage to maintain any sort of relationship with those that disagree with me. Even then, I sometimes feel I overstep the line at times.
I guess it would be fun, though, to say, “We could keep talking about this for days, but in the end of it all, one of us will be right and the other will be you.” I don’t think that would do much to win over the mind and heart of your opponent no matter how humorous it would be.
divisionbyzero1 says
Hasn’t God ever given you a lightning bolt on something and then let you become some Jacobean figure; forced to wrestle with it?
I’ve had two lightning bolts but they came at the end of my struggles, not at the beginning. For me, they just started as nagging questions with (at the start) unacceptable answers. Albeit, the struggling was a many month long struggle (so in a sense, I changed slowly too) but at the end of it, it all became so crystalline, I sometimes can’t even think of what gave me struggle in the first place.
When are you going to get to fundamentally-reformed-charismatic-shaker-neoquaker-kingdom-promulgated-reenacted theology? Either that, when do you stop protesting already? I mean, come on! Hasn’t 487 years been enough already?
bigcat2k says
Isn’t that terribly inefficient though?
That was my point. You just fly off of your initial gut reaction and then get stuck going that way and wrapped up in it. Instead I’m working on a way to avoid that scenario for myself, because that is how I used to operate. (Although I don’t think I’d be able to think of myself as operating off of the winds of the spirit, not even a fraction of the time)
Good changes for major problems come slow, but for other ones if you base things on your gut, and your gut is wrong then your screwed, and wrapped up in yourself.
That is the time when my personal pride keeps me there, then I have to go through a slow change. Hence why systematically I have been trying to rid myself of this problem by having a system for change, and a system to keep myself changable, but I want that system to also enforce when I don’t need to change, so the system itself has to be adaptable.
That is why I wrote this. I’m looking for ideas on how to improve my system, as well as introduce the idea to people who haven’t thought about it, that decision making, opinion forming, and thinking in general is a process that can be refined, and improved upon, which helps us not get stuck in as many ruts in life.
BTW, I wasn’t picking on you, so much as over the last few months since we started debating politics I’ve been thinking about this, so you should take that as a positive thing since you made me think…people I don’t like or think are stupid I ignore. Besides, our differences make the world go round.
bigcat2k says
Hmmm….well like with Q I will say I was taking it for granted that we pray about problems and issues.
My point is even for the prophetically gifted God rarely just sends us a clear answer to problems. A lot of times we will recieve encouragement, or messages to help guide us, but he also gave us a brain, and I think that he fully expects us to use it.
So what I’ms aying is that when you disagree with someone, and they are being a stuborn jackass in an arguement, or resort to saying things like “aw, that is just crap” but can’t really refute your statements, how do you continue learning from them. How do you get information from them, how do you process that information, and how do you allow or dis-allow that information in your opinion forming process.
If everyone tried to do that, I think there would be less brick walls of opinion defense. The most opinionated, and charged people about their opinion, a lot of times forget why they hold those opinions, or they are just emotionally reacting…not making a decision with a process. I don’t want to be a brick wall unless I have to, to protect my spirituality or my credibility to the people I’m discipling.
dreum says
I tend to be a standard neural network when it comes to these things. Change comes when I am presented with something that contradicts those logical arguments I’ve made in the past. This is also true for the mindsets I’ve had. I find that over time God puts me in situations (or gives me visions, dreams, etc.) that will come against unhealthy mindsets, so my process for changing my mindsets (or assumed opinions if you will) and my regular opinions is roughly the same. It comes with experience. My reactions maybe totally different though and how long it takes also varies on how deeply rooted the mindset is. As far as learning from people who are stubborn and unhelpful, I would say the only thing you could learn from them is how to deal with stubborn people. If they refuse to participate in a debate on your level then I don’t see how you could learn anything else from them. Though your primary goal with people probably shouldn’t just be getting information out of them, but trying to love them in a Godly manner. Perhaps if you did that they would be more open to giving you their logical opinion and open doors for both of you to learn something.
rockyrockstar says
But that’s why I carefully measure my gut reaction. It’s why I read dozens of books every year and take grad school classes and listen to public radio and read web sites. I carefully develop my intuition, and then trust it.
j
bigcat2k says
That wouldn’t be your intuition, that would be your brain….which is what I’m getting at. My gut reactions have improved over time with growing, but I think there is more to it than that.
Also, I’ve found books aren’t that helpful for me to work on this specific thing I’m talking about.
What books and school has done for me is make me feel like I know something, and to get proud about my knowledge. Except some of my engineering classes. Other than that very few classes I took asked me to think outside my box, or to think much at all. Regurgitating information on tests was never something I enjoyed.
Now of course you are taking Grad classes in hopes to get better at what I’m talking about, but if I just say I’m increasing the trustworthiness of my gut by doing this, than maybe you are just locking yourself into a pattern of thinking.
As I’ve mentioned I want to know as much as I can about as many things as I can. To test that I learned a lot about engineering, I definitely hit a wall there. I have no desire to know more. But in other areas, politics, history, sociology, psychology, theology, etc, I want to learn more information. But I have found in this search that that is only half the battle. Hence my post. Without a systematic way to analyzing this information and without a method to analyze our systematic way of analyzing data how do we know we are approaching new information in the best way possible.
I’m not saying you don’t have a method, I’m just kinda expanding on my earlier thoughts. Myabe I’ll write more later about it.
divisionbyzero1 says
Well, hopefully if you stop because of an impassable wall, the conversation could be taken up again at a later point.
When I pointed out that a study of scripture and theology and the lives of holy men and women, I was trying to get at the point that you touch on: we have a brain to use. In that manner, when we come to a decision, we have already, in a sense, trained our brains for what should be the right solution and God speaks to us through that study.
The debates I’ve had are typically complicated enough that if one point becomes a wall, then switching to a new tack is a good way to continue. Other times, it’s a wall because there are some unstated assumptions that differ between the two people. For instance, I was arguing with a guy who rejected the idea that Christians didn’t have to keep kosher any longer. I had assumed that he accepted the New Testament as the inerrant word of God. Turns out he did not. In fact, he considered most of it crap. However, it caused an apparent road block in the argument because I was proceeding from an assumption that wasn’t correct.
I guess I’m saying with that (in a very round-about way) sometimes taking steps backward in the argument sheds light on where the real disagreement is stemming from. At some point, both parties have to agree on *something*. If that point can’t be found, then it’s very hard to have any sort of discussion on the points where people disagree.
evilpeopleinc says
Allow me to once again take this back to the shallow end of the pool with my official *drum roll* “Answer of Awesomeness!” *with lots of echo effect*
Todays Answer of Awesomeness is in reguards to the question of how I make decisions. Well, my studious pal-o-ramas, I let any decision of mine be made by answering the following question…WWJD. What Would Juju Do? The answers are easy and simplistic and usually come in the form of wheels, blocks, or occasionally spreadables. Sometimes they even come shredded but I find that makes a mess. Once it got deep and came in the form of a log covered in aerosol. I was confused and baffled but took it as my decision and was pleasantly surprised.
This has been the “Answer of Awesomeness!” Thank you.
bigcat2k says
Hmm…I like this, and in fact I think most people use this method either consciencely or sub-consciencely. I was thinking more about how do you reduce the weight or increase the weight of logical true and falses to facilitate a more accurate outcome.
I.E. not letting your assumptions or initial conditions not be weighted in such a way that it is uncessarily difficult to overcome them.
In other words I’m thinking of a nural network that decides your initial conditions for your nural network.
dreum says
Since neural networks tend to follow gradients the initial conditions are very important. If you choose incorrectly you can get stuck in a local minimum instead of find the global minimum. The only way to over come this is to create very large step function deltas so that the amount you move over the function is enough to get over those local maxima. Of course, then you turn into this wishy washy person that tends to go wherever the wind blows you. I’m not sure the analogy holds to a great extent, but it’s still fun to talk about. 🙂
bigcat2k says
You know what else if fun to talk about…..
poo
Hmmm…besides that, I think my point was there has to be a balance between to wishy washy and not to stuck in your ways. I think trying to re-evaluate your assumptions and initial conditions is important, but making sure you just don’t over-do it and always end up on shaky ground. So there needs to be a way that helps you create your initial conditions that isn’t just the “first thing you run into.” I’ve made the observation in the past about that being the way people tend on the calvinism debate…first thing you hear that makes good sense…usually what you stick to (kinda goes along with what Q said). Then you rationalize your belief in the face of opposition. This is of course not univerally true, but I find this to be true for the majority of peoples decisions. So I want that to not be true anymore of myself…so I sit and think about thinking…or think about how I make decisions.
dreum says
hehehehe it’s funny because it’s about poo,
funny there’s a proverb that states exactly what you’re saying:
I can’t find it though, it basically says that witness that goes first sounds right
divisionbyzero1 says
You know, if coming back and re-evaluating old positions leads to tons of changing of opinion on an issue (shaky ground), perhaps it wasn’t fully considered in the first place. It’s one thing to be presented new data on something and say, “hmmm, look at this pile of new ideas here. Does it fit with the rest or does it change a fundamental aspect of the rest that forces me to re-evaluate more basic ideas?” It’s another thing to say, “wow, that was a forceful argument and I like that guy’s teeth. I think he’s right.”
I think you’re right that people tend to hop onto whatever sounds the best at the time (especially at the start of our lives) without looking about 2 steps past where they are headed and checking to see if it will still make sense in the face of opposition.
I *think* I see what you were trying to get at in your original post now.
In my experience, when stuff comes in that doesn’t fit with what I think, I tend to dismiss it. Then, becuase I know I can’t ignore it forever, I try to find all the petty weaknesses of the idea. Then, I try to see if I can accomodate it into things I already understand. Then if it doesn’t accomodate I move back the line of assumptions and try to see where it doesn’t jive and how far up the ladder it goes. After I add it in, I then try to think about all the ways in which it will change things below it. If the results don’t result in vast violations of even more basic stuff, I can start incorporating the idea (though really making an Idea *mine* if you understand the language I use there is something that’s only happened twice to me). If it does result in vast violations of even more basic stuff, I’ve found why it didn’t fit before and the reason it wasn’t included already.
That all sounds neat, but really I’m pretty terrible at it and not nearly that systematic. Still, I try to be more systematic about things than a lot of people.
Of course, this process only occurs after I’ve been presenting opposing points to the new ideas and no clear result could be made out of the debate. Or, when there are certain points that really make sense and annoy the heck out me when I’m trying to sleep.
Is that what you were looking for?