When deciding between more of X or more of Y, you can often get more of X and more of Y, and your framing them as mutually exclusive was false.
Specific example: Should I be devoting more time to my personal project or to politics at work? Framing the choice this way implies a zero-sum relationship between them (+2 to work is −2 to personal project), but what is optimal might really be +1 to work, +1 to project, or even −1 to work +3 to project. So even if there is a tradeoff, it can be good to remind yourself that the tradeoff is not necessarily 1-to-1.
This is also related to figuring out what you really want. Say you were deciding between two colleges or jobs. You should make sure that any potential tradeoffs when comparing their pros and cons are real, e.g. job A has benefits that sound good in far mode but you don’t actually care about in near mode.
Can you elaborate?
When deciding between more of X or more of Y, you can often get more of X and more of Y, and your framing them as mutually exclusive was false.
Specific example: Should I be devoting more time to my personal project or to politics at work? Framing the choice this way implies a zero-sum relationship between them (+2 to work is −2 to personal project), but what is optimal might really be +1 to work, +1 to project, or even −1 to work +3 to project. So even if there is a tradeoff, it can be good to remind yourself that the tradeoff is not necessarily 1-to-1.
This is also related to figuring out what you really want. Say you were deciding between two colleges or jobs. You should make sure that any potential tradeoffs when comparing their pros and cons are real, e.g. job A has benefits that sound good in far mode but you don’t actually care about in near mode.