Thank you for this formal (and fun!) method to guide (and illustrate/document) decision-making. I think writing it out would help me illustrate leaps or assumptions and come to better decisions. For instance, I often (in my head) zero-out possibilities that have extremely low probabilities out of hand unless the costs are a similar order of magnitude.
What if the model is giving you an answer you don’t like? Well, it means your “system 1” and “system 2″ are in conflict! The very first question I asked was which way of making decisions you want to use in this case, and the answer was “system 2”, so you should go back and verify all your assumptions; maybe you forgot to consider some events.
How do you avoid rationalizing (introducing bias in) your decision if you’re heavily scrutinizing the tree only when your system 1 and system 2 disagree?
Thank you for this formal (and fun!) method to guide (and illustrate/document) decision-making. I think writing it out would help me illustrate leaps or assumptions and come to better decisions. For instance, I often (in my head) zero-out possibilities that have extremely low probabilities out of hand unless the costs are a similar order of magnitude.
How do you avoid rationalizing (introducing bias in) your decision if you’re heavily scrutinizing the tree only when your system 1 and system 2 disagree?
It’s hard, and I find that I need to update my models every now and then. Practice makes better.