Choice Making

(The following section is complementary to the Theory of  Choice Making section presented at https://whatilearnedsofar.com/theory/the-theory-of-choice-making/ which should probably be read first.)

The five step choice-making protocol presented below is guaranteed to improve the quality of your choices, or your money back!

By definition, high quality choices are choices that supports the pursuit of happiness, and vice versa — choices that get in the way of the pursuit of happiness lack quality.

The most challenging aspect of using the protocol is getting over the deeply  rooted (and largely worthless) habit of focusing on future consequences as a part of the process of making choices. Trying to foretell the future as part of choice making is a deeply ingrained habit. Habits, regardless of how lousy they may be, are hard to break (if you need convincing of this, consult any cigarette smoker).

As discussed in the Theory section, the quality of a choice, and thus — the confidence in the choice, is inversely related to the fraction of the decision-making process devoted to future considerations. In other words, the more you think about the future (as part of the process of reaching the choice) the less quality your choice will have and, in all likelihood, the less confidence you will have in it. This is simply a consequence of the reliability of our future predictions — it is minuscule for the immediate future, and it quickly drops to zero as we aim further out into the future. The future is forever unknowable; future-telling is a hoax and uncertainty is (essentially) our only certainty about the future.

As a consequence of the inverse relationship between the fraction of the decision-making process devoted to future telling and the quality of the choice generated, when 100% of a choice-making process is devoted to predicting the future, the quality of the choice produced is nil. I think that our brains recognize this (albeit usually subconsciously) and as a result, the process of choice making can be filled with tension and at the extreme, torturous.

And lastly, it is most reasonable to begin applying this method as a secondary, or a back-up, procedure to your regular method of making choices. Start your choice-making process the way you always have. Once you’ve had your fill, try approaching the task of generating the right choice using the following protocol. I hope that you will find it an alternative to a habit that may be getting in the way of pursuing happiness effectively, an alternative designed to support it.

So here goes:

Step 1: Clarify when the choice has to be made.

Clearly, a choice made too late loses all quality. Once the train has left the station, the choice to get on it is worthless. Less obvious perhaps, but no less relevant, a choice made before it has to be made carries the risk losing quality to hastiness. In other words, high quality choices are generated neither too early nor too late. High quality choices are generated on time. Deciding what that optimal time is is the first step in the process of making good choices.

Many choices come with a deadline. In these cases the deadline tells us when the choice needs to be made. For example consider a dilemma regarding whether or not to apply to some training program. Let’s assume that it has an application deadline, say on the first of a month. Working backwards, subtracting the time it would take to complete the application from the application deadline will tell you what the right time is for generating the choice whether or not you should apply. There is no advantage to making the choice any sooner than that and obviously, making the choice past that time, once the train has left the station, renders the choice worthless.

Choices without an external deadline require, as a first step, that the choice maker decide when the choice is to be made. For example, dilemmas such as whether or not to get a haircut, or a divorce, usually do not have a deadline. In such cases the choice maker needs to generate (either through reflection on the circumstances or, sometimes, arbitrarily) and then adhere to a deadline by which their choice must be made (granted, holding oneself accountable to a self-imposed deadline requires maturity; mindfulness in general is for a mature audience…) .

Step 2: Optimize the quality of your state of mind.

The quality of a product is related to the quality of the generator that produces it. As suggested elsewhere, the human brain can be defined as a choice generator. Thus, the quality of a choice cannot be greater than the quality of the state of mind generating the choice. To make good choices one has to be in a good mental state. Choices made from a lousy state of mind, may be lucky, but will inevitably lack quality. Consequentially, it makes no sense to make a choice without first checking the quality of one’s own state of mind first.

Determining the quality of a given state of mind can be done simply by (deliberately) reflecting on it. Simply asking yourself “what is the quality of my state of mind right now?” can be quite revealing. Some states of mind are obviously poor. Intoxicated minds, by definition are temporarily damaged. Therefore, it is self evident that when intoxicated the only reasonable approach to choice making is to first detoxify.

Intoxication can have on external source (such as a bottle or a syringe) or an internal source. Internal intoxication are intoxication on emotions. Buddhist list six “intoxicating emotions”: hatred, anger, greed, lust, jealousy/envy and arrogance. When taking inventory of the quality of one’s own state of mind it is imperative to reflect on one’s emotional state with emphasis on the intoxicating emotions. The principle is the same regardless of the source of intoxication: To guard the quality of your choice — when intoxicated, first detoxify.

Another method of determining the quality of one’s present state of mind recalls the importance of balance. ‘Balance’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘health’. A balanced mind state can be said to be a healthy mind state. To gauge mental balance one can reflect on six planes, each involving the division of attention on a particular front. We can gauge our mental balance through paying attention to our own own attention. The balancing acts take place on the following:

1. Gravity vs. Levity: When attention is 100% on the gravity or severity of the situation without allowance for recognition of it’s light side or, vice versa, when attention completely excludes the seriousness — a nihilistic approach, the mind could not be in balance. In other words, if things are so serious that humor feels like sacrilege or if things are so dismissible that nothing has a meaning, the mind is off balance
2. Near future vs. Distant future: While future telling (near or distant) has no place in the process of making good choices, paying attention to how the mind relates to the future can reveal something about its balance. When 100% of the attention is given to one end of the spectrum or another, the mind is off balance. The balanced mind can sustain attention to both immediate and distant future considerations.
3. Risk vs. Benefit: When attention excludes the potential risks and the mind is only impressed with the potential benefits in the situation, or vice versa, the mind can not be in balance. A balanced mind sustains attention to both.
4. Inner voice vs. External voice(s): When all one can attend to is one’s own voice and everyone else’s input is either muted or reduced to a meaningless (sometimes annoying) noise, the mind is not balanced. And vice versa, when one can not detect one’s own thoughts which are drowned in the input from the environment, the mind is off balance. A balanced mind can pay attention to both.
5. Needs of the self vs. Needs of others: When the mind excludes the needs of the self relative to the needs of others, or vice versa, when all attention is on the needs of the self, excluding the needs of others, it is off balance. A balanced mind can pay attention to the effect of the choice being made both on the needs of the self and, simultaneously, the needs of others.
6. Emotional vs. Logical: As mentioned elsewhere, consciousness is composed of two data streams. One is language-dependent, referred to as ‘cognitive input’. The other is language-independent referred to as ‘affective input’. The cognitive stream is the rational, logical or analytical input. The affective stream is the emotional-sensory input. The brain’s setting is such that the affective stream receives attention preferentially over the cognitive stream. In other words, the default distribution of attention is off-balance in favor of the affective input. Correcting this requires a deliberate effort, which is needed to make good choices.

It is good practice to regularly, say once a day, reflect on the state of balance of each of these planes. With repetition it becomes easier and more revealing. While it is difficult to say with complete confidence that a balance exists on any of these fronts, it is easy to recognize when balance is absent. When 100% of attention is consumed by one end of each of these spectra, there can not be a balance there.

This is where the time frame determined in step 1 comes into play. The time until  the choice-making deadline (the point in time determined to be the correct time to generate the choice) is best used to optimize your state of mind. Improving your state of mind maximizes the potential for quality in your choice. Forcing the issue, as in pressing on in the process of choice making regardless of mental imbalance drains the quality of the choice and should be avoided.

Improving one’s state of mind can be done in non-specific ways, for example by waiting to detoxify or going for a jog; or specifically by the practice of Mindfulness. Often, the mere sincere attempt to assess the quality of one’s state of mind prior to making a choice can amount to an improvement in that mind’s state.

Step 3: List your options.

By definition, when there is a choice to be made there is more than a single option to choose from. In the pursuit of happiness (unlike the pursuit of survival where choices are binary — do or die) there are usually more than two and less than six options to choose from.

The available options must be listed in detail. The more vague or lacking the list of options are the more difficult it is to generate a good choice and to sustain confidence in its quality.

To generate the list of options it is useful to start by listing the two extreme ends of the realistic spectrum; typically there is a middle option — the third option. Often, each of the two half of the spectrum created by identifying the middle option can be further divided thus generating the five options. It is extremely unusual, if it ever happens, that a real life dilemma would have more than five realistic options to choose from.

Step 4: Determine the story behind each of the options.

As mentioned in the Theory section, choices do not have the power to determine what happens to the choice maker after the choice is made. The choices we make simply lack the power to define the future. The importance of choices stems from the fact that choices define the choice maker.

In the fourth step of the protocol the practitioner examines each of the options generated in step 3 with the questions: What would it say about me were I to make this option my choice? The practitioner needs to review the options and determine the story told or, the narrative offered by each. The correct option tell the story about the choice-maker that the choice-maker wants told. A choice is an opportunity to be deliberate in telling your story. To define who you are.

In other words, you should review your options one at a time, attempting to bring into focus the way each of the options would define you. Ask yourself: “what would it say about me if I choose this option?” The choice that defines you closest to the way you wish to be defined is the right choice.

Step 5: Review the options relative to your values.  

The quality of a choice is inversely related to its distance from the choice maker’s (examined) value system. The better a choice expresses what you value the more quality that choice will have. The option that best expresses your values is the right choice.

From a practice perspective, each of the options generated in step 3 should be examined in relation to the relevant values of the choice maker. Look at the option list and ask yourself, one option at a time: “How does this option express my values?” The option that best expresses your values is the right choice.

Therefore, clarity of one’s value system is essential to making good choices. And, the routine examination of one’s value system is of the utmost importance in the pursuit of happiness. (The practice of examining one’s value system is discussed elsewhere.)

Lastly, as a confirmation of the validity of the process, the answer generated in step 4 should be the same as the answer generated in step 5. The option that describes you closest to the way you wish to be described should be the same as the option that best expresses your values.