Frequently asked questions about thinking, epistemology, and cognitive tools. 1675 answers
One-way doors deserve careful analysis — two-way doors should be walked through quickly.
One-way doors deserve careful analysis — two-way doors should be walked through quickly.
One-way doors deserve careful analysis — two-way doors should be walked through quickly.
List your five most recent decisions that took more than a day to make. For each one, answer: if this decision turns out badly, can I reverse it within a week at low cost? Mark each as a one-way door or a two-way door. Count how many two-way doors consumed disproportionate deliberation time. For.
Intellectually agreeing that most decisions are reversible while continuing to deliberate on every one of them. The framework becomes another thing you know about instead of something that changes your behavior. You'll catch yourself when you notice the third meeting about a decision that could be.
One-way doors deserve careful analysis — two-way doors should be walked through quickly.
For most decisions good enough is better than perfect because the search cost exceeds the improvement.
Pick a decision you've been delaying. Write down three to five criteria that define 'good enough' — the minimum threshold an option must clear. Now evaluate your options against only those criteria. The first option that passes all of them is your answer. Commit to it for 30 days before.
Nodding along with this lesson and then maximizing anyway because 'this decision is different — it really matters.' That rationalization is the maximizer's signature move. The more a decision feels important, the more likely you are to over-search. But consequence magnitude is not the same as.
For most decisions good enough is better than perfect because the search cost exceeds the improvement.
Deciding in advance what you will do in a specific situation removes in-the-moment temptation.
Deciding in advance what you will do in a specific situation removes in-the-moment temptation.
Deciding in advance what you will do in a specific situation removes in-the-moment temptation.
Identify one decision you repeatedly make poorly under pressure — snacking, doom-scrolling, saying yes to meetings that should be emails. Write a pre-commitment rule in if-then format: 'If [trigger], then [pre-decided action].' Make it concrete enough that you'll know whether you followed it. Put.
Writing pre-commitment rules that are too vague to enforce. 'I'll eat healthier' is a goal, not a pre-commitment. 'If I reach for a snack after 8pm, then I drink a glass of water and wait ten minutes' is a pre-commitment. The other failure mode is creating so many rules that you can't track them..
Deciding in advance what you will do in a specific situation removes in-the-moment temptation.
Record decisions, their reasoning, and their outcomes to improve future decision-making.
Record decisions, their reasoning, and their outcomes to improve future decision-making.
Setting deadlines for decisions prevents analysis paralysis.
Setting deadlines for decisions prevents analysis paralysis.
Setting deadlines for decisions prevents analysis paralysis.
Setting deadlines for decisions prevents analysis paralysis.
Setting deadlines for decisions prevents analysis paralysis.
Identify one decision you've been delaying for more than a week. Set a timer for 25 minutes. Write down the two or three realistic options, the single most important criterion for each, and your choice. When the timer rings, commit. Notice what happened: the time constraint didn't prevent you from.