Satisficing: the cure for analysis paralysis

I have a great family, a house, and I am part of a socially stabilizing effort assisting in the development of humankind toward a deeper understanding and appreciation for life.  No one person does this alone.  And yet, I have a problem.  Lack of motivation?  Obsessive-compulsive?  Instant gratification impulsiveness? Inability to defer gratification to a later date?  No.  Perfectionism?  Indecisiveness?  Closer.  As Dan Ariely puts it, "When we are choosing between two or more very similar options, we tend NOT to take into account the consequences of not deciding."  In other sources, this situation is cleverly termed "analysis paralysis".  My almost compulsive over analysis of some ideas came to my attention in a post dated 11 May 2010.  (The following portion of this entry will borrow heavily from the most popular online reference, Wikipedia, paraphrasing liberally.)

Analysis paralysis describes the situation where a decision is treated as over-complicated, with too many detailed options; when a person seeks an optimal or "perfect" solution upfront, and fears making any decision which could lead to erroneous results.  In the end a choice is never made, despite the alternative of trying something and changing if a major problem arises. In this example the opportunity cost of decision analysis exceeds the benefits that could be gained by enacting some decision.

Herbert Simon (who researched cognitive psychology, politics, sociology, and computer science, among other fields) defined two cognitive styles: maximizers who try to make an optimal decision, and satisficers who simply try to find a solution that is "good enough". Maximizers tend to take longer making decisions due to the need to maximize performance across all variables and make tradeoffs carefully; and some suggest they also tend to more often regret their decisions. 

Simon coined the word satisfice in 1956. He pointed out that human beings lack the cognitive resources to maximize.  A more realistic approach to rationality takes into account these limitations, this is called bounded rationality.  Bounded rationality is the notion that in decision making, rationality of individuals is limited by:

• the information they have (we usually do not know the relevant probabilities of outcomes), 
• the cognitive limitations of their minds (we can rarely evaluate all outcomes with sufficient precision and our memories are weak and unreliable), and 
• the finite amount of time they have to make decisions. 

(Thus ends my liberal paraphrasing of Wikipedia.)

So what can I conclude from all this?  Well, a rational person who adopts a realistic perspective is a satisficer; someone who recognizes that this kind of decisiveness is in the long run a more optimal solution than indecisiveness despite the initial appearance that it is a poor decision making strategy.  (This reflects Tim Pychyl's anti-procrastination mantra "just get started.")  Satisficers take an evolutionary approach to optimization, where some "accidental" solution is used so long as it works, and competing solutions are naturally selected such that the best ones are used and less optimal solutions either change or are no longer used.  And in the final analysis, who is to say that an optimal solution exists (Zhuangzi had much to say on this subject)?  Each solution has advantages and disadvantages, once the apparently worst options are removed, what remains may be qualitatively indistinguishable.  Satisficers, and the process of evolution, both have no definite goal, or even a clear direction (in a sense).  Perfectionists and maximizers do have a goal: making the optimal decision, and they insist on knowing what that is before they take any action.  That is their weakness and eventual downfall. 

Tags: decision making, indecisiveness, irrational delay, deferred gratification, analysis paralysis, satisficing, bounded rationality

irrationality

What comes to mind when you think of the word "irrational"?  It has a very accusatory sound, and doesn't instantly appeal to most people the first time they hear it.  It only appealed to me after I was able to apply the notion to my own behavior, with positive results.  And it seems more precise than colloquial phrases like "human folly".  That said, the word "irrational" is still very vague, and the more often it becomes used by people and groups with different ideas of what constitutes irrational behavior, the less clear it becomes.  Just as one man's junk is another man's treasure, one person's definition of irrational behavior is not the same as another's.  So long as an explanation is given for why a particular thought, desire, or behavior is irrational I think these difficulties can be avoided and the reader can come to her own conclusions.  In my opinion, it is easier, and sometimes more immediately fruitful, to spot out instances of irrationality than examples of rationality, but both deserve equal attention.

There is an intersection with these ideas and the skeptical and atheist movement.  (Before going further I should re-emphasize that all these terms are equally vulnerable to misappropriation by groups with opposing ideological agendas.  Remember how "compassionate" used to be a good word? It still is, but not everyone means the same thing.)  It is wise to be skeptical of our motivations when they are likely to be irrational.  And the atheist movement is the result of putting religious claims under the critical lens of science, philosophy, and humanitarian concerns.  There are voices on the internet calling attention to these subjects.  Dan Ariely is a behavioral economist whose focus is irrational behavior, which is also the subject of his last two books.  A group of bloggers contribute to "Irrationality Itches", which appears to have been dormant for the last few months.  Another blog called "Human-stupidity" appears to come from the political right wing (or libertarianism, I haven't taken a close enough look) in his views of irrational behavior.  And I cannot mention irrational behavior without also talking about the psychologist Albert Ellis, who targeted irrational ideas as the focus of his therapeutic work.

So how exactly do people exhibit irrationality?  This could be the subject of a long series of posts, if they ever get written.  But to spend my time on that right now would be irrational for me to do, in light of other demands on my time and energy.  In the meantime I'd like to direct you to the other resources mentioned above, and welcome hearing any of your thoughts on this subject in the comments.  I should mention that I don't think irrationality, on the face of it, is bad, but when it goes unnoticed  masquerading as rational behavior it can have very serious and harmful consequences.

how to implement goals

When it comes to achieving goals, it has been long recognized that simply having goals isn't enough, though it is a start. One way of trying to make goals a reality is expressed with the acronym SMART. According to this approach goals should be: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Trackable (but you'll find other substitutions for these words as well). I have tried to use this with some of my clients, with mixed results.

I recently came across another method that appears to hold more promise for reaching goals, through the formation of implementation intentions. In short, one makes predecisions of the format: if situation X is encountered, then I will perform behavior Y.  (To this one can add "even if..." and/or "so that I can [goal]" to the end of the sequence.)  This all goes back to self-regulation and the T.O.T.E. model of feedback loops, where an implementation intention defines the "operate" portion of that sequence.  The wonderful thing about implementation intentions is that conscious intent is not needed and goal directed action can become virtually automatic. Since behavioral cues are now in the environment; thinking or reminding oneself about the goal is no longer the primary stimulus for action. It is especially useful for resisting temptations and, by extension, may also be used for impulse control as well. Studies have shown that this is an effective strategy for performing tasks such as math homework, and it can even help six-year olds to not procrastinate. Temptation-inhibiting implementation intentions are not immune to self-deception however, so this approach isn't by any means a panacea.

Here's an example:
Primary Goal: Maintain personal health, and employee and academic performance.
Secondary Goal: Improve my digital media and language skills.
Implementation Intentions (taking only primary goals into account right now):
If dishes have been in the sink for more than three days, then I will do them. If it is six o'clock at night, then I will do my math homework for one hour. If I have documentation to finish, then I will do that at work. If I want to read a construction book, or use the Internet, then I will, provided there are no dishes, math, or documentation remaining to be done and it is earlier than eight at night.

advice

Hindsight turned into Foresight:
Imagine meeting your future self.
What advice would he/she have to say to you?
What advice would he/she not say to you?
Listen closely, now is your opportunity.   

As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20, so why not turn it into foresight?

Feedback

In 1943 Arturo Rosenblueth set the basis of cybernetics, proposing that behavior controlled by negative feedback, whether in animal, human or machine, was a determinative, directive principle in nature. Cybernetics focuses on how anything (digital, mechanical or biological) processes information, reacts to information, and changes to better accomplish the first two tasks. It is "the art of ensuring the efficacy of action" according to Louis Couffignal. A premise one might find implied here is that the stimulus behind behavior is the achievment of a goal.

Sound familiar? This has a lot to do with procrastination. In the field of psychology, the importance of monitoring and regulating one's attention to a task prompted George Miller to coin the acronym T.O.T.E.: test-operate-test-exit. In the same breath we could also talk about optimal foraging theory and control theory (a close sister to cybernetics). Each employs a specific example of the classic feedback model. In general terms, feedback is the process in which part of the output of a system is returned to its input in order to regulate its further output. Dare I say it, this is the most important principle for self-regulation in the battle against procrastination. Of course, it cannot address all the fundamental reasons for irrational delay, but it is a very big piece. (Sources: Don't Delay and as usual Wikipedia.)

---

Postscript 01 March 2009:
In 1973 William Powers built upon ideas like those of Rosenblueth's. He proposed the Perceptual Control Theory model of behavioral organization, which states that living organisms are closed-loop systems that act to keep perceptual variables in pre-specified states, protected from disturbances caused by variations in environmental circumstances. Which makes sense when considering a quote from Claude Bernard (1813-1878): "The constancy of the internal environment is the condition for a free and independent life."