The beauty in life can be seen in the inability to make perfectly informed decisions and knowing that even with perfect information we still may favor emotional bias meaning the ultimate decision may not be changed either way. occams razor of an identical outcome regardless of information

-----------

Edit: 29th Mar 2021

Maybe sometimes, we just shouldn't overthink things. Sometimes we should. But maybe overthinking will still lead to the same answer.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/9rglby/the_curtains_were_fucking_blue_a_defense_of/

----------

Edit: 30th Mar 2021

1. The Golden Rule: treat people empathetically.

2. Criticism: Other people have different standards – you can't extend an extroverted belief onto an introvert.

3. Response to criticism: Everybody understands the existence of personal preferences; therefore, an underlying clause of The Golden Rule is to first be considerate.

Occam's razor analysis: The consequence of step 3. is the same as step 1., therefore, the induction of step 2. and step 3. are redundant. We should have just blindly followed step 1. Instead. 

----------

Edit: 3rd Apr 2021

"Occam'sRazor (Luck)" (hereinafter referred to as ORL), a logical variation of Occam'sRazor - the principle that, of two (or more)decisions that account for all the facts, the simpler one is more likely to bethe most efficient - as the most efficaciousdecision-making tool in the absence of perfect information.

An important metric that analyses conscious decision-making is the Deliberation Index (DI). DI is inherently linked to the resource utilization parameter of efficacious decisions for an increasing DI coincides with an increase exhaustion of resources. A minimal DI is, therefore, optimal.

DI is the number of discrete cycles that complete a deliberation loop or the all the other options available that are considered until the initial option is reconsidered. A superscript is added to DI to indicate the least number of arguments that mutually negate to an outcome that is identical with the first. A conscious game of rock, paper, scissors – as opposed to one played using heuristics - if often used to illustrate DI:

Imagine you are playing a game of rock, paper, scissors: the ultimate outcome is simple, you either win or lose. Regardless of whether you want to win or lose, you don't know what your opponent is going to choose (imperfect information) and therefore your decision is apparently random. For all intents and purposes, you choose paper.

At this point, it would be efficient to just be resolute in your decision to choose paper, but then self-doubt creeps in. Common knowledge dictates that beginners often throw rock but your opponent is probably not a beginner. Are they more likely to choose paper as well then? Perhaps it would be better to choose scissors instead. Then again, if you are thinking one step ahead, your opponent might think two steps ahead instead and choose rock to counter your counter. It would then seem best to choose paper...

In the above example, there are three possible options which complete a single deliberation loop: 1) rock; 2) paper; 3) scissors. Within the single deliberation loop, two possible arguments were mutually negated: 1) the opponent is probably not a beginner; 2) the opponent is likely to think two steps ahead. The DI is then 32 which equates to nine micro-deliberations (a deliberation loop for every variable option) that form a decision.

Nine micro-deliberations are an insignificant number in light of the fact that we have over 6,200 conscious thoughts a day or just under 50 thought per minute as per research conducted by Julie Tseng and Jorden Poppenk using fMRI transition rates. What's important to note, however, is that DI is only a base number and rarely is only a single deliberation loop complete before a decision is made. Each added loop exponentially increases the amount of micro-deliberations with two loops having a DI of 34, three loops a DI of 36... Within five deliberation loops the DI is 310 which is equal to 59049 micro-deliberations before making the ostensibly simple decision of throwing a rock, paper, or scissors. Within a mere five deliberation loops, a single decision would take just over nine and a half days to consciously make – with these statistics, it isn't surprising how many people succumb to analysis paralysis with the more complex 'matters of consequence', even with neural safeguards against information overload.

----------

Edit: 30th Apr 2021

Heuristsics amongst other algorithms - such as the Goldman algorithm that is 70% more efficient compared to standard deliberative heart attack assessments - are often used to combat boundless DIs, however, as aforementioned, while they are comparatively better than comprehensive deliberation, they are often situational and restrictive. In contrast ORL is not confined to the same limitations as heuristics among other algortihms, ORL is facilitating and universal. A coin toss experimental matrix is often used to illustrate the facilitating nature of ORL:

Imagine that you are deliberating between two choices: 1) H; and 2) T. As both options are consciously equally valued, you are ostensibly satisfied with either H or T but have difficulty choosing. You decide to leave your decision to luck and toss a coin. According to Friederike Fabritius and Hans Hagemann, "if you're satisfied or relieved by the decision the coin made for you, then go with it. On the other hand, if the realist of the coin toss leaves you uneasy and even makes you wonder why you used a coin toss to decide such an important decision in the first place, then go with the other choice instead. Your "gut feeling" alerted you to the right decision." When the coin lands, you are faced with either a feeling of satisfaction (an agreement) or disappointment (a disagreement).

· If your unconscious and conscious agree, your brain gives off a subtle reward response. In short, the decision doesn't just seem logical -- it also feels good.

· If your unconscious disagrees with your conscious decision, your insula detects other changes in your body. It registers a threat -- which means your decision doesn't feel so good.

Additional research conducted by Steven Levitt also shows that people are happier with their results when luck is mixed into the equation whereas people who make extensively deliberating decisions are often liable to suffer from anxiety and in the aftermath of the decision often ponder about alternative consequences if the decision had been different. The coin toss experimental matrix effectively limits the parameters of efficacious decisions in that the coin toss not only minimizes the DI (which also limits resource utilization by association), but also the corruptible capacity and aftermath.

This experimental matrix affirms the conjecture derived from the aforementioned literature review that we unconsciously make preemptive decisions that we later only conform to rationally – ORL merely uses methods based on luck (such as a coin toss) to incite an evident link (satisfaction or disappointment) between the unconscious and conscious to expedite the decision-making process by limiting the Deliberation Index.

References:

Tseng, J., Poppenk, J. Brain meta-state transitions demarcate thoughts across task contexts exposing the mental noise of trait neuroticism. Nat Commun 11, 3480 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17255-9

Gladwell, Malcolm. Blink: the Power of Thinking without Thinking. Back Bay Books, 2019. 210

Fabritius, Friederike, and Hans Werner Hagemann. The Leading Brain: Neuroscience Hacks to Work Smarter, Better, Happier. TarcherPerigee, an Imprint of Penguin Random House LLC, 2018.

Levitt, Steven. 2016. "Heads or Tails: The Impact of a Coin Toss on Major Life Decisions and Subsequent Happiness." National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w22487.