Making Decisions

I’m fascinated by how people make decisions when faced with lots of unknowns, such as when they pick a presidential candidate to support.

The usual method, as far as I can tell, is to pick what you think is the most important of the unknowns, take your best guess about it, and base your entire decision on that one factor. For example, you might say, “That candidate would be better at boosting the economy.” But you don’t really know. Even the experts don’t know.

The “guessing about unknowns” approach makes sense if you can reliable assign odds to the unknown. In reality, that’s rarely the case. So I take a different approach. I make my decision entirely on the elements I know for sure.

Take the war in Iraq as an example for this method of decision making. While I have a preference for leaving soon, I have no way of knowing whether that makes the world a safer or more dangerous place in the long run. I’ve heard good arguments both ways. But I do know for certain that fewer American soldiers would be targets if they left. And I know that staying is a lot more expensive than leaving. Anything else I think I “know” about Iraq is a hunch at best. So based on what I know for sure, I favor an early pull-out.

On the economy, immigration, health care, and the handling of special interest groups, I have no idea if Obama or Clinton or McCain would handle things better. I don’t even know if the liberals would raise my taxes more than the conservative. Those are all complete unknowns to me.

So what are the knowns? Here’s my starter list:

1. A President Obama would a huge step toward racial healing.

2. A President H. Clinton would be a symbolic gain for women, but it wouldn’t be a clean win because her husband would be seen as highly influential in making it happen.

2. A President Clinton would be scandal bait for the press.

3. A 71-year old man like McCain is mentally slower and less flexible than a younger person, and more likely to have his job performance impacted by a major illness.

4. McCain would nominate more conservative judges to the Supreme Court compared to either Clinton or Obama.

5. Obama and Clinton would remove troops from Iraq sooner than McCain.

I’m sure this list needs to be longer. Feel free to add to it. And watch the comments to see how often people say they know things that are clearly unknowable.

[Update: In a prior post I told you that last year I promised a friend who raises funds for McCain that if the surge worked, I would donate $1,000 to the campaign. While the jury is still out on whether it “worked” in any lasting and meaningful way, I decided against weaseling out of my promise. I donated $1,000 to John McCain. But I didn’t feel good about it.]

Comments

[vta]

i totally agree with your reasoning in "Making Decisions". focus on the important "knowns"... going with "either Obama of McCain" (reader's comment) is perplexing, since Iraq is one of the worst things ever to happen to this country. apparently that's not apparent to the casual observer. but i must admit: i haven't seen any terrorists in my backyard lately.

[Dilbert Fan]

If Hillary wins, would she allow interns at the White House?

[Patti]

Patti Says:
I feel great.. that you donated $1,000 to the McCain campaign. I'd like to donate another $1,000 of your money to it, again! Don't feel bad about it. He's my choice, also. And I am happy that you support him. Smiles from..me
Ps. At least we know where some of his campaign money is coming from. In some other candidates cases, we do NOT!

[Pantera]

to all of those who think that our politics are too divisive and that they're tearing the country apart, I tell you this.

When Napolean came back to the throne of France, the first thing he did was put down a royalist rebellion. This would be somewhat similar to the entire state of California rebelling when George Bush was re-elected. This rebellion was regarded as a minor footnote in France's history.

trust me, we have it a lot better off than most countries.

[John B]

I stick to things I *know* (which isn't much):

I've ruled out Hillary because for her this seems to be more of a personal goal (kind of like folks who say 'I want to be a CEO one day'), and is also a bit too partisan for my choice.

Between Obama and McCain, I could go with either. Neither of them (nor Hillary) has had any governing experience, but both of them seem to genuinely want to bring in some honesty into the government and are both a bit less partisan than the average politician. McCain has more experience, so I'd give him a chance this time. If he wins, there is some possibility that he'd have aged more than four years by the time his term ends - being the president is a pretty stressful job, I'm told. If he doesn't win this time, I'm not sure if he'll run again in 2012. In any case, by 2012 we'll have a little more info about Obama to decide if he da man.

[A. Foreigner]

Maybe you should add the argument from Obama Girl: He is the best dancer!

[A. Foreigner]

Maybe you should add the argument from Obama Girl: He is the best dancer!

[NANCY FANZINI]

It seems to me that the Democrats have to choose between Bill and Michelle. Bill would be roaming the halls of the White House again and Michelle seems to be one angry lady.

The Republicans seem to be going with McCain who is way old and Huckabee is too far behind even though he has an awesome dimple.

Once again the country is forced to pick the lesser of three evils. Does anyone have an answer?

[Di]

I was interested to see a few hints that people think that a vote for Hillary is really just a re-vote for Bill. I have always thought (even at the time) that Hillary was the brains behind the Clinton Administration.

Bill absolutely has the hair and the looks to be voted in, but he just didn't seem to have the brains from some of the things he achieved. And he's not done much since to convince me otherwise.

[Deepesh]

Do you think grandmasters play chess based only on knowns, and that intuition/experience doesn't matter much?

This comment has nothing to do with experience of candidates, but as a voter do you think using your experience is a bad idea?

[listocomics.com]

"I decided against weaseling out of my promise. I donated $1,000 to John McCain. But I didn’t feel good about it."

Waw, you are disgustingly trustful. :)

[wolfgang]

> I don’t even know if the liberals would raise my taxes more than the conservative.

I think you can be pretty much sure about that...

[Etherplain]

I like Hillary, she gets a lot of flack, but I'm not sure that all of it is justified. She's a Democrat, she's representative of 8 excellent years of a Democrat lead governement, but at the same time has obvious difference from her husband (for example she didn't do Monica).

I know that she's experienced and very practical in her dealings. I.e. she will "reach across the aisle" if she needs to, but also she isn't preaching the Rodney King/Barak Obama "Can't we all just get along" mantra. Which btw, the answer to that question is: NO WE CAN'T.

[UnleashSquealyTemportalDoom]

I remember reading something about that the president will be the tallest one, and if he didn't get elected, the other one would have a lot better hair. Obama is the winner of the first criteria, the second is a bit more difficult, he probably won that one aswell.
If I just could remember where I read that... ;-)

[Adrian Rodriguez]

I've seen that this blog has been used not only to discuss topics about politics but also to promote in a hidden way everyone's favourite candidate, and please stop doing that...

Whoever gets to win, is not gonna change a lot... at least that's what I think

[Clipper]

Dot Boom? Housing Bubble? Now we have Obamania?

This I know for certain: fads and manias and mob mentality give me the heebie jeebies.

[Di]

One of the benefits of being black is that everyone is too scared to criticize you in case they are considered racist.

No-one these days dares to say anything openly against fat people, anyone disabled, poor people and most women. Very pretty women (like Britney, Lindsay or Paris), rich people and men are open season - they don't even dare defend themselves. They smile and take it on the chin because otherwise they don't have a sense of humour.

The Europeans and the press are particularly sensitive to -'isms - they'll be falling over themselves to compliment Obama and point out his successes - even if it's just tying his own shoelaces.

Hillary is a woman of course, but too ballsy and too rich to be covered by an 'ism. But she'll have it much easier than McCain. Unless he gets sick enough to count as disabled!

[Michelle]

that's awful logic for decision making. I'm not sure whether or not burglars have targeted my house, and I know my husband would appreciate not fumbling through keys while its freezing out. Does that mean I shouldn't lock the doors at night since he gets off pretty late? Not to take your Iraq theme outta context but that's about what I hear. It could be catastrophic for the whole region and perhaps back at home if we left, but since we know a few less americans would die in Iraq lets pack it up based on the known? Did i miss something?

[Chris]

Sounds like this would make a great Fermi problem.

[jim]

I know you think experience is a bunch a hooey for a president, but I disagree. You probably need to add the Sen. McCain has more life experiences to draw upon that will help him make better decisions.

[zume]

While Obama's hair is inherently non-presidential because it doesn't stand up by itself like Hilary's I don't think we should hold that against him. Clearly standards change: Rutherford B. Hayes famously beat Tilden by suggesting that a man without a full beard wasn't necessarily a man. And Grover Cleveland defeated Blaine based on the majesty of his goiter alone. No, we should just do what we have done 47 times before: elect whoever is tallest.

[George L Smyth]

"5. Obama and Clinton would remove troops from Iraq sooner than McCain."

When McCain was asked about the fact that the United States could possibly be in Iraq for the next 50 years, he cut the questioner off and said, "Why not 100 years?" then went on to justify that. 'Nuff said.

I see Obama as a uniter and Clinton (unfortunately) as a divider, and the United States is more divided than any time I can remember, with the exception of the time during the Vietnam War, another major mistake that compares almost exactly. As far as experience is concerned, look at Bush's experience and anyone only looking at that that aspect would have thought he would be a great President. Look at Lincoln's experience and one would have thought that our greatest President would be a disaster.

[Saju]

This is the strongest argument against democracy. It is the act of empowering people who have limited knowledge in various subjects, to take decisions that would not only impact these subjects but also those that have never heard of.

I say the whole company should vote for my promotion. I was very vocal about the caffeteria frequently running out of junk.

[Teófilo]

I disagree with several items in your list which I don't feel reflect real "knowns." Consider this one:

"A 71-year old man like McCain is mentally slower and less flexible than a younger person, and more likely to have his job performance impacted by a major illness."

Well, then:

"A younger, inexperienced man like Obama who sports dismal credentials in national security and foreign policy is more likely to fail his first two foreign policy / national security crises and from then on would have to rely, if not completely surrender, to the opinions of more seasoned staffers and cabinet members."

Comparisons to Jack Kennedy notwithstanding - which are just Democrat wishful thinking to begin with - this one Obama fact you fail to address in your list.

I really hope that you are drawing comics when you are 71, for the sake of the rest of us who can only draw stick figures, regardless of our age. I will not dismiss you easily as mentally feeble when you get to be 71, I promise. I will keep reading "Dilbert" even then!

-Theo

[Frank Paine]

Scot, the only trouble with your approach (and it's the approach I'm interested in, not what results YOU get) is that inevitably it's going to be short term considerations that seem the most certain, as they are the ones about which you will have the largest amount of information, and where consequences of actions will seem the most clearcut. If you base you whole decision on those matters on which you are the most certain, longer range issues/actions/consequences will, by definition get a weighting even lower than they started with. You would have to work awfully hard to convince me that that is a good idea. Nice try, though--I can really the see the superficial appeal of your approach...