Decisions, decisions

I recently had occasion to ponder on Occam’s razor – the premise that the simpler of two possible solutions is more likely to be correct. In a recent example, for whatever reason, a less obvious solution was implemented that did not solve the issue despite incurring cost and inconvenience. The simplest solution was actually the correct one. Yet this is not always the case. I read recently about two separate medical cases where the simplest solution was assumed to be the explanation when in fact it was not. The end results were delays in the proper diagnosis until a doctor was found who had the relevant experience to piece together all the key evidence.

The challenge is knowing when the simplest solution applies and when it does not. In the first case, the simplest solutions could easily have been tested to see if they worked before moving on in a logical way. In the latter cases, the human body is a complex system and there is not always a simple link between cause and effect. The problem needs to be worried until it is solved: it is not enough to identify a possible solution and then move on without ensuring that it actually is the correct one. There is always a subjective aspect to any decision based on our emotions and inherent biases.

I have addressed decision-making in a number of these articles. In December 2021, I summed up previous snippets, but it is such an important subject in both work and personal life that it warrants regular revisiting. In the New Scientist magazine dated 16 March 2024, David Robson suggested how to make better decisions about big life choices. He described three main biases:

Loss aversion bias: putting more weight on what might be lost rather than on what might be gained;
Sunk-cost effect: continuing with a failing project we have invested in rather than pulling out and so losing more in the long term; and
Status quo bias: preferring the current situation to the uncertainty of change.

To help with better decision-making, he suggested applying psychological distancing so that we look at the problem from the perspective of a third person not involved in the situation. According to Robson, research has shown that psychological distancing techniques encourage people to consult more widely and reflect on more sources of information before arriving at an answer.

When a decision is taken quickly, there is always the temptation to fit or select facts to confirm it. To counter this, and make good decisions, we need self-knowledge and awareness of external influences and our own internal tendencies. This is easier said than done. Serendipitously, I encountered two suggestions of how this can be achieved and no doubt there are many others out there. The first was from a radio programme about chess: (www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct7z05).

Responding to the interviewer’s questions, Anthony Mathurin, a chess coach as well as a participant on the reality show The Traitors, stated that chess is a pathway of introspection. It helps you understand how you choose to tackle problems, giving a unique insight into one’s own mentality, thought processes and how we arrive at decisions. Thinking about this further, chess games can be recorded and played back so it is suited to subsequent analysis and learning.

This supports the second suggestion, which is to keep a decision diary. In the diary you record your more significant decisions and describe the assumptions that you made and how you were feeling at the time, as described in: https://humanfactors101.com/2022/02/26/decision-diary. You can then go back and review the circumstances of both successful and not-so-successful decisions and derive lessons to improve in the future. The quotation: “History tells you how to think, not what to think”, shows how we can draw on past experience and apply it to new and potentially unique situations. A decision diary can provide content for your continuing professional development (CPD) record and reflections.

Please note that the views expressed in this column are the author’s own personal ramblings for the purpose of encouraging discussion within NDT News. They do not represent the views of Amentum or BINDT.

Letters can be mailed to The Editor, NDT News, Midsummer House, Riverside Way, Bedford Road, Northampton NN1 5NX, UK. Email: ndtnews@bindt.org or email Bernard McGrath direct at bernard.mcgrath1@global.amentum.com

Comments by members

This forum post has no comments, be the first to leave a comment.

<< Back