Year: 2000

You can only conduct so much due diligence before a decision has to be made, and that point will always be short of perfect prescience.

As a matter of fact — I would argue — any person demanding a “100% standard” in decision making is rather more looking for some (predetermined) outcome other than a practical, timely, necessary real-world solution.

So where’s the middle ground?

What I suggest as a practical matter is that we think of most decisions as falling into one of two categories and operational thresholds.

• Functional: My 65% Rule
• Consequential: My 7% Rule

A Functional Decision is a little bigger than “Should I get out of bed this morning?” or “Are you sure you want to have dinner at China King tonight?” Rather, these are “try it out” challenges, with significant, but hardly life-altering potential consequences.

In a dating situation, for example, you might consider going out a second time with someone where the first experience was clearly on the plus-side, although not necessarily a “Wow!” Your therapist or life coach suggests a change of habit or communication style that doesn’t knock your socks off; but you trust this counsel of sufficiency that it makes more sense than not to give the advice a try.

Functional decision-making acknowledges that life is fundamentally about making imperfect choices. Even if you don’t know you’ve been presented with a decision, non-action will still lead to one particular outcome and not others.

Making this decision for yourself gives you some measure of greater input on your own life. Doors are often closed, opportunities lost, by not making these decisions. The rule I use for myself is that a 65% inclination is sufficient for me to go ahead.

And it’s ridiculous to become immobilized or over-think something based on a 35% uncertainty.

A Consequential Decision is akin to Ceasar crossing the Rubicon. There’s no turning back. All sorts of other options are negated. And this is a thing that will play out in a very big way for you.

Again, remember alternatively that there is always a “decision at rest” or the thing that will happen even if you “do nothing.” In other words, making no decision is, effectively, affirmatively, making a decision to do nothing.

So, “My 7% Rule” takes into account that decisions are never made with perfect information; there is only so much that can be known before a choice still must be exercised.

A 93% confidence is as serious as I can get, while still remaining actionable. Requiring much more certainty before making a decision risks both immobilizing the process and creating rationalization for leaving the decision never to be made (i.e., deciding in favor of a random outcome).

Sure — I may go out on a second date based as a Functional Decision.

But marrying that person is a Consequential Decision. And (note to those who let Functional arguments get so far out of hand as to reach Consequential magnitude), divorce is always a Consequential Decision.

Consequential issues are like whitewater rafting, in that you make the choice of getting into the boat, but you relinquish everything else to the river thereafter. There is a “takes on a life of its own” thing here.

You can’t get “half-pregnant,” as they say.

The two points I want to make here are these.

1. Recognize that there are different sorts of decisions that you face, and the importance of having a criteria by which to differentiate them.
2. Although my 65% and 7% thresholds are hardly scientific, they underscore for me the need to appreciate the necessarily different thresholds associated with each sort of decision I must make.