John,

Just thought I would put down some of my opinions that impinge on this issue. I have noticed that human beings seem to find it very difficult to endure a situation where they do not have an answer to a relevant question (that is a question personally relevant to their life). It appears that, with regard to relevant issues they would even rather have a wrong answer than no answer at all. Such a position will often lead one into irrational behavior.

This has even lead me to make a suggestion as to how important decisions should be made by a rational society. A suggestion, by the way, which has been rejected by everyone I have ever suggested it to except my wife (who I think I have managed to snow). She and I use it on a regular basis.

The issue concerns the dilemma of answering a relevant question (that is the real data neccessary to make a rational decision is absent when insufficient time exists to discover that data and a decision must be made).

First, if it is clear to everyone (say excepting a few nuts), as to what should be done in a given situation, then do it. If any real argument exists as to what should be done then flip a coin. This decision is defended as the best decision from the following perspective: if everyone involved in the decision is fairly rational then they will come to the same conclusions given the same known facts. If they don't come to the same conclusion, either they are dealing with different "facts" (which can usually be checked rather quickly) or there exist good arguments for both positions! If it is the second case, then it better not make any difference what is done or we are doomed.

I think that those who "know" what ought to be done are the single most dangerous component of human society. Why is it that people can not admit that they do not "know".

Have fun -- Dick

• Are nearly all humans capable of correct decisions? - johnpowell - April 9, 2001 - 22:36 UTC