Isn’t Voting a Big-D Decision?

My friend Kimberley responded to my recent blog about voting with this great question. Is voting one of the small set of decisions that is really beyond (or should be) the scope of decision analysis?

Ron Howard, who coined the phrase decision analysis, makes a distinction between big-D decisions and little-d decisions. The vast bulk of decisions (the little-d ones) are amenable to decision analysis, but there are some decisions—big-D decisions, like getting married, having children, committing to a religion, etc—that are just too charged with emotion for it to be appropriate to deploy the tools of decision science.

I’m not sure I agree. I would not advise building too many spreadsheet models or developing probabilistic forecasts for these situations, but I would certainly encourage my daughters (and anyone else) to apply, at least informally, some decision quality thinking and to ask some basic questions about any life decision they face. Is this the right decision to be taking now? What are the alternatives? What information do we have, and what more can/should we get? What do we want from this decision? What are the possible consequences of each choice? Am I ready to make this commitment?

Let’s look at marriage. When I got married, my wife-to-be and I were told, “[Marriage] is a way of life that all should honour; and it must not be undertaken carelessly, lightly, or selfishly, but reverently, responsibly, and after serious thought.” (My emphasis)

These words are now part of the alternative preface of the Common Worship marriage service of the Church of England. Since 2000 the standard wording removes “and after serious thought” and replaces it with “in the sight of almighty God”—an example perhaps of the modern trend of dumbing down?

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is altogether more colourful. “[Marriage] is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.”

Attraction has a large component determined by one’s DNA (that’s the “carnal lusts” part) and it’s a pretty powerful driver. But we would all agree that, if the heart is allowed free rein with no intervention by the head, disaster is more likely to follow. Sadly, though, society appears to be heading that way. If more people thought more carefully about some of the life decisions they face, there might be fewer failed marriages, fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer hooligans collecting ASBOs.

The Decision Education Foundation (DEF) was founded by my former colleagues at SDG to develop the decision skills training that is missing in the majority of today’s school curricula. A key element is to teach young people that they do have decisions. Rather than simply reacting on their first impulse, and continuing the spiral downwards that leads to school dropout, substance abuse and violence, the DEF teaches that they do have choices, and pausing just long enough to consider the consequences can allow them to choose differently. “Better decisions – better lives” is the DEF’s tagline.

I am involved as a director and trustee with Futures Theatre Company that is doing something similar. Futures runs workshops in schools—the current production is Sweet Love, addressing sexual bullying—with actors playing out a scenario that spirals out of control. Then they get the kids to suggest alternative things that could have been said or done, and to get up on stage and play the alternative scenario out to a different (and better) outcome. It’s great stuff, and the enthusiam of the kids always inspires me!

What else can we be doing to help the younger generation to think better and make better decisions, so that they can enjoy better outcomes for themselves, and we all can share in better lives?