‘To be or not to be’ is not the question

The famous question, “to be or not to be,” summarizes the need to resolve a dilemma.

Thanks to this world-renowned phrase by Prince Hamlet, an unforgettable character created by  William Shakespeare, we have a way of dealing with existential or mundane choices.

Existential philosophers treat the question “to be or not to be?” in more profound ways than deciding how to part your hair or how to project yourself to your boss.

Atheistic existentialists, like Jean Paul Sartre, seek answers to the same question. Sartre declares the proposition, “Existence precedes being.”

Sartre says, I am born without a predetermined nature; I am a tabula rasa (a blank sheet). I exist first—then, thanks to experience—I become.

Theistic existentialists, like Paul Tillich, seek answers to the same question, yet proceeding with a superior Being out there and inside us. So, Tillich extols the human will, “the courage to be”—a decision to realize one’s potential, and be one with “The Ground of All Being.”

Dear readers, we are stuck with deep but narrow choices, courtesy of Hamlet, and then all our other decision making processes are influenced by this “either-or” question: Will I marry or not? Is it better to die for this country, or to live for it?

I recall that President Benigno Aquino, in his state of the nation address, revised the statement of his Dad when the President said, “The Filipino is worth living for.” His Dad, the late Senator Ninoy Aquino, made a solemn declaration: “The Filipino is worth dying for.”

The rest is heart-rending and heroic history.

The question is: Are our decision making processes limited to this narrow framing, highlighted by an ultimatum from, say, a girlfriend, “Marry me or leave me,” or “take it or leave it?”

Not so, says the book “Decisive,” authored by brothers Chip and Dan Heath. The book is aptly subtitled “How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work.” Let’s leave our philosophical and theological musings and listen to what this book says.

The “four villains in decision-making” enlighten our approach to making choices.  Before prescribing a way of deciding, the authors identify the obstacles to good decision-making.

The four villains are: Narrow Framing, Confirmation Bias, Short-Term Emotion and Overconfidence.

Narrow Framing is “the tendency to define our choices narrowly, to see them in binary terms. We ask, “should I break up with my partner or not?” when we can ask, “what are the ways I could make to make this relationship better?” We ask ourselves, “should I buy a new car or not?” instead of “what’s the best way I could spend some money to make my family better off?”

One is stuck with the “pros-and-cons” approach—when one tallies the pros in one column and cons in another column. The solution which gets the most pros wins.

Confirmation Bias is the tendency of people to gather information and reasoning that “supports their preexisting attitudes, beliefs and actions.” Smokers, the book says, would likely express more interest in an article titled “Smoking Does not Lead to Lung Cancer,” than an article “Smoking Leads to Lung Cancer.” Confirmation bias surely is a hindrance to good decision-making.

Short-Term Emotion explains why, according to the book, “when we’ve got a difficult decision to make, our feelings churn. We replay the same arguments in our head. We agonize over our circumstances. The authors cite Benjamin Franklin who showed he was aware of temporary emotion. The suggestion is to postpone making decisions for several days so that one “can acquire perspective.” As the sage says, “when you are very angry or very happy, don’t decide.”

To illustrate this point, the book relates a story about a decision that had to be made by Andy Grove of Intel and his chairman, Gordon Moore. Intel’s “memory” business was fast losing market share to Japanese firms, while Intel’s microprocessor market is growing by leaps and bounds.

Grove and Moore knew that sooner, not later, they had to give up the “memory” market, and focus on the firm’s distinctly superior product—the microprocessor (which bears the famous tagline “Intel Inside”). Meanwhile, their memory business managers were fighting the idea of selling the memory business.

And then, there was a flash of insight. After looking over a window and seeing the Ferris Wheel of the Great America amusement park, Grove turned to Moore with this question: “If we got kicked out and the board brought in a new CEO, what do you think he would do?” Moore’s answer: “He would get us out of memories.”

And so, as history would have it, Intel stuck with the microprocessor—and saw a dramatic increase in its market share. Its memory business has become, yes, part of our misty memory.

The third decision-making villain, overconfidence, is one’s tendency to think that we know more than others do about how the future will unfold.

Take the case of a rock-and-roll group called the Beatles, that was rejected by Dick Rowe of Decca Records, who explained his decision: “We don’t like your boys’ sound. Groups are out; four-piece groups with guitars, particularly, are finished.” That’s hubris at its worst. The Beatles made history, and Rowe was history.

To deal with the decision-making villains, the book offers the following four strategies: Widen your options; reality-test your assumptions; attain distance before deciding; and, prepare to be wrong.

For these four strategies, the mnemonic is WRAP.

The authors say: “We like the notion of a process that ‘wraps’ around your usual way of making decisions, helping to protect you from some of the biases identified.”

The current question flying thick in the political air is the question that may confront the President: “To run again or not?” Interior Secretary Mar Roxas wants to settle this narrow framing of a breathless political question. Others will use the strategies presented in this book: “Widen your options.” Or, distance yourself from the “either-or” question and ask: “What’s really good for our people?”

You see, dear readers, the book “Decisive” can really enhance how we make choices. But, choose we must!

dmv.communcations@gmail.com