Yesterday I concluded my column by mentioning how deeply I believe in mental agility in our lives. I did not mean to say I thought we needed to be agile on ethics as I think each of us should determine our own boundaries—then stick by them. Murder is a non-starter, for example.
I mean agility in the sense of embracing new technologies, new topics, new questions that might have been unappealing earlier. I think, in an absolutely distinct minority of the academic world, we should look at a variety of subjects, being satisfied we won’t master them they way we crushed whatever topic upon which we wrote our major work.
Agility includes recognizing we can analyse questions for which we don’t have perfect information, one of the most common flaws I see in our academic community today. There is rarely perfect information. It just doesn’t exist for most of us unless we were strictly looking at such a substratum issue of a substratum or a math equation.
But if we don’t have perfect information, we might get it wrong, you’ll hear. Yes, that is correct: we might get it wrong. But that is the risk that every commander, every president, every ruler, every teacher, every parent, and every person breathing risks day in and day out. We might get it wrong.
I am not advocating willfully choosing wrong decisions but I do advocate considering new questions by putting forth analysis or effort with the best information available after a diligent, serious search to uncover a range of information even if it’s not perfect. But how do we know that we have done enough? We won’t know that, either, will we?
We cannot quantify some things with precision. We have to take the risk of a decision. Life is not mechanistic but an art and a science. It requires data and common sense.
Common sense which is the least quantifiable thing I can imagine but it is essential. And therein lies the anxiety setting some of us off as we read these words. Common sense is not perfect, not necessarily common but is the result of taking what experience we have in conjunction with what data we have for any particular question to address a new analytical problem through reasoned, step-by-step thinking. We must consider an action as a hypothesis, offer a suggested path to follow, consider effects (positive and negative), see the consequences of these actions, calibrate the consequences, reassess the updated context feedback of the problem, and always keeping our eye on the objective we seek to meet, whether cleaning a room or solving a foreign policy challenge.
But following those steps is not a guarantee of 100% success which too often paralyses us from doing anything.
A good deal of our expectations these days are that we can achieve a perfect outcome for everyone, especially if we wait for this answer or that. We also seem to think that we fail if we can’t succeed 100%. That perspective strikes me as utter folly because it is impossible to create perfection in almost any category of life because humans are so complicated. Actions create other consequences which we too often never can foresee.
Are we ameliorating the situation? Is that not relevant?
We won’t be fully satisfied all of the time. Please do not misunderstand: perfection in running the nuclear reactor is a major reason a nuclear powered submarine survives its deployments without losing the crew. That nuclear reactor performance is hardly a negotiable. But is that really true for everything in our lives or are we using that as a reason to not make choices?
Actions create winners and losers; that is what those consequences equate to for humans. Some choices are benevolent, others malevolent. I am certainly not endorsing malevolency but I am also reluctant to throw up our hands as if we cannot assure perfect outcomes for all before we act.
Life is about taking risks. How much tolerance does each of us have for that risk? How much can we improve our satisfaction by accepting we may never achieve compete success but we can ameliorate a condition or a relationship? How much do we really understand the interplay between risk, agility, and accomplishment? Not to consider these questions likely leads us to paralysis and sustained disappointment.
I welcome your thoughts and suggestions. My suggestions may make no sense to anyone other than me but we all benefit from hearing them.
Thank you for reading the column today and any day. If you think it worth circulating, please do so. I thank you for your invaluable time. I thank those who subscribe financially—my humble pay back is to offer you the option to comment on the website so please do take me up on that.
It was another amazing morning on the Creek.
Be well and be safe. FIN
I tried to use the nuclear-powered submarine as one of those cases which definitely require perfection as those cases most certainly exist, jim. Laser surgery in my eyes comes to mind and I should have mentioned it. But I am worried we are using other case in the same way which is not appropriate as you note. Truth is the range exists but the paralysis of our system is concerning as well.oddly, it was not the column I embarked on.
One of the hardest things to teach to young Air Force officers was comfort level in decision making. I think the goal for everyone is to make the right or correct decision when the time comes. I've found that the younger, less experienced the officer was, the longer they would delay in making the decision. They would spend more time doing research, gathering data that would help to inform their decision with the goal of "getting it right." Officers who had been around a while and had some battle scars from experience were much more comfortable making decisions quicker with much less information. Clearly some decisions require instant action (life or death situations) while others can be examined in more depth. For "routine" issues, my comfort zone was somewhere between 50 to 60% of available information; i.e., once I got in that range, I was generally comfortable. Anything less than that invoked the "gut feeling" decision. Anything more than that resulted in much greater comfort but also required more time.
The other interesting aspect to this point is the various professions / jobs and how perfect or right does one need to be? This is especially relevant to me as I've always been kind of a "B+" student. So in many cases, I was happy with things not being perfect. But, other professions can't get away with that. I kind of want the fire department to put out 100% of the fire...not just being satisfied with 70% as a passing grade. Same with surgeons... they should be 100%. Airplane mechanics...also 100% effort required. I can't imagine having a job where the expectation is perfection all the time. And yet, those professions are out there and we generally have that expectation. It's not realistic as people do make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes have very grave consequences.