Self-assessment?

[Mock Turtle]

How do you go about rating your own decision-making, as in, often making judgements (where one might have to) or in believing information that might or might not be true or even relevant? How can we rate ourselves as to success or failure in such things over time? Especially if we tend to just take in information from the same old sources.

Anyone have a method of ensuring one tends to get better at this rather than perhaps get worse?

 

[sun rise]

That's an interesting question. I'm sure that there are a gazillion guides to how to make better decisions floating around. Some at least are pretty vanilla such as trying to be calm when making a decision rather than being carried on an emotional wave.

The only thing I know that really works long term is experience - over time I learn a bit more about how to make good decisions.

 

[Nakosis]

How do you go about rating your own decision-making, as in, often making judgements (where one might have to) or in believing information that might or might not be true or even relevant? How can we rate ourselves as to success or failure in such things over time? Especially if we tend to just take in information from the same old sources.

Anyone have a method of ensuring one tends to get better at this rather than perhaps get worse?

If I'm right more than 50% of the time, that's winning as far as I'm concerned.

As far as keeping up with the winning, that's a matter of learning from your mistakes. Everyone gets it wrong. Being able to admit that and make corrections so you don't make the same mistakes is the best way IMO to be successful in future endeavors.

Experience is important and real experience comes from making mistakes. One has to be willing to make mistakes to learn. I teach a lot of things to people but mostly what I teach is to not make the same mistakes I've made.

I think my success is in persistence. To solve a problem, you can make the wrong decision numerous times, you only need to be right once. Problem solved. Generally nobody keeps track of the number of time you were wrong. What they keep track of is whether or not you were able to solve the problem.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How do you go about rating your own decision-making, as in, often making judgements (where one might have to) or in believing information that might or might not be true or even relevant? How can we rate ourselves as to success or failure in such things over time? Especially if we tend to just take in information from the same old sources.

Anyone have a method of ensuring one tends to get better at this rather than perhaps get worse?

It in part depends on what you mean by decision-making. All kinds of decisions or more specific decisions; e.g. economical?

 

[Mindmaster]

How do you go about rating your own decision-making, as in, often making judgements (where one might have to) or in believing information that might or might not be true or even relevant? How can we rate ourselves as to success or failure in such things over time? Especially if we tend to just take in information from the same old sources.

Anyone have a method of ensuring one tends to get better at this rather than perhaps get worse?

Well, scientifically... Your thoughts are irrelevant... Anytime you made a bad decision in your life your brain already corrected for it. As for the truth of information, it's unwise to believe anything. Doubt everything and when you're sick of that something will stick out as obviously correct. Though some little questions you can ask yourself...

1) What does the source of information want you to believe?

2) Do they directly profit from you believing as such? This can be political, religious, or nearly anything else. This means you can't accept political facts from media or politicians, you can't accept climate change information from NOAA (they would lose a lot of money if it weren't true), you can't accept spiritual advice from someone who makes their living collecting tithes, and so on.

3) Why do you want to believe them? (This often very important.)

Anyway, a few rundowns of this and your perspective will be right on track. You'll also know whether the new information is important or spin.

 

[halbhh]

How do you go about rating your own decision-making, as in, often making judgements (where one might have to) or in believing information that might or might not be true or even relevant? How can we rate ourselves as to success or failure in such things over time? Especially if we tend to just take in information from the same old sources.

Anyone have a method of ensuring one tends to get better at this rather than perhaps get worse?

Anyone have a method of ensuring one tends to get better at this rather than perhaps get worse?

Yes.

Typically most people look for information, selectively, that will fit or support their preferred or more comfortable theories.

Right?

Do the opposite -- look for information that would disprove currently held theories.

It's a thing I picked up as a teenage from the character Paul Atreides (later known as Paul Muad'Dib) in Frank Herbert's novel Dune. I really admired Paul, and decided as a young teen to do what he did in the novel in terms of thinking style -- to constantly question what I think I know. All the time, basically, that is, every day.

Actually, it's part of how I ended up even as an atheist looking again much more carefully at what Jesus said, to go along with many others like Lao Tzu, Emerson, Jung, and a long list. I wanted to check to see if I'd read right so many years before, and find out what I'd missed. I wanted to question what I thought.

And that was a very good choice, which resulted in huge gains.

 

[ChristineM]

How do you go about rating your own decision-making, as in, often making judgements (where one might have to) or in believing information that might or might not be true or even relevant? How can we rate ourselves as to success or failure in such things over time? Especially if we tend to just take in information from the same old sources.

Anyone have a method of ensuring one tends to get better at this rather than perhaps get worse?

So long as your decisions are right most of the time then you are winning.

Or use an app like "decision roulette"

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Of course, all it takes is one really bad decision and then you don't get to make any more decisions...

 

[shmogie]

Of course, all it takes is one really bad decision and then you don't get to make any more decisions...

I was a LEO for 25 years. A mistake in that field can be utterly catastrophic, and destroy your life, or end your life.

I learned quickly that unleashed emotions are liars, and can drive you to disaster. Objective decisions based upon fact and reason are most likely to be good.

One must practice eliminating the emotional factor over, and over, and over again.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I was a LEO for 25 years. A mistake in that field can be utterly catastrophic, and destroy your life, or end your life.

I learned quickly that unleashed emotions are liars, and can drive you to disaster. Objective decisions based upon fact and reason are most likely to be good.

One must practice eliminating the emotional factor over, and over, and over again.

and hope that everyone else involved will do the same...Glad you survived service!

 

[Heyo]

How do you go about rating your own decision-making, as in, often making judgements (where one might have to) or in believing information that might or might not be true or even relevant? How can we rate ourselves as to success or failure in such things over time? Especially if we tend to just take in information from the same old sources.

Anyone have a method of ensuring one tends to get better at this rather than perhaps get worse?

Simple: don't rely on self assessment.
That's why there are quizzes, tests, exams in school. They tell you were you stand relative to the other students.
Wanna know how good you are at basic logic thinking? Play chess or GO. Your Elo tells you exactly how good you are.
That is, of course, only the first step. The second is to accept those external assessments and don't make excuses. That is the harder part as it goes against your innate tendency to want to feel good, even superior. To overcome that instinct takes a good education. If you had that you are able to take responsibility.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Of course, all it takes is one really bad decision and then you don't get to make any more decisions...

As in 'Mad' Mike?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Simple: don't rely on self assessment.
That's why there are quizzes, tests, exams in school. They tell you were you stand relative to the other students.
Wanna know how good you are at basic logic thinking? Play chess or GO. Your Elo tells you exactly how good you are.
That is, of course, only the first step. The second is to accept those external assessments and don't make excuses. That is the harder part as it goes against your innate tendency to want to feel good, even superior. To overcome that instinct takes a good education. If you had that you are able to take responsibility.

Well I was thinking more along the lines of recognising when one has made a decision or accepted something that has proven to be incorrect. Do we learn from such or just rewrite history to dismiss such and carry on as usual - which often seems to be the case.

 

[Heyo]

Well I was thinking more along the lines of recognising when one has made a decision or accepted something that has proven to be incorrect. Do we learn from such or just rewrite history to dismiss such and carry on as usual - which often seems to be the case.

Well, that is exactly what I said. You see your "test score" (something went not as expected). You can own your mistake and take responsibility - or you can go the feel good road and pretend it didn't happen (or there were external influences you had no control over nor knowledge about).
Admitting an error is painful and we tend to avoid pain. But only through that pain is growth possible.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

As in 'Mad' Mike?

Yeah, I think that would be a current example...

 

[halbhh]

Wanna know how good you are at basic logic thinking? Play chess or GO. Your Elo tells you exactly how good you are.

I think that works in chess up till about elo mebbe around 1500 and up, where the static knowledge of the opponent can give them big advantages in positions that they are familiar with and you are not familiar with, so that they don't need to out think you at all, but merely avoid blunders, and win much more often than 50/50 just from the bigger knowledge of the familiar position where they already know the best moves and can just play them without thought, conserving clock time. (it will happen especially around moves 6-14 in a game, where they move fast, without any thought, and you are under pressure, trying to figure out things)

But maybe with GO it could be different?