“Probabilistic Rationalism” is a systematic, semi-quantitative, decision making/opinion forming process that can be readily used by most of us to make excellent decisions or to arrive at high quality opinions. The process is derived from similar but more formal techniques used by many companies in formulating business strategies. The process is particularly useful in addressing issues involving significant levels of uncertainty.
In brief, the first and most critical step in decision-making is to establish a clear objective or goal that one wishes to achieve. Next, a listing is constructed which includes as many possible paths to the goal as can be imagined. Then, the individual, family or other group estimates the probability that each alternative path will achieve the goal. In most cases, uncertainty enters the process at this point. The degree of uncertainty depends on the knowledge base possessed by the decision maker(s). In any event, the path having the highest estimated probability of achieving the goal is the “best”, i.e., most rational decision possible for that individual or group.
In the case of making more important decisions, it is probably prudent to sit down with paper and pencil and go through the process very carefully. However, in many cases of more casual day-to-day decision-making or opinion forming, one can easily learn to take mental shortcuts and quickly arrive at high-quality decisions. Once again, attaining the habit of clearly stating and understanding the objective or goal is key and, surprisingly, often not adequately addressed.
A simple example might be the selection of a route to take in driving to work one morning. There are two possible routes to take, A and B. Route A is to take the expressway and is a distance of 30 miles. Route B is via the back roads and is a distance of 25 miles. Occasionally, there is a traffic backup on the expressway but in the absence of that, the trip usually takes about 35 minutes. The trip via route B is generally devoid of any delays, and characteristically takes about 40 minutes. Upon leaving for work on this day, I realize that I have a very important meeting that is scheduled to start in 42 minutes. If I choose route A and there is no traffic delay, I should arrive 7 minutes prior to the meeting, giving me ample time to collect any thing that I might need from my office. If I take route B, I will likely arrive just 2 minutes prior to the meeting requiring me to rush to my office in order to get to the meeting on time. Clearly, under these circumstances, route A would be the best choice. However, I realize that there is perhaps a 33% chance of a traffic backup and as much as a 25 minute delay on the expressway. If I choose route A and encounter a traffic backup, my expected trip duration would be calculated as .33 x 60 minutes + .67 x 35 minutes or 19.8 + 23.45 = 43.25 minutes. I could expect to be a couple of minutes late for the meeting. However, more importantly, there is a 33% chance of me being significantly late for the meeting, i.e., 15 to 20 minutes late. If my goal is to absolutely be on time for the meeting, my best choice would be to select route B this morning.
While the above example demonstrates the “Probabilistic Rationalism” process, it is one of those very simple cases where the decision can be made very quickly taking the mental shortcut and not requiring sitting down with paper and pencil to perform a more rigorous analysis. Other situations that may require more rigor include career decisions, major financial decisions and major purchase decisions.
The process is also of particular use in formulating opinions regarding major issues of the day including political, social and religious matters. The current issue of global warming is one that I analyze in detail in my book, A Path To The Gold. This analysis presents the issue in a rather unique way in that the matter actually consists of a series of at least five, and perhaps more, sequential questions, all of which possess a certain degree of uncertainty and must be positive, to provide rational support for the idea that human activity is responsible global warming caused by the accumulation of atmospheric CO2. My analysis, using “Probabilistic Rationalism” and calculating the conditional probabilities led me to conclude that there is only about a 7% probability that this idea is valid.
I’ve found the process to be very enlightening when considering a variety of current issues and also revealing when one considers the difficulty politicians have in honestly adhering to stated goals in addressing legislative matters.
