To be, or not to be, that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles

And by opposing end them.

The famous monologue of Hamlet is very frequently misunderstood. Many people think that Hamlet is contemplating suicide, but if you read the text a bit closer it turns out that he is contemplating whether to engage in an action that he considers potentially suicidal: To openly oppose his uncle, who killed his father and stole his throne. Hamlet's question is really about whether he should try this very dangerous path of open opposition, or let it slide and accept his uncle on the throne.

Once you understood that, the rest of the play falls into place. Yes, there is a lot of stuff happening with a lot of characters. But at the very heart of the play is Hamlet's decision on the question of "to be, or not to be". Hamlet can't decide, he postpones the decision, he vacillates, he is trying to do both. And the play then proceeds to show the consequences of Hamlet's indecision: By not deciding between opposition and compliance, Hamlet ends up reaping the worst possible consequences of both. At the end the viewer is supposed to contemplate that either "suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" or "taking arms against a sea of troubles" both would have resulted in better outcomes.

And there is a very general life lesson in that. Which obviously you don't need, if you are already a very decisive person. But a lot of people tend to fall into a particular trap when faced with a decision on which they don't have all information: They believe that there is a "good" decision, and a "bad" decision, and that the "no decision" option falls somewhere in between. So as they don't know which decision is the "good" one, and which is the "bad" one, they believe that the "no decision" option is the best available one.

Now there are certainly cases in which this is true. Sometimes, when faced with a lack of information, postponing the decision while searching for more information is really the best option. But that depends on the urgency of the decision, and the likelihood to get the required information in time. There are lots of other cases, where taking *any* decision is better than taking none. A very simple example would be you driving on a road which ends in a T-section. You need to decide whether to go left or right, and it is possible that you don't know which way is better; but it is certainly much better to make a fast but wrong decision here instead of driving straight on into a wall.

As it turns out, there are actually a lot more situations where taking either decision leads to a better outcome than taking none. People tend to underestimate the damage that taking no decision can do, but tend to overestimate the damage that making the wrong choice would do. A lot of things in life are unpredictable, and waiting to have perfect information is simply not an option, as you will never get there. Sometimes you just need to take a leap of faith, and decide on your gut feeling, because not deciding anything will be worse than guessing wrong.

- posted by Tobold @ 10:28 AM Permanent Link