Kim 1

Sojung Kim

Ms. Walker

Block 5

1 April 2016

The Art of Decisionmaking: A Graphical Model for Analyzing Situations and Avoiding

Actually Making a Decision1

As I sit down to finally write this paper the night before the due date, the clock

unfortunately already reads 10 p.m... As much as some teachers may hate to acknowledge it,

senioritis is an incredibly strong, devastatingly real phenomenon (and for all those younger kids

who claim they have senioritis already, you dont. Trust me.). While I purposefully

procrastinated to provide myself ample time to develop ideas for this paper topic, I began to

wonder about how humans make decisions--specifically, how much time we spend thinking and

analyzing our decisions before we take action. Now, being the obsessively logical and

emotionally confused person I am, I love to organize things in my mind rationally, labelling,

categorizing, explaining, finding patterns, and trying to define fluid, ineffable human emotions

and thoughts in concrete terms so I can put them in neat boxes in neat rows. The human

decisionmaking process seems logical enough, but somehow we tend to screw it up in real life.

Thus began my search for a mathematical framework that might model the human

decisionmaking process and the different stages of decisionmaking we all find ourselves in at

some point.

1
Upon consultation with my physics lab team (Nick Feffer and Anthony Degleris), Ive come up with the alternate,
utterly irrelevant, but completely necessary title Hamlet: The Breakfast Sandwich We All Think It Is
 Kim 2

At the most fundamental level, lets consider the relationship between the importance of a

decision and how much time you should spend in making that decision. This seems an intuitive

relationship, the more important a decision is, the more time you should spend analyzing the

situation and the possible outcomes before taking action. For example, the time you might take

to decide which ice cream flavor to trade your hard earned money for2 is probably much shorter

than the time it would take you to decide on a new house to buy. The graph of importance vs.

time would look something like Figure 1, with a positive linear correlation between the

importance of a decision and the optimum time required to make a good decision.

Figure 1:

This linear correlation between the importance of a decision and the optimal time spent making

the decision seemed to me a solid starting place for our graphical model; however, simple linear

growth seems unreasonable.

I began to doubt Figure 1 when I considered how much benefit you can truly gain from

thinking something over for a long period of time. Yes, when you first start to think about a

2
The correct response is to purchase frozen yogurt instead, specifically Original Tart.
 Kim 3

decision it may be important to spend time analyzing the situation; however, regardless of how

important a decision is, it will never make sense to think about something for fifty years before

you act. Its simpler to consider one decision at a time than to try and model the entire spectrum

of possible decisions, so for the remainder of this paper the model will represent one decision,

with the time spent making the decision as the independent variable and the returns from the

decision as the dependent variable. What we see for all decisions, the benefits we reap from

taking time in decisionmaking experience diminishing marginal returns because theres only so

much you can think about a situation and only so many good ideas you can have to optimize the

benefits of a decision. Thus, a certain threshold exists at which no matter how much longer you

think about the decision, the benefits you reap from the situation will stay the same; Figure 2

shows the modified model, where the graph shows asymptotic behavior as it nears the maximum

limit to how much time can be reasonably spent in making a decision.3

Figure 2:

3
This upper ceiling for time can depend on the situation, and shouldnt necessarily be a fixed number. For example,
three months may be the rational time constraint when buying a new car, but most definitely is ridiculous when
considering a situation in which were deciding what to eat for dinner. We would unfortunately go quite hungry.
 Kim 4

In completing the graphical model, we must now include the cost curve-- whenever

humans make decisions there exists a certain cost and a certain benefit. At the most simplistic

level, all decisions have a sort of inherent cost (for example, when youre deciding to buy

something, the price of the good represents the inherent cost); this inherent cost increases

linearly as you add the cost of time, a valuable good in and of itself. Thus, we reach the fully

matured form of my graph in Figure 3 when we overlay the graph of cost onto the graph of

benefit, giving us a cost-benefit comparison visual for any decision-making situation. Now, the

exciting part comes in using this graph as a framework to model three different decision-making

phenomena-- rash decisions, good decisions, and overthinking.

Figure 3:

Because of the logarithmic nature of the benefit curve and the linear nature of the cost

curve, we see three distinct areas of the model. Id first like to discuss the area labeled A on

Figure 3. This area represents rash decisions, those decisions made quickly, without much

thought. As shown on the model, when we dont take adequate time to think before taking

action, costs grow greater than the benefits and we end up making a lamentable decision. Hamlet
 Kim 5

shows evidence of this kind of decisionmaking, for example, when Shakespeare writes, Within

a month, Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears, Had left the flushing in her galled eyes,

She married (I. ii. 58-61). Here, Hamlet expresses his disgust and frustration with his mothers

hasty marriage to his murderous, treacherous uncle Claudius. Hamlet reveals his mother married

Claudius within a month of his father dying, even before the salt of most unrighteous tears

had left her eyes. The word unrighteous makes his anger apparent as he claims his mother

didnt even have the right to mourn his father because she had so betrayed him. Essentially, she

married Claudius rapidly, before she finished mourning her previous husband. In making such a

hasty decision, she alienated her son and gave him even more fuel for his anger towards

Claudius, ultimately leading to excessive murder. This exemplifies a decision made in the A

portion of the model because Gertrude didnt take the time to analyze her actions and consider

how Hamlet might react, the costs of her marriage to Claudius (long term, arguably the death of

nearly the entire court including herself) greatly outweigh the benefits (perhaps emotional

support or a stable marriage). Now, most of us dont face life or death situations on a daily basis,

so lets consider a more everyday example of this region of the graph: impulse buying. Alright,

in my defense buying that five pack of glittery gel pens wasnt a great idea (considering I have a

superfluous number of gel pens already); Ill probably never use them and then lose them

somewhere accidentally. But they just seemed so nice and I was nearly to the cashier already so I

picked them up and tossed them in my basket without thinking about whether I needed them or

not. This presents another example well modeled by region A of my graph, the costs (the
 Kim 6

physical price of the pens) outweigh my benefit (arguably nothing since I wont end up using

them4).

Moving further along the x-axis, we reach section B: the sweet spot. As visible on the

model, when you spend just the right amount of time thinking about a decision before acting, the

benefits of the action you take outweigh the costs and you make a wonderful decision. Again,

this portion of the graph may be exemplified by Hamlet when he passionately declares, Up

sword, and know thou a more horrid hent. When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage, Or in th

incestuous pleasure of his bed, At game a-swearing, or about some act, That has no relish of

salvation in't (III. iii. 93-97). Hamlet, after rushing into Claudiuss room and finding him trying

to pray with his eyes closed and back turned to him, realizes he could easily kill him then and

there. However, he also realizes since Claudius seems to be praying, killing him would send him

to heaven because hes confessing his sins. He decides to wait to kill him until hes engaged in

some sinful act that has no relish of salvation such as drunkenness, incest, or swearing so

Hamlet can ensure his soul arrives in Hell instead of being saved. Thus, by taking time to think

through whether or not he should kill Claudius he doesnt immediately impale Claudius

(arguably a rash decision, slipping back into section A) and bides his time to reap more benefit

(namely, sending Claudius to Hell instead of Heaven). In a certain way, this is a quality control

measure. Many people believe Hamlet procrastinates, but Harold Bloom corroborates my notion

that Hamlet was actually safely in section B of the model when making his decisions. He writes,

It is best to dismiss the notion that the prince procrastinates his revenge he sensibly went the

4
I actually used them to write a wonderful birthday card. So they werent completely useless. It would be interesting
to explore how we rationalize rash decisions ex post facto in another paper.
 Kim 7

other way, fase, whenever violence approached (210). Instead of making rash decisions, he

takes the time he needs in order to pursue his plan for revenge in a careful, quality way.

This leaves section C, which I find the most intriguing. This section of the model can be

best described by David Foster Wallaces term analysis paralysis, introduced in his work Infinite

Jest. Essentially, analysis paralysis describes what happens when we overthink a decision,

analyzing, reanalyzing, overanalyzing until we become frozen and cant make a decision because

were so stuck in a perpetual state of considering all possible options, outcomes, and

possibilities. In section C of the model, the cost curve permanently overtakes the benefit curve

again, representing what happens when you spend so much time thinking about a decision it no

longer impacts the benefits from taking action; thus, costs keep piling up and youre stuck in a

state of no longer being able to make a decision in which benefits outweigh the costs. The model

also explains the addictive nature of such analysis paralysis. Once we reach section C, we realize

the impossibility of making a good decision because weve incurred too many costs, which urges

us to try and analyze the situation even more, trying to mend the situation (its a rather

unfortunate positive feedback cycle). Dubliners by James Joyce exemplifies this sense of

analysis paralysis; nearly all of the characters live while stuck mentally, emotionally, and

psychologically in melancholy, depressing situations because they become paralyzed when

considering change. Take, for example, Eveline; frozen in a state of terror, she overanalyzes as

she considers running away from home to elope with Frank, a sailor. The entire short story

revolves around Eveline trying to make a decision; Joyce writes, Her time was running out but

she continued to sit by the window, as she ponders her life at home, her duties, safety, and

change (22). She becomes frozen in thought to the point of passivity, praying to God to direct
 Kim 8

her, to show her what was her duty because trying to make a decision awoke a nausea in her

body until finally, she grips the iron railing in paralysis and fear and refuses to make a choice

and simply lets time run out until the opportunity has passed (23). The story characterizes the

cyclical, repetitive thought processes we fall into when we reach section C of the model--

Eveline thinks about Frank, then about her family, then Frank, then family as she recalls slightly

different memories but similar themes again and again, over thinking as she tries to decide.

Interestingly, this concept of analysis paralysis goes by another name in the world of

chess; Kotovs Syndrome, introduced in Alexander Kotovs book Think Like a Grandmaster,

describes a situation where someone, thinks for a long time in a very complicated position, goes

deep into the position to the point of losing touch with reality, falls short of time and finally

makes a move that he had hardly analyzed, which turns out to be a blunder (Smith). When we

reach the analysis paralysis stage, we fall into almost irrational thinking, repeatedly going deeper

and deeper into increasingly unrealistic and insignificant detail until time runs out, forcing us to

finally make a decision. As Kotovs Syndrome explains, usually when we reach section C, we

squander time until we are forced to make a rash decision (using remaining time), which takes us

back to section A.

It seems Figure 3 works as a graphical model of different decision-making phenomena,

but it still may be too simplistic for complex, real-world situations. To resolve this simplicity I

started considering some added complications; in the interest of time, Ill only briefly discuss

two in this paper.5

5
Each of these ideas could have been a paper in and of themselves. It would also be interesting to consider
additional factors such as stress level, pressure, or perhaps package decisions in which one decision will
automatically determine other decisions as well.
 Kim 9

Usually in life, we have to deal with deadlines. College deadlines task deadlines

important dates due dates for papers If we add a limitation on time into the model, we arrive

at Figure 4, with costs increasing exponentially as you near the time limit.

Figure 4:

Logically, it makes sense cost would increase exponentially nearing a deadline (perhaps

increased time consumed, increased stress, opportunity cost, etc.), and the model shows some

insightful patterns as well. When the cost curve increases exponentially, in comparison to Figure

3, we reach section C (analysis paralysis) much more quickly than we do normally. This means

under a tight deadline, were more prone to over-analyzing and freaking out about the decision

or task at hand (again, making it more likely we make a rash decision in the end).

In other situations, risk may also pose a factor. In Chuck, a popular action-comedy-spy

TV show that ended in 2012, the titular character Chuck spends several weeks agonizing over

buying the perfect house to surprise his wife, Sarah. As soon as he finds the most incredible,

perfect house, his nemesis freezes his bank account. Risk goes up linearly with time because as
 Kim 10

time progresses, unseen external variables can change and affect the situation in which we have

to make a decision. For Chuck, the longer he waited to purchase the house the more likely it was

his nemesis would find a way to destroy his plan (or the house could have been purchased by

someone else, Sarah could have found out his surprise, the economy could have crashed, etc.).

The more time we take to make a decision, the more our situation changes (unfortunately, the

world does not come to a standstill while we try to choose). As our situation changes, uncertainty

increases in the decisionmaking process as seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5:

Alas, as useful as my model may be in analyzing how and why humans make decisions

the way we do, it perhaps provides less insight into actually making decisions (in fact, spending

extravagant amounts of time poring over mathematical models could lead to analysis paralysis,

and we all know how things fall apart in Section C...). However, these models do offer a

framework with which to understand and logically explain the indescribable, irrational, complex

way in which we analyze decisions and take (or fail to take) action. For those who share my

thirst for quantification and rationalization, I hope these models provide a foundation onto which
 Kim 11

you feel inclined to build your own representations of human thought; there exist infinite

complexities and variables involved in different decisionmaking situations, reflecting the

extraordinarily diverse, sometimes exciting, oftentimes frustrating, always beautiful nature of

human life. In the end, a mathematical formula for making the perfect decision probably doesnt

exist (unfortunately); however, having a model with which to discuss and analyze

decisionmaking trends might just elucidate human thought and provide us all with an inkling of

the definite in an indefinite world.

 Kim 12

Works Cited

Bloom, Harold. How to Read and Why. New York: Scribner, 2000. Print.

"Chuck versus the Zoom." Dir. Robert Duncan McNeill. Episode #79. Chuck. Television.

Joyce, James. Dubliners. New York: Dover Publications, 1991. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. New York: Washington Square Press, 1992. Print.

Smith, Bryan. "'Think like a Grandmaster' by Alexander Kotov." Chess.com. Web. 23 Mar.

2016.