On Making Choices

How do you justify your choices?

There’s always a dilemma: more or less, high or low, depth or breadth, old or new, to be or not to be, stay or go?

We always have to choose from a dozen priorities.

But know this—

Where you start doesn’t matter strategically, while it matters tactically.

Where you end doesn’t matter tactically, while it matters strategically.

How you go from start to end matters the most.

The decision/choice itself is often far less important than the dedication to it.

Two fruits: funegachi, and chikado.

Which one do you like more? Well, you don’t know, because you’ve never tasted either. I just made up those two silly fruit names.

You’d never know. The only way to know is to taste both.

Comparing two possible futures is meaningless, because each path could end up bad, or good, based on how the journey goes. Richard Feynman knew better.

	Path A	Path B
Things gone well	End up well	End up well
Things gone bad	End up bad	End up bad

The only meaningful comparison of possible futures is where you go back in time again and again until you’ve got enough real experiences to identify statistical significances in all those journeys—that’s when you’d know for sure how probable an outcome may be and then you get to choose.

Comparing the probability of future possibilities is meaningful, because that’s the way you rely on to define strategy and tactics.

Why do you justify your choices?