Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I suppose it's easier for people to not think independently and trust someone else to take a decision for them.


sort by: page size:

Possibly so, which is why decision-making is so often delegated to those who have no personal involvement.

No idea. I have no personal knowledge of the situation. However I have no trouble believing (based on personal experience) that a lot of people aren't comfortable making "executive decisions" on their own.

Yes, sometimes it's because they rightly fear potential consequences. But other times, they just don't want the responsibility.


Philosopjically, why not let people make their own decisions?

I like it because it presumes that people are capable, when left to their own devices, to make decisions on their own.

Seems like other people are allowed to make decisions based on others' actions.

It's been like that since before humans even existed, so I don't quite get the hand-wringing.


I have noticed the same phenomenon. Since humans are social creatures I think there is an evolutionary bias to avoid decision paralysis and just follow whoever seems to be the most confident. We are better off in general if we just cooperate and take action instead of deliberating every decision so people seem to be wired to just accept the first thing that appears to be reasonable.

To completely fair, that's how most regular people make decisions too.

Yes but the reality of decisions is that one person needs to drive that decision - a group of people will often struggle to make a clear decision every time

It's a great example on how people aren't good at making decisions for themselves.

Most people like the idea of taking decisions and hate the idea of taking responsibility for them.

If the person making the decisions isn't familiar with the basis of the decision then I trust their judgement not at all.

No in this case it's not, as one person is making the decisions.

Yes, this is true, but then who actually takes the decisions? Someone who isn't an expert on anything at all.

Isn't more important to take decisions instead of holding everyone upfront accountable for any mistake?

I always love the, "People are too stupid to make decisions for themselves" argument. People are more than adequate in making important decisions that directly touch their lives.

Tangent here: how do arbitrary, mass decisions differ when they are done independently versus when they are done in the open? Looking at this from the perspective of 'mob rule' which frequently makes very bad decisions.

That's true, but I think in general if we had someone else making our decisions for us (obviously this is completely undesirable) they'd mostly be correct. Emotion plays a huge role in what we do, many times a negative role.

One side trusts individuals to make the right decision; the other trusts bureaucratic systems to make the right decision. Both sides can get it wrong.

IMO, it's familiarity. As soon as the unknown is introduced group decision becomes more and more useless.
next

Legal | privacy