Tuesday morning, December 2nd. Watching someone agonize for weeks over which job offer to accept, then quit six months later because "it wasn't the right fit." The decision wasn't the problem.

The Decision Paralysis Economy

Here's the modern script:

Research exhaustively. Read reviews. Make spreadsheets. Seek advice. Consider every angle. Find the optimal choice. Make the right decision. This will determine your future. Choose wisely—you don't want to make the wrong call.

The promise: If you analyze carefully enough, you'll discover the right answer. The correct choice exists. Your job is to find it through sufficient research and deliberation. Get the decision right, and success follows.

The reality: Most of your agonizing decisions don't matter as much as you think. Not because they're unimportant, but because multiple paths work equally well—or fail equally hard—depending on what you do after choosing. The choice is the beginning, not the endpoint.

Thesis: The "right decision" is mostly a myth we use to avoid the harder work of commitment. Most important decisions don't have objectively correct answers waiting to be discovered. They have multiple viable options that become good or bad based on your actions afterward. We torture ourselves optimizing the decision but give up easily on the follow-through. This is backwards. The decision matters far less than the commitment to making it work.

The Myth of Optimal Choices

Let's examine what we get wrong about decisions:

Most Decisions Have Multiple Right Answers

The fiction: One path is optimal. The others are suboptimal. Your job: identify the optimal path through sufficient analysis. Choose correctly or suffer the consequences.

The reality: For most major life decisions—career paths, relationships, cities to live in, creative projects—multiple options lead to equally good (or bad) outcomes. Not because the choices are identical, but because the outcome depends more on execution than selection.

Consider career decisions:

  • Friend A takes Job X, commits fully, learns deeply, builds relationships, creates value. Five years later: successful, fulfilled, valued.
  • Friend B takes Job Y (the "better" opportunity on paper), stays half-committed, keeps looking for better options, never fully invests. Five years later: frustrated, jumping jobs, feeling stuck.

The job didn't determine the outcome. The commitment did. Friend A could have taken Job Y and thrived. Friend B could have taken Job X and struggled. The choice mattered less than what they did afterward.

This applies broadly:

  • Multiple college majors can lead to fulfilling careers
  • Multiple relationship partners can lead to happy marriages
  • Multiple cities can become "the right place" to live
  • Multiple creative projects can become meaningful work

The optimal choice is a fiction. There are ranges of viable choices. Within that range, commitment and execution matter far more than the initial selection.

Regret Tells Lies

We tell ourselves: "I made the wrong choice. If only I'd chosen differently, things would be better."

The reality: You're imagining a counterfactual where you made the other choice AND committed to it fully. But you probably wouldn't have. If you're not committed to your current choice, you likely wouldn't have been committed to the alternative either.

The pattern:

  • Take job, don't fully commit, keep looking for better options
  • Regret the choice: "I should have taken the other job"
  • Imagine a world where you took the other job AND threw yourself into it completely
  • Ignore that you probably would have been equally uncommitted there

Regret compares:

  • Your half-committed present reality
  • To a fully-committed imagined alternative

This is dishonest comparison. The alternative isn't "other choice + full commitment." It's "other choice + same level of commitment you're showing now." Which probably looks pretty similar.

The real regret: Not that you chose wrong, but that you didn't commit to your choice. You kept one foot out the door. You hedged. You kept shopping. That's what created dissatisfaction—not the initial decision.

Analysis Paralysis Isn't About Information

We think: "I just need more information. More research. More data points. Then I'll know the right choice."

The reality: You're not lacking information. You're avoiding commitment. The analysis is procrastination from the scarier task: choosing a path and making it work.

Evidence that it's not about information:

  • You've researched both options exhaustively
  • You keep revisiting the same factors
  • New information doesn't resolve the dilemma
  • You seek more advice even though everyone says different things

What's really happening: The extended analysis serves a psychological function. It delays commitment. As long as you're still deciding, you haven't committed to anything. You haven't closed any doors. All options remain "possible."

But this is false comfort. You're not keeping options open. You're experiencing the cost of keeping options open—decision paralysis, reduced investment in current path, inability to fully commit to anything.

The research becomes a ritual: Making you feel productive while avoiding the real task. The task isn't finding the right answer. It's committing to an answer and making it right through your actions.

Why We Overrate the Decision

If commitment matters more than choice, why do we obsess over the decision?

It Feels Controllable

The decision moment feels controllable. You can research. Make spreadsheets. Seek advice. Analyze. You're taking action. Doing something. This feels manageable.

The commitment phase feels uncontrollable. Once you've chosen, outcomes depend on your sustained effort, other people's responses, market conditions, luck. Less legible. Harder to control. More uncertain.

So we overinvest in the controllable part (deciding) and underinvest in the harder part (committing). This is misallocation of effort.

Example: Spending months choosing which business to start, then giving up after three months when it's hard. The decision consumed enormous energy. The execution got minimal commitment. This is backwards.

It Provides an Out

If you keep all options open: You haven't failed. You're just "still deciding." "Exploring options." "Figuring things out."

Once you commit: Failure becomes possible. If you fully commit and it doesn't work, you failed. That's scary.

Keeping options open is psychological insurance. Against failure. Against regret. Against having to confront that even full commitment doesn't guarantee success.

But this insurance is expensive. The premium is never fully committing to anything. Never giving one path your complete effort. This reduces your chances of success in anything.

The irony: Trying to protect against failure makes failure more likely. Hedged commitment produces mediocre results. Which produces... regret and sense of failure. The thing you were trying to avoid.

It Defers Responsibility

If the decision was right: Success was inevitable. You made the optimal choice. Good job researching.

If the decision was wrong: Failure was inevitable. You made a suboptimal choice. Bad luck, or insufficient information at decision time.

Either way: The outcome was determined at decision point. Your subsequent commitment doesn't feature prominently. This is comforting but false.

The reality: Most outcomes are determined after the decision, not at decision point. Your level of commitment, quality of execution, willingness to persist, ability to adapt—these matter more than the initial choice.

But acknowledging this is scary. It means you can't blame the decision. Can't say "I chose wrong." Have to confront: maybe I didn't commit fully. Maybe I gave up too easily. Maybe I hedged.

This is harder to face. Easier to believe the decision was crucial and yours was wrong.

What Actually Determines Outcomes

If not the decision, what matters?

Commitment Level

Full commitment looks like:

  • Burning the ships: not keeping options open
  • Deep investment: learning everything, building relationships, creating value
  • Long time horizon: measuring in years not months
  • Resilience through difficulty: staying when it gets hard
  • Active optimization: making this path better, not shopping for better paths

Half commitment looks like:

  • Keeping options open: "For now"
  • Shallow investment: doing minimum required
  • Short time horizon: constantly reevaluating
  • Quick exit when difficult: "This isn't working"
  • Passive waiting: hoping this proves to be the right choice

Same choice with different commitment levels produces radically different outcomes. Job X with full commitment: career success. Job X with half commitment: frustration and job-hopping.

The decision to commit is separate from the choice of path. You choose the job, then separately choose whether to commit. Most people think choosing the job IS the commitment. It's not. The commitment comes after.

Quality of Execution

Average option + excellent execution > Excellent option + average execution. This is visible everywhere once you start looking.

Examples:

  • Decent business idea executed brilliantly: success
  • Brilliant business idea executed poorly: failure
  • Okay college, deep learning: successful career
  • Elite college, coasting: underemployment
  • Compatible partner, invested relationship: happy marriage
  • "Perfect" partner, lazy relationship: divorce

We overindex on the decision (which option?) and underindex on execution (how will I engage with it?). This causes predictable failure. Great choices with poor execution fail. Good-enough choices with strong execution succeed.

But we keep believing: "If I just choose correctly, success will follow." This is magical thinking. Success follows committed execution, not optimal selection.

Adaptation and Iteration

Paths change through engagement. Job X when you start isn't Job X after you've deeply engaged for two years. You've shaped it. Built relationships. Created opportunities. Found interesting problems. Learned what you're good at.

This is co-creation. You and the path evolve together. Your engagement shapes the path. The path shapes you. After sufficient engagement, comparing to the original alternative is meaningless—both would have evolved unpredictably.

The "right choice" fantasy assumes: The path is static. You choose Path A or Path B. The path remains fixed. You experience predetermined outcomes.

The reality: The path is dynamic. You choose Path A. Your engagement with it transforms both you and the path. Two years later, you're on something that didn't exist at decision point.

This is why the decision matters less than commitment. You're not selecting a predetermined outcome. You're selecting a starting point for co-evolution. Where you end up depends on the interaction, not the starting coordinates.

The Real Decision

If the choice of path matters less than we think, what's the actual decision?

The Commitment Decision

The crucial decision isn't which path. It's: Am I willing to commit fully to a path?

This is scarier than choosing between options. Choosing between Job X and Job Y feels manageable. Deciding to fully commit to whichever you choose—burn the ships, invest completely, stick through difficulty—is frightening.

So we avoid this decision by obsessing over the path decision. "Let me just make sure I'm choosing right, then I'll commit." But this is backwards. The commitment decision enables the path choice. You need to decide to commit first, then choosing the path is much easier.

The order matters:

  1. Decide to commit fully to something
  2. Choose which thing (within reason)
  3. Execute with full commitment

We typically do:

  1. Agonize over which thing
  2. Choose tentatively
  3. Keep evaluating whether it was right choice
  4. Commit partially while keeping options open
  5. Wonder why it's not working

The Closing Doors Decision

Choosing something means not choosing other things. This is painful. Every choice is also a loss. You're closing doors.

We try to avoid this by keeping options open. "I'll take Job X but keep networking and interviewing." "I'll date this person but keep my dating apps active." "I'll start this project but also explore other ideas."

This feels safer but produces worse outcomes. The hedged commitment reduces your chances of success in the chosen path. Which produces dissatisfaction. Which makes you wonder if you chose wrong. Which reinforces the hedging.

The better approach: Choose, close the other doors, commit fully. Yes, you're giving up alternatives. That's what choice means. But full commitment to one path produces better outcomes than hedged commitment to multiple paths.

Paradoxically: Closing doors creates more opportunity. Full commitment to Job X creates opportunities within that path that never emerge with hedged commitment. Depth beats breadth.

How to Actually Decide

If most decisions don't have right answers, how should we approach them?

Satisfice on the Decision

"Satisficing": Choose an option that's good enough, rather than trying to find the optimal option. Coined by Herbert Simon.

For most major life decisions: Identify the range of viable options. Pick one that's good enough. Stop deliberating. The decision point doesn't deserve more energy than this.

Good enough means:

  • Meets your key criteria
  • No major red flags
  • Within your viable range
  • Not obviously worse than alternatives

It doesn't mean:

  • Optimal across all factors
  • Best possible option
  • Better than all alternatives
  • Perfect fit

If multiple options are good enough: Just choose one. Flip a coin if necessary. The choosing matters more than which you choose.

Your analysis energy is finite. Spending months optimizing the decision leaves less energy for execution. This is misallocation. Better to spend days on decision, years on commitment.

Commit Fully

Once you've chosen: Burn the ships. Close the doors. Full commitment.

This means:

  • Stop evaluating whether it was the right choice
  • Stop comparing to alternatives you didn't choose
  • Invest completely in making this path work
  • Long time horizon (measure in years)
  • Stay through difficulty

This feels risky. What if it's the wrong choice? But hedged commitment is higher risk—it almost guarantees mediocre outcomes. Full commitment to good-enough choice produces better results than hedged commitment to optimal choice.

The time to evaluate: Not constantly. Set explicit checkpoints. "I'll commit fully for two years, then reassess." Not "I'll constantly check if this is working and bail if it doesn't seem perfect."

Optimize Through Execution

Your optimization energy should go into execution, not decision. How to make this path better. How to create value. How to find interesting problems. How to build relationships.

This produces actual results. Better outcomes from chosen path. More learning. More growth. More opportunity.

Optimizing the decision: Produces nothing except delay and anxiety. You're not creating value. Not learning. Not growing. Just deliberating.

The action is in execution, not selection. Focus your optimization energy there.

Accept Regret Risk

Any commitment risks regret. You'll close doors. You'll wonder about roads not taken. You'll face difficulty and question your choice. This is inherent to commitment, not evidence you chose wrong.

The alternative isn't regret-free. It's multiple low-grade regrets from never fully committing to anything. "I wonder what would have happened if I'd really given X a shot." That regret is worse.

Better: Fully commit, face the sharp regret if it doesn't work ("I committed and failed") than never commit and face the chronic regret of wondering what could have been.

Sharp regret is information. You tried fully, it didn't work, now you know. Chronic wondering is torture without information.

The Tuesday Truth

Here's what we get wrong about decisions:

The "right decision" is mostly myth. Most major decisions don't have objectively correct answers waiting to be discovered. They have multiple viable options that become good or bad based on your actions afterward.

We torture ourselves optimizing the decision but give up easily on the follow-through. Months choosing a path. Minimal commitment to making it work. This is backwards. The decision deserves days. The commitment deserves years.

Regret compares dishonestly. You compare your half-committed present to an imagined fully-committed alternative. But you probably wouldn't have fully committed to the alternative either. The problem isn't the choice—it's the hedged commitment.

Analysis paralysis isn't about information. It's about avoiding the scarier decision: committing fully to a path. The research is procrastination from commitment.

Commitment determines outcomes more than choice. Same option with full commitment: success. Same option with hedged commitment: frustration. The commitment matters more than the selection.

Keeping options open feels safe but produces worse outcomes. Hedged commitment reduces your chances of success in any path. Full commitment to good-enough choice beats hedged commitment to optimal choice.

Here's what to actually do:

Satisfice on decisions. Identify viable options. Choose one that's good enough. Stop deliberating. Don't try to find the optimal answer—there usually isn't one.

Commit fully. Burn the ships. Close the other doors. Full investment. Long time horizon. This is where your effort should go, not into the decision.

Stop evaluating whether it was right. The constant evaluation prevents full commitment. You chose, now make it work. Set explicit checkpoints for reassessment (years, not months).

Optimize through execution, not selection. Your optimization energy should improve your chosen path, not second-guess the choice. How to create value here. How to find opportunity here. How to make this better.

Accept regret risk. Any commitment risks regret. That's inherent to commitment, not evidence you chose wrong. Sharp regret from full commitment beats chronic regret from hedging.

Close doors consciously. Every choice means not choosing alternatives. This is painful but necessary. Closing doors creates depth. Full commitment to one path creates opportunities that hedged commitment never sees.

Understand: the choice is the beginning, not the endpoint. You're not selecting a predetermined outcome. You're selecting a starting point for co-evolution. Where you end up depends on your engagement, not the initial coordinates.

The uncomfortable truth: Most of your decision anxiety is wasted. Not because the decisions are unimportant—they matter. But because the outcome depends more on what you do after choosing than which option you select.

You're agonizing over the wrong variable. The crucial decision isn't which path. It's: will you commit fully? Will you burn the ships? Will you invest completely? Will you persist through difficulty?

That's the decision that determines outcomes. Not Job X versus Job Y. Not City A versus City B. Not Project 1 versus Project 2. The commitment decision, not the path decision.

Most people make this backwards. Agonize over the path. Choose tentatively. Commit weakly. Keep evaluating. Keep options open. Then wonder why things aren't working.

The better approach: Decide to commit first. Choose a viable path quickly. Execute with full commitment. Optimize through iteration. Accept regret risk.

This produces better outcomes not because you chose optimally, but because full commitment to good-enough choice beats hedged commitment to optimal choice. Every time.

And on this Tuesday morning, as we enter December, that's worth remembering: The decision matters far less than the commitment. Stop agonizing over which path. Start committing to a path. That's the real decision.

Make the commitment. The path will take care of itself.

The right decision myth: We obsess over making right decision—researching endlessly, weighing pros and cons, seeking advice. But most decisions don't have "right" answer waiting to be discovered. They have multiple viable paths that become right or wrong based on what you do after choosing. Decision matters far less than commitment. Yet we torture ourselves over choice and give up easily on follow-through. Thesis: "Right decision" mostly myth we use to avoid harder work of commitment. Most important decisions don't have objectively correct answers waiting to be discovered. They have multiple viable options that become good or bad based on your actions afterward. We torture ourselves optimizing decision but give up easily on follow-through. This is backwards. Decision matters far less than commitment to making it work. Myth of optimal choices: For most major life decisions—career paths, relationships, cities, creative projects—multiple options lead to equally good or bad outcomes. Not because choices are identical, but because outcome depends more on execution than selection. Job didn't determine outcome, commitment did. Optimal choice is fiction—there are ranges of viable choices, within that range commitment and execution matter far more than initial selection. Regret tells lies: We tell ourselves we made wrong choice, but we're imagining counterfactual where we made other choice AND committed fully. If not committed to current choice, probably wouldn't have been committed to alternative either. Regret compares half-committed present reality to fully-committed imagined alternative—this is dishonest. Real regret: not that you chose wrong, but that you didn't commit to choice. Analysis paralysis isn't about information: not lacking information, you're avoiding commitment. Extended analysis serves psychological function—delays commitment. Research becomes ritual making you feel productive while avoiding real task: committing to answer and making it right through actions. Why we overrate decision: feels controllable (can research, make spreadsheets, seek advice) while commitment phase feels uncontrollable (depends on sustained effort, luck, other people). Provides an out (if keep all options open haven't failed, once commit failure becomes possible, keeping options open is psychological insurance but premium is never fully committing). Defers responsibility (outcome determined at decision point rather than by subsequent commitment level). What actually determines outcomes: Commitment level (full commitment: burning ships, deep investment, long time horizon, resilience through difficulty, active optimization; half commitment: keeping options open, shallow investment, short time horizon, quick exit when difficult). Quality of execution (average option plus excellent execution beats excellent option plus average execution). Adaptation and iteration (paths change through engagement, this is co-creation, you're not selecting predetermined outcome but starting point for co-evolution). Real decision: crucial decision isn't which path but am I willing to commit fully to a path. This is scarier than choosing between options. Commitment decision enables path choice. Need to decide to commit first, then choosing path much easier. Choosing something means not choosing other things—every choice is loss, closing doors. Hedged commitment reduces chances of success. Full commitment to one path produces better outcomes. Closing doors creates more opportunity—full commitment creates opportunities within path that never emerge with hedged commitment. How to actually decide: Satisfice on decision (choose option that's good enough rather than optimal, identify viable options pick one that's good enough stop deliberating). Commit fully (burn ships, close doors, full commitment means stop evaluating whether right choice, invest completely, long time horizon, stay through difficulty). Optimize through execution not selection (optimization energy should go into making chosen path better not decision). Accept regret risk (any commitment risks regret, sharp regret from full commitment beats chronic regret from hedging). Most decision anxiety is wasted—outcome depends more on what you do after choosing than which option you select. Crucial decision isn't which path, it's will you commit fully. Commitment decision determines outcomes not path decision. Better approach: decide to commit first, choose viable path quickly, execute with full commitment, optimize through iteration, accept regret risk. Full commitment to good-enough choice beats hedged commitment to optimal choice. Decision matters far less than commitment—stop agonizing over which path, start committing to path.

Today's Sketch

Dec 2, 2025