John at Toilet Paper With Page Numbers, one of the most underappreciated blogs around, has an excellent post about the importance of just making a bloody decision already, rather than continuing to do research ad infinitum until one is confident that enough information has been gathered. Like, in general. John quotes from a variety of folks who are better-read than I, and who are consequently able to make a stronger case for decision-making than the typical clenched-toothed, raised-voiced demand to MAKE UP YOUR GODDAMN MINDS AND ACT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD to which I have been known to resort on more than one occasion. I’m going to quote at length, because there’s a lot of good stuff here.”Here we go: John, going straight for the jugular, starts out by proclaiming that “[l]eadership counts. Even in the absence of total access to information.” (John, are you sure about that? Have you put enough thought into this that you can confidently – oh, nevermind.) He then continues,” If omniscience were possible, human organizations still could not attain the requisite efficiency to use the information effectively for good or ill. In any human organization, information is passed through layers of management and across functional silos. Each silo and each layer has its own preconceptions and ambitions.”This last bit is key. There’s a misconception that I’ve, um, encountered purely hypothetically, that holds that as long as everyone is communicating clearly, and as long as everyone has complete information, then everyone will agree. This is true in math – and it’s part of why I love the subject – but it’s not true elsewhere. People aren’t blank slates. We all come with our own data and filters.”John then quotes from a book review by Photon Courier, who writes favourably on Dietrich Doerner’s The Logic of Failure:” One very interesting angle explored by Doerner is the danger, in decision-making tasks, of knowing too much – of becoming lost in detail and of always needing one more piece of information before coming to a decision. He posits that this problem “probably explains why organizations tend to institutionalize the separation of their information-gathering and decision-making branchs” – as in the development of staff organizations in the military.”It also explains why individuals tend to self-segregate along these lines, and why the sets of intellectuals and effective leaders are virtually disjoint.”Photon Courier also mentions a study that aptly illustrates the law of diminishing returns as it applies to information gathering and decision-making:” In a study done many lears ago, a researcher asked psychologists to evaluate a particular individual (Joseph Kidd) based on writen information. In the first stage of the experiment, he gave them just basic information about Kidd. In later stages, he gave them more and more information about this same person

A pretty comprehensive list of conversational cheap shots, and more conversational cheap shots. I can’t think of a way to elaborate on these without sounding either a) passive-aggressive, b) arrogant, c) self-deprecating, or d) some combination of above, so I won’t try.”Okay, maybe a bit – some of these, such as the “Knee Jerk”:” “I would like to answer your question directly, but considering your past reactions / ability to cope with the truth / emotional instability, I feel that to do so would be a disservice to you at this time.” [Other person gets (justifiably) upset.] “See, what did I tell you. You are flying off the handle already!”"might be perfectly understandable, if not terribly sensitive or productive, responses to other tactics, such as the “Pretend Ad Hominem”:” make it seem as if the other person is attacking you rather than making a simple point or correction, especially if you suspect that the other party is correct. Rather than staying on the subject, begin to act hurt