True, Individuals can exercise poor Judgment when surrounded by wrong People or — alternative Options, maybe flat Foolish
Originally published by Illumination Curated on Medium
From the start of modern civilization, so has the notion of governance being the ultimate decision-maker for most personal affairs. That is merely the upshot of the general concept that a layperson can hardly make decisions presented as intricate.
Today, dependence on government or some form of organization at a smaller scale is an accepted norm and has become the only option in most parts of the world. The average citizen has become accustomed to the rule of bureaucracy they feel is the only option, under the impression that laypersons typically make inappropriate decisions.
Decision-Making Processes of any Individual is invaluable even in Social Contexts.
The prevailing theory is that social influence meddles people’s beliefs about the sort of situation they are in, shaping their behavior. But the final decision comes still from the individual.
Individual decisions are limited in their impact on their immediate domain. That makes many others less vulnerable to their wrong choices.
When individuals make decisions, they are inevitably choosing between taking one class of action over another. The opportunity cost of an action plan, in other words, is the value of the alternative that the individual chose not to take, and that by itself is limitless. The more options an individual has, the more resourceful that person is. Hence, the opportunity is invaluable even though one can’t trade it in dollars and cents. More options and choices are liberating to every soul.
Limited Choice for Individuals puts others at risk who choose to agree with them.
Everyone is different! Their circumstances vary, and so do their preference and level of comfort. Thus, their degree of decisions on a comparable topic will fall in the spectrum of excellent and disastrous. That doesn’t dismiss the fact that a person can make the wrong decision. Still, at the very least, in an actual autonomous scenario, the same person will have limitless options to select from and potentially endless choices to reach out to others and learn and compare those options before making the final commitment. One cannot elaborate the same concerning an individual who follows (be it voluntarily or involuntarily) the decision dictated on their behalf by another person, persons, or governing entity. Then again, decisions made collectively on behalf of an individual may benefit 99.99% of the constituents. Yet still, the risk associated with such a decision on the minority is tyranny and irresponsible. It becomes even more damaging when the process of decision-making by an individual is meddled by social factors. For example, celebrity influence, rhetoric, and peer pressure — merely envisaging one to take one out of five available action plans only because that individual’s favorite idol is doing the same unintelligent.
I would call that indirect “Dictatorship”!
The Governing body of an injunction amplifies the effect of every Decision.
In contrast to individual decision-making autonomy, any governing body of a decision other than oneself amplifies the effect of every decision they make through the collective reflection of the masses. They do so through imposing more rules (either good or bad) typically advocated by those with influence in that society and the loudest voice across the populace. And, when the decision-makers are wooden-headed, or frenzied, putz, or simply dishonest, they get to outspread the destruction they do far and wide.
For instance, history is full of governments making bad decisions with disastrous consequences, like the “19th-century dust bowl” when the United States government extended on the 160 acres to inexpert settlers under the Homestead Act by granting 640 acres of the Great plains to homesteaders in western Nebraska under the Kinkaid Act (1904). The government added another 320 acres elsewhere in the Great Plains under the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909; even when a clear indication of default, groups of intelligent, experienced individuals continue to make poor and ill-informed decisions.
“We as the unconditional constituency of virtue beget no option but to devotedly strive to instruct ourselves to meddle our inner instincts, only to find ourselves amid distraction by those in the mainstream of our culture.”
Some believe the solution brings in cognitive diversity (or diversity of thought) in the governing bodies hoping that they can develop the best decisions for the community. However, even if they find the right people to bring in (which is only hypothetical), it still monopolizes choices.
Those scholars believe cognitive diversity can come from various sources, including demographic factors, such as gender, ethnicity, age, or ability to contribute specific expertise, industry knowledge, or experience. Cognitive diversity can also come from variations in social framework and norms. And these factors shape the way people see and understand situations and the mental frameworks they use to make decisions and solve problems. The proponents of diversification of decision-making authority uphold the notion that diversity permits individuals to make diverse contributions to the problem or situation at hand. Yet again, there is a catch to the mention of the phrase last. If respecting diversity is the virtue of a better decision, why limit discriminating profiles such as race, ethnicity, and demography. The increase in decision options based on the shape an individual relates to is a hindering factor to the ultimately personalized solution. Diversification based on particular factors may seem a better choice than a cookie-cutter decision for the entire population of people. But it is still riddled with limitless bad choices depending on which faction is in power the most.
”The tyrants of the modern age legitimize curbing options to their citizens by virtue — that most people lack educated selection hold. However, to the irony of all — the very same personages too ‘curb’ the means of a balanced education and exercising inborn personal knowledge.”
Do Individuals honestly exercise poor Judgment?
Individuals may only make poor decisions if they are not promptly given all the facts in straightforward layman terms; for simplification and ultimately making the right decision, the problem will have to be definable and solution options patently identified. One finally needs to select the most effective yet most straightforward solution defined in layperson terms, whether through accessible modest strategy and coordination. Correctly applying an unbiased and coordinated method would ultimately require transparency, accountability, and a corrective action plan that aids as the precondition to curtail regulations and avoid bureaucracy and monopoly. If one fails to simplify the solution description, then that option is deemed obstructive. The simplification of the delivery model entails embarking upon the complexity at its root by confirming the solution conveyor’s thought tasks, not by the end-users. In contrast, authority amplifies every decision’s effect, renders it complex, limits the options, and, as mentioned before, exaggerates those rules. Furthermore, when those decision-makers are corrupt, they get to spread the damage even further.
Unfortunately, the complexity of human life is the reflection of social sentiment towards existence. It is the upshot of individuals lasting effort towards excellence, which is more brutal to such distinctions. Hence, it is more about the vicious circle of projecting our unbounded inner wants and how resolute we are to mollify such desires.
The intricacy of a task is not unavoidably aimed at its native entwined human nature. But it is due to the scarcity of pragmatic strategy and how we decide to pass it along as a society. Only then, we grasp that we have made it even more intricate by letting others decide on our behalf — the kind of decision-based on limited, potentially biased, and probably crooked manner.
”The option is not merely about openhandedness or wasteful habits. It is the epitome of the one self’s opportunity to elect whatever desires while sanctifying others to do the same”