The goal is to know your truth about each of them. You may want to become a parent and decide not to for a variety of reasons. Deciding to have kids may not have been your first choice, but you decide conscientiously to become a parent for other reasons and not from a resentful place.
The most efficient way to make a decision is to actually put that decision-making pressure aside temporarily and focus only on your desire. What if there is a place where there is no right or wrong, good or bad answer? Sound nice? I believe one needs to have their own private, uncensored process in that kind of environment to find out what they want.
I have had the great honor of providing that environment. And I want to help you create that environment for yourself. But there are ways to get unstuck and move forward,.
Begin with deciding to take a designated break one to three months from any discussion about the topic with your partner. No more thinking one way or the other. Stop trying to figure this out by making a pros and cons list.
It will keep you stuck. Write a few sentences on each one describing the sensation of how good it felt to have made them. Create separation between desire and decision by putting the decision to the sidelines until clarity of your desire is known. They may even simply have become more anxious and regretful about the opportunity costs of acquiring the information, in the form of the foregone benefits from other activities in which they could have engaged.
According to themselves and us, absolutely, since they have consulted a transparent set of option performance ratings on relevant criteria, originating from a source that they have decided is the most trustworthy. They have combined these with their criterion importance weights. The growing number of condition-specific decision quality instruments being developed, notably by Karen Sepucha and colleagues, all give very heavy weight to a knowledge subcomponent. Trust is crucial here. In either shared or unshared decision making, trust relates to the inputs into decision making, since we have left behind the notion of an agency relationship, previously dominant in conceptualising medical practice.
Trust is always a matter of degree, rather than a binary all or nothing, whether it relates to the BEANs provided by the clinician, or by a decision support tool. Furthermore, it is always the relative trustworthiness of the sources that matters. Even if there is only one, dubious, source, it will be the most trustworthy. They would expect a clinician, or a team developing the ratings for a decision aid, to be highly trustworthy and to be provided with evidence for this, especially in the case of an aid.
With this meta-information, they can make an informed choice about which tins of what size to open. The other major problem with any imposed information requirement is that it condemns many on the continuum of health literacy, and especially health numeracy, to receiving little or no help.
We fully support attempts to reduce health illiteracy and innumeracy, especially their decision-focused forms. However, it is too much to expect of a decision support tool — or a clinician — to overcome the limitations of previous education and socialization in these respects.
This is not to say that a decision aid should not contain help in this respect, including guidance on how the person can best avail themselves of what it offers, and information on the bases of that offering. It is to suggest that much of this should be provided on an opt-in basis. Nothing in what we have said is intended to imply that the community is not entitled to apply community-level criteria and weights to what it provides, or allows to be provided, to whom, under what conditions, and at what cost, in the pursuit of goals such as efficiency, equity and justice.
But that is life as lived in society. Viewed 3k times. In 'Mission Impossible' movies a recurring phrase is Which of the below alternatives best catches the true meaning of the sentence? Who can shed a light on this? Improve this question. Sep Roland Sep Roland 3 3 silver badges 9 9 bronze badges. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. Improve this answer. A coworker suggested I talk to her money guy. This new guy was quick, efficient, professional.
He did not sit at his desk with a jar of mini-Snickers, methodically popping them into his mouth as I tried to remember how much I spent on a laser printer last year. My instinct was to say: "Great! Let's go! New guy does our money! And insurance! Problem solved. As I sat in the waiting room, I thought of a game note to reader: We will never, ever tell Lawrence that we play this game.
I asked myself the question "What would Lawrence do? Instead of dumping the old guy and signing up the new one, Lawrence would put all kind of annoying obstacles in the new guy's path. Like calling him three days later and asking for his references. Like going in and asking him a lot of questions about tax codes.
Like grilling his receptionist, quietly, about her boss "Does he pay his own bills? Did he treat you with respect? Does he bring his own self-sufficient, thrifty lunch? I did these things -- simply to slow down the process and not be myself. Which is when I realized I was ready to decide on the new guy. Yes, my way of slowing down was to gather information. But you could do anything to impede the process: sleep on it for three nights, talk to a money-savvy friend, interview another candidate, read a book on investing.
You'd get the same benefit—time to discover and understand issues that you wouldn't have otherwise considered. If what keeps you going so fast is the fear of doing nothing, then slowing down is perfect. You're still doing something, just something called "not deciding You will just be going a bit slower. In other words, less fast—and that much closer to just right.
0コメント