Yesterday at my Brooklyn Brainery class on decisionmaking, the discussion got to the point where people were asking about optimization. The question here is primarily: "given that when making a decisions, too short of a time perspective is meaningless (caring only about petty things), and too long of one is equally meaningless (caring only about 300 years in the future), is there some optimal time perspective (or shifting of time perspective) that will lead to the best decisions? What heuristics do people use?"


I essentially answered "there are none." I later got to thinking that this isn't entirely true. 

The temptation to answer that way comes from the too-simple and too-common perspective that every decision is the best decision. That is to say, no decision is better than any other.

That is to say, deciding to sit on the couch all day is just as much as "right" decision as deciding to go out and change someone's life.

I think when it comes to thinking about value, and what experiences are valuable, the "every decision is right" approach is plainly absurd.

The right heuristic might be: if it's something you don't want to do because it makes you uncomfortable, it's definitely the better decision. 

(There's actually a lot deeper thinking available on the matter, that makes the above look like the perspective of a 3rd grader: What Is Wei Dai's Updateless Decision Theory?)