The Danger of the First Idea

The decision making process involves three separate steps for (1) developing a number of options, (2) evaluating each option for its effectiveness and efficiency, and (3) comparing options to determine a course of action.   But in reality, this seldom occurs.  Instead, the first plausible idea is seized upon and the process of implementation follows shortly thereafter.   This seems more efficient, or is often claimed to be by those who prefer to conceal they'd rather not put the required amount of effort into the decision-making task, but there is a very good reason that the process insists upon three steps.

The reason has to do with the psychological phenomenon of selective attention: when a person takes interest in something, everything else is ignored or dismissed.   This prevents distraction and helps to focus on an idea that has been selected to receive attention, by a process of disregarding anything but the one item on which a person (or group) is intent on focusing to ensure that it is seen through to completion.

While this is highly functional after a sound decision has been made, it can also be detrimental to the decision-making process.  Instead of considering all the various options that might achieve a desired outcome, the decision-maker focuses on the first plausible idea and fails to give adequate consideration to others, which may be more efficient or effective at accomplishing the goal.  In so doing he sets to work quickly on something that may not have the best probability of success, that may be less efficient in its use of resources, may cause collateral damage and unintended side-efffects, and may achieve only a short-term success.

In some instances, this is done unconsciously - but there are other instances in which it is done with deliberate intent: people become infatuated with the firs idea that comes to mind and wish to implement it without giving sufficient consideration to alternatives, and in so doing deliberately refuse to consider the other options that may be available.   Or, if they do consider them, it is only superficial: once the mind has latched onto a single plausible idea, its assessment of other options seems intent not on considering their merits, but on identifying flaws so that they my be quickly discarded in favor of the original plausible idea.

It is particularly interesting to recognize how curtly additional ideas are dismissed, as the same level of scrutiny was not applied to the first idea - as if the initial idea is self-evident and certain of success while any other suggestion must not merely seem better, but prove itself invulnerable to any imaginable contingency.  And still more curious is the inventiveness of the human mind when it comes to dismissing alternatives - a person who has fallen in love with n uncreative idea can be very creative when it comes to inventing reasons to reject any alternative proposal.

Logically, the first idea should be subject to the same level of analysis and scrutiny as any other idea - but this becomes difficult to do when those three steps are mashed into one: it is no longer a fair contest between two alternative courses of action, but a champion-challenger comparison in which the first idea, by simply virtue of having been thought of moments earlier, is presumed to be flawless whereas any challenger is presumed to be flawed.

Whether it is a genuine desire to be efficient, or merely a product of intellectual laziness, giving undue preference to the first idea is dangerous and this tendency should be recognized and mitigated.