Why can't some people choose...A or B or C or D or E

For as long as I can remember I've always just assumed that what I decide is the 'right' way to go. Oh certainly there have been BIG decisions that I have agonized over for a week or so, but typically no more than that. I get irritated when I can't make up my mind, and frequently turn to this blog to vent my uncertainty, and my frustrations with said ambivalence. But on the whole ask me for my opinion on something, virtually anything, and I'll give you a fairly quick answer.

For a large portion of my friends however this seems to be something of an impossible task. Asked whether to eat at one restaurant or another, it might takes them a dozen minutes to reach a choice. Me... 5 seconds, unless I'm trying to be diplomatic ie. let the ambivalent people have a voice (and invariably get annoyed that they can't make up their minds, or don't seem to want to, and make the choice anyway).

For a long time I've just assumed that for some reason people who don't like making choices don't like doing so because they are trying to appease those around them, and don't want to make the wrong choice. What made this line of reasoning worse for me, was that it was that apathetic approach which instead of appeasing irritated. I realize now it is nothing of the sort - ambivalence is a new psychological field and scientists have done some interesting work in working out some fairly straight-forward differences.

People who make choices quickly (me) feel a pressure to perform, to act. They don't know why - some say: oh because in the developmental stage when inaction resulted in a negative experience, action resulted in a positive, thus reinforcing quick action. I don't know if I buy that, it seems as if we place far to much emphasis on childhood developmental trauma. The inverse is true from those who cannot make a choice, or who feel the need to take things to a far greater level of understanding before choosing.

Now here is where the Human being gets wonderful. We are all proactive and reactive on different levels. The gods (and you dear reader) know that I agonize over certain decisions, typically emotional ones, whereas in terms of making a call when it comes to everyday life I call it at the drop of a hat. And I am sure that my friends who cannot make a call in social life, make them elsewhere... the bedroom perhaps? Or the kitchen. Or the computer game simulator.

And then you get the people who are balanced... don't you always? These fuckers are the ones who make the rest of look bad. Balance is apparently the goal of all humans, but I maintain, and will do so to my dieing breath, it is us, the Unbalanced, the bring life to the world. But I digress. The balanced are those who can take a moment or five, look at as much info as they can get, and then make a call based on fairly good reasoning.

I admire these people, although I have found that these people tend to be very circumspect, and very isolated. They don't seem to want others input. My guess (quick decision) would be that others opinions and answers are tainted or skewed. If so the balanced thinker is then unbalanced insofar as not wanting others thoughts in their heads. I am generalizing but well... generally I'm wrong in a right kind of way.

Is there a way to change how you think? Can the decision-makers learn to slow down, to think about things? Can the decision-avoiders learn to follow their gut more and make on the spot calls? Can the balanced-decisioners (new word) learn to trust others more?

I don't know. I often try to change myself. To see if I can, and to see if maybe I can become a better person. I have long tried, perhaps contritely, to be more amenable, to consider my decisions more, and to let others try to reach a decision before I give my own. I find it incredibly taxing. It is like having a blood-hound tied up next to a blood trail, and waiting for a cat to decide to follow the blood. I am sure that there are cats out there who hate the over-eager blood-hound who never seems to pause for a moment.

And when I have tried to force those who don't like to make decisions to make decisions I end up getting angry at their persistent refusal to do so. And the balanced guys are even worse as they finally reach a conclusion but don't explain their reasoning. They understand it, but bugger anyone else who's failed to apply the pro's and con's and reach the same goal.

Now flittering around the back of my mind is 'How do I make a call?' Where does my sense of imperative come from? Is it pure arrogance? Is it gut (lord knows I have enough of that) feeling? Is it a quick wit? To be honest, I think it is all of the above. Logically I can't see things very quickly, but I do get concepts, and assimilate information quickly. I like things to move forward to I can see the whole picture, but not to spend a long time looking at it. I feel there is a need for a decision. But why?

And what do the non-deciders feel? A desperate need to make sure all angles are thought of and covered before making a choice? But then a circle of indecision as all angles seem to demand a different answer? I think it boils down to two things:

1 - Self Defense

2 - Self Positioning

1 - Self Defense

Not what you might have been thinking, by self defense I mean, the acceptance of defending one's self decisions. If I choose A, I need to be able to, prepared to, and responsible for making that choice. I should have clear reasons for doing it, explainable reasons. I should be prepared to tell others why.

What prevents this from becoming a form of bully/arrogance is also being prepared to change one's choice, and not forcing it down others throats. I frequently have to admit that I'm wrong, but do I do with grace? Sadly I think not as often as I should. But I am open to alternatives provided they are equally well defended...

2 - Self Positioning

If one positions oneself within a group as a follower who provides useful services, but doesn't want to take charge of a situation, then, those who have positioned themselves in authority will take charge. And it will become very difficult for the roles to swap. Those in charge won't understand why those who previously submitted, now want to be in command, and similarly they won't want to relinquish control either (because they wanted to be in control in the first place).

So if you put yourself in the position of an acquiescent that is how others will treat you, which will entrench that position. Whereas if you place yourself as a decision-maker (I initially wrote Leader, and then deleted it because I felt decision-maker was less domineering and more accommodating... do I see decision-makers as leaders? And if so, does that mean that I covert leadership? If that is true, what makes being a leader so important? Why not be a follower? Where does that desire to be seen as 'in charge' come from? Is it that subconsciously I feel that I am not in charge and need to vilification of others to hide from it? And if that is true, why do I not feel like I am in charge? My decisions are my own. I run my life according to my choices... and yet perhaps those choices are more reactions and actions... wow. Blog part 2 methinks) you entrench that position.

I can imagine as we get old and inculcate those positions of dominance/submission we become more and more dominant/submissive. So the time to change is - as it always is - NOW.

What are you? In which spheres of life? Quick to decide? Or mired in a sea of indecision? Or balanced but isolated? And is it worth changing or should we just accept these states, acknowledge that the world needs all three types, and be happy that we're not those fucking arseholes who make all the decisions, or the wankers who sit and do fuck-all because well... they can't seem to make up their minds (how did they get dressed in the morning one wonders), or that we are not those cold calculating androids who have as much personality as used condom?