"Why not A? A is usually the default for most people. The thing you're already doing. The path of least resistance. It doesn't need your help. What you need are alternatives. Then comes the second step, and this is where most people stop thinking too soon. Now, for each path, think through: First-order effects Second-order outcomes And third-order consequences And then, and this matters, choose the path with the most meaningful but least life-changing consequences."
"That's why I rely on the rule of 3 framework to make tough decisions. I hope it helps you clarify your life-changing choices. When you only have two options, your brain keeps going back and forth. Right vs wrong. Safe vs risky. Smart vs stupid. You stop being logical. There's a term for it: binary bias or black-and-white thinking. We do it all the time. Two choices feel better. But they are not. They're restrictive and create a lot of unnecessary pressure."
Decision paralysis often arises when choices feel huge and pros-and-cons lists produce busywork and mental loops. The rule of 3 requires creating three alternative paths labeled B, C, and D instead of defaulting to A. For each path, evaluate first-order effects, second-order outcomes, and third-order consequences. This deeper mapping surfaces downstream impacts that simple binary choices obscure. Prefer the option that produces meaningful benefits while minimizing life-disrupting consequences. Limiting the decision set to two options fosters binary bias and back-and-forth thinking, so constructing multiple alternatives reduces unnecessary pressure and clarifies trade-offs.
Read at Fast Company
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]