4 Comments
Dec 12, 2021Liked by Abhishek Chakraborty

In keeping with the Stoic tradition, I wish you strength and wisdom in this challenging time, Abhishek.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks so much for your kind words, appreciate it. 🙏

Expand full comment
May 9, 2022·edited May 9, 2022Liked by Abhishek Chakraborty

Have read a number of your articles and have really admired your work, was really looking forward to reading this one, given the title. But would admit that this one was a bit disappointing.

While I agree that being too much logical in personal life isn't right, I don't think you have captured the correct reasons for it. I also disagree with the statement 'Logic helps in defending decisions but not making them'.

In fact, when you decided to focus on garden while purchasing house or on sense-of-humour while getting married, you just changed the variables on which you need to base your decision, but still decided logically :)

My take on this topic is that we tend to overrate our ability to arrive at a logical decision when the number of variables are infinite. Buying a house and getting married are extremely complicated decisions, with too many variables to start with, and most of the variables changing over time, while we still retrospecting on the quality of the decision years later. For such decisions, it is difficult to be right in the first place given the number of variable, and then we can always be right when we make it but as we evolve or people around us evolve, these decisions may look silly.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for your comment, Ashish. Somehow I didn’t see it earlier, hence the late reply.

=> “I also disagree with the statement ‘Logic helps in defending decisions but not making them.’”

When we make decisions, we usually start with a hypothesis and then try to justify it with logic (a series of logically verifiable/falsifiable tests that we can use to convince us and others that this is a good decision). This is a good decision because of so an so reasons, we say.

If it fails against counterpoints, we move on to a second hypothesis and follow the same process. We rarely start with the reasons first.

This is not only how you or I function, this is also how science is done — starting with a hypothesis and then proving or disproving it with a series of experiments.

=> “In fact, when you decided to focus on garden while purchasing house or on sense-of-humour while getting married, you just changed the variables on which you need to base your decision, but still decided logically :)”

By logic, I don’t necessarily mean a formula or an algorithm. Logic is the rationale behind choosing the variable itself. For example, when someone says, they want a big state-of-the-art house, they have good reasons to defend that and most people would agree with that. But it’s hard to defend it when I say that I want an apartment in a society that is built for walking. It’s an eccentric choice and would easily break down in front of counter points.

It’s similar to IKEA’s founder’s hellbent focus on making experience “less convenient” for users. It might make sense in hindsight (owing to IKEA’s success) but it’s absolutely impossible to defend in foresight — simply because it’s an antithesis to common sense.

Expand full comment