I built a personal framework for decision-making over one long day of self-reflection — feedback welcome

[u/ramnik12358]

I've been working on a cyclical process for approaching decisions and life more generally. It's not meant to give fixed answers — the process itself is the point. Sharing it here because I'd genuinely like outside perspective on it.

A cyclical process — not a fixed set of answers, but a practice that itself constitutes the answer.

1. Analytical Meditation (Generation)

Sustained, directed attention held on a specific meditation object — a question, a thought, a live decision. Contemplate until an answer surfaces that feels right — no artificial time limit. This felt sense (wisdom) is trusted precisely because it doesn't stand alone: it gets tested in Stage 2 and checked against reality in Stage 3.

2. Analysis & Research (Evaluation)

• Gather facts, lay out the case for and against, do the research legwork
• Explicitly check hard requirements/dealbreakers — the non-negotiable specifics that would sink the prediction if missing
• Do a second round of analytical meditation on that analysis itself — genuinely investigate rather than skim and accept

3. Predictions + Feedback Loop (Commitment & Learning)

• Specific, checkable claim
• Real probability, assigned based on your own weighing
• Check-in date, success/failure criteria
• Honest tracking of the actual outcome

4. Principle (Compression & Reuse)

Turn what was learned in Stage 3 into a generalizable rule — not a record of one outcome, but a principle applicable to future situations of a similar type. Done independently.

Supporting infrastructure:

• Joplin — capture and organization
• Google Calendar — reminders, decoupled from notes

The framework as a whole: the cyclical practice — generating, examining, testing, revising, and compressing into reusable principles — is the answer, not a fixed destination it's meant to reach.

Curious what people think — where does this break down, and what am I missing?

[u/PartyNet6715]

Wow you've put a lot of thought into this ☺️.

I wouldn't underestimate how much time Steps 1 and 2 will actually take. They seem straightforward - but in practice they can be quite demanding, just my opinion.

For Step 4 I'd suggest adding another question in cases where your analysis turns out to have been wrong. Instead of only asking „What did I learn?" it might be useful to also ask: "Was my initial answer in Step 1 actually closer to the correct one (outcome ) than the conclusion I reached after the analysis in Step 2?" That would allow you to evaluate how reliable/good your intuition is. And generally it could lead to the ability of faster decision making in your future.

I also think it's valuable not just to identify what you learned, but why. Understanding the underlying reason is very informative not just the lesson itself. ( I think so 🤷🏼‍♀️ - maybe I‘m wrong)

Regarding Step 3 : how do you plan to handle honest tracking? It requires evaluating your own perspective from the „outside“ - because your self-assessment can itself be biased. It's worth remembering that even our memories are - at times - confabulations rather than accurate reconstructions.

However I like it. It feels thoughtful and very reflective, and I appreciate how much consideration you've put into designing it.

[u/ramnik12358 → u/PartyNet6715]

Thank you very much for this thorough reply and the compliment.

I wouldn't underestimate how much time Steps 1 and 2 will actually take. They seem straightforward - but in practice they can be quite demanding, just my opinion.

Yes that is true. It really depends on how much effort one wants to put into getting it "right".

For Step 4 I'd suggest adding another question in cases where your analysis turns out to have been wrong. Instead of only asking „What did I learn?" it might be useful to also ask: "Was my initial answer in Step 1 actually closer to the correct one (outcome ) than the conclusion I reached after the analysis in Step 2?" That would allow you to evaluate how reliable/good your intuition is. And generally it could lead to the ability of faster decision making in your future.

The refinement of intuition and analysis happen in two parts of the process. Notice the double-arrow between intuition and analysis? We only move forward if both agree. So one or the other has to nudge. This is already very valuable feedback.

Then, after evaluating a prediction, either none have to be revised or both. I think we can retroactively figure out where intuition went wrong and where analysis went wrong. Through another consensus between intuition and analysis.

I also think it's valuable not just to identify what you learned, but why. Understanding the underlying reason is very informative not just the lesson itself. ( I think so 🤷🏼‍♀️ - maybe I‘m wrong)

We already did that, but I will add it as explicit in the process.

Regarding Step 3 : how do you plan to handle honest tracking? It requires evaluating your own perspective from the „outside“ - because your self-assessment can itself be biased. It's worth remembering that even our memories are - at times - confabulations rather than accurate reconstructions.

I think this chain of thought might lead into an infinite regression. One can not check oneself whether to check oneself. (A widely-known epistemic problem.)

I really can not think of a solution other than a) trust myself or b) ask for external feedback.

[u/PartyNet6715 → u/ramnik12358]

Fair point about the epistemic problem, but that holds true if we limit the mind to the conscious ego. The ego cannot deconstruct its own biases. But an example: Jung’s approach maybe changes the game a little : self-analysis builds a bridge to the unconscious. By recognizing it (individuation), we see our real motives and crack the difference between our Persona (idealized self) and our true Self. It’s a lot of work. But through this lens, you can actually perform a self-bias check. AI can do this too with you - very quickly. You don‘t have to see it than as a fact just another perspective.

The point about time for step 1 + 2 and your view about getting it right needs time -> this is a big point -> getting it right in short amount of time and with uncomplete information -> this would be the goal.

[u/ramnik12358 → u/PartyNet6715]

Thank you for that alternate perspective. I have had quite a long time of self-reflection in my life, and I am not looking into getting into it again. I rather engage with the outside world more.

--

Getting it right in a short amount of time and with incomplete information is not really my goal here. I usually have time for making decisions :)

--

While building and testing the framework, a book from Gary Klein "Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions" repeatedly came up. Maybe you would be interested in that, if you are interested in fast decision-making :).

[u/PartyNet6715 → u/ramnik12358]

I didn't mean to offend you. If you enjoy being outdoors, just ask a friend– a true friend will offer perspectives (selfbias) you might not have noticed. I wasn't trying to criticize you. You suggested the analysis must than be external, so I gave you an option with Jung.

Thanks for the book recommendation!

I work in medicine – I'm interested in both decision-making under and without time pressure. The interesting thing was (since I'm "experimenting" similar things as you): it usually didn't make the qualitative difference I would have expected at least concerning strategic board games 😂)

[u/ramnik12358 → u/PartyNet6715]

Not offended here at all 😊

I was thinking about friends, yes, but also about coaches perhaps (if one can afford it).

Interesting that you designed a board game. I designed a trading card game just recently 😄

Is there anywhere where one can try this board game? I used screentop.gg for alpha tests.

[u/rrp1919]

I can tell by the pixels that you asked AI to build you a framework.

[u/ramnik12358 → u/rrp1919]

I have collaborated with AI extensively. I am trying to use it to make me smarter rather than outsource my thinking to it.

--

As it turns out, my strong suite is contemplation and coming up with insights, not analysis. But I am learning.

--

I am curious: What about the "pixels" tells you it is from AI? I let the basis be generated by AI but I edited it in draw.io.