Overthinking

Sunday night, I sent an email to HR and to New Boss saying that -- given how the job is shaping up -- I'm not the right guy for it.

Monday, HR called to talk to me. First, they weren't sure what I meant. Then when I explained, they said the job was still mine for the asking in case I should change my mind.

Tuesday (today), I talked to New Boss. First, he wasn't sure what I meant. (Am I that bad at writing a simple email?) Then when I explained, he said the job was still mine for the asking in case I should change my mind. More exactly, he said, "My intent was never to say I don't want you here." And yes, he did leave the door open in case I were to change my mind. I said I understand, and than you. (But no.)

But of course I can't help wondering if I'm making the right choice. I look at the table I made over the weekend, and I wonder if there are simple conceptual errors I'm falling into. Is it magical thinking to want to stay near my mom because she's old and something might happen to her even though she appears to be in good health? Or is it common sense that anyone over the age of eighty is likely to be fragile, and that in any event she might get lonely from time to time ... like she actually said she does? Is it awfulizing to fear that I'll die in a blizzard, or that the business unit will go broke and I'll be turned loose with no similar jobs anywhere in the area? Or is it normal prudence not to rush into a situation where there are serious potential risks unless there is also a powerful countervailing inducement? And how high do I have to rank the inducement of keeping my paycheck, compared with the likelihood of (a) things turning bad in Sticksville or conversely (b) finding another job nearer to home?

Then this afternoon I thought of another possible error, the one characterized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb when he wrote:

 “If you have more than one reason to do something (choose a doctor or veterinarian, hire a gardener or an employee, marry a person, go on a trip), just don’t do it. It does not mean that one reason is better than two, just that by invoking more than one reason you are trying to convince yourself to do something. Obvious decisions (robust to error) require no more than a single reason.”

― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder 

What about my table? Don't I have multiple reasons for both sides? Does this mean I'm screwed either way I turn?

Not really. In the first place, note that he talks about a reason "to do something," and remember that Taleb prioritizes inaction over action ("via negativa") as less likely to produce bad results. So if the question is, "Should I move?" then the time to worry is if I start telling myself "Sure, because I'll keep my job and also lose weight and also meet new people and also ...." In the second place, the multiple reasons are window dressing. All this time, the real decision has boiled down to a binary choice with one reason on each side:

• Move to Sticksville: Because that way you can keep your job.
• Don't move to Sticksville: Because I really don't want to.

As I say, all the rest is decoration, or else it is trying to predict the future -- to elicit some sense of what lies down each road in turn so that I can see if it changes how I feel. So far it really hasn't.

Maybe that's what a decision looks like.