What makes one option seem better than another?

You prefer A to B. You decide something is good enough. You think one risk is worth taking and another isn't. You choose to act — or wait. These are judgments. And judgment is comparative. • Better than what? • Good enough for what? • According to whom? • Measured how? Behind even a simple judgment there is some basis for comparison. NMF asks us to look at it.

Better relative to what?

Imagine someone scores 82%. Is that good? Perhaps. If 82% puts them near the top of everyone who took the test, it may look excellent. But compare them only with the top 20% and they may now be near the bottom. The score hasn't changed. The comparison has. The same thing happens when we describe something as: good | bad | fast | slow | expensive | safe | successful | acceptable | better. These judgments need a perspective. So when someone says: ‘This is better’, an NMF question is: Better relative to what?

What unit? What ruler?

A judgment depends partly on how you choose to represent what you're comparing. How safe? How successful? How much better? Over what period? For whom? Compared with what alternative? The ruler matters. Change the unit and you may change the judgment. A decision that looks better over the next five minutes may look worse over the next five years. Something good for me may be worse for us. Something good for us now may be worse for us tomorrow. So ask: What unit? What ruler? What period of time? Not because there is always one correct ruler. Because knowing the ruler helps us understand the judgment.

You need difference to choose

If A and B are represented as completely identical, there is nothing between them on which to base a preference. Choice becomes possible when the receiver perceives some consequential difference. Perhaps A is cheaper. B is faster. A feels safer. B offers greater potential reward. Or perhaps the difference is simply: I prefer B. That is still a difference in the receiver's representation. But the differences we perceive depend partly on our resolution. Another receiver may see a distinction we don't. And a difference that matters enormously to one receiver may matter very little to another. So before: Which is better? there may be another useful question: What differences am I actually comparing?

Elimination is judgment too

We don't always compare every possible option all the way to the end. That would consume enormous resources. Instead, we eliminate. Too expensive. Too dangerous. Too slow. Not available. Doesn't meet the minimum requirement. Not worth another look. Each elimination simplifies what remains. And each is itself a judgment. Sometimes expertise allows us to eliminate possibilities quickly and efficiently. Sometimes we eliminate the very option that hindsight later shows would have been better. We don't get hindsight in advance. We judge with what is available now.

Good enough

Eventually, continuing to investigate has a cost. More information might improve the judgment. But obtaining it requires more time, attention, effort or money. At some point, the receiver may decide: I have enough. Not certainty. Not perfection. Enough to proceed. That threshold will depend on the consequence. Choosing what to have for lunch may require very little. Making a decision involving someone's life may require considerably more. GOOD ENOUGH isn't an inherent property of the option. It is a judgment relative to the purpose, threshold, circumstances, available information and resources of the receiver. And those can change.

Confidence isn't certainty

You can never know every consequence of a choice before making it. So commitment does not require certainty. You may simply reach the point where your confidence is sufficient for this decision. Enough to act. Enough to reject. Or enough to decide that you are not yet ready to decide between the available alternatives. That last option matters. Waiting isn't necessarily sitting on the fence. WAIT can be a deliberate choice. Perhaps more information is coming. Perhaps circumstances may change. Perhaps the cost of waiting is currently lower than the cost of committing. But waiting also has consequences. Resources continue to be used. Opportunities may disappear. Circumstances may change without you. So WAIT deserves judgment too.

A, B or WAIT

Eventually: Choose A. Choose B. Or choose WAIT. But choose honestly. Deliberately. To the best of your current ability, given your current representation of the situation and the circumstances you're actually in. Then: Commit to the choice. That doesn't mean pretending you're right. “Right” may be a judgment that only hindsight makes possible. It means: Given what I currently know, this is my better. You may subsequently discover that you were mistaken. That's not a reason to avoid choosing. It's a reason to remain open to learning.

A good decision can have a bad outcome

You make what appears to be an excellent judgment. Then something unexpected happens. Bad outcome. Or you make a terrible judgment and get lucky. Good outcome. The outcome gives you new information, but it doesn't automatically tell you the quality of the original decision. You made that decision then, with what was available then. Hindsight judges from a different position. So when looking back, ask more than: Did it work? Also ask: Given what was reasonably available to me at the time, was that a defensible judgment? And then: What do I know now that I didn't know then? That's where judgment begins to become learning.

Your better

NMF doesn't supply the ruler. It doesn't tell you that A is better than B. It doesn't define ‘good’ for you. Other receivers can contribute information, challenge your assumptions, reveal differences you hadn't noticed and offer different rulers. A team may even develop a shared idea of our better. But ultimately, when the vote is yours: You decide what better means. That doesn't make every judgment equally good. Your judgment can be poorly informed, inconsistent, careless or based on a ruler you later reject. It means something smaller: Make the best judgment you currently can — and remain open to revising it when something new becomes available.

Could we get better at judging?

Perhaps. Not by guaranteeing better outcomes. We can't. But perhaps by becoming a little better at seeing what we're actually doing when we judge. What options did I see? What did I eliminate? What differences mattered? What didn't I notice. What threshold did I use? How confident was enough? What unit? What ruler? What period of time? Then: A, B or WAIT. Choose honestly. Commit. See what happens. Learn. And when something new becomes available, judge again.