frameworks / callard-on-deliberation · article
frameworks/ · 1,207 w · 5 min · ✎ dialogue

Callard on Deliberation: Why Personal Decisions Resist Reasoning

In "Don't Overthink It" (Boston Review, January 21, 2019), philosopher Agnes Callard reviews Steven Johnson's Farsighted: How We Make the Decisions that Matter the Most and uses the occasion to argue a counterintuitive thesis: personal decisions are, in a certain sense, more difficult than even the most complicated or consequential political decisions. The machinery of deliberative reasoning — cost-benefit analysis, red-teaming, scenario modeling, diverse input — that has made our collective decisions (military, medical, environmental) dramatically better over the last eighty years does not transfer cleanly to the intrapersonal case. The reason is not that personal decisions are less important, but that the deliberator does not yet know what she wants. This essay is a compact companion to her book callard-aspiration and, for the Deep Ambition project, it is the cleanest short statement of why the Treading Water reader cannot think her way out.

Johnson's thesis

Johnson's book is an optimistic history of decision science. Over the past eighty years, humans have learned to run randomized controlled trials, simulate environments, red-team adversarial plans, factor in long-term consequences, and calibrate uncertainty. These advances have produced better weather forecasts, better military raids (the bin Laden raid is his set-piece example), better medicine, better environmental policy. Johnson extrapolates: if we can deliberate better together, we should be able to deliberate better alone — and so he prescribes reading novels (for perspective-taking), Ben Franklin's "moral algebra" (cost-benefit charts weighted by importance and likelihood), decision-making classes in high school, and revisiting past decisions. The goal is to navigate life's major crossroads — marriage, career, children, relocations — with the precision of a military planning exercise.

Callard's central objection

Callard is skeptical of the transfer. She notes, first, that Johnson — whose book celebrates empirical rigor — offers no evidence that cost-benefit charts, more time, or novel-reading produce objectively better or subjectively more satisfying personal decisions. More importantly, his showcase example of moral algebra is self-undermining: Darwin's famous list of pros and cons about marriage begins in detached rationality ("Less money for books . . . Perhaps quarreling") and collapses, mid-list, into an impassioned plea — "My God, it is intolerable to think of spending one's whole life like a neuter bee, working, working, and nothing after all. No, no, won't do." The document is not a calculation; it is a fast-thinking self cutting off its slow-thinking self. Callard writes:

"The critique of 'overthinking' something is not about the waste of deliberative resources so much as the inappropriateness of unleashing the hounds of deliberative rationality into one's personal decisions."

The objection is structural, not attitudinal.

Personal vs. political: the crystal-ball test

Callard's sharpest move is the distinction between Obama's deliberation about the Abbottabad raid and Darwin's deliberation about marriage. Obama's team had a clear objective (capture bin Laden) and a multi-variable problem to solve around it — uncertainty, constraints, prediction, manpower. That is exactly the kind of problem that rewards better deliberative machinery. Darwin's problem is categorically different: he did not know what his objective was. "Happiness" is too vague to guide action, because the happiness of a driven bachelor-scientist and the happiness of a married domestic man are different in kind, and only the person who has lived each is positioned to appreciate it.

Callard formalizes this with a crystal-ball test. Suppose Obama could look into a crystal ball and see the raid's outcome — he would immediately know whether to proceed, because he knows what success looks like. Now suppose you could look into a crystal ball and see yourself twenty or forty years after marrying, emigrating, having a child, or attending college. What do you look for? Whether your future self is smiling? Whether she is wealthy? Those metrics won't do — because "perhaps my future self does not care to smile all the time; and perhaps she's less interested in wealth than I currently am." The changes she has undergone may have been connected to her finding some happiness that I can't (yet) fathom. She is not a better-informed version of you. She is someone else.

"What makes big decisions big is that they set into motion changes not only in the outside world, but in ourselves. Becoming a mother means having new desires, feelings, habits, knowledge, and even new decision-procedures."

The connection to aspiration

This is the decision-theoretic face of Callard's callard-aspiration framework. Aspiration is the rational process by which we acquire values we do not yet have, and the aspirant's defining condition is that she cannot appeal to her current values to adjudicate the move — because the whole point is that those values are changing. Deliberative reasoning, by Callard's definition, "assesses the adequacy of means for achieving a given end." When the end itself is the thing under construction, deliberation is the wrong tool. "Marriage is itself a learning experience, one that cannot be pre-empted by calculative reasoning, no matter how sophisticated. We cannot take the measure of our lives in advance." Transformative personal decisions are aspirational decisions: they are made by becoming, not by calculating.

Why this matters for Deep Ambition

The Treading Water chapter of Deep Ambition is about the epistemic fog that surrounds value shifts — the reader cannot tell, from inside, whether she is letting go wisely or giving up. Callard's essay names the structural reason that fog cannot be burned off with better thinking. The reader stuck between an old ambition and an unformed new one is in exactly Darwin's position, not Obama's: she has no clean objective to optimize against, because the self that would evaluate the outcome is the self that is in the process of changing. More cost-benefit analysis, more journaling, more pro/con lists — the Johnson prescriptions — won't help, and may actively mislead by papering over what is really going on. The chapter's work is to authorize the reader to step forward without the rubber stamp:

"Sometimes you need to step forward, with uncertainty, into a future you cannot rubber-stamp in advance."

This is the line the chapter should sit on. It reframes indecision not as a failure of rigor but as an appropriate response to a kind of problem that rigor cannot solve. The practical implication — which Callard does not spell out but which Deep Ambition can — is that the exit from treading water is not more thinking but a small aspirational act: signing up for the class, taking the meeting, trying on the new life, so that the self who can actually evaluate the choice begins to come into existence.

Thread · 0 replies+ add reply
no replies yet — be the first to write back to this article.