I think if you asked the CEO of almost any firm, gun to their head, whether more data leads to better decisions, they would say no. They'd probably offer to tell you their personal horror story of learning this.

Obviously, for any decision, there's a data threshold below which you shouldn't even be making a decision. But above that, you have to simultaneously solve the problem of knowing whether you have enough data to make an acceptable decision (not optimal but satisficing), which in turn will depend on the understanding of the situation that you can get from the data you already have.

I guess if there's a general pattern, you'd hope that a kind of equilibrium could be reached quickly where you've gathered enough data to be confident you don't need more data. And sometimes you'll be wrong about that.

To stand way back and view the question from the most philosophical perspective...

Every decision we make will eventually lead to death, and much sooner that we typically realize.

And so one decision we might focus on is...

What is our relationship with death?

Obviously, for any decision, there's a data threshold below which you shouldn't even be making a decision.

:up:

@Srap Tasmaner

if we have, let's say 70% of the right information decision making becomes easier. — Konkai

Perhaps. But most decisions are based on gut feelings, necessity, sentiment, or habit, and then the facts are carefully marshaled afterwards to rationalize the decision to ourselves and for others.

I'm not sure there's any grounds for making "facts" the exclusive province of rationalization.

Even if the reasons we give for a decision are generally an after-the-fact story we tell, and even if that story is one we tell ourselves first, unless you want data itself to be an artifact of that story telling process, then there's no reason to think that your habits and gut feelings are not just exactly dealing with data on your behalf. They select and scrub and massage that data in ways you may never hear about -- you get a thoroughly munged version -- but your habits and gut feelings are still responses to data.

Some data manipulation we know is down to how we're built -- no one ever learned color constancy, it's a gift from Darwin we have to work around sometimes. But some of your habits of data manipulation are the result of effortful and conscious thought repeated enough to become habitual. If you want to use the word "fact" for that kind of rational packaging of data, then your distinction holds, but only if you don't identify facts and data.

Thank you for raising facts for attention. Are facts rational? Do we use facts to rationalize or are we better off appealing to emotional leanings? What facts could possibly have lead people to decide to buy the endless variety of models and colors of automobiles that we see on the roads, why not just a few well chosen models in practical brownish shades of grey?

Although most people think of facts as certain or true statements, I prefer to limit fact to established past events and to scientific propositions as reported by reputable sources. Perhaps simply just scientifically objective facts as opposed to subjective personal opinions.

What is clear is that although price, safety, and maintenance history may have had a role in deciding which automobile people buy, personal preferences are likely to have weighed more. How much more? I suppose that depends on the buyer. I know I have been looking for something to buy in just the right shade of green for a few years now without success.