Whenever the hard determinist view is brought up in online discussions there is almost always someone that says no free will or genuine moral responsibility logically entails fatalism and nihilism. If everything that happens couldn’t help but happen and people’s choices aren’t truly free then somehow life is meaningless and morality doesn’t exist. — Captain Homicide

If it really is the case that everything that happens couldn’t help but happen and people’s choices aren’t truly free, then those who believe life is meaningless and morality doesn't exist have no choice but to believe that. And nobody has any choice but to live their lives as they do in response to that.

Trouble is, you don't know what you will do next. That's the case, even if what you do is already determined.

So the question remains, what will you do?

Fatalism and nihilism are of no help here.

In reference to fatalism people still have desires to do and experience things and your choices still matter in a practical sense. — Captain Homicide

Yes, it seems that experiencing is the main benefit of being alive.

The fixed, determined, unfree will grants us consistency (without it, then what?).

People still have to do things for things to happen. — Captain Homicide

May I offer some questions which I'm currently convinced are at the root of this. In order to avoid longwindedness, I must be simplistic. Note that the questions could be posed with all their complex layers; best for another time and place.

First, in the scenario where there is freedom, you naturally say people" but who/what is the "entity" (if even) that "enjoys"/has this so called freedom/choice? Is it as simple as the Subject, "I" of what we conventionally think of as (self)consciousness of people?

Another one is, it is possible, is it not, to have neither freedom (in the sense of a being which can, by its capacity to elect "the next movement", determine the outcome, even if in defiance of cause); nor predeterminsm/predestiny (as in the effects have all been predetermined and thus causes are just steps along the way), in for example, a determinism which operates within a closed system of interdependant causes and effects? In that case, chaos and randomness are also (at least) reduced, but so is determinism, in that the (final)* effect might have been anything given causes are incessantly bouncing off one another leading to effects. Or is what I described simply determinism? (I don't think so). Note, there is neither real free choice since that too is an effect from a cause, and in time, a cause. But there is also no being, no design, no purpose necessarily determining a necessary outcome. There are virtually endless possible outcomes. And it is not chaos since it happens in a closed system of evolved "rules" "mechanics" and "dynamics."
*in this scenario there are no final effects, each effect is a cause (even if, "in waiting").

Lastly, if the scenario above could possibly be imagined to be so, would it not be possible that so called freedom is an effect upon that mechanism, the Subject, "I"
and its having evolved within this hypothetical closed system to be "placed" in each "moment" through time, (time, the "movement" of the system) as the mechanism behind the body's feelings or activity? Hence, if this body texting this message stops, it is not that the body exercised "freedom". Though the body seems to have exercised choice, it is only because the moment manifests in the system (is projected into the world) as, "I'm going to stop typing and press, post comment now"

If it really is the case that everything that happens couldn’t help but happen and people’s choices aren’t truly free, then those who believe life is meaningless and morality doesn't exist have no choice but to believe that. And nobody has any choice but to live their lives as they do in response to that. — Patterner

I realize we don't seem to see eye to eye, and that my thinking may go beyond what seems reasonable. But if you're so incl8ned, I value your input (if not, truly, I get it).

With respect to your statement above, consider the next phrase "...unless "choice" is our "role" participation in the deterministic system. In other words, faced with the dilemma "rescue that cat," or "dont" you're right. The one who rescues has done so in reaction to every "cause" they have also reacted to leading to that final election to rescue. (And same mutatis mutandis for "dont"). The "choice" step was necessary, just as every reaction to every prior cause leading to that last choice were necessary. In other words we are "agents" acting agents, but our agency does not represent ourselves the subject agent. It represents the system. We want our freedom of choice to give ego super power. But really, not only are we agents for the system, but morally are its fiduciaries.

'Free will or determinism?' doesn't matter. 'Nothing matters' also doesn't matter. If we have no choice (i.e. "free will"), then we are determined (i.e. caused) to live as if 'we are free to choose' and thereby 'responsible for our choices'. Either way: amor fati! :razz:

I would say you describe the scenario very well. :up:

right on. And let me clarify, I wasn't suggesting you were ever adversarial. Far from it. Like I said, I value your ideas, questions and how you word them. Of course there are moments we can't meet. But honestly those I value the most.

As hotly contested as the topic is I can’t recall a philosopher ever using the deterministic nature of the universe as evidence that good and evil don’t exist and the lives of sentient beings have no actual value. — Captain Homicide

First of all, I agree with everything you said. Regarding the above, I don't think determinism (per se) is inconsistent with the existence of objective moral values (OMVs). On the other hand, materialism is inconsistent with OMVs, because OMVs are not material objects.

No worries. I never took anything as adversarial, or an accusation thereof.

If it really is the case that everything that happens couldn’t help but happen and people’s choices aren’t truly free, then those who believe life is meaningless and morality doesn't exist have no choice but to believe that. And nobody has any choice but to live their lives as they do in response to that. — Patterner

Even if determinism is true, we still make choices. It's true that those choices are a product of prior events, but the choices are still made - and we are the agents making them.

But if the choices are determined, then are they really choices? I throw a ball into the air, and give it a choice: continue to rise forever, or fall back down. Who are we kidding? The ball doesn't get to choose. It does the only thing it can do.

If I drop a lot of money while walking in front of someone, we can say that the person has the choice of calling out to me to alert me that I dropped it, or quickly picking it up themself and walking in another direction. If determinism is true, and the person's genetic makeup, upbringing, other past experiences, health at the moment, and all other factors, will allow only one option, then calling it a "choice" is as meaningless as with the thrown ball. No, we can't even know what all the factors are, much less see how they all combine to produce the only outcome they can produce. But that doesn't mean it was any more possible for the outcome to have been other than it was than in the cases of the ball.

Whenever the hard determinist view is brought up in online discussions there is almost always someone that says no free will or genuine moral responsibility logically entails fatalism and nihilism. — Captain Homicide

Wow! So that is a very improperly loaded question there.

So, you equate 'no free will' with 'genuine moral responsibility'? I find that deeply immoral as an idea. Free will is the only thing that exists in the universe. And the reason free will does exist is because morality is objective. I can explain much more deeply and thoroughly, if needed.

If everything that happens couldn’t help but happen and people’s choices aren’t truly free then somehow life is meaningless and morality doesn’t exist. — Captain Homicide

Effectively, that would be true. If choice is predetermined there is no way to be immoral. It's a a laughable position, despite what some very well educated cowards like to propose. Both the left and the right have a vested interest in pretending that people's choices are not their own fault. It's all comforting lies, so everyone is in line to get spoon fed the Kool Aid.

What is your opinion on this common claim in response to hard determinism? — Captain Homicide

I agree that it would be true if determinism were real and accurate, but, it is not.

My opinion is that it’s completely wrong and a fundamental misunderstanding of the matter. In reference to fatalism people still have desires to do and experience things and your choices still matter in a practical sense. — Captain Homicide

You mention here desire (chaos) and practical (fear) side interests and ways of thought. The truth is though that the balance between these two emotions and also a third emotion, anger, CAUSES the balance that supports free will. This precarious balance denies any possibility of determinism.

It can easily SEEM like determinism makes sense. It is of course highly probable and deterministic models are more true than most others. Why then do I dent it as truth? That is because it's a practical short-cut to truth that is effectively an awareness failure. Certainty is not possible. We cannot actually objectively know anything. But even math short-cuts the process describing the limit as x approaches 0 as 0. That is even though we 'know' that the relationship is asymptotic and the limit NEVER reaches 0. So, with that kind of accuracy, finally, the conclusions drawn are not moral, not accurate.

It does not matter that people still have desire to do immoral things and have fear to restrain themselves to practical immoral matters. The RIGHT thing to do, to believe in, is perfection as a goal. We should aim at ideal circumstances and keep adjusting based on consequence patterns. But that is NOT Consequentialism, which is reversed and immoral. That is Kant's Deontological morality, where intent is the what is judged, NOT consequences. THAT is moral.

People still have to do things for things to happen. Very few people would be content or able to lay in bed and stare at a ceiling their entire life because their choices are technically predetermined going back to the beginning of the universe. Choosing not to do anything out of fatalism is still a choice and a very miserable one. — Captain Homicide

I agree with your final statement, but, ALLOWING the idea of determinism to stand as 'fact' or 'knowledge' is immoral/irresponsible.

In reference to nihilism I think meaning and morality aren’t dependent on hard determinism being true or false. — Captain Homicide

Yes they are. If you have no free will it robs your actions of meaning. The only and all meanings are predetermined. You do not matter at all. Your choices do not matter.

If you are trying to say something as relative and weak as 'we can still, some of us, have some fun' tell that to the Palestinians or any of us that suffers so much even before they become self-actualized in any real way. Determinism is mostly a delusion used to avoid responsibility for weak choices. It is a fear-side trap most often that ignores the central function of fear itself, limiting and separating.

Things still have meaning and value to people if only in a practical sense even if there was no other way for things to happen and you couldn’t possibly make choices other than the choices you made. — Captain Homicide

This misses the real point, the heavy point. That is that unless choices matter, there is no reason to make the right one. You can murder with impunity, because you were clearly predestined to do so. It opens up a STRATEGY for devious minds to do whatever the hell they want and expect no punishment because you can't punish someone if their choice is not there, if free will is not there; or you SHOULD NOT punish them for that.

Depending on your philosophical views this is likely the most contentious part but I think people would and can still have value and rights that shouldn’t be violated with or without determinism being true. — Captain Homicide

Yeah that is deeply immoral thinking, subjectivist nonsense.

Objective rights and value may not exist in a tangible, scientifically provable sense but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist at all. — Captain Homicide

I agree, but, that statement undoes your whole argument.

Pain and pleasure are still very much real things whether they’re determined to happen or not. Whether or not someone like Hitler, Osama, El Chapo Bundy had ultimate control over their choices doesn’t make them any less morally abhorrent or their actions any less evil or harmful. As hotly contested as the topic is I can’t recall a philosopher ever using the deterministic nature of the universe as evidence that good and evil don’t exist and the lives of sentient beings have no actual value. — Captain Homicide

Yet your arguments negate one another, logically and idealistically. So they are just horrid, all the way except that you still seem to pine away for morality while denying it, effectively. Determinism is a cheap fear-based failure of awareness. Robert Sopolsky needs to go back to school!

But if the choices are determined, then are they really choices? — Patterner

You do go through a choice-making process, don't you? For important decisions, you may deliberate for a time, weighing the pros and cons of alternatives. Your beliefs and whims will factor in, as will your hopes, desires, risk tolerance - all influenced by your genetic makeup. But all those factors are intrinsic to who you are.

Sure, every one of those factors were caused (by your genetic makeup, upbringing, experiences, education...), but they are bundled together in a unique way to comprise YOU.

If determinism is true, and the person's genetic makeup, upbringing, other past experiences, health at the moment, and all other factors, will allow only one option — Patterner

Of course, whatever choice you make could not have been different at the point you make it, given your life-history. But you will also learn from the consequences of your decision, adding factors that will influence future choices. This is why I have previously argued that moral accountability is at least somewhat reasonable: future behavior is influenced by reward/punishment.

So, although there are causes that necessitate the choices you make, those causes didn't conspire to make the choice. The machinery that is YOU had to do the processing that led to the result (the choice).

And your choices aren't meaningless. You give meaning to the factors, and those meanings influence the choice. The person who chooses to keep the money you drop is doing so because of what money means to him.

But if the choices are determined, then are they really choices? — Patterner

You do go through a choice-making process, don't you? — Relativist

You do go through a "process" yes. But (while I'm not saying you did so deliberately) note how your wording even implies ultimate passivity. This is only partly "tongue in cheek," but, "choose" to go through the process of holding your breath forever and see how much freedom you have. "Yes, but breathing is an organic process governed by laws." Well, so too for our minds, just as so too for Patterner's ball in the air. For breathing and gravity we currently settle at the lack of freedom. For Mind we refuse too. The reasons are so obvious, I needn't elaborate.

And your choices aren't meaningless. You give meaning to the factors, and those meanings influence the choice. The person who chooses to keep the money you drop is doing so because of what money means to him. — Relativist

But you don't get to "give meaning to the factors" if it's all deterministic. Your genetic makeup, experiences, etc., give everything meaning to the group of cells referred to as Relativist. Then, when you are in a situation where different directions are taken by different people, the meaning that all those factors have determined you have determine which direction you take.

You do go through a "process" yes. But (while I'm not saying you did so deliberately) note how your wording even implies ultimate passivity. — ENOAH

You're reading passivity into it; that certainly was not what I was trying to convey. The mental processes are under your control, not someone or something else. Determinism implies the process is mechanistic, but even a machine still has to do the work to produce its output - the machine isn't "passive".

The fact that we lack the freedom to refrain from things like breathing seems irrelevant- not everything we contemplate involves a real choice, and that applies even if we have libertarian free will.

But you don't get to "give meaning to the factors" if it's all deterministic. Your genetic makeup, experiences, etc., give everything meaning to the group of cells referred to as Relativist. — Patterner

This ignores the fact that your genetic makeup, experiences, etc comprise you. That particular group of cells performs functions, including the cognitive functions of making choices.

when you are in a situation where different directions are taken by different people, the meaning that all those factors have determined you have determine which direction you take.

I agree that the process is, in one sense, programmed, but you are the program. There's also a sense in which you aren't programmed: you aren't the product of design. You weren't built in order to perform the functions you execute.

The fact that we lack the freedom to refrain from things like breathing seems irrelevant- — Relativist

Yes, I agree it seems irrelevant. A clumsy illustration. My point--if it makes a difference now--isn't to say, "see? We can't choose whether or not to breathe, therefore... ." My point (which may equally offend your reasoning on this topic) was to suggest that just as breathing is an autonomous organic process, "deliberating" is an autonomous process having evolved in the human Mind. We don't doubt the mechanistic independence of breathing because it is obvious. We doubt the mechanistic dynamics of choosing because, built-into (evolved) that process is the placement of the Subject "I." Hence "I am deliberating," seems like there is a being at the center of the mechanistic process pulling the strings at its will. I say there is not

I agree that the process is, in one sense, programmed, but you are the program. — Relativist

Right. And ChatGPT is the program. And Deep Blue is the program.

There's also a sense in which you aren't programmed: you aren't the product of design. You weren't built in order to perform the functions you execute. — Relativist

I agree. But that's another conversation entirely.

We don't doubt the mechanistic independence of breathing because it is obvious. We doubt the mechanistic dynamics of choosing because, built-into (evolved) that process is the placement of the Subject "I." Hence "I am deliberating," seems like there is a being at the center of the mechanistic process pulling the strings at its will. I say there is not — ENOAH

That's very well said. The question is: Why does it seem there is a being in the mechanistic process? IOW, the Hard Problem. Why do these physical processes have this seeming if they are nothing but physical processes, when these other physical processes don't? And if there is no being present, then to what does the seeming seem to be?

And if there is no being present, then to what does the seeming seem to be? — Patterner

[Reiterating that anything I say is unauthorative, and literally just my humble opinion, Grant me the freedom to just answer directly...]

The simple "one line" (likely it'll end up being multi-line) response is, because somewhere in the evolution of Mind, or what we call history, "being" emerged in its likely current state, triggering the necessary, but subtle, imperceptible *) organic feelings which correspond with that Signifier (and it's common local structure, like reality, existence, substance, essence,...,subject...). When the subject emerged it (very simplified), 1. "Stood in for" the Body (which has no self consciousness but is only present aware-ing. 2. (Eventually...but then all of it was/is Eventually. It's still eventual. One day, though extremely unlikely, we may be selfless, having evolved a system which drops the Subject...Eventually) Completely displaced the body: its organic sensation of a real world, displaced by constructions of that world, once removed from Reality, filtered, fictional; its feelings became emotions; its drives became the desire of these signifiers to project; from their the Dialectical process moving it along ( I'm leaving out a lot). At some point(s) in this, the Narrative form evolves, the necessary "I" participates in almost every sentence, or at least hangs back in the shadows. And now, (to answer your question when that dialectic takes place, the one "I" say (I know many do, I'm just speaking for myself) moves autonomously, without a being at the center, Mind and its Narrative, which has been structured with "being" with "I" and with "pulling the strings" (explaining our also Fictional concept of God without negating god--just as this negates the self without negating "its" reality albeit in an unspeakable form), constructs the Narrative signifier structure "I (the body) have made a free choice". These "meaningless" (because to the Body "meaning" has no meaning) Signifiers are sent as code through the fleshy infrastructure of the Body, triggering Body to feel those imperceptible feelings. But they are imperceptible as feelings because they are being "perceived" as the meaning, not the feelings. Now, the Body attuned to that Narrative "I" have made a choice. When really, "it" the "choice" was an autonomous process. What the Body did was feel and/or move, as a result of that process. But the Body did not (as it might for a bonobo who chooses to discard an unfinished banana) attune to the Natural feelings, drives, and actions, and then move on to the next in the successive nows (being), the Body attuned to the story and tge subjects role (becoming)...

*imperceptible because the Signifiers -- the very ones constructing free will -- have displaced the body's present aware-ing of the subtle feelings evolved to trigger a drive, to trigger an action.

Why does it seem there is a being in the mechanistic process? — Patterner

And now, perhaps, you see how there is a being now; its just that being nows "attention" is diverted by a moving train, it is empty and has no presence, and vainly constructs a self and refers to itself as being, but it is by structure and nature always moving, never there. As for the so called "free will" of the real being, the observer whose attention is diverted, free will? It doesn't care.

I'll take the uncommon stance, it seems, and say that hard determinism is a bane to our existence. While I would technically agree with you insofar as you can "define" concepts like moral responsibility and choice and values into a deterministic universe, I don't think their properties are fully realized without leeway freedom (the ability to do otherwise). Yes, determinism doesn't necessarily prevent me from feeling pleasure or having meaning, but it also doesn't give me any say in the matter.

The great absurdity I perceive in discussion about hard determinism is the determinist attempts at persuasion. If hard determinism is true, then everything will happen as it will. You will attempt to persuade me because you were determined to do so, and whether or not I am persuaded is ultimately not up to me nor you. Yet, the determinist may still feel a sort of indignation if their argument is rejected, or pride if accepted, which are unreasonable emotions to have, considering the lack of agency involved. Again, you can still observe such phenomena and define terms such that the structure of the concepts like freedom and morals and values are preserved, but I think they lack the necessary property of leeway we intuitively accept in our folk notions of free will.

And the reason free will does exist is because morality is objective. I can explain much more deeply and thoroughly, if needed. — Chet Hawkins

Needed. Please.

If choice is predetermined there is no way to be immoral. — Chet Hawkins

What if choice wasn't predetermined, but still not free? What if the root of confusion is not in whether or not there is "freedom;" but in what is "choice."

The OP suggests, at least asks, if there's no freedom, is morality doomed (to) nihilism or fatalism. And you state that if there is no freedom its impossible to be immoral.

Both imply that a reason to accept free will is it resolves the problem of morality; I.e., free will serves a function. Keep that in mind because it will re-emerge in a second.

Moreover I can infer that "choice" is at the root of both of your statements. The reason freedom allows for immorality (yours) and no freedom renders morality impossible (OP's) is because we can "choose" moral or immoral.

This ultimately must be rooted in (to bring in concepts from your other posts) fear. If we can't "choose" how could we be blamed, and without blame (one fears; i.e. the OP suggests the fear) there will be nihilism. In plain English without choice and blame, who cares?

But I submit this concept--that we need freedom and blame for morality (to function; or, for a morally functional humsn existence. If its not that you're worried about, then what? Morality for morality's sake?)--is the actual root of the problem.

Which brings me back to what is "choice." If choice--and thus concomitantly freedom of choice/free will--by its function, evolved (because it was fit for the vitality of the system in which it evolved) to appear to involve a single ontologically real and essential being freely making it (those latter shoes filled by the Subject I); but if both choice and the Subject seeming to freely make it, were just mechanisms in a process with the ultimate effect of provoking bodies to act and or feel; and if (that which we rightly cling to because it is functional and call) morality, is not a universal pre-existing Reality, but also an evolved, because it is ffunctionalmechanism (or set thereof) in that process; and if every seemingly free choice, and their moral status were determined not predestination-wise, not pre determined, but by the movement of causes and effects operating within that system and following evolved laws of that system (evolved due to function), then within that process there could be morality-the appearance of choice-but not free choice in the sense of some individual being.

Both the left and the right have a vested interest in pretending that people's choices are not their own fault. It's all comforting lies, — Chet Hawkins

I submit the contrary. Choices are "everyone's" fault because we are ineluctably interdependant. Not a single idea on these pages is original. I am responsible for contributing to the crimes of anyone who has crossed my path or heard my speech. How's that for burden and not comfort? We want to impose freedom on the individual to avoid the reality that History is one mind, a process interacting.

The complexity of getting around the logic that I am not free but yet an actor in a system with a "burden," should not have to be (but because of the progression of western thought to date, is) a reason to reject that. But in spite of the restrictions superimposed by logic, I'll try to state it in simple words. How do we fulfill our duty to the system if we have no freedom to choose? Tragic answer is the system is making that happen. For e.g. when ideas like these are shared. Ignore that. It cannot be expressed. It's like knowing the ego is not what you think it is, yet you are that ego thinking it isn't or is. It's impossible to discuss. And I anticipate your rebuttal but I won't sacrifice honesty and what you might help me bring to light, so have at it.

That is Kant's Deontological morality, where intent is the what is judged, NOT consequences. THAT is moral. — Chet Hawkins

And I say there is nothing inherently wrong about making K's deontology the moral structure of history going forward. But where you might say it is anyway, universally and essentially, and we ought abide by it; I say it only is if "we" as in that autonomously moving process will have
made it so.

If you have no free will it robs your actions of meaning. The only and all meanings are predetermined. You do not matter at all. Your choices do not matter. — Chet Hawkins

All of that doesn't matter if meaning too, and choices mattering, are evolved mechanisms of that process.

What's your point? you might ask. If the system has evolved these sophisticated mechanisms of freedom choice and meaning, for all intents and purposes, they are real and do matter. Right ? I say yes they do. But my point is, whereas we insist on these as absolutes, as essences, the process has no essence, it is fleeting and empty of "thing in itself" etc. So openess and flexibility, are the way to go. reminded me of Taoism recently. Perhaps that is the moral imperative, be always as an uncarved block ready to serve the Way ( ie. Process or system).

The present age is adamant that there need not be a central being at the helm of things as complex as electrons, molecukes and planets, that these are processes of causes and effects playing out since the big bang.

But it can’t comprehend that there can be no one at the helm, that it can be processes of causes and effects since the the emergence of mind and one's birth, in making a decision to go for an ice cream cone instead of killing the neighbor.

Yes, determinism doesn't necessarily prevent me from feeling pleasure or having meaning, but it also doesn't give me any say in the matter. — QuixoticAgnostic

Does indeterminism? It wouldn't seem so to me.

That one is determined, does not entail that they have no free will: determinism does not preclude free will.

However, if one does go the hard determinist route, then, yes, moral responsibility does go out the window: ought implies can. Imagine you are going for a walk and two people crash into each other in a fatal car accident; imagine the cops detain you, although you were not involved in the accident whatsoever, and hold you morally responsible: would that make sense? Of course not! You didn't make any choices which related meaningfully to the car accident. If you are a hard determinist, however, then making a choice isn't a choice at all: it is like this car example. If you don't choose to rape someone and rape them, how would this be different than you walking by a car accident? It wouldn't. If you abandon free will, you abandon moral responsibility.

Fatalism does seem like a suitable position for a hard determinist though, as they do not believe in free will (in any form).

In a deterministic universe you can still be responsible in a practical/attributive sense. You don’t have to be ultimately guilty in the eyes of God as Dennett put it to be guilty of wrongdoing or worthy of punishment for consequentialist reasons.

Yes, determinism doesn't necessarily prevent me from feeling pleasure or having meaning, but it also doesn't give me any say in the matter.
— QuixoticAgnostic

Does indeterminism? It wouldn't seem so to me. — flannel jesus

An extremely important point. A few scenarios come to mind.

1) My genetic makeup, and every experience I've ever had, and everything about how I feel, and whatever other factors there may be, are all physically reducible. And, at the cusp of decision, they are all weighed against each other, as physical events, and the choice is determined by how all the physical interactions play out.

2) Consciousness is, at least in part, non-physical. A soul, or panpsychism, or something else. This does not rule out determinism. Consciousness still makes choices because of those factors, even though we can't possibly consciously weigh such an incalculable number of things.

3) Choices are not based on those factors. At least not ultimately. I doubt anyone would deny the past plays at least some role. But perhaps the final instant is not determined by any physical or nonphysical weighing.

I think #3 is what fj means? In what way would we have any say in the matter if we don't make the decision based on factors from the past? Does "indetermed" mean "random"? If so, then how do we have any meaningful say in it?

I often chose randomly. I have been told I have Analysis Paralysis. (Which is very cool, and I now have a shirt that says Master of Analysis Paralysis.) I was told this because I take an inordinately long time to make decisions while playing board games. I often just have to pick an action for no reason just so I don't piss the other players off any more than I already have. But board games is fairly new. I've been unable to decide what to eat at restaurants for decades. I usually hope the waiter says one or another meal comes with noticably more food than the other(s). That's a good way to decide. Alas, there is usually not a clear winner in that regard. So I sit, unable to pick one over the other(s), until I just pick randomly, or my wife picks for me.