Topic: Is it true that acting quickly and instinctively is the best response to a crisis? Or are there times when an urgent situation requires more careful consideration and a slower response?
That question, like most, varies depending on the circumstance. There are many crises’ that are not needed to be rushed. If there is a life-altering decision it would be important to take your time, if there is a need to rush you have to be rational. Sadly being rational takes time because you have to compare each outcome and option. Still, I do think that in a crisis you are more likely to make the right decision.
Let’s say you are in a very important poker game. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line and winning means comfort for the rest of your life, and losing means instant poverty. Now you have an amazing hand so you instantly bet high. In doing so you are showing the other players that you have an amazing hand. But if you take your time and consider what would happen if you did bet high really quickly you are more likely to not show the opponents you have good cards.
Now there is a different situation. You are on a hike up a tall mountain, and a car comes driving out of control down the path. Either you jump to the inside corner where the mountain face is, or you jump close towards the cliff edge where you are at risk of falling off but the car is farther from you. You don’t have time to consider the consequences you act or die. Now in those cases, you do the one you see fit and don’t take time.
So as you see there isn’t a definite answer as it depends on the circumstance. And like many conclusions, it arises more questions than it answers, like, why were you in a poker game with that much money in the first place.
I hope you enjoyed it.
oliver neudorf 