1. Analyzing your reasons in words can obscure the criteria that actually matter, so your choices may agree less with expert ratings.
  2. Instead of counting how many pros and cons you have, you can gather reasons over three or four days and cross out items of equal weight on both sides.
  3. Divide a sheet of paper into two columns right now and cross out one pair of pro and con reasons that carry similar weight.

Why does this feel difficult?

When you face a difficult decision, a common first step is to draw two columns on a page and list the pros and cons. Yet even when one column ends up with more lines than the other, you may still feel stuck. The number of reasons on a page does not tell you how heavy those reasons are. When several minor, easy-to-state points pile up on one side against one or two major concerns on the other, counting lines can leave a gap between what the page shows and what actually matters to you.

Analyzing and listing reasons can also shift your attention toward the wrong criteria. In their 1991 study Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 60, No. 2), Timothy D. Wilson and Jonathan W. Schooler examined how college students evaluated strawberry jams and college courses. Students who were asked to analyze why they felt the way they did agreed less with the experts than students who were not. The researchers explained that analyzing reasons can focus people’s attention on nonoptimal criteria, causing them to base their subsequent choices on these criteria. Because this study observed specific evaluation tasks, it shows an association under those conditions rather than proving that every written list harms every decision. This study did not test jotting notes over several days, so it cannot tell us whether the framework below avoids that problem. My reading is that comparing weights, rather than analyzing reasons at length, keeps attention on how much each reason matters.

Timing adds another layer of uncertainty. As Benjamin Franklin observed in his September 19, 1772 letter From Benjamin Franklin to Joseph Priestley, hard choices are hard mostly because you can’t hold every reason for and against in mind at once. Sometimes one set of reasons presents itself while the other is out of sight, and later the reverse happens, causing your inclinations to swing back and forth.

A small numerical example shows how counting items differs from weighing them. As an illustrative assumption, suppose you write down 5 reasons in favor of an option and 2 reasons against it (input). You estimate the importance of each of the 5 pro reasons at 1 point and each of the 2 con reasons at 3 points, then sum both sides (process). By item count, the pro side leads 5 to 2, but by weighted total, the con side leads 6 points to 5 points (output).

In this made-up example, five small, easy-to-state advantages fill one column, while the two objections on the other side matter more. Simply counting the lines will not resolve your hesitation.

One framework: canceling reasons of equal weight

Instead of tallying how many lines sit in each column, you can apply one framework: collect your reasons over several days and strike out combinations of equal weight across the two sides. Benjamin Franklin described this method as “Moral or Prudential Algebra” in his September 19, 1772 letter.

First, draw a line down half a sheet of paper to make two columns, with Pro over one and Con over the other. This gives you a single space where competing motives can eventually be seen together rather than replacing one another in your head.

Second, do not try to finish the list in a single sitting. Over 3 or 4 days of consideration, jot down brief notes on the different motives for or against the measure as they come to you at different times. For example, a reason that seems important in the morning and a concern that comes up at night can be gathered on the same page.

Third, once you have gathered the reasons into one view, estimate their relative weights and cancel out matching combinations across the two columns. Where you find 2 reasons—1 on each side—that seem equal, strike them both out. If 1 reason Pro seems equal in weight to 2 reasons Con, strike out all 3. If 2 reasons Con seem equal to 3 reasons Pro, strike out all 5.

Fourth, continue striking out balanced groups until you see where the remaining balance lies. Then give it another day or two, and check whether anything new and important shows up on either side before you decide.

I think comparing reasons in small bundles—such as 1 heavy reason against 2 lighter ones, or 2 against 3—is more practical than assigning exact numerical scores to every feeling on a page. You only have to judge whether two small groups roughly balance each other out, which quickly clears away minor, easily verbalized points.

Still, there are conditions where this framework is hard to apply. As Franklin noted in his letter, the weight of reasons cannot be measured with the exact precision of algebraic quantities. In addition, if you lack basic factual premises about what an option involves, crossing out items on paper cannot substitute for checking those missing facts first. Finally, if one column contains a non-negotiable requirement—such as safety or a legal obligation that cannot be traded off against several smaller benefits—you should verify that threshold condition before weighing the rest of your list.

A documented decision

A true story, retold

On September 19, 1772, Benjamin Franklin wrote from London to reply to Joseph Priestley, who had asked for his advice on an affair of great importance to him. According to the primary transcription and editorial note in the National Archives Founders Online record, Priestley had been asked by Lord Shelburne to become his librarian, and he was torn: his life in Leeds was comfortable and productive, and he had not planned to move. He sought Franklin’s advice.

At the start of the letter, Franklin stated that for want of sufficient premises he could not advise Priestley what to determine, but offered to tell him how. He explained that difficult cases perplex us chiefly because all the reasons pro and con are not present to the mind at the same time; one set appears while the other is out of sight, so different inclinations prevail in turn.

To overcome this, Franklin described his own practice. He divided half a sheet of paper by a line into 2 columns labeled Pro and Con, and during 3 or 4 days of consideration wrote down short hints of the different motives for or against the measure as they occurred at different times. Once they were all together in one view, he estimated their respective weights: striking out 2 when 1 on each side seemed equal, striking out 3 when 1 reason Pro equaled 2 reasons Con, and striking out 5 when 2 reasons Con equaled 3 reasons Pro. After seeing where the balance lay, he waited 1 or 2 days of further consideration to see whether anything new of importance occurred on either side before coming to a determination.

Franklin wrote that although the weight of reasons cannot be taken with the precision of algebraic quantities, considering each separately and comparatively with the whole before him helped him judge better and made him less likely to take a rash step, adding that he had found great advantage from this “Moral or Prudential Algebra.” The editorial note says he did not accept until December, though this letter documents how one person organized competing reasons rather than proving that the method guarantees the best outcome for every decision.

From Benjamin Franklin to Joseph Priestley, 19 September 1772 (Founders Online, National Archives)