An inhibitor is a block to making a good choice. It is either an unreasonable process for making decisions or an impediment of decision-making. Each of us has our own individual inhibitors and there are far too many to discuss them all; however, most stem from approximately thirteen inhibitors we share. We’ll discuss twelve of them in this chapter; the thirteenth we’ll save for the next. Once you learn to identify inhibitors, you can remove them as obstacles by eliminating them from the decision-making process.
1) Opinion. You may be surprised, even shocked, to learn the biggest inhibitor to good choice is opinion. You may even believe that choice and opinion are the same thing. While we tend to use the terms interchangeably, this practice is erroneous. Choice is something you select and control; opinion is a belief over which you have no choice (and hence no control). More often than not our opinions cloud issues, keeping us from clearly seeing all the options or even the truth. When I was a kid, my favorite colors were blue and red. I didn’t choose them to be my favorite; they just were. Every time someone offered me a piece of candy or a drink, I chose the one colored blue or red. I happened to hate blueberry and cherry. Guess what? Yup, every blue and red candy or drink was blueberry or cherry flavored. I’d secretly spit out the candy or dump the drink. I was making a bad choice because I was including my opinion in the decision-making process. Finally, around eight, it occurred to me that I needed to choose the orange or purple candy and drinks because they were flavored orange and grape, both of which I loved. It was hard at first, but eventually I didn’t have any trouble skipping over the products colored blue or red. I was much happier with my new choices.
Even when your opinion can be included in a choice, it’s very limited, as every woman is aware. If you want to decorate your living room, you can only have an opinion about the first item you put in the room. If, for example, you decide you want yellow drapes, everything else you put in the room needs to match those drapes. This is why we have living room, dining room, and bedroom sets. You can have an opinion about the set but not about each individual item. This is also why men are not allowed to decorate. If a guy decorates your living room, you will end up with brown drapes, a yellow recliner, blue carpeting, and an orange sofa. People will come into your living room and vomit. “I’m sorry, can we go to another room? I’m getting nauseous.” Guys exercise poor choice because they pick out each item based on opinions which often don’t have anything to do with the living room. “I was in a hurry; the guys were waiting for me at the bar,” or, “This one was on sale.”
Frequently, an opinion we have is so strong we actually change the facts to defend the opinion. This practice is most apparent when it comes to politics and sports. It drives me crazy when someone agrees mindlessly with whatever their affiliated political party claims, especially when their party held the opposing stance just the previous day. I grind my teeth when they unconsciously cite fabricated facts to defend their party or attack another. I want to punch fans in the face when they protest every call against their team and cheer every call in their team’s favor. It especially annoys me when they cite rules that don’t exist during their attack on the ref. Their team could run out onto the field and stab, shoot, and maim the other team, and they would still complain. “What?! That’s a horrible call! How can you call that? They didn’t even put anyone in a coma! You can’t call a penalty if they don’t put someone in a coma! That’s a rule! This is bull!”
I have a friend who is an intelligent, well-educated, successful businessman. He’s also a pretty cool guy and a staunch conservative. One day, shortly after Obama was elected, he was talking about George Bush, of whom he is a big fan. (He does not care for Bob Dole.) I commented that I felt bad for Bush when he got clobbered by Clinton in the ’92 election. He promptly scolded me. “What are you talking about? That election couldn’t have been closer! Clinton barely won.”
“Really? I thought it was a landslide victory.”
“You’re out of your freakin’ mind. Dole got killed by Clinton; that was a landslide victory. That’s what you’re thinking of. But Bush nearly beat ‘em. And the country would be much better off today if he had.”
He was clearly agitated, so I changed gears by quickly pointing out a sexy woman standing at the bar of the restaurant. ’92 was the first time I could vote, so I was pretty sure my memory was accurate. I forgot about it but when I remembered the conversation a few weeks later, I googled the election results. In ’92, Clinton beat Bush 370 electoral votes to 168. Bush won only eighteen states. That’s a big victory. By comparison, Clinton beat Dole 379 votes to 159. Dole actually won nineteen states, one more than Bush (for those who struggle with math). Is the difference between a landslide victory and a close race a mere nine votes? Clearly not. My friend likes Bush so much he changed the facts of the ’92 election in his head. His opinion altered reality.
In 2008, I was watching the Steelers face-off against the Cardinals at a Super Bowl party. Now, I’m a big Steelers fan. They are my number two football team. A guy sitting across from me hated the Steelers. At one point during the game the Steelers were moving the ball down the field quite easily. You felt they were going to score; it was just a question of whether it would be seven short plays or two big ones. On a first-and-ten, the Steelers quarterback threw the ball away. He got hit by a defenseman right after he released the ball and was knocked down. (You have to hit Roethlisberger hard or he won’t go down; he’s not an easy tackle.) The defender was flagged for roughing the passer and the Steelers were awarded fifteen yards and an automatic first-down. Immediate discussion followed at the party. I concurred it was a lousy call. Two plays later, which is less than ninety seconds in time, I commented, “Well, at least it wasn’t third and long when they got the penalty. That always sucks when they would have had to punt and instead it’s a bogus, drive continuing penalty. Then they go down and score because of a bad call.”
The guy who hated the Steelers immediately rebutted, “What are you talking about? It was third-and-seven when they called that penalty. Third-and-seven!”
“Oh, that does suck, then.” I could have sworn it had been first down but I wasn’t going to argue over it.
I happened to tape the game at home, realizing I might miss some if I got distracted by a cute woman at the party or might not see a key play for some other reason. (A great game to have on tape; it will go down as one of the best of all times with the exciting, suspenseful finish.) Guess what? It was first-and-ten when the penalty was called.
How can you make a good choice or even have a reasonable discussion when you allow your opinion to change the facts? You can’t. The best thing you can do to make a good choice is to leave your self-serving opinion out of the decision-making process. It’s not easy to do; we are creatures of opinion. If you want to make good choices, though, you must be cognizant of your opinion and remove it from your reasoning.
Posted by Ian Coburn 
Category: 
