All good. I applaud that and it’s something I try to do as well and even promote or “inspire”.

But I think it’s a much simpler question than that. I’m talking about almost any decision really. How’d one make a decision to do A? Or not do A? Or A or B? Or none? Or A, B, C or D? Or none? Whatever A, B, C, D are. Because everything we do has a cost (not necessarily monitary) and a benefit (not necessarily monitary as well).

And sure, we should “distill” what any of those A, B, C, D are and try to minimize risk, maximize value etc. But eventually you’ll have to decide: “Let’s do A” (whatever A is). And even before that, you have a sense that e.g. A is even worth investigating further (estimate it’s worth spending the effort of investigation).

But, I agree. Don’t go “big bang”, “I must have it all”. Experiment and evaluate and iterate. But still, you have a sense that it’s even worth spending some effort on it. Because, again, *everything* we choose to do will cost something and be worth something. Even if we decide *not* to do something that’ll have some kind of impact.

I’m not sure if I make myself clear. But this is basically why “not estimating” doesn’t exist. To me it’s like “no thinking”.