When Benjamin Franklin's nephew Joseph Priestley found himself stumped by a complex life decision, he wrote his sage uncle for advice. In his 1772 letter of reply, Franklin described his own method for reasoning out complex problems, which he called "moral algebra." Divide a sheet of paper in half, he counseled his nephew, and make an exhaustive list of pros and cons. Then, over a couple days, weigh the pros and cons, and when a pro and a con seem of equal weight, strike them both out. What is left in the balance is the best answer.

Such "balance sheet" calculation is still taught today as the most logical and systematic method for dealing with many of life's complexities. Kids are counseled to choose colleges and careers this way, and managers similarly deliberate the pros and cons in important business decisions; some people are even methodical in matters of the heart.

But is moral algebra really the best method for decision making in today's ?

Fascinating - I think sometimes we take too long to make a decision in the hopes that it will be made for us.

Indeed the emerging paradigms of emotional cognition make a mockery of some of the antiquated cartesian notions of mind as an autonomous metaphysical realm (although such notions do maintain a tremendous ideological potency). It's worth pointing out too that apparent algorithmic complexity (the 'surface' appearance of thoughts and behaviours) is merely the shimmer of deep and very simple structures.

I just flip a coin - as soon as it's in the air, I know which side I hope will land up. Decision done.

Yes - Latin, multum in parvo: Much in little.