I had high hopes for this book as a practical guide for good decisions from experts.
My expectations were partly disappointed, though maybe that's coming from a background of economics and some knowledge of formal decision theory.
The book essentially breaks down rational choice/decision theory into key components: the problem, objectives, choice alternatives, consequences. It adds uncertainty, risk attitudes and future interactions with other choices only at the end, even though for approximately all key life choices these aspects are significant and unavoidable.
Most of the advice here is basically various forms of: think carefully about the objectives, alternative choices and consequences. The main aids in the book besides common sense and whatever data one can find e.g on the web or from experts are the recommendation to do a consequences table (matrix of alternatives and consequences for key objectives of each alternative), and maybe attempting an expected utility/value calculation for important decisions. The authors explicitly reject as a bias any tendency to assign higher probabilities to negative events as a precaution, but the more recent decision theory literature suggests this could be a good practice to account for rational ambiguity or robustness. The most recent theories of rational choice suggest robust multiple priors models as maybe more rational than expected utility using a single probability distribution or Bayesian model combination.
The authors suggest the even swap method as a way of systematising comparisons of trade-offs across different objectives, but I didn't get a sense from their examples that this is something that systematically works across different situations. It seems like a half-measure somehow between trying to specify some sort of numeric utility/value function across different objectives which is the official recommendation of decision theory, versus just following your feelings/intuitions for integrating across conflicting objectives. I wasn't fully convinced that it's worth trying to apply this in actual decisions on a regular basis.
I suspect for non-experts, the presentation and ideas could be worth 4 stars for providing a more systematic approach to decision making. If you already know rational choice and expected utility theories, this book serves more as a simplified reminder of how to systematically structure your decision making process. Start with clarifying the problem and objectives, search for alternative choices, then evaluate consequences. When possible use some sort of table and even do a spreadsheet to help rank alternatives numerically. The level of informality in explaining things like expected utility/value calculations made the presentation seem less clear and compelling for me, as if you have to search for the main idea between the words. But again, maybe this is better for complete non-experts in decision theory.
The fact of the matter is that making good decisions for key life choices is hard. Assigning probabilities, picking a few good choice options/alternatives to evaluate, comparing the value of options explicitly across different objectives and tradeoffs, assessing consequences in a consistently comparable way are all difficult tasks. Yet most choices by most people most times seem OK/reasonable enough for contributing to an OK or even great life for most people (at least in advanced societies). It's just that we have to rely a lot on bounded rationality and mostly unconscious thinking and mental shortcuts/heuristics to simplify things (which sometimes causes big decision errors).
Some of the ideas in this book can robustify decisions and reinforce common sense while reducing the role of more unreliable intuitions and instincts when people are not experts in a specific type of decisions (for experts in a specific decision type, intuitions/instincts are much more likely to be valid). But a lot of the book seemed like just an admonition to think more carefully about all key components of a decision, which has some value but was less than I expected somehow.
And there's a tradeoff for most decisions in life that need to be made relatively fast and the opportunity cost of spending a long time on decisions as opposed to implementing decisions and enjoying life. Or long decision times may cause certain alternatives to disappear (e.g waiting too long to pick an apartment means some desirable apartments are already rented) This may limit the ability to be too systematic in applying the authors' recommendations beyond the basic review of a decision through their process (what they call a fir drill version of the decision). The authors themselves acknowledge this tradeoff, though I think they could emphasize it more as a reason for why people often use heuristics and other mental shortcuts like relying on intuitions.
I guess, the book does give an idea about 'state of the art' decision advice for non experts at the end of the 20th century, before the further evolution of IT and AI. From an early 21st century perspective, it's conceivable that maybe in 2030 we'll have easier access to more systematic decision support software/algos/systems that will implement more systematically a rational choice approach. But we're not there yet, so for now decisions are still somewhere between trusting intuition and doing an excel table of the consequences of various choice alternatives.