Yes, it's glorified impulsiveness. Quitting is one solution. But it isn't the only one.
The study itself is better reading. It finds "people may be excessively cautious when facing life-changing choices" while conceding "that the research subjects who chose to participate in the study are far from representative...as there may be sample selection in which coin tossers complete the surveys, and responses might not be truthful" [1]. Furthermore, in allowing participants to choose the question they wanted to answer with a coin flip, it selected for questions to which thought had already been devoted.
The conclusion is best interpreted as "if you've thought through a big decision and remain unsure, there is preliminary evidence that you might want to risk going for it." Not that the moment a trace of dissatisfaction crosses your mind, you should give up.
It boils down to "If things aren't going well, change something."
I'd wager it comes down to taking control of your life. Even if life is "harder" by most measures after the change, knowing that you have the ability to make a change without the world ending is powerful. A new job, new year, new relationship, etc, etc is a chance to reset and do things "better" this time around.
Even if this particular change doesn't work out for the better, it changes your mindset.
18-year-olds have legal majority, but talk to one for an hour and you'll see most are not 'adult'. 500 years ago a 16 year old could be a man, contributing as a full fledged adult to his community. Today it's 25 if you're lucky.
From what I understand this isn’t actually true to much extent; 16 was still considered fairly young. Too young to run a household or be the head of the house, often times, although if it happens it would be a forced of circumstance. When Henry of the six wives married a 17 year old (by some estimates) people were disgusted/concerned about it.
You're implying that being selfish is inherently bad. Of course it's selfish. You're doing something for you. It's only a problem if it unfairly hurts someone else. How is that the case here?
Check-list for the other side of the equation: would I be happy with never settling down at all, always on the move? What conditions would it take for me to stay put? If the first answer is no and you can't give a reasonable answer to the second, you might want to reconsider change until you can.
Not when you consider that in the context of this article, the set of people flipping coins had already had all the rationalisation opportunities and were still left with no clear way to make the decision, whatever that decision was in their circumstance. Once you've removed all the deterministic structure, all you're left with is playing the odds.
Why? The idea is that if you’re seriously unsure, you’re probably trying to convince yourself that where you are is ok out of risk aversion, not pragmatism. People tend to be massively biased against change because of uncertainty. That’s not good if you want to have the best outcome possible.
It's modern day capitalism. Never be satisfied with what you have and always look for the next best thing. Pretty sure it's one of the reasons that so many people are unhappy these days.
