But even that's not true, because you can consciously decide not to choose either one of several presented alternatives, with the full awareness and acceptance of what that means. Basically you can always add the default case, making it explicit, and explicitly choose it.
Sometimes it's other people that want you to think that there are only two (or however many) alternatives, of which you must choose one; and by not taking any of them, you can assert your own thinking.
Sometimes you just have a small input to some process that other people are controlling, which will proceed without your input. Sometimes in these situations you only have the illusion that you're making a real decision even if you pick one of the non-default choices you're presented with.
Avoiding perfectionism requires accepting flaws and failures. This requires keeping a sense of proportion about the impact of those flaws and the likelihood of those failures. Suppose you notice that your decision-making habits would work well for living a humble good life but would fail you if you were a head of state deciding whether or not to go to war. It is likely worth accepting that flaw because the likelihood of being in that situation without time to philosophically prepare is quite low.
It’s mostly a joke but it did result in jobs and money being dispersed among poor farmers in rural Australia with zero casualties (human) and minimal emu casualties.
Plus Emus won so, for the Emus, this is perfect because it means they’ve never lost a war and there hasn’t been another one waged against them since! Plus, as Emus are notable for never once using a gun in war, it’s probably good as a case study for pacifist strategists.
(my own adaptation of Kelly Johnson's statement here: https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/97803-skunk-works (search for "wrong decision") )