Is impulsiveness always a bad thing? It doesn't serve (or not serve) everybody the same way, according to Living on Impulse in New York Times. Many find the destructive part of it, while others can act spontaneously without going overboard. What's the difference? It seems to have something to do with an ability to hedge:

The people who can binge, gamble or try hard drugs and get away with it have a native cunning when it comes to risk, this and other studies suggest. They are prepared for the dangers like a mountain climber or they sample risk, in effect, by semiconsciously hedging their behavior — sipping their cocktails slowly, inhaling partly or keeping one toe on the cliff's edge, poised for retreat.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the mountain climber in The Practice of Slowness post earlier. It seems to me not only an ability to hedge, but a willingness to do it; to take the risk but also know the quick way back to safe ground.

Those who are upended by their own impulses, by contrast, are more likely to trust their first impressions implicitly and absolutely, the studies suggest.

Maybe sticking a toe in the water before wading in isn't such a silly thing.