Less (Information) Is More

Gut feelings aren't really "quick and dirty". They are the result of our pre-cognitive lowewr brain structures processing massive amounts of information and sending signals to our conscious minds to eliminate choices incongruent with our prior learning or desires. Neuroscientist A. Damasio calls them "somatic markers". The Franklin method is a very left-brain approach. 1. Left brain just cannot process the amount of information available to the lower brain structures 2. When you eliminate items from the pro/con list, you are using somatic markers anyway. Conclusion: we should not throw out the left brain but train it to be tuned into the non-cognitive input. Then you get the best of both worlds.

Snap decisions probably work for shopping, i.e., check Consumer Reports if you are buying electronics and just go with their "best buy" or what color to paint your walls. However, you might want to take a bit more time to consider your situation if it involves a medical decision, a new job, or a dropping a load of money on a house or car. Still, you need to consider how much time and information really is necessary. At some point you just have to make a decision and live with it.

In theory it may work - but if you get humans who have had either a plethora of bad life experiences or a plethora of good life experiences - their gut reactions may be either too optimistic or too pessimistic to be reliable. Balance - some application of moral logic and some gut is probably best.

The military reference was the best comparison of how crucial and effective trusting your gut can be. As a woman in the dating process, it definitely save alot of time. Blink by Malcom Gladwell was a excellent book on this. I think they refered to it as splicing; making split second decisions.

The difference I see in these two is that with splicing it's an immediate reaction, but Gigeranzer seems to be promoting still being analytical, but with fewer factors. But it seems to me that you still have to think of all the options to figure out which ones are important and which ones aren't. Meaning, you still have to collect the same amount of data, filter out what you don't need, then make the decision based on what's left... so is that really trusting your gut?

If I may be allowed another 2cs' worth despite my double post earlier, I would like to question the use of the word heuristics to describe the rapid "satisficing" decision-making process. Heuristics to me means a searching and analytic process that should only end when the truth has been approached as closely as possible -- it implies the use of logic and evidence, not some cognitive triage.
Also, I can well imaginre the conseqwuences of earnest attemnpts to train muilitary officers and MBA students in this sort of decision making. How to avoid secondary delay caused by trying to decide which factors to sacrifice etc....

I liked this article as it can really help when making tough decisions; Go for the most important piece of information or factor.... Ok, fine! But the case of asthmatic child is not a good example at all and has ruined the artcile. The most important factor in the example is to save the child and go to the doctor 20 minute away.

America has a healthy ferment of discussion in which such nostrums surface from time to time. In this case I am glad to see that "gut feeling" does not relate to anti-intellectual concepts of the kind the fascists used to promote.
There seems to be strong anectdotal evidsence of our ability to assess problems automatically, e.g. the oft-recounted experience of waking up to find that one has solved a knotty problem in one's sleep. Like my father, a trained scientists and physician, I am fond of Louis Pasteur's dictum "chance favours the prepared mind". I found the medical example in this article disturbing. The good listener could easily be the weaker diagnostician, although a hospital might be a better bet for other reasons. But snap decisions may be better in some circumstances, e.g. when pursued by a bear.

America has a healthy ferment of discussion in which such nostrums surface from time to time. In this case I am glad to see that "gut feeling" does not relate to anti-intellectual concepts of the kind the fascists used to promote.
There seems to be strong anectdotal evidsence of our ability to assess problems automatically, e.g. the oft-recounted experience of waking up to find that one has solved a knotty problem in one's sleep. Like my father, a trained scientists and physician, I am fond of Louis Pasteur's dictum "chance favours the prepared mind". I found the medical example in this article disturbing. The good listener could easily be the weaker diagnostitician, although a hospital might be a better bet for other reasons. But snap decisions may be better in some circumstances, e.g. when pursued by a bear.

A longer thought out decision is best, do you buy a car the moment you see it, do you choose your spouse in the same hasty manner? No.

i agree glowingluma...there are those who are impulsive/reactive. Those who cannot consistantly make good decisions. For instance, those with the disease of addiction run off of "feelings/impulse". This is not a good method for decision making for those who fall into that category. In those cases, the good old fashion method of the pros and cons list works best.

Okay, our zealous friend moosetracks did kind of go overboard, but have you heard what he is saying? After reading the article, I found it refreshing to have some input to remind me of times when I have had hard choices in life that could not be made on two half sheets of paper, and trusting that gut instinct on the fly just left me uncomfortable, I prayed on these matters and the decision followed... do not discard the content because of the method of delivery.
Simon

please forgive me moosetracks but i can't help but notice some words in caps. darwin's theory of evolution. honestly, between the bible and the evidence-based theory of evolution, i'd find evolution more credible and more appealing to the modern brain. it's not a religion because people do not pay money and land to spread the theory. evolutionists do not pay and pray to evolution either to save them from eternal damnation.

moosetracks: the spiritual disregarded? err. it's because of the nature of the research. it's actually based on statistics and science. in contrast to what you suggested that science becomes more advanced, it actually lessens the 'gap' between what we know and what we do not know. science now can explain a lot of phenomena everyday that our ancestors once credited on on fairies, on magical creatures, on supernatural entities and some supercreator.

The author's simple approach to decision-making sounds effective, but it is dangerous. There are many instances where two or three factors interact and together yield an effect that can't be detected by considering individual factors. Such interaction-effects all too often are highly counterintuitive.

The various fields of engineering provide numerous examples of this. Take, for example, the decision to extend the range of an aircraft. The simplistic decision might be to build bigger fuel tanks into the existing airframe. However, the larger tanks and the extra fuel add appreciable weight. Therefore, the structural design of the airframe needs to be reinforced. This brings additional weight, which along with the extra fuel-weight causes the aircraft to require a larger wing-area, bringing even more weight and greater drag, causing the aircraft to burn fuel faster, and shortening its effective range.

Modern corporations provide yet another example where the author's simplistic approach to decision-making already is creating immeasurable waste. The seat-of-the-pants solution that nearly all managers and executives employ, when they feel the need to speed up the flow of projects through their companies, is to push the companies' resources by forcing tighter due-dates upon the projects. Ironically, this is the worst possible approach, because it forces widespread multitasking to occur. The multitasking, in turn, cripples the flow of projects rather than speeding it up. The highly counterintuitive solution, which the author's simplistic followers could not possibly embrace, is to cause the effective removal of projects by spacing the due-dates further apart along the timeline.

Despite the author's self-congratulatory tone and unfounded inferences, there is no substitute for knowing how things work.

Tony Rizzo
President
Product Development Institute
+1 908 264 8520 desk
+1 908 230 5348 mobile