Less (Information) Is More

Wow! I work in retail, electronics retail, primarily. This is so evident there! I don't work as a salesman, I work more as a guide to help people find what they want (then work as salesman to get them to buy everything else that goes with the TV or camera!). I generally work with those two types of people, I just didn't know this was being studied in psychology! It's true that the satisficers do always seem more optimistic than the maximizers and their decisions are generally based on one or two things they learn about the item they're buying! I am definitely a satisficer and I'm definitely optimistic and happy... others just thought I was lucky and flew by the seat of my pants... perhaps I'm just good at weighing the more important factors in decisions? I'll have to check this our more in depth while working!

Many have said that this article echoes Malcom Gladwell's "Blink". Interestingly enough, it's Gladwell that wrote the article I quoted about people's gut instincts being all wrong (at least in the case of choosing SUVs over safer cars).

The article he wrote was "Big and Bad" in the January 12, 2004 New Yorker. The article is archived and freely available on gladwell dot com.

Malcom Gladwell says something very similar in his book "Blink". Very interesting stuff.

Malcolm Gladwell says something very similar in his book "Blink". Very interesting stuff.

Gigerenzer's "lab trial" shows what parents like, not necessarily what's best. Similar trials were conducted by Karl Rove against John McCain in the 2000 election, where it turns out that people in South Carolina have a gut feeling against a candidate if they believe he has fathered an illegitimate black baby.

Similarly, people have gut feelings in favor of SUVs because they're bigger, and in the case of the Chrysler PT Cruiser, prefer smaller rear windows because it makes them feel safer. All that tedious, boring data, on the other hand, contradicts their inerrant, pristine instincts.

Impossible.

Adding variables into a regression equations will almost always increase predictive validity - even if it's incrementally unimportant.

"Gigerenzer has demonstrated this in the laboratory". I fell over laughing. As if he had an array of families locked in cages.

Why do artsy-fartsies insist on playing scientist, only to dump on actual technical achievements, like data mining? Ever heard of Google, Mr. Herbert? Lots of fancy optimization going on at that place.

When you "psychologists" come up with something as profound as Maxwell's equations or information theory, then open your mouths. Until then, gimme a Venti Latte.

Sounds like a new twist on Ockham's Razor: "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

Reminds me of Ockham's Razor... "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." I guess this guy is just putting his own spin on Ockham.

Stephen Colbert: Satirist or psychological sage? And he didn't have to prove any of this study's so-called "facts" to know he was right -- he trusted his gut.

Stephen Colbert: Satirist or psychological sage? And he didn't have to prove any of this study's so-called "facts" to know he was right -- he trusted his gut.

Simplistic. If you can't automatically tell which is the "best" to take, then "Take the Best" doesn't help. Also, "Take the Best" ignores problems where variables have complex interdependencies. In other words, factor X generally doesn't matter, except when factors Y and Z are just so; then it is of critical importance.

In other words, "Take the Best" uses human effort to solve smoothly-varying multivariate optimization problems. That kind of problem has been studied to death, and computers are great at it. "Take the Best" is useful only for the most simple problems, and in general is a step backward.

Sounds to me ike Gigerenzer has read Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink" and has decided to plagerize it.

Mr. Herbert does not know what he is talking about and should have asked Mr. Gigerenzer to write this article. How do you estimate which method is "more accurate", and what does "more accurate" actually mean?

Is the pot making a comment about the kettle (jojoc10)? That second sentence is quite a statement.

Perhaps Mr Herbert should have heeded his own advice and made this article shorter with (less information). I took the first several paragraphs and came to the informed decision without reading the rest of this laborious article that I was all set on reading anymore.

Walk-a-ways: less is more/do as I do not as I think.