I run into this conflict. Many like to regard themselves as sovereign agents who can make informed decisions for themselves. This is the ideal, and I can argue on behalf of it.
Of course, reality doesn't check out that way and the record shows it. This doesn't stop people from getting upset should you imply that they are not equipped to sensibly make their own decisions.
We are strongly encouraged to make terrible decisions all the time, and there's a lot of money behind it, from many actors.
And if decision makers mess up, it is solely the decision makers fault for making a bad decision. Of course, holding decision makers accountable for their error never happens in real life, so the do-ers go elsewhere.
I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp.
Nobody is saying that they shouldn't be able to, rather that they should be informed as to what they're doing so they can actually make that decision. Without knowing what is happening, they cannot make an informed decision.
> To make good decisions in a complex world, Gigerenzer says, you have to be skilled at ignoring information.
It's total bullshit. It might work with some crap like a lottery or bets on “American Idol” winners, but to solve complex tasks you need more information and more experience. All the examples in this article are to impress not-so-well-educated people, level of TV-show, not higher.
When we make quick decisions in areas out of our expertise, we use the same logic as when we make decisions based on emotions, empathy, “intuition”. It's nothing more than a lottery.
Their first example is just about a mentally burnt out person, that's all. Yes, we should give a rest to our brains, but the advice “just don't think too much” is an idiotic oversimplification.
> If you are afraid to associate a decision with your reputation then somebody will make the decision for you. It is better to make a wrong decision early than to put that decision off to a future time. A wrong decision in the short term results in learning that can result in corrective decisions that would otherwise be absent.
While I agree with everything else you said, I can't disagree with this more.
If someone else is more qualified or better able to make a more informed decision than you are, then let them! Why worry about whether it was you or someone else who made the decision, when the real focus should be on maximizing the right decisions.
Furthermore, how do you know that a wrong decision early is better than putting a decision off until a future time? While I can think of some cases where this is true, I can also think of a LOT of cases where this is absolutely untrue. Some wrong decisions can be very damaging and irreversible. There are also many decisions that don't affect anyone adversely the later they're made up until some ultimate deadline (like turning in homework when you're younger, or filing applications for an RFQ, or many other similar things); the only reason to finalize decisions for these kinds of things earlier than necessary is to ease your own cognitive overhead rather than actually being better for anyone else.
The hard part about making decisions often isn't just the decision itself, but also in understanding the risks and trade-offs of making a potentially wrong decision now, versus making a better informed decision at a later time, and deciding which is the better approach for any given decision that needs to be made.
Most decisions in business end up being arbitrary anyway. Humans are largely irrational creatures who make choices on emotion. I am not sure you can properly document why a given choice was made, and even if you can, it is of little interest to future readers who come with their own set of emotions.
Another option is to document the failures to warn future generations. However, as the article points out, things change rapidly. What didn't work yesterday might be the perfect solution tomorrow.
I always love the, "People are too stupid to make decisions for themselves" argument. People are more than adequate in making important decisions that directly touch their lives.
People are very apt to justify or condemn a decision based off of the result and not based off of the data available at the time the decision was made. Only one of these helps us make better decisions going forward.
>In hindsight we can determine what actions were not right, since they didn't produce the right, good results.
Disagree, to the extent that you need to discount results against available information, processing ability, and alternatives at the time of the decision. Also, not all good or bad decisions have similar outcomes, the world is not just. Personally, I've found more use out of refining my decision process and what goes into it than focusing on results. Not to say results aren't a useful signal, but they're hardly the only or even the most important signal.
I agree with you that the EV of trying to be "good" generally outweighs the other path. However, not getting discouraged by the marketing of "bad with no consequences" is difficult in today's world!
The book's premise is that experts can make instant decisions--synthesizing inputs and knowledge into intuitions that yield better results than long, painstaking, thoughtful analysis. So if you want to be an expert, learn to trust your instincts. Always go with gut feel.
This is clearly wrong, a point espoused by the author of Blink in his commentary as well.
The ultimate theme of the narrative is that humans do make decision through habit, and it is clear that this process is often just as beneficial as it is horrendous. The last part of Blink talks about the horrendous consequences of relying on Kahneman's system 1. In particular the death of an unarmed man by over zealous police force.
Interesting. Although I tend to attribute things like this to ignorance and not malice. < Helps me pretend people aren't so bad.
The people who make decisions often don't know what they're deciding about (how can the same person make a good decision about child education, policing standards and public hygiene?) and I think our modern philosophy that a "bad decision made early is better than no decision" amplifies this.
There are some decisions in life that have to made carefully so we don't ask for forgiveness.
the original argument differentiates between "can" and "do".
It is a form of "victim blaming" - they could've made good decisions, but because they didnt, the outcomes they had were "self-inflicted".
reply