Gut Feelings
An engaging explanation of the science behind Malcolm Gladwell?s bestselling BlinkGerd Gigerenzer is one of the researchers of behavioral intuition responsible for the science behind Malcolm Gladwell?s bestseller Blink. Gladwell showed us how snap decisions often yield better results than careful analysis. Now, Gigerenzer explains why our intuition is such a powerful decision-making tool. Drawing on a decade of research at the Max Plank Institute, Gigerenzer demonstrates that our gut feelings are actually the result of unconscious mental processes?processes that apply rules of thumb that we?ve derived from our environment and prior experiences. The value of these unconscious rules lies precisely in their difference from rational analysis?they take into account only the most useful bits of information rather than attempting to evaluate all possible factors. By examining various decisions we make?how we choose a spouse, a stock, a medical procedure, or the answer to a million-dollar game show question?Gigerenzer shows how gut feelings not only lead to good practical decisions, but also underlie the moral choices that make our society function.In the tradition of Blink and Freakonomics, Gut Feelings is an exploration of the myriad influences and factors (nature and nurture) that affect how the mind works, grounded in cutting-edge research and conveyed through compelling real-life examples.
Stats for nerds
3recommend
5mentions
4people
2008–2016years
80% recommend20% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- Check out Gerd Gigerenzer's work: Gut Feelings, and Fast and Frugal Heuristics. He also studies Bayesian reasoning.
- I enjoyed Gigerenzer's Gut Feelings quite a bit. I was afraid from the title that it would be Gladwell-ized into mush, but came away quite happy that it wasn't. As a counterpoint to K&T it's very good, less because of any disagreement in their findings, and more for the difference in perspective on the whole subject.
- Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious by Gerd Gigerenzer. Ignore the breezy Gladwellesque title, it's much better than that and touches on philosophy, human behavior and economics. He presents an alternative view of the same sorts of phenomena that Kahneman & Tversky's work in behavioral economics, about which I might say more but my nephew is tugging at my sleeve.
- "Why are VCs so conservative? ..."
I just read a fascinating book - Gut Feelings by Gerd Gigerenzer. It's by the guy who did most of the research that Malcolm Gladwell's Blink is based upon. The central thesis was that people have evolved heuristics for decision making that let them quickly make snap decisions more effectively than gathering full information, but a couple chapters were on an interesting corollary: in the absence of hard data on their performance, most people's decision-making heuristic falls back to "Will I be blamed for this decision?"
He provided a bunch of examples from different professions. For example, doctors' decisions often aren't based on solid evidence-based medicine (which is often contradictory), but rather on "Will I be sued if I do or don't perform this treatment?" If you want the doctor's actual opinion, you should ask "If it were your own mother, what would you recommend?" instead of "What would you recommend I do?" - the former shifts the doctor's perspective so that they're thinking "How can I provide the best care?" rather than "Will this person sue me?" A study of UK magistrates found that 92% of their bail decisions could be predicted by the following heuristic: "Did any of the prosecution, police, or previous court recommend bail?" If not, and the defendant commits a crime, it falls into the category of unforeseeable events and the magistrate can't be blamed for it.
A similar effect may be at work with VCs. It's usually impossible to know, even with hindsight, what the opportunity cost of a lost deal was. If a VC turns down the next Google, chances are nothing happens and the company just fizzles. If a VC invests and it goes bust, however, everyone knows. So it pays for the VC to invest like everyone else does: then they can blame any failure on "Well, this was completely unforeseeable: everyone else was sure they'd be a success too." It's the combination of risk aversion, self-interest, and lack of feedback that drives this. If VCs actually had solid conceptual frameworks and good data for evaluating possible opportunities, they could rely on that rather than on their peers' evaluations. (Maybe this explains Sequoia...)
- Also see the publications of Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer about this topic, e.g. in his book 'Gut Feelings Intelligence'.
