Gerd Gigerenzer - Gut Feelings - Short Cuts To Better Decision Making

This book was on my “things to do” list for quite a while (triggered by Gladwell’s “Blink” and Gigerenzer’s “Risk” book) and went substantially up to the top of the list after “Antifragile” and Taleb’s promotion of heuristics. It’s very compact, almost 230 sides of easy to read (and often even slightly humorous) text.

The first part of the book is titled “Unconscious Intelligence”. We think of intelligence as deliberate, conscious activities guided by the laws of logic. Much of our mental activities, however, are unconscious and driven by gut feelings and intuitions without involvement of formal logic. Our mind often relies on the unconscious and uses rules of thumb in order to adapt and economize. One reason it needs to do so is because there is only so much information we can digest at one time.

One advantage is that these simple rules are less prone to estimation and calculation error and are intuitively transparent as opposed to complex models. So, an intuitive shortcut, or heuristic, often gets us where we want without a smaller chance of big errors, and with less effort. Gigerenzer says therefore that it’s not a question if but when we can trust our intuitions.

One example for this that an experienced chess player will usually generate the best solution first and he will not do better with more time to reflect and reconsider - rather in contrary. Inexperienced players on the other hand will most of the time benefit from long deliberation. So, stop thinking when you are skilled. Thinking too much about processes we master (expertly) will usually slow down or disrupt performance as everyone who has tried to think about going down the stairs can confirm. These things run better outside our conscious awareness, so more is not always better.

Heuristics try to react on the most important information, ignore the rest and lead to fast action. Heuristics are a result of evolved capacities of our brain: simple rules are developed over time and thanks to practice we are able to perform an action really quickly and well - effective and efficient. The selection of the applicable rules is unconscious. Gigerenzer thus views our mind as an adaptive toolbox with rules of thumb that can be transferred culturally or genetically and also developed by ourselves, or adapted from existing rules.

One function of intuition is also to help us master one of our main challenges: we don’t have all the information, so we have to go beyond the information that is given to us. Out brain often “sees” more than our eyes by “inventing” things in addition to what in fact is seen, like depth (a ‘third dimension’) in a (2D) drawing.

If a gut feeling will have the wanted/correct outcome depends upon the context it’s used in. So a heuristic is neither good nor bad, this depends upon the environmental structures. Selection of rules of thumbs can be triggered by the environment (‘automatic rules’) or selected after a quick evaluation; conscious or (often) not. If the first chosen of the latter category ‘flexible rules’ doesn’t work another is selected. Gut feelings may seem simplistic, but their underlying intelligence is selecting the right rule of thumb for the right situation (depending on circumstances, environment, etc).

It’s perceived wisdom that complex problems demand complex solutions. In fact, however, in unpredictable situations the opposite is true. As things are, our world has limited predictability. Keeping that in mind one may consider that we should spend less resources and money on making complex predictions (and on consultants who make them for us). In hindsight a lot of information may help to explain things and it’s easy to fit information to past events. In order to predict the future, however, much of the information one gets is not helpful in predicting and thus it’s important to ignore the information that is not of value. The art of intuition is to ignore everything except the best clue that has a good chance on hitting that useful information. Psychological research suggests that people often (but not always!) base intuitive judgments on one single good reason. (do check pages 150 and 151!).

The final chapter of part one discusses intuition and logic. It starts with the famous ‘Linda problem’. Criticizing Kahneman et.al. Gigerenzer argues that calling the intuitive solution of most people a fallacy is not correct because gut feelings (or humans in general) are not governed by the rules of mathematical logic. He says that the human brain has to operate in a uncertain world, not in the artificial certainty of a logical system. Our brain has to make sense of information given and go beyond it. It zooms in on certain parts that seem particularly relevant within the context and it views words (like ‘probable’) in their common use and conversational meaning rather than in a formal academic/logical sense. Gigerenzer sees heuristics as a way to success rather than as a cause for error.

I find that there are arguments for both ‘sides’. Humans are bad with probabilities and numbers (something which Gigerenzer addresses in his other book, by the way) but humans don’t operate necessarily to the rules of formal logic - as anyone can confirm who has seen humans in action. An interesting thing to think about and keep in the back of your mind.

Gigerenzer concludes that logical arguments may conflict with intuition, but that intuition is often the better guide in the real world. Nevertheless many psychologists treat formal logic as the basis of cognition and many economists use logic as the basis for ‘rational’ action. This isn’t how the world works, however, and logic is blind to content and culture and it ignores environmental structures and evolved capacities. Gigerenzer closes by stating that good intuition must go beyond information given and therefore beyond logic.

Part two is called “Gut feelings in action” and discusses a couple of real-life examples of intuitions. It starts with the functions of recognition (a very strong memory function of our brain) and recall (not so strong, especially with age). Recognition helps us to separate the old from the new. The recognition heuristic can help us making intuitive judgments, like when someone who knows nothing about football is asked what team will win, he will probably pick the best known, and more often than not be right. This means that in some cases ignorance even can be beneficial because more knowledge may mean that one cannot rely on this heuristic anymore. One remarkable fact is that during tests people who relied on the recognition heuristic made snap decisions which appeared to impress people with greater knowledge who needed time to reflect.

The recognition heuristic is an example of a flexible rule which is chosen by our unconscious intelligence after an evaluation process. It can be overridden consciously in several ways. Another example of ‘one reason’ decisions is the way that political preferences are commonly ranged on a left-right scale, even if the subject at hand is totally unrelated to the left-right opposite.

Not always do we rely on just one reason, often we make intuitive judgments based on evaluation of a sequence of cues that are evaluated, but again only one determines the final decision - so called sequential decision making. We go through a series of cues (most important first, second next, etc) and evaluate options. As long as options ‘score equal’ we continue evaluating, but at the first cue where one option is best we stop. We don’t evaluate all pros and cons to find the optimal solution rather we choose the ‘first best’. Sequential decision making based on the first good reason is very efficient, transparent and often more robust and accurate than complex models.

One tool for sequential decision making is a ‘fast and frugal tree’ which through a couple of yes/no questions leads to a quick decision, rather than working through a huge, complex complete decision tree. Fast and frugal trees have three building blocks: 1) a search rule that looks up factors in order of importance, 2) a stop rule that stops looking further if a factor allows so, and 3) decision rule that classifies an object. Among others medical services use these ‘developed intuitions’ for making diagnoses. These simple, transparent empirically informed rules help making better decisions.

The last two chapters deal with moral behavior and social instincts (e.g. imitation and trust). People do morally unbelievable things (like the example of a WW II mass murder illustrates) because of their reluctance to break group order. Peer group pressure (consciously or not) is enormous and it may even overrule deeply rooted moral instincts like “You shall not kill”.

One important heuristic to understand is that people will usually opt for the default (chose by the environment, or ‘system’) instead of making a conscious choice - as is illustrated by the differences in percentages of organ donors between various countries. By understanding the process and framing instructions or requests well, one may be able to steer things in a desired (and preferably morally just) direction.

This summary/review obviously only scratches the surface of themes treated in this most recommended book. Hope I tickled your interest, now go and read it for yourself. 

I’ve read the Penguin pocket version ISBN 978-0-141-01591-0

Ulrich Beck - Weltrisikogesellschaft

(ISBN 978-3-518-41425-5)

This is definitely one of the most difficult to read books I’ve encountered in the past years, due to the way it’s written. As it’s in German (and I’m not sure if this particular version has an English translation) this may be a bridge too far for some anyway, but even for people who are used to reading both German and academic papers this one may be prove challenging. Anyway, it was for me and I considered a few times to just give up, but I decided to persist and at least try to squeeze the main essence from it. This wasn’t easy due to the flowery and circular language that is frequented by words that common mortals will avoid at any cost in every day conversations (or writing, for that matter). It’s probably a typical example of a book written by an academic for other academics…

Okay, having given that warning let’s proceed to the contents. The book is a follow-up of his 1986 classic “Risikogesellschaft” and expands on the ideas presented there and an English book from 1999. It deals with risk on a global level and how is dealt with it, or should be dealt with is. Pretty much of the discussion is fairly philosophical in character and grounded in sociological theories (Beck is a Professor in Sociology, after all) which I’m not all that familiar with, so that may very well be one reason that much of the writing doesn’t appeal all that much to me. If I try to summarize some of the most important points these would include:

• The “success” of modern society - and not its failure - has created some major risks (often as unintended side effects). These include economical/financial, ecological/environmental and terrorism, and related, some kinds of warfare.
• These major risks have impact that transcend national borders and often have global impact (hence the title of the book: World Risk Society).
• Trying to solve these problems/risks with common approaches on national levels is futile (trying to have an individual environment-friendly life-style is nice, but as long as not all the major countries change course rather pointless).
• Risks are no longer dealt with only by governments and regulators, but also by bottom-up transnational organisations (e.g. Greenpeace) or top-down supranational organisations. Or even by ad hoc cooperation of for example customers who decide to boycott a certain brand and thereby effectively cause a change in policy.
• The effects of risks aren’t necessary dependable on the fact that anticipated consequences actually materialize; if presented “well” the possibility becomes the reality which is best illustrated by the experiences of everyone who tries to travel by plane after 9/11.
• The perception of risk does not necessarily depend on ‘scientific’ analysis and rationality, but also on presentation, knowledge and ignorance, information and disinformation, culture and religion.
• And let’s not forget the role of massmedia.
• The distribution of risk is in many cases asymmetrical and often in favour of the decision maker, but not necessarily so - many global risks will affect everyone in a most democratic manner. Even so, risk export happens. Often.

This only scratches the surface, of course, but that’s what I took out of it and remembered after a first difficult read through it. And I should of course mention one brilliant quote that every safety pro should take note of:

Risiko Ergo Sum.

As a whole an interesting, but very demanding, book which gives a slightly different view on risk from a totally different perspective than most safety professionals usually deal with. Some clear links to Taleb’s work too. But I’d say start with Taleb and you will have covered a good deal of Beck’s points too, in a (IMHO) more pleasantly readable way. The Wikipedia pages on Beck and his work are very informative, by the way.

Rob Long: For The Love Of Zero

The second book by Rob Long is mainly dedicated to dismantling the “Zero Harm Cult”, its language, its way of thinking and possibly negative effects. The book has a lesser degree of “hopping through” than the first and (I think that) it’s rather meant to read from start to end. While the book is divided in three sections, there are two main parts, the first concentrating on the “zero” phenomenon while the second part (chapters 7 onwards) deals with alternative strategies.

The book opens with a discussion of the fascination with ‘zero’ in general. One may dispute the relevance of several examples, but at least it’s amusing. The second chapter discusses some of the arguments pro and contra ‘zero harm’ and also shows some of the more extreme forms of use of ‘zero harm’ language, where ‘zero harm’ has begun to replace central and essential safety terminology like ‘risk’. A dubious trend, to say the least.

An interesting twist to some already known arguments against ‘zero harm’ is that Rob Long discusses it in relation to psychological disorders and fundamentalism. The entire chapter 6 is dedicated to the latter and one may criticize Rob mildly for the fact that he goes slightly overboard here and provokes a comment that he’s a bit of a fundamentalist himself (an anti-fundamentalist-fundamentalist, so to speak). Rob also spends ample time on the (negative) consequences of ‘zero harm’ language.

While the discussion of ‘zero harm’ is very thorough, other themes are treated a bit shallow, like Rasmussen/Reason’s SRK-model of human error and Heinrich’s pyramid (and in that case entirely missing the value of that metaphor, i.c. learning from weak signals). The discussion of HRO and Risk and Safety Maturity on the other hand is most interesting.

Very worthwhile are pages 48 and 49 with the essentials of motivation that elaborate on themes discussed in “Risk Makes Sense”. Most valuable in my opinion are the parts on good goal setting which are found in chapter 5, 7 and 8, especially underlining the importance of positive goals.

One drawback of the book is that there is a certain degree of repetition from “Risk Makes Sense”, some parts are even literally copied. So I wouldn’t recommend reading them too closely after each other (unless you want to save some time and are able to skip/skim some sections).

A third book in the series, “Real Risk”, is in the making. Regarding the contents of the first two books that should be one to watch out for!

ISBN 978-0-646-58765-3

Available from: http://www.humandymensions.com/

Dr. Robert Long and Joshua Long: Risk Makes Sense

The last few days were usefully spent on reading the Long’s first book “Risk Makes Sense”. Already the title appealed a lot to me as I’m (like the authors) convinced that a life without risk is impossible - and really boring too.

The book is handy, about 150 pages and rather accessible and easy readable. The book aims at a wider audience than just HSEQ experts, and deviates from a typical text book build-up too because instead of building up to one major conclusion, the chapters can be read separately and learning points picked up all over the place. One should be able to hop through the book like one surfs the net.

On a critical note – at some moments the text feels a bit fragmentary, or hopping between subjects. I think some things could have been explained a bit better or more extensive for the un-initiated. I had no problem following the book, but then, I’ve read quite a lot literature which makes it easy to place various references in context. Not everyone has this backing when reading the book and I think that might give a few minor hurdles for some readers.

One of these instances is where the idea of one brain and three minds is posed. I understand what the writers say, but I would like to see in greater depth where it comes from. I would also like to see this concept discussed in relation to Rasmussen’s/Reason’s SRK-model and Kahneman’s two systems. Robert informed me that several subjects will return in later books where more will be explained.

One thing that makes it easier to read the book for un-initiated is a brief glossary found at the start of the book. This gives a good and quick framework for what is about to come. Another thing that makes the book easy accessible are the transitional paragraphs between the various chapters. Each chapter is concluded with some questions for workshop use (or reflection and further ‘home’work). Excellent idea to give a bit extra to the book.

The book draws (among others) a lot of inspiration from Weick’s work on HRO and the concept of mindfulness he proposes. Since I’m a major fan of this approach it’s a big thumbs up there!

The first chapter concentrates on myth busting. Quite an interesting take on some widely entrenched beliefs here. Throughout much of the book you’ll find a well-founded and well-reasoned trashing of the zero cult. I’m looking forward to read more of that in the second book (which seems to promise to do that, judging from the title). I also love the phrase ‘safety cosmetics’. This describes very well some things of what I see around in safety practioning!

In that regard it is interesting to see that the writers connect themes to religion and fundamentalism. Too much of that which is done and decided is rather based on dogma than on reason.

I like the way the writers stress learning throughout the book. That’s something we are struggling with/working on all of the time in the company I work. We had about 30.000 registrations of big and small cases (incidents, complaints, proposals for improvement etc) last year. We are relatively good at handling these, but how do you get the learning points from essential cases into as many heads/minds as possible? Challenging! Some thoughts found in this book.

I found also the angle about language very interesting. Language is one of our most powerful tools. As such it can be easily misused. I also read with interest what has been written about the art and importance of dialogue. This reminds me very much of the work and writings of my Belgian friend Johan Roels. His book on crucial dialogues (alas only in Dutch, check here) elaborates on some of the themes touched upon in “Risk Makes Sense”.

There is quite some space spent on conscious and subconscious actions in the book. Of these I find especially the argument about the counterproductive effect of a rationalist approach in the non-rational setting intriguing. I truly hope that the writers will come back to that in the two follow-up books, since I’m more than just a bit interested in the ambiguous relationship between rules and safety that has some of its origin in this phenomenon.

Off to the second book now. 

 

I've read the second edition, ISBN: 978-0-646-57094-5

P.S. One thing I appreciated a lot: the book does mention what the writer’s company does, the tools that they have developed, but the book never tends towards sheer marketing. Good job! I’ve seen many books which are mainly the vehicle to sell and I’m no fan of that practice, to say things mildly.

Meanwhile, feel free to check them out on the web:

http://www.humandymensions.com/