|
I enjoyed his amusing discussions on Satisficers (those willing to accept a good decision and move on) and Maximizers (those wanting perfection, even at the cost of detailed analysis), and when to choose one method over the other (and when you don't). The author appeared to dispense with the abstractions, which was just right for this book.
Neat.-So. Incidentally, I have subsequently found his name arising in descriptive articles on cognitive topics (his credentials are pretty solid.
-I gave this five enjoyable stars because several months after reading it, I often use the book's main points (unlike many other facile but forgettable books which are read, agreed with, and then used little).-As an example, I found the Fast and Frugal Decision Tree interesting and tremendously helpful in practical decisions (including ones relating to my Buddhist spiritual practice), and I often develop my own decision trees while approaching similar problem sets. I found his writing and persuasive style elegant, clear, and sensible.
I look forward to reading some of his other works. The Decision Trees help me identify the main issues, discern the consequences, and nail down a good imperfect decision.
These concepts are neither unique nor original to the author but I found he explained them thoroughly and meaningfully.-Unlike other reviewers, I rarely found the book bogging down, and when I did I used the satisficer principle and just breezed through those sections.
This phenomenon is not uncommon, and often the simple solutions supersede complex solutions.Although dry at times, Gigerenzer provides considerable insight into the topic. However, analyzing the effects of gut feelings has merit, and Gigerenzer excels in this area. Gut Feelings discusses the intricacies of intuition and how gut feelings are often better suited for decision making that sophisticated reasoning and computational strategies. Most of the information is observational as oppose to a scientific study, so if you are seeking you discover how instincts and gut feelings work, you will be disappointed. I recommend this book to anyone in search of a contemplative look at the use and results of human intuition. Gigerenzer provides several case studies regarding instances of powerful human instinct, many simple yet reliable decision making models, and descriptions of how natural impulses can be exploited.As a physics problem, trying to determine the landing point of a baseball trajectory with an unknown velocity, direction, and unknown wind resistance is nearly impossible, especially in a few seconds; yet outfielders are capable of getting to the exact point of landing of a fly ball with significant reliability. Gigerenzer's observation regarding the instincts of an outfielder provides a case study of how human instincts have the ability to surpass the difficult methodology of complex calculations, a concept that represents the core of his study in this book.
Many of them talk about the same experiment and regurgitate the same conclusions, but as a bonus "Gut Feelings" ties many concepts together, this book presents these data in a way that is better. The coach. A simple elegant linear solution that evolution provided our simple brains to use. There are many books like this these days. There are so many good examples of this kind of simple elegant direct thinking about thinking that I heartily recommend this book. Huh. In fact I intend to read more of the author's works.
A baseball player was criticized by his coach to catch fly balls better by running over as fast as possible to where he thinks the ball is going to land and then look up and catch the ball. We fixate on the ball and try to keep the ball at a constant angle to us in the air and intersect that angle as the balls closes in. We catch balls by a simple heuristic (hope I spelled that right), by using our "gut". This is what I think of as the God's eye view of the world. very few of us really know what is going on inside us as we are live our lives, and this book slaps you in the face over and over about over-thinking, and trying to be a computer, and offers simpler methods to use instead.
That talk about neurology, or psychology or even economics and business and intersect it with how we think and behave. the authority, hmmm. It turns out that when he followed his coaches expert advice he catches fewer balls. It's hard to explain that without spending a long time on this review, so I'm going to give a simple example that got me thinking which is why I liked this book so well.It was about how a baseball player catches a fly ball and it opens up a discussion, or thoughts, on just what we think we are. Human beings are build in God's image, and so we have these computer like brains that can solve differential equations that are almost magical, and we need to take advantage of them.There is no telling how much damage has been done to people by this viewpoint, but the baseball player is one example.
I am an avid nonfiction reader, and this is probably one of the two least satisfying nonfiction books I have ever read. It was very unsatisfying. I will be trying to find a different book about this subject. This book provides an amazingly tiny amount of evidence for the topic it alleges itself to be about, i.e. the "intelligence of the unconscious." Yes, it does have a few interesting ideas, but most of the book is repetitive filler.
But today's hindsight can be tomorrow's foresight, and I wish that point had been more emphasized. Such rules of thumb work in millions of other applications, from the mundane ("pick the stocks of companies you recognize") to the potentially deadly (heart attack or heartburn. So the fielder applies an instinctive rule that he has learned from having chased thousands of fly balls: "keep the ball at a constant bearing from yourself". Advertisers have learned to exploit it.
Gigerenzer surely recognizes this, too. Therefore, when we view circles drawn on a flat sheet, top-shaded circles will appear as indentations, bottom-shaded circles will appear as pop-outs. The archetype is the fielder chasing a fly ball. It works.
Amateur investors with moderate knowledge will beat professional fund managers by exercising their hunches. So we exercise our gut feelings.What is intuition, and where do we get it. (Mariners, by the way, apply the rule consciously: a moving ship at constant bearing will hit you). But we must decide, every hour, matters that affect us. A logical solution would require an intricate calculation of speed, distance, motion, and trajectory.
We seldom have full information, and we seldom have enough time to deliberate. Experience has taught us that brands we recognize are better quality than brands we don't. The point the reader should take away is that intuition should be relied on in preference to logic only when there is not time enough or information enough to reach a truly reasoned judgment; or when the decision is inherently uncertain, as whom to marry. Gigerenzer's contribution is to try to answer these hard questions. That rule is imperfect. For the good of society, reason must always trump intuition in the long run.
Pure reason, in other words, is impractical in a bustling world. Gigerenzer understands this, and alludes to it in the book, but the point is obscurely made. But Warren Buffet will beat all of them by putting in the labor to be sure he REALLY knows what he is doing. It works better than guessing. But we don't have the time or ability to do scientific research on objective quality, so we indulge the (perhaps unconscious) assumption that such research by others filters down to us in the form of brand recognition. It has learned to do this from a combination of evolution and experience.
He points out that reason works better than intution in hindsight.
Racial prejudice is an intuitive rule-of-thumb in action.
Intuition is simply the mind filling in blanks.
Most of the lousiest episodes in history are the result of applied intution, from the impaling of Christians, to the burning of witches, to the bleeding of the diseased.
Its very nature makes it elusive.
My main criticism of the book is that it exalts intution and disparages reason too much.
For example, thousand of years of evolution has embedded in our minds that most light comes from above.
No time.
Five simple one-at-a-time questions will yield a more reliable answer than a 50-variable formula that tries to account for everything).
|
