What if we make better decisions when we trust our gut instincts? [Link]

post by XiXiDu · 2011-09-25T12:22:45.033Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 13 comments

Contents

13 comments

[...]

How does one navigate a world of seemingly infinite alternatives? For thousands of years, the answer has seemed obvious: when faced with a difficult dilemma, we should carefully assess our options and spend a few moments consciously deliberating the information. Then, we should choose the toothpaste that best fits our preferences. This is how we maximize utility and get the most bang for the buck. We are rational agents – we should make decisions in a rational manner.

But what if rationality backfires? What if we make better decisions when we trust our gut instincts? While there is an extensive literature on the potential wisdom of human emotion, it’s only in the last few years that researchers have demonstrated that the emotional system (aka Type 1 thinking) might excel at complex decisions, or those involving lots of variables. If true, this would suggest that the unconscious is better suited for difficult cognitive tasks than the conscious brain, that the very thought process we’ve long disregarded as irrational and impulsive might actually be “smarter” than reasoned deliberation. This is largely because the unconscious is able to handle a surfeit of information, digesting the facts without getting overwhelmed. (Human reason, in contrast, has a very strict bottleneck and can only process about four bits of data at any given moment.)

[...]

The most widely cited demonstration of this theory is a 2006 Science paper led by Ap Dijksterhuis. (I wrote about the research in How We Decide.)

[...]

Dijksterhuis found that people given time to think in a rational manner – they could carefully contemplate each alternative – now chose the ideal car less than 25 percent of the time. In other words, they performed worse than random chance. However, subjects who were distracted for a few minutes found the best car nearly 60 percent of the time.

[...]

While the Dijksterhuis work generated plenty of buzz, it failed several tests of replication. This led many researchers to suggest that the supposed benefit of unconscious thought were an experimental accident, or perhaps a side-effect of incubation. [...] However, a new paper, published this month in Emotion by scientists then at Cornell University, provided the best test yet of the possible advantages of using our emotions to make complex decisions.

[...]

Once again, the “detail-focused” group excelled at making simple decisions. Thinking in a rational manner made them nearly 20 percent more effective at identifying the best car alternative when there were only sixteen total pieces of information. However, those focused on feelings proved far better at finding the best car in the complex condition. While deliberate thinkers barely beat random chance, those listening to their feelings identified the ideal option nearly 70 percent of the time. Similar results were found when the volunteers were quizzed about subjective choice quality, as those relying on their emotions tended to be much more satisfied with their car selection. [...] the advantages of emotional decision-making could be undone by a subsequent bout of deliberation, which suggests that we shouldn’t doubt a particularly strong instinct, at least when the considering lots of information. They also demonstrated that this phenomenon isn’t unique to cars: our feelings are also better at picking the best apartments and vacation spots.

[...]

Thanks to this new research, however, it’s becoming increasingly clear that our emotions have a logic all their own, that our instincts are often rooted in the processing powers of the unconscious brain. The massive computational capacity of the Type I system – its ability to process thousands of bits of data in parallel – ensures that we can analyze all the relevant information when assessing alternatives. As a result, we’re able to make sense of the plethora of options in the toothpaste aisle, assigning each alternative an affective tag: the best option is quickly associated with the most positive emotion. We know more than we know – that’s what our feelings are trying to tell us.

Link: wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/how-should-we-make-hard-decisions/

13 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by jimrandomh · 2011-09-25T14:02:23.531Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm a little doubtful about this particular study, since it's measuring satisfaction with the choice, rather than choice quality, and learning about alternatives retrospectively can lower satisfaction but not choice quality. That said, there's definitely a lot to be said for using instincts in many cases; switching from instinct which includes more data to explicit reasoning which uses less information is a common failure mode.

Of course, we can't just trust our instincts directly; they're full of ape-stuff. We have to understand them well enough to know when to trust and when to override, to adjust a few knobs, and to work around the major flaws. In particular, our instincts for danger are much too strong for our present environment, and they also have a lot of stuff in them that responds to status. personally, I had to strongly weaken my resistance to perceived status moves, because it left me unable to take advice or update in many circumstances.

comment by wedrifid · 2011-09-25T17:39:07.433Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

What if we make better decisions when we trust our gut instincts?

I usually do.

Instincts can be treated the same way other (external) experts are. They are valuable sources of evidence. How much you trust your instincts on a given decision depends on the degree to which you believe your instinct is an expert decision maker in that kind of situation.

Replies from: Matt_Simpson
comment by Matt_Simpson · 2011-09-26T07:02:45.954Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I used to play paintball competitively, and when I first got into the competitive scene I started making aggressive moves no matter what my instincts said because my instincts were wrong. I did this to train my instincts, and it worked. I quickly figured out when I could make moves and when I couldn't. This process allowed me to adjust my instincts as I started competing against better opponents - where making moves is much more difficult.

Replies from: wedrifid
comment by wedrifid · 2011-09-26T09:29:31.295Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

A perfect parable for learning social skills. The consequences for social failures nowadays, like those for getting shot with a paint ball, are not the death that our instincts expect.

Replies from: Matt_Simpson
comment by Matt_Simpson · 2011-09-26T21:37:32.715Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yep. There are negative consequences in both cases - rejection and social awkwardness in one, stinging welts and possibly losing a game in the other- but the long term consequences are worth it.

comment by Manfred · 2011-09-25T14:30:26.098Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

As a result, we’re able to make sense of the plethora of options in the toothpaste aisle, assigning each alternative an affective tag: the best option is quickly associated with the most positive emotion.

Does the author remember advertising? I forget the name, but there's an economics effect that if you use a correlated but sufficiently game-able proxy for quality, the market will "game" it and make it uncorrelated.

Anyhow, I think it's an interesting topic, but I'd much rather read the second paper (dang paywalls) than some science writer who doesn't want to remember that advertising exists.

Replies from: Nic_Smith
comment by Nic_Smith · 2011-09-25T16:07:38.181Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

if you use a correlated but sufficiently game-able proxy for quality, the market will "game" it and make it uncorrelated.

Goodhart's Law?

Replies from: Manfred
comment by Manfred · 2011-09-25T16:26:14.878Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Right, that!

comment by lukeprog · 2011-09-25T18:08:03.022Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Also see my summary post When Intuitions Are Useful.

comment by Jayson_Virissimo · 2011-09-26T04:50:30.781Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

A good alternative title would be "What if the Valley of Bad Rationality isn't a valley?". This is something that I worry about...often.

Replies from: Armok_GoB
comment by Armok_GoB · 2011-09-29T19:48:36.756Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

That doesn't make any sense given the usage of "rationality". However, the functionally identical possibility of the other side being out of reasonable human reach is functionally identical and possible.

comment by Armok_GoB · 2011-09-29T20:03:05.611Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

What I do... Err, what my internal stated policy is is to use rationality mainly on meta level in deciding which intuitions, authorities, algorithms, or other sources to trust how much, as well as for tuning the knobs on intuitions, either directly or by framing, and setting up environments that will make sure the right decision procedure is used. For actual decisions either intuition or numbers are supposed to be used.

In practice poor mental health, akrasia, and the general unreliability of the human brain makes such a fragile setup break frequently, but i haven't been able to come up with anything better. Oh, and because I kind of suck at doing anything like that in the first place. So, yea... But it might work out better for someone with a less sucky brain.

comment by Willami · 2011-09-25T18:52:11.845Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

It surely depends upon how knowledgable you are about the subject, maybe your gut feeling can know better than you what's the better choice, but if you're not informed enough, then it's not reliable.