Narrow norms and vague Heuristics!

This week in our groups we discussed the articles that we had to read. Our group article was ‘A Reply to Kahneman and Tversky (1996) By Gigerenzer, On Narrow Norms and Vague Heuristics’.

I think that the main goal of the article was to understand cognitive processes that produce both valid and invalid judgements.

I felt that the article was quite heated in some parts when Gigerenzer was opposing Kahneman and Tversky. This is because Kahneman and Tversky wrongly asserted that Gigerenzer simply claimed that frequency formats make all cognitive illusions disappear. Whereas, Gigerenzer proposed and tested models that actually predict when frequency judgements are valid and when they are not. The issue is not whether or not, or how often cognitive illusions disappear. The focus should be on the construction of detailed models of cognitive processes that explain when and why they disappear.

We also discussed the topic of cognitive process models which came up within the article. Information/cognitive Processing Models are frameworks used by cognitive psychologists to explain and describe mental processes. The model is similar to the thinking process to how a computer works. As just like a computer, the human mind takes in information, organizes and stores it to be retrieved at a later time.

However Gigerenzer stated though the proposed models of cognitive processes that predict when frequency and probability judgments are valid and when they are invalid according to certain norms and that also explain why.

In the conclusion of his article Gigerenzer admitted that Kahneman and Tversky’s heuristics and biases based program has had a tremendous and stimulating effect on research. But that overall we will need models that make surprising and falsifiable predictions and that reveal the mental processes that explain both valid and invalid judgment.

My personal view about the article was that I found it hard to understand by itself, however when both articles were discussed I found it easier to follow.

 I believe that Gigerenzer was trying to explain that heuristics (which are mental shortcuts that simplify problems or tasks) explain both little and too much. They explain too little because we still do not know exactly how they work and why and they explain too much because often, one heuristic can be applied to almost any experimental result. Also, he points out that there are two main obstacles to understanding heuristics. First, the norms for analyzing reasoning are often too narrow, so that when judgments change from these norms, they are wrongly labeled as “cognitive illusions.” The second is that heuristics are generally too vague to count as explanations, so basically researchers can understand the research however they wish. He then suggests that instead of heuristics that can explain everything and nothing, researchers should use strategies and models to make predictions and reveal the mental processes that explain both valid and invalid judgments (Gigerenzer 1996).

Judgement/Probability/Frequency!

This week we looked at probability, judgement and frequency and how generally people have a misconceived idea about probability and ideas towards it. First we look at the birthday probability where we were asked how many people it would take to find 2 people with the same birthday.

My first thought was 366. However the answer was just 23. This is a prime example of where people have a very misconceived idea about probability. Another example is that of the lottery. I personally have never played. I have never seen the point as I am unlikely to win, however you have to be in it to win it. The probability of winning the lottery is about 49 million to 1, yet people still always play, and with the same numbers each go. They systemize their numbers with makes the likelihood to them winning even less. The probability of the lottery is very inaccurate and most people would be better off with a lucky dip. In the case of the lottery however I think it is more that case that people try to make sense out of randomness. And this is why they often systemize their numbers

It is not however the probability of the lottery that is inaccurate, it can be newspapers as well. There was a story that suggested that there was an increased risk of cancer for people taking the pill. People then stopped taking the pill, which also had risks. This also proves that people’s intuition of probability is very poor and often inaccurate, and that there is a perceptual bias in probability judgement.

This was also proven in class when we had to do a coin toss probability test. We were asked how many times there would be a change in lead between heads and tails out of 101 tosses. I thought the answer was 25. The answer was 0. It has proven that my personal intuition for probability it quite poor. In class we were also introduced to the idea of heuristics that are shortcut ways of thinking, and found that people are more sensitive to sample size and when it comes to probability are affected by the recency, familiarity and vividness. This is what most people do when answering a probability answer; they try to make sense out the randomness. Just the like the example of weather patterns and randomness.

Overall though due to this lesson I have found that the answer that seems likely is generally not the right answer, and to always think twice before answering a probability question.

What is a good Decision! Week 1

This first week we discussed ‘What a judgement and a decision was’. My first thought was that whether a person makes a judgement and decision is a purely personal thing and consequences differ and vary with each decision.  If a judgement is an assessment, and a decision is what follows an assessment, then would the outcome be a positive or negative decision based on the judgement?

We discussed the probability of analytical thinking and whether this would affect a decision. My idea of analytical thinking is thinking very in-depth about something. Or when you are analysing a concept or idea and trying to understand all the variables before undertaking that decision. Perhaps like in an interview. I think this shows that people are more analytical when under pressure. This is what I would do when in an exam; I would weigh up the pros and cons of each question before choosing and making my decision.

As discussed in class, if a judgement is an assessment, then this has made me realise that sometimes analytical thinking in for example interviews, does not always result in good decisions. When choosing the best candidate for a job, CV’s are assessed and a person is assessed in an interview. Sometimes people interview badly but would however be good for the job on paper. And due to analytical thinking poor judgements and decisions can be made. This reminded me of my sister, who is currently at Cambridge University. She had to undergo two interview processes as well as getting the required grades. In the first interview she did poorly in and she was told that she would be put on the waiting list. This is a classic example. Her grades were impeccable. And she would be studying. Why then did they need to assess her character? I believe a number of factors can affect a person’s confidence and performance in an interview. Luckily in the second interview she did well, and is now at the University. But I believe this a prime example of what how analytical thinking can result in poor judgments and decisions.   

Another thought I had ( and which we discussed in class) was the subject of people who are mentally and physically ill and how their judgements and decisions can be affected by this. When people are mentally ill it can often impair their judgement resulting in a bad decision i.e. psychos. Also people, who are under the influence of substances like alcohol/drugs, will often make decisions they would not normally make if they were not under the influence.  

 What then does make a good decision?

A decision is a course of action we are prepared to take.  And is the concept of processes and consequences. I believe that in day to day life we make many judgements and decisions based on our own personal concepts and schemas, in the way we view the World based on our own personal experiences. However whether a decision is good I believe would mainly depend on the consequences as a result and depends on the decision in turn.