Gut Feelings: Short Cuts to Better Decision Making
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Trade In this Item for up to £0.25
Get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade in Gut Feelings: Short Cuts to Better Decision Making for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £0.25, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Business Week
'A useful and clearly written tutorial on decisions and how to make them'
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Product Description
Think less – and know more.
A sportsman can catch a ball without calculating its speed or distance. A group of amateurs beat the experts at playing the stock market. A man falls for the right woman even though she’s ‘wrong’ on paper. All these people succeeded by trusting their instincts – but how does it work?
In Gut Feelings psychologist and behavioural expert Gerd Gigerenzer reveals the secrets of fast and effective decision-making. He explains that, in an uncertain world, sometimes we have to ignore too much information and rely on our brain’s ‘short cut’, or heuristic. By explaining how intuition works and analyzing the techniques that people use to make good decisions – whether it’s in personnel selection or heart surgery – Gigerenzer will show you why gut thinking can change your world.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
I bought this on the recommendation of a reviewer of "Blink", but I'm disappointed to say that it suffers from similar flaws. Early in the first chapter, Gigerenzer appears to frame the question that the book will try to answer: "...the real question is not *if* but *when* can we trust our guts?" However, no clear answer to this question is then proffered. The research and anecdotes which follow are interesting in themselves (to a point), but the book would benefit from Gigerenzer commencing each example with a clear statement of the proposition(s) that he seeks to draw from it (and how those propositions contribute to answering the core question).
The later chapters are weaker, with Gigerenzer introducing a number of topics with no clear thread running through them (yes it's very interesting that the Berlin Wall fell due to a rumour that it had already fallen, but what does that have to do with the rest of the book?). He also drops the odd clanger e.g. "Your brother shares half of your genes...". The correct answer is between c.99% and 100% and, even if you ignore the commonality of genes in unrelated humans and focus on direct chromosomal inheritance, the answer is between 0% and 100% (depending principally on the lottery of meiosis). To draw the conclusion that "...from your genes' point of view, the lives of two brothers are as good as yours, but those of three are better" is therefore questionable at best.
Some obvious questions arising from the research go unanswered. For example, Magistrates' decision making: why is it not the case that there exist high correlation rates with decisions of prosecutors/police because there are strong underlying reasons for the prior decision(s) (or indeed one good reason, which Gigerenzer tells us is often enough). The researchers in question may have dealt with that point, but Gigerenzer needs to explain this if he wants to persuade the critical reader of his hypothesis (without having to refer to other materials). One might think, conversely, that there would be something seriously wrong with our criminal justice system if there wasn't such a correlation (e.g. prosecutors/police frequently seeking to deny bail where such denial is not warranted in the circumstances). If one asserts a sweeping conclusion that Magistrates are primarily interested in covering their backsides rather than protecting the community and doing justice (and are failing to comply with the law in doing so), one needs to be a little more rigorous than that!
The later chapters are weaker, with Gigerenzer introducing a number of topics with no clear thread running through them (yes it's very interesting that the Berlin Wall fell due to a rumour that it had already fallen, but what does that have to do with the rest of the book?). He also drops the odd clanger e.g. "Your brother shares half of your genes...". The correct answer is between c.99% and 100% and, even if you ignore the commonality of genes in unrelated humans and focus on direct chromosomal inheritance, the answer is between 0% and 100% (depending principally on the lottery of meiosis). To draw the conclusion that "...from your genes' point of view, the lives of two brothers are as good as yours, but those of three are better" is therefore questionable at best.
Some obvious questions arising from the research go unanswered. For example, Magistrates' decision making: why is it not the case that there exist high correlation rates with decisions of prosecutors/police because there are strong underlying reasons for the prior decision(s) (or indeed one good reason, which Gigerenzer tells us is often enough). The researchers in question may have dealt with that point, but Gigerenzer needs to explain this if he wants to persuade the critical reader of his hypothesis (without having to refer to other materials). One might think, conversely, that there would be something seriously wrong with our criminal justice system if there wasn't such a correlation (e.g. prosecutors/police frequently seeking to deny bail where such denial is not warranted in the circumstances). If one asserts a sweeping conclusion that Magistrates are primarily interested in covering their backsides rather than protecting the community and doing justice (and are failing to comply with the law in doing so), one needs to be a little more rigorous than that!
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
It seems trite to say that this book is thought provoking but it is. On one level it helps you explore how in some circumstances you can make better, quicker decisions. At a deeper level it makes you call into question just who you thought you were. When asked, we expound at length about how we consider every possible angle and detail before carefully weighing it all up to arrive at the perfect decision. In reality it appears we often actually bypass the rationalising intellect - I suspect if we stop and experience this we come to realise we probably always knew this was how we actually did it. The conscious thinking part often comes after the fact, to justify to ourselves and others what we do instinctively.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
This is an interesting counterpoint to the heuristics and biases literature, best summarised in Daniel Kahneman's recent "Thinking, Fast and Slow", which lists the systematic errors that people make in decision making.
Gigerenzer has a much sunnier view of heuristics (the technical term for shortcuts in decision-making), pointing out how decisions can actually be improved by focusing on less information. His two most persuasive examples are how to catch a ball (keep your eyes on the ball and run so the angle is constant), and dealing with potential heart attack sufferers (provide a simple check-list with clear instructions for doctors to follow). In both these cases simplicity trumps more complex decision making.
Gigerenzer also provides explanations for two of the most well-known anomalies in Kahneman's and Tversky's work. The "Linda the feminist bank-teller" problem (Google it if you haven't heard of it), and "framing effects". The Linda anomaly is removed by a very simplistic rephrasing of the question, while Gigerenzer points out that in framing, linguistic phrases with the same logical meaning can contain cues about what someone is thinking.
But not all of Gigerenzer's examples are so persuasive. For example, he points out that portfolios of stocks based on the companies that individuals of the public recognise the best outperform mutual funds created by investment professionals. Gigerenzer argues that in this case the "recognition heuristic" is a powerful one. But there are much simpler explanations. If the stock market is "efficient", then any portfolio of similar risk would have equal odds of outperforming. A dart-throwing monkey would have as good a chance of beating the professionals. By now it's well-known that the best way to beat the City is to put all your money in low-cost index funds which buy-and-hold the entire stock market at minimal cost (see John Bogle).
Gigerenzer says these heuristics are nature's solution to specific problems over millions of years of evolution. The question then is, how valid are they for the much-changed world of today? Yes, we might be good at catching balls, but are we good at handling situations of risk and uncertainty? And do we handle problems over time well, such as dieting and saving for retirement? The answer for me has to be a resounding no to those last two questions. Nonetheless, this book has challenged my previous view that all heuristics are bad.
Gigerenzer has a much sunnier view of heuristics (the technical term for shortcuts in decision-making), pointing out how decisions can actually be improved by focusing on less information. His two most persuasive examples are how to catch a ball (keep your eyes on the ball and run so the angle is constant), and dealing with potential heart attack sufferers (provide a simple check-list with clear instructions for doctors to follow). In both these cases simplicity trumps more complex decision making.
Gigerenzer also provides explanations for two of the most well-known anomalies in Kahneman's and Tversky's work. The "Linda the feminist bank-teller" problem (Google it if you haven't heard of it), and "framing effects". The Linda anomaly is removed by a very simplistic rephrasing of the question, while Gigerenzer points out that in framing, linguistic phrases with the same logical meaning can contain cues about what someone is thinking.
But not all of Gigerenzer's examples are so persuasive. For example, he points out that portfolios of stocks based on the companies that individuals of the public recognise the best outperform mutual funds created by investment professionals. Gigerenzer argues that in this case the "recognition heuristic" is a powerful one. But there are much simpler explanations. If the stock market is "efficient", then any portfolio of similar risk would have equal odds of outperforming. A dart-throwing monkey would have as good a chance of beating the professionals. By now it's well-known that the best way to beat the City is to put all your money in low-cost index funds which buy-and-hold the entire stock market at minimal cost (see John Bogle).
Gigerenzer says these heuristics are nature's solution to specific problems over millions of years of evolution. The question then is, how valid are they for the much-changed world of today? Yes, we might be good at catching balls, but are we good at handling situations of risk and uncertainty? And do we handle problems over time well, such as dieting and saving for retirement? The answer for me has to be a resounding no to those last two questions. Nonetheless, this book has challenged my previous view that all heuristics are bad.
Would you like to see more reviews about this item?
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Most Recent Customer Reviews
Interesting insights
This is a straightforward read for a lay person, but it comes with an impeccable academic pedigree. Herr Gigerenzer makes his points convincingly and succinctly in this thought... Read more
Published 7 months ago by A. K. Sparrow
Beyond rationality/irrationality
Gerd is a genius, and makes clear how we all use rules of thumb (heuristics) to get through life. In fact, they often work better than a carefully thought out 'rational' approach. Read more
Published 10 months ago by chriswi
Gut Feelings
One of my best reads of 2009. This is the science behind the more journalistic 'Blink'. Short and well written without dumbing down and shows why 'instrumentalism' is a dead end.
Published on 12 Mar 2010 by R. SLATER
Ambiguous title - check before buying
This is a well written and researched book and will appeal to a lot of people but if, like me, you were steered towards it because of interest in 'intuitive' practices in the... Read more
Published on 3 Mar 2010 by Minerva
Using Intuition to Making a Complex World Simple
Gigerenzer has written a book based on his startling experimental results that should change the way that all of us think and how all of us make decisions. Read more
Published on 6 Dec 2009 by Andrew Dalby
Annotated study on the value of instinctive responses over rational...
According to Freud and other intellectuals and philosophers, intuition is unsound and has no merit. Freud warns not to put any value on gut feelings. Read more
Published on 25 Aug 2009 by Rolf Dobelli
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
