Is “go with your gut” merely an expression, or does such advice have some actual, scientific merit? The New York Times recently interviewed Gerd Gigerenzer, the splendidly named social psychologist whose new book, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, argues that not only is trusting your instincts is good idea, it’s the fastest way to arrive at the best decision.
Gigerenzer says that rather than being a mystical or “flip-a-coin” approach, going with your gut is a neurological response that evolved to help humans make solid decisions in a limited amount of time (say, before getting eaten by a saber-toothed tiger). Referencing both scientific studies and anecdotal evidence, he shows that taking too much time to weigh all options and consider all data often results in a *worse* (less successful) decision than a snap judgment based on intuition.
From Gigerenzer’s interview:
My research indicates that gut feelings are based on simple rules of thumb, what we psychologists term “heuristics.” These take advantage of certain capacities of the brain that have come down to us through time, experience and evolution. Gut instincts often rely on simple cues in the environment. In most situations, when people use their instincts, they are heeding these cues and ignoring other unnecessary information.
Making a lengthy list of pros/cons, he says, though generally considered the “rational” approach to problem solving, is more distracting than helpful. One example he gives shows how the intuitive stock market advice given by 360 random pedestrians proved more valuable (financially!) than the “complex calculations” of stock market experts. He also notes that doctors and scientists, alleged pillars of the rational method, rely on instinct all the time.
One should also not overlook that in science itself, you need intuitions. All successful research scientists function, to a degree, on gut instincts. They must make leaps, whether they have all the data or not. And at a certain moment, having the data doesn’t help them, but they still must know what to do. That’s when instinct comes in.
If this is all sounding familiar, it may be because Malcolm Gladwell relied on Gigerenzer’s research for his bestselling book, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (2005). Gladwell, however, refuses to use the word “intuition” in his book, as he feels it ascribes an emotional label to a reaction that is actually based in thinking. Whether you locate your gut more in your heart or in your head, how’s it working for you? Do find you get better results via quick decisions or weighty pondering? (Hint: the length of time you take to answer that question may tell you something.)
Most of my best decisions have been made on instinct, intuition, or gut feelings. In some cases, it has been years later before I understood why those were the best choices.
During my medical training I had a six month spell in Paediatrics (or Pediatrics in American!!) and I always remember one of the first things the senior colleague responsible for my training said to me – he said “In the next six I want to teach you one thing – how to spot a sick child”. I thought it a peculiar remark at the time. Wasn’t being a doctor all about diagnosing what, if anything, was wrong with someone so that you could treat them appropriately? Well, he did a great job and throughout my years of practice as a Family Physician (”GP” here in Scotland!) I would know INSTANTLY whether or not a child was seriously ill. I mean instantly – before I’d heard the story of the symptoms and before I’d done any examination whatsoever. I think this is what all doctors do. I expect its a mix of experience, familiarity with body language, colour of skin, ease of breathing and so on but it really happens without any rationalising.
Is that the kind of thing you mean?
oops! Sorry! Missed out the word “months” after the word “six”!!!
I am not much of a one for introspection, but This shows one time when it can be helpful. If you examine the times when gut instinct and considered opinion clash you can generally find out why. When you know why you can change your thinking and so make your life easier. The understanding either improves your instincts by telling you which environmental factors are misleading or it improves your considered opinion by showing the pros or cons you missed on your first look. Either way it leads ot more reliable decisions, so I recommend it.
Blink is definitely worth a read though it will be interesting to see the research behind it.
Rufus Evison
reasonedrants.blogspot.com
Learning to trust gut instinct was kind of a scary process, but in my life it’s a much better gauge of what is the best decision than what “logic” would suggest.
[...] whole “gut feelings” or “intuition” thing. First off, on the Petri Project, “No guts, No glory”, discusses the work of Gerd Girenzer, who has just published “Gut Feelings: The Intelligence [...]
Why is it when people talk about our evolutionary history, they always imagine our ancestors spending such an inordinate amount of time running from saber tooth tigers? Are they seriously suggesting that weighing the pros and cons of running in that circumstance is the evolutionary antecedent to all our decision-making processes?
Seriously, I think on the one hand it’s undeniable that our subconscious is parsing a lot more information than we suppose it is and is frequently way smarter than our conscious mind is. Try to accomplish any creative task without the aid of intuition and you’ll see what I mean — that “To Do” list that starts with “1. Compose a Masterpiece” doesn’t help anything. And clearly our first response to things is often the best response. That much I tend to agree with.
One area where I see possible exceptions (and this is an area that all those saber-tooth tiger discussions always miss) is the growing number of decisions we are asked to make that are not made with neutral information. For example, the entire advertizing industry relies on the premise that our decision-making is not based on rational processes, and is constantly working to develop pitches that hit some unconscious trigger that will tip our decision their way. The existence of all those hueristics that drive our unconscious “hunches” is an irresistable lure to parties who A: Have an interest in the outcome of our decisions and B: Have an understanding of the processes by which they are made.
In our modern environment, the bulk of our information about the world outside our immediate daily experience (i.e. the world we experience firsthand) is mediated through channels that are driven by some kind of advertizing revenue model or in some other way intimately involved in the corporate PR world. Inasmuch as the messengers are interested in shaping our reactions to the information they are conveying, the message is affected.
In your earlier post “Attack of the Reptile Brain,” you noted that subtle cues can affect decision-making at an unconscious level (as in the example of subjects being less likely to invest their money after seeing an unclaimed portfolio sitting on the table.) That post got my attention immediately because I have heard people involved in the advertizing and PR industries make reference to the “reptile brain” as the sought-after decision-making center they hope to reach with their emotional appeals.
Reptiles are very good at getting out of the way of saber-toothed tigers when the situation calls for it, but in general I wouldn’t ask a reptile which candidate I should vote for.
And of course there are the statisticians who will tell you that which candidate to vote for is one of the least impactful decisions you’ll ever make…
My problem with the gut instincts thing, is that people tend to get lazy with thinking. It’s easier to follow a simple rule (heuristic) like “if someone is rude to me, I’ll never talk to them again” than to analyze the situation.
Gladwell does a great job in his book “Blink” pointing out when gut instinct goes really, really wrong. So ask yourself – what is your gut instinct? But then check that you’re not just being lazy.