When making decisions, break problems into separate dimensions, evaluate each independently, and only then form an overall intuition based on the complete profile. This structured approach delays premature intuition, leading to better and more informed decisions.
To improve decision quality and reduce ’noise’ (useless variability), use algorithms and rules to replace human judgments whenever possible. Algorithms consistently perform better than human judgment in decision-making.
To influence behavior, identify and work on weakening the ‘restraining forces’ (reasons people aren’t doing what they ‘ought to’) rather than pushing with more ‘driving forces.’ This approach creates less tension and is more effective for lasting behavioral change.
Before finalizing a group decision, imagine it’s two years later and the decision was a disaster, then write down the bullet points of how it failed. This legitimizes and rewards dissent and doubt, helping to identify potential loopholes and necessary preventative actions.
As the head of a decision-making group, actively protect dissenters and make it as painless as possible for them to voice opposing views. Dissenters are very valuable for bringing diverse perspectives, which is crucial for better decisions.
Ensure that information gathering and individual assessments within a group are conducted independently. This prevents premature convergence of opinions and ensures more valuable, truthful input, similar to keeping witnesses separate.
To reduce ’noise’ and variability in judgments, train people to use specific scales consistently, compare cases to others, and share a common frame of reference. Learning and standardizing the use of measurement scales significantly cuts down on useless variability.
In negotiations, prioritize understanding the other party’s perspective over trying to convince them. This approach allows you to find ways to make it easy for them to move your way, which is more effective than applying pressure.
Keep a detailed record of your decisions and their outcomes, including main arguments pro and con, alternatives considered, and your degree of confidence. This allows for later evaluation of your decision-making procedures, identifying patterns in successful and unsuccessful choices.
When making predictions, consciously make them less extreme than your initial intuitive impression. Intuitive predictions often fail to account for regression to the mean, meaning actual outcomes are usually less extreme than initial strong impressions.
In negotiations, be aware that the first number proposed acts as an anchor, influencing the perception of plausible outcomes. If an absurd anchor is set against you, actively reject it forcefully to prevent it from biasing the negotiation.
Avoid making critical decisions, such as policy changes, immediately after a highly emotional event or crisis. Allow things to settle down and cool down, as immediate reactions can lead to poor judgment.
Focus on improving organizational decision-making procedures rather than solely trying to fix individual judgment. Organizations can implement slower, controlled procedures, making them more amenable to improvement than individual cognitive biases.
Require people to explain their judgments and evaluate the quality of the explanation by checking for logic, use of all evidence, and absence of wishful thinking or pre-determined conclusions. This helps identify common ways judgment can fail and improves overall decision quality.
Learn to recognize specific situations where you are prone to making a particular type of cognitive error or bias. Recognizing these ‘illusions’ allows you to consciously distrust your immediate judgment and apply corrective measures.
Recognize that beliefs are often formed by trusting specific people rather than through clear thinking or objective reasons. This awareness can help in critically examining the origins of one’s own beliefs and those of others.
Be aware that ready-made intuitive answers often hinder clear thinking when a problem is presented. These immediate responses can prevent deeper, more objective analysis.
Avoid making important decisions when you are hot, bothered, distracted, or in noisy environments. Such conditions are known to make people think less well and hinder clear thinking.
When planning reforms or policy changes, anticipate and budget for compensating potential ’losers.’ Potential losers fight harder than winners, causing reforms to fail or become more expensive if their compensation is not anticipated.
Be less judgmental and cultivate more empathy and patience towards others. Motivation is complex, and people act for a mixture of good and bad reasons, making judgmental attitudes ineffective.
When people behave in strange ways, look at the situation they are in and the pressures within it, rather than attributing their actions solely to personality. Behavior often reflects the situation, helping to avoid the fundamental attribution error.
Have lower expectations in general, as this can lead to greater happiness. Being overly optimistic about outcomes, especially regarding behavior change, can lead to delusion and dissatisfaction.
Don’t try to change other people’s behavior, especially in relationships like marriage. It is extremely difficult and very unlikely to work in a significant way, often leading to dissatisfaction.
Be aware that personal feelings can get in the way of clear thinking. This understanding helps explain why it’s often easier to give advice to friends than to apply it to one’s own situation.
Structure meetings to discuss topics one at a time. This approach is useful for maintaining focus and ensuring each topic receives adequate attention and deliberation.
For complex decisions like investments, have staff end each chapter of a briefing book with a score indicating its independent effect on the decision. Then, structure board meetings to discuss these scores one at a time, forcing a look at evidence and reasoned arguments.
Be cautious and skeptical of spectacular or surprising research findings, especially in social sciences. The replication crisis in psychology indicates that many previously accepted findings may not hold up to scrutiny.
Be aware that people tend to neglect ’noise’ (random variability) in systems and outcomes. This neglect contributes to overconfidence and an underestimation of the many factors influencing results.