Gerd Gigerenzer

Gut Feelings

To make a decision we should carefully consider all aspects of the question before coming to a conclusion, shouldn't we? Not according to Gerd Gigerenzer. In Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious he argues that the quick, off the cuff decision will often be better than that reached by long deliberation.

The book is in two parts. The first 'Unconscious intelligence' looks at where our intuition comes from - the nature and evolution of our brains, and how we have learned to make quick decisions. The second part 'Gut feelings in action' gives some real world examples of the benefits of using our intution. When people are asked a question, such as which of two cities is larger, those with limited knowledge who only recognise one of them often do better than the more knowledgeable ones. Gigerenzer goes on to describe how making decisions based on a single criterion is likely to be better than a detailed weighing of all of the information available. There is also chapter on how this sort of decision making can provide benefits in healthcare. The book ends with chapters on moral values and social instincts.

The subject of intuition and it benefits is a popular one for authors - or at least I've read quite a few books on this topic recently. I think that Gut Feelings is one of the best in that it is amusing and easy to read, but is also useful as a guide for those wishing to improve their decision making.

Amazon.com info

Hardcover 288 pages
ISBN: 0670038636
Salesrank: 411568
Weight:0.85 lbs

Published: 2007 Viking Adult

Marketplace:New from $6.96:Used from $1.64

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Paperback 288 pages
ISBN: 0143113763
Salesrank: 492465
Weight:0.3 lbs

Published: 2008 Penguin Books

Marketplace::Used from £7.62

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Amazon.ca info

Hardcover 288 pages
ISBN: 0670038636
Salesrank: 135222
Weight:0.85 lbs

Published: 2007 Viking USA

Amazon price CDN$ 32.50

Marketplace:New from CDN$ 21.97:Used from CDN$ 4.74

Buy from Amazon.ca

Product Description
An engaging explanation of the science behind Malcolm Gladwell’s bestselling Blink Gerd Gigerenzer is one of the researchers of behavioral intuition responsible for the science behind Malcolm Gladwell’s bestseller Blink. Gladwell showed us how snap decisions often yield better results than careful analysis. Now, Gigerenzer explains why our intuition is such a powerful decision-making tool. Drawing on a decade of research at the Max Plank Institute, Gigerenzer demonstrates that our gut feelings are actually the result of unconscious mental processes—processes that apply rules of thumb that we’ve derived from our environment and prior experiences. The value of these unconscious rules lies precisely in their difference from rational analysis—they take into account only the most useful bits of information rather than attempting to evaluate all possible factors. By examining various decisions we make—how we choose a spouse, a stock, a medical procedure, or the answer to a million-dollar game show question—Gigerenzer shows how gut feelings not only lead to good practical decisions, but also underlie the moral choices that make our society function. In the tradition of Blink and Freakonomics, Gut Feelings is an exploration of the myriad influences and factors (nature and nurture) that affect how the mind works, grounded in cutting-edge research and conveyed through compelling real-life examples.

Product Description

An engaging explanation of the science behind Malcolm Gladwell’s bestselling Blink

Gerd Gigerenzer is one of the researchers of behavioral intuition responsible for the science behind Malcolm Gladwell’s bestseller Blink. Gladwell showed us how snap decisions often yield better results than careful analysis. Now, Gigerenzer explains why our intuition is such a powerful decision-making tool. Drawing on a decade of research at the Max Plank Institute, Gigerenzer demonstrates that our gut feelings are actually the result of unconscious mental processes—processes that apply rules of thumb that we’ve derived from our environment and prior experiences. The value of these unconscious rules lies precisely in their difference from rational analysis—they take into account only the most useful bits of information rather than attempting to evaluate all possible factors. By examining various decisions we make—how we choose a spouse, a stock, a medical procedure, or the answer to a million-dollar game show question—Gigerenzer shows how gut feelings not only lead to good practical decisions, but also underlie the moral choices that make our society function.

In the tradition of Blink and Freakonomics, Gut Feelings is an exploration of the myriad influences and factors (nature and nurture) that affect how the mind works, grounded in cutting-edge research and conveyed through compelling real-life examples.

Simplify your decision-making ****
Fascinating discussion of how the mind works in decision making, and an easy read. Recommend.

Simplify your decision-making ****

Fascinating discussion of how the mind works in decision making, and an easy read. Recommend.

thought provoking ****
Very informative book provides an analysis from a different perspective stressing the role of intuition. Reasoning's role of Unconscious mind is convincing.

thought provoking ****

Very informative book provides an analysis from a different perspective stressing the role of intuition. Reasoning's role of Unconscious mind is convincing.

Annotated study on the value of instinctive responses over rational ones *****
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. Instead, people should trust logic and reasoning. German psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer begs to differ. He claims that intuition often works far better than reason to solve problems and make decisions. Gigerenzer details numerous studies that repeatedly demonstrate intuition's ability to trump logic. He illustrates how people with less information often make better decisions than experts. getAbstract recommends Gigerenzer's book to people who want to understand and improve the way they make decisions. As Alexander Pope said, "Who reasons wisely is not therefore wise." Gigerenzer might agree. What do you think? More to the point, what do you feel in your gut?

Annotated study on the value of instinctive responses over rational ones *****

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. Instead, people should trust logic and reasoning. German psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer begs to differ. He claims that intuition often works far better than reason to solve problems and make decisions. Gigerenzer details numerous studies that repeatedly demonstrate intuition's ability to trump logic. He illustrates how people with less information often make better decisions than experts. getAbstract recommends Gigerenzer's book to people who want to understand and improve the way they make decisions. As Alexander Pope said, "Who reasons wisely is not therefore wise." Gigerenzer might agree. What do you think? More to the point, what do you feel in your gut?

A Plain English Defense of Bounded Rationality *****
One of the major unexplained gaps in the science of economics is the assumption that consumers are rational. Based on the assumption of rationality economics papers are littered with differential equations and other forbidding mathematics which describe how consumers make choices. But in the real world consumers don't solve differential equations in order to decide whether or not to buy a cup of coffee. This is a sticky problem. The standard rebuttal is to point out that the flight of a baseball can also be described with all sorts of forbidding differential equations. The fact that baseball players don't solve the differential equations which describe the flight of the ball doesn't mean that they can't catch! Baseball players must subconsciously approximate this mathematical process. Gigerenzer points out that the standard rebuttal is wrong. A baseball player couldn't hope to gather and process all the information about the flight of a ball in real time, even approximately. Instead they use what he calls the gaze heuristic: 'fix your eyes on the ball and adjust your running speed so that your angle of vision to the ball remains constant.' The interesting thing about the gaze heuristic is that it ignores virtually all of the information about the ball's flight and focuses on just one piece of information: your angle of vision relative to the ball. But that single piece of information is enough to reliably let people catch a ball. That in a nutshell is the concept of bounded rationality. Once you factor in the cost of gathering and processing information it becomes extremely irrational to make decisions by solving differential equations. Heuristics (AKA rules of thumb) are the way to go. They give you a lot more bang for your information-processing buck. Here is the truly radical part of Gigerenzer's book. If you were to simply claim that heuristics allow people to make decisions that are almost as good on vastly less information then I doubt many modern social scientists would disagree. But in fact Gigerenzer shows that heuristics can outperform the information-greedy favorites of the social sciences like multiple regression analysis and neural networks with back propagation. Another really nice thing about this book is that Gigerenzer is a very good writer with a very light touch. You will not find the heavy and ponderous writing that you normally expect from scholars. This book is an easy and fast read that belongs on the shelf of everyone interested in politics and the social sciences. You may also want to consider The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences (you can easily and profitably skip over the math).

A Plain English Defense of Bounded Rationality *****

One of the major unexplained gaps in the science of economics is the assumption that consumers are rational. Based on the assumption of rationality economics papers are littered with differential equations and other forbidding mathematics which describe how consumers make choices. But in the real world consumers don't solve differential equations in order to decide whether or not to buy a cup of coffee. This is a sticky problem. The standard rebuttal is to point out that the flight of a baseball can also be described with all sorts of forbidding differential equations. The fact that baseball players don't solve the differential equations which describe the flight of the ball doesn't mean that they can't catch! Baseball players must subconsciously approximate this mathematical process.

Gigerenzer points out that the standard rebuttal is wrong. A baseball player couldn't hope to gather and process all the information about the flight of a ball in real time, even approximately. Instead they use what he calls the gaze heuristic: 'fix your eyes on the ball and adjust your running speed so that your angle of vision to the ball remains constant.' The interesting thing about the gaze heuristic is that it ignores virtually all of the information about the ball's flight and focuses on just one piece of information: your angle of vision relative to the ball. But that single piece of information is enough to reliably let people catch a ball.

That in a nutshell is the concept of bounded rationality. Once you factor in the cost of gathering and processing information it becomes extremely irrational to make decisions by solving differential equations. Heuristics (AKA rules of thumb) are the way to go. They give you a lot more bang for your information-processing buck. Here is the truly radical part of Gigerenzer's book. If you were to simply claim that heuristics allow people to make decisions that are almost as good on vastly less information then I doubt many modern social scientists would disagree. But in fact Gigerenzer shows that heuristics can outperform the information-greedy favorites of the social sciences like multiple regression analysis and neural networks with back propagation.

Another really nice thing about this book is that Gigerenzer is a very good writer with a very light touch. You will not find the heavy and ponderous writing that you normally expect from scholars. This book is an easy and fast read that belongs on the shelf of everyone interested in politics and the social sciences. You may also want to consider The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences (you can easily and profitably skip over the math).

Explains why trusting your instincts can be a very good choice *****
I am an engineer and IT projects manager. As such, I am frequently faced with having to make high-impact decisions about complex topics under time pressure. Gerd Gigerenzer's book (subtitled "Short cuts to better decision making" in the Penguin Australia edition) does an excellent job of explaining why gut feelings are more often right than wrong. His research-based examples also provide valuable insight into what to do when you don't have all the facts (too much knowledge can actually be bad) and how to set up processes to facilitate better decision-making. I seriously hope that if I'm ever delivered into a hospital emergency department as a patient the doctors are using Gigerenzer's "Fast and Frugal decision trees". Not only is the science fascinating and the list of references extensive but Gigerenzer has also written an eminently readable book, with more than a few laugh-out-loud sections and many more "aha!" moments. An excellent book to read if you want to understand yourself and the people around you better.

Explains why trusting your instincts can be a very good choice *****

I am an engineer and IT projects manager. As such, I am frequently faced with having to make high-impact decisions about complex topics under time pressure. Gerd Gigerenzer's book (subtitled "Short cuts to better decision making" in the Penguin Australia edition) does an excellent job of explaining why gut feelings are more often right than wrong. His research-based examples also provide valuable insight into what to do when you don't have all the facts (too much knowledge can actually be bad) and how to set up processes to facilitate better decision-making. I seriously hope that if I'm ever delivered into a hospital emergency department as a patient the doctors are using Gigerenzer's "Fast and Frugal decision trees". Not only is the science fascinating and the list of references extensive but Gigerenzer has also written an eminently readable book, with more than a few laugh-out-loud sections and many more "aha!" moments. An excellent book to read if you want to understand yourself and the people around you better.

Interesting but ultimately disappointing ***
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!

Interesting but ultimately disappointing ***

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!

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.

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.

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 corporate world look elsewhere. The work is not about utilising real intuition in decision making but in identifying the range of subconscious and non-verbal cues which account for impressions that are sometimes mistaken for intuition. Usually only to a rationalist without sufficient right brain development (and no experience of intuition) does that mean one and the same. If you are interested in non-intuitive, quick decision making or do not believe in intuition then you will find that it is a well expressed, coherent and enjoyable book. However the title is misleading, had I followed my true gut feelings I would have left this one alone.

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 corporate world look elsewhere.

The work is not about utilising real intuition in decision making but in identifying the range of subconscious and non-verbal cues which account for impressions that are sometimes mistaken for intuition. Usually only to a rationalist without sufficient right brain development (and no experience of intuition) does that mean one and the same.

If you are interested in non-intuitive, quick decision making or do not believe in intuition then you will find that it is a well expressed, coherent and enjoyable book. However the title is misleading, had I followed my true gut feelings I would have left this one alone.

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. He calls for a return to using our intuitive sides and demonstrates how this is much more efficient than the current trend to excessive rationalisation. He uses some rules that I use myself to make decisions, when I know that my unconscious mind already knows what I want to do but he makes the reasons why these methods work concrete and shows that they are based on our evolution. Perhaps the most shocking result for my colleagues are that Bayesian reasoning - the ultimate rational sledge-hammer can be out-performed or at least equaled by these intuitive rules. The sections on medical decision are very controversial and I am sure there are those who would argue strongly against them particularly his views on screening but overall it is an excellent and readable account of the field that would be useful to anyone involved in decision making or marketing in any business.

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. He calls for a return to using our intuitive sides and demonstrates how this is much more efficient than the current trend to excessive rationalisation.

He uses some rules that I use myself to make decisions, when I know that my unconscious mind already knows what I want to do but he makes the reasons why these methods work concrete and shows that they are based on our evolution. Perhaps the most shocking result for my colleagues are that Bayesian reasoning - the ultimate rational sledge-hammer can be out-performed or at least equaled by these intuitive rules.

The sections on medical decision are very controversial and I am sure there are those who would argue strongly against them particularly his views on screening but overall it is an excellent and readable account of the field that would be useful to anyone involved in decision making or marketing in any business.