The anxiety people feel making investment decisions may have more to do with the traffic they dealt with earlier than the potential consequences they face with the investment, but not if the decision-maker has high emotional intelligence a recent study published in Psychological Science suggests. The study shows that understanding the source and relevance of emotions influences how much sway they have over individuals' decision-making and can affect the willingness to take risks.
Prisoner’s Dilemma has been a subject of inquiry for more than 60 years, not just by game theorists but also by psychologists, economists, political scientists, and evolutionary biologists. Yet the game has not given up all its secrets. A startling discovery last year revealed a whole new class of strategies, including some bizarre ones. For example, over a long series of games one player can unilaterally dictate the other player’s score (within a certain range). Or a crafty player can control the ratio of the two scores. But not all the new strategies are so manipulative; some are “generous” rules that elicit cooperation and thereby excel in an evolutionary context.
By now it’s generally accepted that if senior leaders suffer from cognitive biases their decisions can severely undermine company performance. Yet, leaders are not the only members of organizations that exercise poor judgment: Non-leaders are sometimes irrational too. Bearing this in mind, it is imperative that strategy-setters make explicit allowance for just how cognitively fragile their employees might be – or else they risk not fully understanding why their “perfectly rational” strategies don’t work.
Accountability systems like those mandated by the federal NCLB act have resulted in exponential amounts of data. Educational stakeholders, from practitioners to policy makers, have been working to leverage these data to improve school, teacher and student performance, a practice known generically as data-driven decision making. (Marsh, Pane and Hamilton’s "Making Sense of Data-Driven Decision Making in Education" is a good resource for more information on this topic.)
There is greater power and vitality in what we believe than in what we know. In a culture that places an alarmingly high value on knowledge, such a statement may sound questionable at best, or at worst merely absurd.
The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and the solution comes to you and you don’t know why or how. ~Albert Einstein
We’ve all heard it so many times – ‘Just listen to your inner voice’, or ‘Just follow your intuition’, haven’t we? But in a world, where rational thinking is considered to be the ‘normal’ thing to do, the process of learning how to follow your intuition may be a confusing and even painful one. With so many decisions to make on a daily basis, it’s easy to become overwhelmed and feel stuck when in need of inspiration. So, here is a ‘rational’ step by step process that is going to help you cultivate your intuition and start using it on a daily basis. Contained within your inner guidance are all the answers, and here is a guide on how to find them......
The importance of game theory to modern analysis and decision-making can be gauged by the fact that since 1970, as many as 12 leading economists and scientists have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for their contributions to game...
Festinger's (1957) cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and beliefs in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance).
Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance etc.
A new study out of Yale demonstrates that people frequently twist basic mathematically data to fit their pre-conceptions about issues they have strong feelings about (like gun control) … and that the more competent in mathematics the person is, the more likely they are to misunderstand the data in a way that fits their prejudice.
Philippe Vallat's insight:
"The answer … not offered by this study but made clear through millennia of humanistic knowledge … is the development of self-knowledge, and the capacity to keep and compare multiple qualitative interpretations in mind at once."
Overcoming Perplexity - Frames of Mind Required for Engaging with Complexity, by Aiden Choles
Max-Neef (1991) defines perplexity as the outcome of a situation for which we cannot recognise a precedent, has kept us in a dead-end alley and barred the road to imaginative, novel and bold situations.
I was recently asked: “How much should a CEO rely on intuition?” My gut reaction was it depends on how good his intuition is. This is a very important question facing you as a leader, knowing when to trust your gut and when not to can make the difference between being right or wrong. A quick review of the research says the jury is still out on whether leaders should rely on their intuition. And I guess my own jury is still out, as there are advantages and disadvantages to intuitive leadership. It is tempting to argue that leaders should never trust their gut, thereby implying they should make decisions based solely on objective, logical analysis. Quantitative scientists say leaders use intuition because of their cognitive limitations and that this results in less than desirable outcomes. This thinking holds that intuition is a strategy of last resort and should be employed only when you cannot use a theoretical basis or rational thinking.
2) The "reasoned intuition", or "experts' intuition", which is by definition NOT intuition, is based on experience, that is a lot experience in the same, stable context. It is recognition, not intuition.
3) It is enough demonstrated that there is no such thing like "objective, logical analysis" on its own, for emotions do always, consciously or not, play with.
4) In a new, unknown, uncertain, unpredictable decision context, the "reasoned intuition" is, by lack of experience, of no help, misleading and even dangerous.
5) There is no such thing like "wrong intuition" according to point 1. A "wrong intuition" is either a situation as under point 4), or a reasoning polluted by wishes and fears.
Please, to argue on intuition, use first at all the proper definition and take in account the latest scientifical studies in neurosciences and consciousness. I really get problems with materialistic views that still spread beliefs and wrong information about human decision making.
Owning and operating a brain is hard. You are issued one at birth, a model that comes riddled with delusions and biases, prone to logical fallacies, and built to create stories to help explain the difficult and messy business of being a person.