Art

A Child's Artwork

Some children are happiest when they have a marker in their hand and a large blank sheet of paper on which to explore whatever is in their imagination. Why would we as analysts wish to abandon the creativity of our children? We should have the ability to finger paint, if we so desire. We should have the ability to use play dough to sculpt a fictional creature, or have the entire ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to paint our masterpiece. In addition to neglecting the science, the artistic side of analysis is often forgotten.

We have heard in our office many times that analysis is part science and part art. The science part is most often mistaken for the engineering. But the art side is also not what they are thinking and is a catchall phrase used to explain soft things that are not well understood. Art as it is commonly expressed is more like black art. Something mystical that can’t be defined that emerges as a result of a “not quite” understanding of the black boxes containing algorithms or procedures to which a problem was committed in order to obtain a calculated solution. Presto a result appears.

We are not talking about this black art, mysticism, or even the fog of war as expressed in analysis. We are talking about true artistic freedom of expression to explore a blank sheet of paper. But unlike science that is methodically seeking answers, the artist is trying to generate questions. And of course, these essays do not take the place of “Finger Painting 101” and are not intended to get you to think like a Thomas Edison. We can, however, establish a few rules to follow which you should consider adding to you tool box.

First dispense with any boundaries. This is the blank sheet of paper and should cut across parochial boundaries and fiefdoms you know already exist. Take their budget; take their programs, what would you do with a million dollars. There are many ways to skin this cat, you can call it brainstorming if you want, but there are rules to brainstorming. Use the ones that work for you and get it done.

Inspiration comes from many places. But unless you seek it, you will never find it. Find your source and cultivate it. Just like putting on your lab coat for your science experiment, you should find inspirational moments to be highly satisfying. For us they have never occurred at the office. They occur bolt right up in the middle of the night, during long runs or soccer games. They just might be the single most satisfying moment of our profession short of proving a Zealot wrong and having him removed from his job.

Along with inspiration be creative. Change the medium in which you work. Change the people whom which you work. If you have a brain you can be creative – that’s the funny thing about our brains – it’s up to you to unlock your creative side.

Now, unlike engineering, which could be executed in larger teams, and science, which should be done with small teams, art should be reduced to the smallest or even single individual. Michelangelo worked alone. You cannot have even two people painting on the same canvas. This will be the hardest thing to do. If it is your art it will be a part of you and you will want to show it off and be as proud as your children are to hang their painting on the refrigerator. However, unfortunately, just as a parent is proud of their child’s artwork, hanging in the refrigerator may be the right place for it. Just because it was your creation and you are attached to it does not make it the Mona Lisa. Some self-control is warranted here. But you will not necessarily know until you host an exhibit. Get your artwork out there. This could be dangerous to your pride – and perhaps why many of us lose the creative child in us. If our drawing of a lion, which our grandmother mistook for a raccoon, embarrassed us perhaps we stopped drawing. If we were embarrassed by our voice, perhaps we stopped singing. Nothing ventured nothing gained here though, so put on a thick skin and hang your ideas on the refrigerator at work. You don’t have to sign your name, but you should allow them to make comments.

But how do you really know if you have created something that can be described as art. How do you know you have created something that resembles the truth or something that will be appreciated by more than just your mom? Here to we believe we can help.

The truth will be self-evident. The Golden Gate Bridge is self-evident to most. Most great works of art indeed are self-evident to many. Why is this the case? Because during the creative and inspired times of an artist, based on all the experience and hard work they had done up until that point, a moment of clarity on the solution shines through. This is the 1% inspiration moment followed by the subsequent 99% perspiration that can be handled by the engineers who will build the project.

Another way you will know if your product has achieved the status of art will be if the senior decision maker to whom your analysis was aimed sees something in the solution that filled in a missing hole in their intuition. They might not have even recognized that there was something missing, perhaps just a feeling. But bang, if you nailed it, they will know it and let you know as well.

Free Soloing

The feature article in the May 2011, National Geographic is entitled, “Daring, Defiant, Free”. I believe these same three words characterize the essence of what is required to be on the front end of a scientific revolution. In his April 4th blog, Merf gives us a passage to read on scientific revolution taken from the book, “Chaos: Making a New Science”, by James Gleick. Gleick has applied his words to tip of the spear activities that were going on with the creation of chaos theory more than two decades ago. But his passage is timeless and applies to any worthy endeavor that must first overcome a mountain of resistance in order to succeed. It is within the words “mountain of resistance” that I see the parallels to the National Geographic article and begin this essay.

Seated in his office to my left is Alex Honnold. When he was 23 years old he climbed Half Dome in Califorina’s Yosmite Valley…without a rope. In this picture he is relaxing on what they call “Thank God Ledge” during an encore climb he executed, also without a rope. It’s important to understand that I am ghastly afraid of heights. As I stare at this picture I become physically ill. I experience vertigo while sitting in my padded  chair. I want to scream out in fear. I want to look away, turn the picture over, or otherwise remove the image from my mind. Alex is clearly a daring, defiant, and free individual. Some might also say…and here it is…that he is crazy. That he is stark raving mad, a lunatic, and belongs in a padded cell vice a comfortable chair. Sound familiar? But he has overcome gravity to climb a mountain as free and effortlessly as we ascend a flight of stairs…well maybe not as effortlessly…but certainly with no strings attached.

I cannot walk out onto a hotel porch above the fourth floor without backing myself up against the wall…even though I know the probability of me plummeting to my death is zero. These completely irrational fears must be deep seated in my psyche perhaps as an over manifestation of a survival instinct. Individuals without those instincts plummeted to their death and were removed from the gene pool of my linage. However, my direct ancestors survived, apparently by backing up against the wall when they walked out onto their cave balconies. Alex Honnold’s ancestors must have not only walked out on their balconies, but climbed higher in search of food. Those who stayed at home with their backs against the wall were the ones who perished. But it was a slower death, one via starvation rather than a fast decent to the rocks below. I am definitely in the slow starvation camp. Nevertheless some of my ancestors must have survived as well so living with your back up against the wall must have worked out in some cases. In fact, in the main, living life conservatively definitely increases ones chances of survival in most cases.

The same is true with most things we humans do. But if most of the scientific community is staying at home with their backs against the security of their cave walls, how then are we to discover the improbable? How do the scientists that start the revolutions become daring, defiant, and free individuals? I don’t think it’s magic. I think it’s through hard work.

As improbable as his feat may seem it didn’t just happen. Alex works unbelievably hard at his sport. All world class athletes do. It would be easy to dismiss Alex as a crackpot with a death wish. But that’s the furthest thing from the truth. In order for him to climb Half-dome without a rope he climbed Half-dome many times before. He has climbed the route so many times he has memorized the moves and holds necessary. In fact they are so ingrained in his brain; he can, as so many world class athletes do, visualize his movements ahead of time. He didn’t just show up at the granite wall of Half Dome and begin his ascent, free of ropes. So too is true with all great genius. The foundations for genius are set through hard work and discipline. Mandelbrot could visualize the equations in his head because his head was full of the math he needed to see a fractal in the clouds. That doesn’t mean that everyone with equations jammed in their head can be Mandelbrot…or with climbing acumen can be Honnold for that matter. It takes more…much more. And equations are not even the science. Equations form the discipline behind the science.

In rock climbing the engineering behind the sport is found in the discipline of the equipment. The devices that are used to secure climbers safely to a smooth granite surface, the knots and the rope which serpentine through high strength aluminum carabineers, and of course the tight fitting rubbery climbing shoes that when smeared cross a granite face stick like glue. And then practice...a lot of practice.  Mind numbing repetition of these same skills over and over again.  After the foundational basics become routine then more advanced studies can proceed.  The science is in the experimentation and discovery of new tools for the rock climber’s arsenal as well as the techniques of movement and conservation of movement. If you get tired lifting your 180 lbs carcass up a flight of stairs consider climbing a ladder that’s 1300 feet straight up. Years of climbing science came ahead of the current generation of modern climbers that now enable what comes next…the artistry.  Until Honnold first climbed Half Dome with all his equipment, and then free climbed Half Dome with minimal equipment, he was not ready to create his free solo masterpiece.

With the final package comes the inspiration and creativity to do something new with the foundation and legacy of what came before. Sometime that path leads to incremental changes in the status quo. Occasionally, a revolutionary leap can be made. Typically, when a revolution is at hand, there is no shortage of the old guard screaming about the impossibility of it all, telling the few that might see a better way that they are crazy, and laying before them a mountain of resistance that is the hallmark of a shallow thinker.

Now that is not to say there is no risk involved. There is huge risk involved. And the penalties for miscalculation, as Clausewitz has said, as are the miscalculations that lead to war, could very easily lead to death. Certainly a physical death for rock climbers ascending a stone face without safety gear, but they could also lead to the death of a publication, a reputation, or a career. But for those brave few, those that can be daring, defiant, and free from the gravity of the ties that bind a revolution awaits. Just make sure when you begin your free solo of your granite mountain you have nerves of steel and have prepared as well as Alex Honnold.

Some words on science...

Recently, I've been re-reading Chaos: Making a New Science by James Gleick. I read it first about 20 years ago, and I'm fascinated by what a difference those years make.  It's not as though this thought of mine is original, of course.  Once upon a time—about 2500 years ago—there lived a man named Heraclitus of Ephesus who said, “You can never step into the same river; for new waters are always flowing on to you.”  Just because we know the idea isn’t new, though, doesn’t detract from the frisson I felt yesterday.  The effect this book had on me as an undergraduate—studying English literature at the time—was electrifying.  In some ways—perhaps romanticizing my own life (a bit)—this book is why I moved from English to Math for my graduate studies.  Yesterday, I received a different kind of inspiration, though.  As I read the second chapter, REVOLUTION, it gave me heart.  Again romanticizing (a bit), I hope I’m in Tolstoy’s camp. 

Of course, I'm at the same time reminded of a quote from Carl Sagan: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."  So, while I take heart I will also try not to take myself too seriously.

All that by way of prologue, I’d like to share the following from Chaos…

*****

The historian of science Thomas S. Kuhn describes a disturbing experiment conducted by a pair of psychologists in the 1940s. Subjects were given glimpses of playing cards, one at a time, and asked to name them. There was a trick, of course. A few of the cards were freakish: for example, a red six of spades or a black queen of diamonds.

At high speed the subjects sailed smoothly along. Nothing could have been simpler. They didn't see the anomalies at all. Shown a red six of spades, they would sing out either "six of hearts" or "six of spades." But when the cards were displayed for longer intervals, the subjects started to hesitate. They became aware of a problem but were not sure quite what it was. A subject might say that he had seen something odd, like a red border around a I black heart.

Eventually, as the pace was slowed even more, most subjects would catch on. They would see the wrong cards and make the mental shift necessary to play the game without error. Not everyone, though. A few suffered a sense of disorientation that brought real pain. "I can't make that suit out, whatever it is," said one. "It didn't even look like a card that time. I don't know what color it is now or whether it's a spade or a heart. I'm not even sure what a spade looks like. My God!"

Professional scientists, given brief, uncertain glimpses of nature's workings, are no less vulnerable to anguish and confusion when they come face to face with incongruity. And incongruity, when it changes the way a scientist sees, makes possible the most important advances. So Kuhn argues, and so the story of chaos suggests.

Kuhn's notions of how scientists work and how revolutions occur drew as much hostility as admiration when he first published them, in 1962, and the controversy has never ended. He pushed a sharp needle into the traditional view that science progresses by the accretion of knowledge, each discovery adding to the last, and that new theories emerge when new experimental facts require them. He deflated the view of science as an orderly process of asking questions and finding their answers. He emphasized a contrast between the bulk of what scientists do, working on legitimate, well-understood problems within their disciplines, and the exceptional, unorthodox work that creates revolutions. Not by accident, he made scientists seem less than perfect rationalists.

In Kuhn's scheme, normal science consists largely of mopping-up operations. Experimentalists carry out modified versions of experiments that have been carried out many times before. Theorists add a brick here, reshape a cornice there, in a wall of theory. It could hardly be otherwise. If all scientists had to begin from the beginning, questioning fundamental assumptions, they would be hard pressed to reach the level of technical sophistication necessary to do useful work. In Benjamin Franklin's time, the handful of scientists trying to understand electricity could choose their own first principles—indeed, had to. One researcher might consider attraction to be the most important electrical effect, thinking of electricity as a sort of "effluvium" emanating from substances. Another might think of electricity as a fluid, conveyed by conducting material. These scientists could speak almost as easily to laymen as to each other, because they had not yet reached a stage where they could take for granted a common, specialized language for the phenomena they were studying. By contrast, a twentieth-century fluid dynamicist could hardly expect to advance knowledge in his field without first adopting a body of terminology and mathematical technique. In return, unconsciously, he would give up much freedom to question the foundations of his science.

Central to Kuhn's ideas is the vision of normal science as solving problems, the kinds of problems that students learn the time they open their textbooks. Such problems define an accepted style of achievement that carries most scientists through graduate school, through their thesis work, and through the writing a of journal articles that makes up the body of academic careers. "Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition," Kuhn wrote.

Then there are revolutions. A new science arises out of one that has reached a dead end. Often a revolution has an interdisciplinary character—its central discoveries often come from people straying outside the normal bounds of their specialties. The problems that obsess these theorists are not recognized as legitimate lines of inquiry. Thesis proposals are turned down or articles are refused publication. The theorists themselves are not sure whether they would recognize an answer if they saw one. They accept risk to their careers. A few freethinkers working alone, unable to explain where they are heading, afraid even to tell their colleagues what they are doing—that romantic image lies at the heart of Kuhn's scheme, and it has occurred in real life, time and time again, in the exploration of chaos.

Every scientist who turned to chaos early had a story to tell of discouragement or open hostility. Graduate students were warned that their careers could be jeopardized if they wrote theses in an untested discipline, in which their advisors had no expertise. A particle physicist, hearing about this new mathematics, might begin playing with it on his own, thinking it was a beautiful thing, both beautiful and hard—but would feel that he could never tell his colleagues about it. Older professors felt they were suffering a kind of midlife crisis, gambling on a line of research that many colleagues were likely to misunderstand or resent. But they also felt an intellectual excitement that comes with the truly new. Even outsiders felt it, those who were attuned to it. To Freeman Dyson at the Institute for Advanced Study, the news of chaos came "like an electric shock" in the 1970s. Others felt that for the first time in their professional lives they were witnessing a true paradigm shift, a transformation in a way of thinking.

Those who recognized chaos in the early days agonized over how to shape their thoughts and findings into publishable form. Work fell between disciplines—for example, too abstract for physicists yet too experimental for mathematicians. To some the difficulty of communicating the new ideas and the ferocious resistance from traditional quarters showed how revolutionary the new science was. Shallow ideas can be assimilated; ideas that require people to reorganize their picture of the world provoke hostility. A physicist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Joseph Ford, started quoting Tolstoy: "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

Science

Since engineering is the corner stone of analysis, for the most part, most quality analysis is conceived and executed in this domain. What’s lacking within the engineering domain is the desire to look beyond what has been done before. Fortunately we have science.  The scientific method lies at the heart of discovery and is so important it is almost shameful that it is the most often over looked aspect of good analysis. To seek the truth, by definition, we have to cast the widest net across the solution space as possible. To cast the widest net we must look beyond the solutions that are obvious, because quite frankly, those solutions are obvious. Fortunately there is a scientific method available to us. Again, we could not do justice to the scientific method a few blog essays, however, we can briefly outline what should be accomplished.

First establish a hypothesis for what it might be that you want to discover or at the least a hypothesis that suggests there might be something out there that you wish to discover.

Next run back to first principles. What are the governing physical laws that either constrain or open up your solution space to other things? The best way to know the truth is to know if the physics work. If the first principles work, by physical law, whatever you might be studying will also work, or at least be in the decision space. If you reduce it to first principles and are solid here, you most likely will be solid in your solution.

Next comes the investigation. This is the fun part and really consists on putting on your lab coat and becoming a scientist. Poking and probing at things. Taking them apart and putting them back together in different ways. Measuring and taking temperatures. Watching for color changes and checking to see when things either boil or break. And then documenting all the results. This will be the process that leads to the discovery of new things. In relentless pursuit of the truth, you must have the curiosity to explore these heights and depths. This is your chance to sail on the HMS Beagle and document and name yet undiscovered life in your decision space. Why would anyone ever give up this part.

If you discover new life, publish your findings. Perhaps your new life will ultimately not be the truth or the solution to the problem you were seeking, but it is part of the process that will add to your job satisfaction. This is also not the place to take all the credit. This is the time when the intellectual credit should be shared with your team members. Everyone will want to share in the discovery of something new.

Through publication you are naturally putting forth your work for peer review. This also is a major factor in the scientific method and should not be avoided. Although sometimes in the heat of battle it is difficult to find the time to get this done. You will be happier if your discovery begins to have credibility in a larger circle. Or, if it can’t stand up to peer review, you can gracefully back down. If you have found the truth, you should not fear others either working to found the same truth – because they will in fact discover the same thing. If they do not, then you have not either, and this is a good thing to know.

It will be reassuring to note that the truth will hold up if you have logically arrived at your assertions and your first principles are firm. If there is a dispute of the truth at this level, logically speaking, someone is in error, and that can be proven with empirical fact. It just means the experiment should be repeated. Again, the truth should never be feared. If you have been in error, you want to know this. If the other guy is in error then you want to know this as well.

Engineering

Engineering is the foundation for good analysis. You do not necessarily have to be an engineer to be an analyst, and sometimes engineers do not make good analysts because they lack other important skills required in the process. But engineering principles form the basis of what we would like to call formulaic analysis. In engineering the basic equations for various applications have already be derived and committed to books or tables to be picked up and reused when an engineer is confronted with a problem. It is the engineer’s job to pick what formula applies and then to use it correctly. To do this incorrectly, as a Primitive Pete, results could be catastrophic. This is why engineering has levels of expertise and in some disciplines, such as civil engineering, a Professional Engineering licence is required. These are when applications of safety and human life depend on the engineer doing his job correctly.

Nothing of this sort exists in the wide open discipline of analysis. We are free to call ourselves analysts with absolutely no certification whatsoever. We are not calling for certification or stronger safeguards in the problem solving profession because we believe analysis is so much more than the engineering/formulaic side to the field. It is, however, at the end of the day, the best approach for cranking through a known problem and getting to a solution. So once the problem is properly defined and we know how to approach it, let the engineers take over and crank out the solution. It is important to point out that there are a few rules that should be followed.

This blog is not the rule book for how to solve problems or to do the correct engineering but we should mention a few good habits to an effective formulaic approach in order to do the job correctly. If we fail in applying the right technique and then fail in executing the technique correctly, we will never find the correct answer and hence we will produce nothing close to the truth. So here just a few rules you should follow:

Establish the objectives of your study as early as possible. As engineers we learn to state the problem, state what is given, then list our assumptions, then you can begin listing tools for consideration.

Plan your study. Your study plan does not have to be perfect. We always say a study plan will be complete when the study is complete.

Decompose the study into bite size pieces. And then break each piece into the smallest component for which a solution might be possible.

Obey physical laws. Rule out early that which falls into the realm of the supernatural. These might very well have been considered during the scientific and artistic phases of your work, but when it’s time to make something fly, engineers will have to design and build it.

Put processes into place that are both verifiable and and can be repeated many times. This distinguishes you from the artists who may only have to build something once or the scientist who many only have to repeat his experiment a few times.

Always have some form of review in place where a Grey Beard analyst can take a look at what you plan to do.

Finally, document everything that has been done so it can be repeated and stand up to scrutiny later.

Science, Art and Engineering: Part II

My response to this earlier post was too long to put in a comment:  

Mooch, I'll take your Brooklyn Bridge and raise you one Hagia Sophia! Granted there are many examples like this from throughout the centuries, but my personal experience of standing inside it's great dome and imagining, this place was built in the early 6th century, is quite inspiring; it's a magnificent achievement and a beautiful place. They employed new building theories, new building materials, they were operating on the cutting edge of engineering. Oh and they didn't compromise on making it beautiful! According to my guide when I was there (though not documented on wikipedia per se) the dome did initially collapse -- it was the largest span anyone had ever built -- but they went back to the drawing board and tried again. (There are a number of other documented collapses, though these were do to natural disasters -- earthquakes, fires.)

When I was 9 I started taking art classes at The National Academy of Design (they have a nice museum a block from the Guggenheim in a beautiful old mansion -- overlooked, but highly recommended). Every Saturday morning from 9 - 12 I would draw and paint. Once I started in Highschool I started taking one of the adult figure drawing classes -- the human body is one of the most challenging, beautiful "objects" to draw. It was a wonderful outlet. For highschool, I applied and was accepted to one of the best performing and visual art schools in the country, Laguardia and always wonder who I would be today had I attended, versus staying at the school I did. The other day, I noticed Tim Booher sketching in our branch meeting and it motived me a bit; I haven't drawn in years but am motivated to start again, to exercise that other half of my brain...

Anyway, I think Mooch touched on a touchy point for me: I think our universities and colleges are doing a great diservice in regards to creating diverse graduates. When I went to The Johns Hopkins University I was looking forward to not only studying math and science, but history and philosophy as well. I was in for a rude awakening: the curriculum was just not geared for cross-disciplinary study. Of course there were a number of cookie-cutter humanities classes we were expected to take in order to get our "H" credits, but none of them were particularly interesting, challenging or rigorous -- the humanities equivalent of "rocks for jocks". Hopkins is a great school and there are some amazing intelligent people there, but I don't think I fit in well there (or did well there) because there seemed to be very little cross-over, academically. When I approached my advisor about taking a mid-level Philosophy class she balked. The course would be too competitive, she said, I would not have the background. Granted she did have a point -- I didn't have the background a lot of other students had in Philosophy, but why did that matter I asked her? Well, you wont do on the exams she said. I'm not interested in taking the class just to get a grade and pass go! I'm taking the class to learn, to expand my knowledge!

Luckily, not all Universities are so myopic. Take Columbia for instance, where they have a core curriculum -- irregardless of whether you are a Physics or Philosophy major, you will take a core series of proven, interesting, non-fluffly courses, across the disciplines. One of my best friends from highschool, David attended and spent his time not only on studying harmonic functions, but reading Plato and Homer. And I know for a fact that this has helped in his career: he obtained his Doctorate in Physics from this school across the pond - Cambridge. Oh and got to sit down with Dr. Hawkin's a few times. He is currently working on cutting edge string theory with one of it's "creators", Brian Greene. (And to think, I was better at math than him back in junior high...) I believe that without studying art, history, literature, in addition to mathematics and science, his research would not have been as successful. (He has told me so much over the years.)

This is why I am a major advocate of inter-disciplinary study; I just wish I had more of it in undergrad...

I just picked up a copy of Dr. Ken Robinson's book, The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything" -- I've watched a number of his TED talks and I highly recommend them as I think he has a lot to say on how we are educating (or in this case, mis-educating) our kids. Changing Education Paradigms has been wonderfully illustrated by RSA and I think is quite brilliant.

Why We Do What We Do

Behavioral economics under attack

Here is an interesting article. I have not yet finished reading Nudge (though enjoying it) and Predictably Irrational is next on my to-read list, so it’s difficult for me to refute or support this piece.

http://www.slate.com/id/2283063

I will say that I don’t think it was Thaler & Sunstein’s intent to offer anything more than evidence (at this stage) that the classical economics models aren’t adequate in determining how people actually make decisions. (Have we forgotten LTCM?) I would however be interested in hearing their response to this challenge. I would also add that Thaler & Sunstein do point to “the why”: our Automatic and Reflective Systems (as discussed in the first chapter). We can describe these systems quite well, in fact – they do in the text – and there is considerable evidence to believe they are accurate models of how we think

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=of-two-minds-when-making

Curious if Pinker would agree, but I digress.

Gigerenzer and Berge are not wrong in their complaint; we do not have a complete description of our decision making system – there is no equation we can write down that says this is exactly how we behave. I guess the question is, do we need it to gain insights? (I would say no.) Is it sufficient to design experiments to test these black boxes that are our Automatic and Reflective Systems? (I would say I don’t know.)

Anyway, Gigerenzer seems to have something interesting to say: “Gut Feelings” looks like an interesting read and will end up on the wishlist:

The key concept—rules of thumb serve us as effectively as complex analytic processes , if not more so—is simple to grasp. Gigerenzer draws on his own research as well as that of other psychologists to show how even experts rely on intuition to shape their judgment, going so far as to ignore available data in order to make snap decisions. Sometimes, the solution to a complex problem can be boiled down to one easily recognized factor, he says, and the author uses case studies to show that the Take the Best approach often works.

I’m going to have to add Basic Instincts to my wishlist, too, since it was mentioned in the article along with Nudge and Predictably Irrational, besides also looking interesting. (I am humored that this article actually “nudged” me to add another book on the exact topic it’s trying to refute!) If any of you would like to borrow Nudge (or anything else on this or related topics, for that matter), let me know.

Cheers,

Ken