Koganti Rikky Roy Gut Feeling: The Intelligence of the Unconscious In his book, Dr.

Gigerenzer provides us with a clear definition of a gut feeling. It's a judgement that strikes hard and fast into a person's consciousness, at sudden times. The person does not know why they have this feeling nor where it arises from. It is not something calculative, like "Franklin's balance sheet, the holy bible of decision theory," [Ch. 1 Gut Feeling, P. 17] but it is strong enough for them to act on it. For example, At the outset of this book, Gigerenzer tells the story of a friend in love with two women. This friend used Benjamin Franklin's advise of making a scorecard of the pros and cons, then choose. However, something unexpected happened. The friend rejected the rational choice (the one with a overall higher score) on realising that his heart had already decided for him in favour of the woman with the lower total. This brings us to an essential question in this book - is it a good thing if we trust our guts? Gigerenzer states that "hunches are often good, except when they are bad." [Ch. 1 Gut Feelings, P. 17] This is an obvious truth but more importantly, it means there are times when a person should trust his intuition and times when he should not. Hence, as Gigerenzer states, "the real quetion is not if but when can we trust our guts?" In order to answer this question, we must first understand the rationale behind our hunches. Gigerenzer's view is that when humans make decisions, they invariably prefer a rule of thumb or 'heuristics' to rigorous analytical calculation. Our brains have evolved over time to take the fastest, most efficient route to a decision based on 'heuristics' that have developed since birth to handle our environment. When we factor numerous other variables into the equation, the brain slows down and falters. Simplicity, writes Gigerenzer, is an evolutionary adaptation to uncertainty: "A complex problem demands a complex solution, so we are told. In fact, in unpredictable environments, the opposite is true." [Ch. 5, Adapted Minds, P. 81] Too much data throws a monkey wrench into the process. The more variables we consider, the harder it is to make the "right" decision. We may think we always need maximum choice, maximum data, maximum information but our behaviour tells another tale. Less really is more. Gigerenzer also provides examples to prove that 'heuristics' beat rational analysis, such as the way a professional baseball player catches a fly ball. The player, if asked how, will "likely stare blankly at you and say he never thought about it"[Ch. 1 Gut Feeling, P. 8] but researchers have figured it out: He fixes his gaze on the ball in the air, starts running, and adjusts his speed so that the angle of the gaze remains

constant. This is the 'gaze heristic'. If the player consciously tries to juggle with complex differential equations (accounting for all sorts of variables from wind speed to the length of his strides) in his head, he would not be able to solve them before the ball hits the ground. Hence, Gigerenzer argues that we have acquired through evolution short cut capacities, accumulated over the ages by the brain and central nervous system. In the case of catching a ball, it is thegaze heuristic". Unconsciously, the player's brain is solving all kinds of simultaneous equations to reach the ball, based on its experience with hundreds of prior catches. All the player has to remember consciously is to keep his eye on the ball. Another prominent example is Gigerenzer's example for the recognition 'heuristic'. He invested $50,000 in a portfolio created using company names supplied by a group of financial illiterates picked off the street. These names were supplied after offering a list of company names where the more recognizable names were picked up as 'good investment sources'. After six months, the portfolio had gained 47% better than the market and mutual funds managed by financial experts fared. In another example where two groups of students are asked questions about the relative population of two cities in America, the group which knows less about cities in America will tend to do better. In this case, more German students answered correctly compared to American students. Thus, the less people know about the details of a company, a city, a product, the more they will ascribe size, complexity, success and value to it. The same holds true if a random person is asked to predict the outcome of a sports match. The more recognizable player or team will be forecast as the winner. In groups, humans instinctively assume that the fact of not recognising a name is itself significant. And, more often than not, they are right. Experts, however, equipped with up-to-date data and analysis, would disagree. Still their choices are hampered by a ton of unquantifiable knowledge. In conclusion, by having more information, people are unable to come to a contrete decision when it really matters. That is where instinct comes in. Even people in the bomb squad are taught to go with their gut feeling while defusing a bomb and having to choose between cutting the red wire or the green wire. However, Gigerenzer jumps from example to example without going more in depth into how to use his findings. One arena where I believe intuition and emotions play a huge role is the political arena, especially when it comes to election time. In 'The Political Brain' by Drew Westen, Westen uses the theory of intuition to augment his argument that a successful polticial campaign hinges upon its ability to appeal to a voter's emotions rather than reason. In an election, when reason and emotions collide, emotions wins and voters ignore the logic of policiy positions. There have been many cases in the past. For example, Obama's healthcare plan in 2010 was logically a benefit for the majority of American

citizens but the opposition used the people's emotions and highlighted all the negative aspects of the reform in order to raise criticism of Obama. Westen argues that Democrats constantly try to sell policies to voters through reason and facts, ignoring research showing that people respond more to emotional appeals. Rather than talk about "the environment," "the unemployed" or "the uninsured," talk about "the air we breathe and the water we drink," "people who've lost their jobs" and "people who used to have insurance."