4.

Integrate Intuitive and Deliberate Thinking to Develop Recommendations:

The most realistic (and often useful) decision processes incorporate both System 1
and System 2 thinking.

A pesar de tener una sola mente, podemos tomar decisiones en ms de una forma. Daniel
Kahneman propone dos sistemas: Sistema 1 es un esclavo de las emociones, es involuntario,
y acta rpida y automticamente, con pequeo o ningn esfuerzo; and Sistema 2, por el
contrario, funciona como un agente racional que concentra con esfuerzo la atencin hacia
las actividades mentales que as lo demandan (incluyendo las computaciones complejas).
Although we have only one mind, we can make decisions in more than one way. Daniel
Kahneman proposes two systems (dual-process): System 1 is a slave to emotions, is
involuntary and acts "quickly and automatically, with little or no effort"; and System 2, on
the other hand, functions as a rational agent that "concentrates with effort on attention to
mental activities that demand it (including complex computations)."
Las decisiones que los individuos toman diariamente se ven afectadas por la oposicin de
recomendaciones de estos dos sistemas. Pudiendo ser que estos dos procesos generen
respuestas muy diferentes para un mismo problema. Esta clase de conflicto es el que
habitualmente se origina en una toma de decisiones importante. De acuerdo a (Clavera &
Clavera, 2004) El conflicto es an ms visible si se consideran las elecciones polticas. Un
poltico puede parecer muy atractivo cuando expresa sus valores o promete resolver los
problemas de la comunidad. Este juicio puede estar influido por un componente emocional
y, por lo tanto, estara originado en el Sistema 1. Sin embargo, un anlisis racional, originado
en el Sistema 2, puede sugerir que las polticas del candidato son poco factibles, por
ejemplo. Este conflicto de opiniones entre los dos sistemas hace interesante la discusin
acerca de cules son las caractersticas y dominios de ambos sistemas. De acuerdo a
(Kahneman, 2012) Intense focusing on a task can make people effectively blind, even to
stimuli that normally attract attention.
The decisions that individuals take daily are affected by the opposition of recommendations
from these two systems. May be that these two processes generate very different responses
for the same problem. This kind of conflict is the one that usually originates in an important
decision making. According to (Clavera & Clavera, 2004) The conflict is even more visible
if you consider the political elections. A politician may seem very attractive when he
expresses his values or promises to solve the problems of the community. This judgement
might be influenced by an emotional component and therefore originated in System 1.
However, a rational analysis, originating in System 2, For example, it suggests that the
candidate's policies are not feasible. This conflict of "opinions" between the two systems
makes interesting the discussion about what the characteristics and domains of both systems.
According to (Kahneman, 2012) Intense focusing on a task can make people effectively
blind, even to stimuli that normally attract attention.
Estos dos sistemas no son independientes, sino que se complementan entre si. Cuando el
sistema uno no pude resolver cierta situacin, llama al sistema 2 para que entre en accin.
Por lo tanto, siempre debemos verlos como dos partes de una misma cosa, ya que por si solo
el sistema 1 al actuar por medio de la intuicin nos puede llevar a decisiones errneas, ya que
es automtico, inconsciente y se basa en experiencias pasadas que no necesariamente aplican
al problema actual, pudiendo de esta forma entregar respuestas sesgadas. Por otro lado, el
sistema 2 tiene ciertas desventajas, ya que, si bien este sistema se basa en la racionalidad, es
consiente, y entrega respuestas normativas ( recordemos que los modelos normativos,
describe optimal or best behavior, Serves as a benchmark for evaluating our choices, they
can provide practical guidance and use rationality to define good decision processes), por
lo tanto, en decisiones como votar o no votar, el sistema 2 mediante la racionalidad y los
modelos normativos buscar el ptimo y nos dir como deberamos tomar las decisiones,
evaluando cada una de las alternativas e informacin que tenemos a disposicin. En
consecuencia, es ms lento debido a que necesita de un mayor esfuerzo mental, es abstracto
y depende de nuestra capacidad cognitiva, la cual se encuentra limitada ya que no podemos
procesar toda la informacin que se encuentra disponible. De acuerdo a lo anterior, no sera
recomendable usar siempre el sistema 2 ya que, necesitaramos de mayores esfuerzos
mentales para hacer cosas que el sistema 1 hace de manera automtica e intuitiva, como por
ejemplo mover una mano. Por lo tanto, ambos sistemas se complementan.
These two systems are not independent, but they complement each other. When System 1
was unable to resolve a certain situation, it calls System 2 to enter action. So, we should
always see them as two parts of the same thing, because by itself the system 1 by acting
through intuition can lead to erroneous decisions, because it is automatic, unconscious and
based on past experiences that do not necessarily apply to the current problem, resulting in a
biased response. On the other hand, the system 2 has certain weaknesses, because, although
this system is based on rationality, it is consented, and generates normative responses (We
must remember that the normative models: describe optimal or best behavior, serves as a
benchmark for evaluating our choices, they can provide practical guidance and use
rationality to define good decision processes), therefore in decisions such as "voting or not
voting", System 2 through rationality and normative models will seek the optimal and tell us
how we should make decisions, evaluating each of the alternatives and information we
have available. As a result, it is slower because it needs more mental effort, is abstract and
depends on our cognitive capacity, which is limited because we cannot process all the
information that is available. According to the above, it would not be advisable to always use
System 2 because, we would need more mental efforts to do things that system 1 does
automatically and intuitively, such as moving a hand. Therefore, both systems complement
each other.
There are practical steps a decision maker could take to improve their decisions. Como por
ejemplo el uso de la heurstica o atajos mentales que nos permiten reducir la complejidad
a la hora de tomar una decisin, evitando de esta manera los grandes esfuerzos mentales. En
(Carrion, 2010) se dice que de acuerdo a Anthony R. Pratkains utilizamos la heurstica en
situaciones donde: no tenemos tiempo; Cuando no contamos con suficiente informacin;
Cuando consideramos que no tenemos conocimientos suficientes. Adems, argumenta que
Las personas capaces de tomar buenas decisiones no son necesariamente aquellas que
procesan ms informacin en menos tiempo, ni siquiera las que dedican ms tiempo a
reflexionar en profundidad, sino aquellas que son capaces de sintetizar y extraer los pocos
factores que realmente importan en fracciones de segundo. Por lo tanto, al utilizar la
heuristica podramos convertir el proceso lento del sistema 2 en uno ms simple y que
requiere menos esfuerzo mental y a la vez puede ser ms certero que el sistema 1. Tambin
mediante la reformulacin del problema, changing the way we perceive the information,
evitando que la impulsividad tome el control, y as analizar el problema de una manera ms
detallada, disminuyendo las probabilidades de error y sesgos. Otro practical step is reducing
congnitive ease (no threats, nothing unusual, feels good), ya que al usar cognitive ease no
prestamos atencin necesaria o extra a una determinada situacin ya que al parecernos
familiar seguimos usando el sistema 1 y por lo tanto se corre el riesgo de tomar decisiones
errneas por medio de la intuicin e impulsividad. En consecuencia, por medio de estos
practical steps podemos mejorar la toma de decisiones.

There are practical steps a decision maker could take to improve their decisions. For example,
the use of heuristics or "mental shortcuts" that allow us to reduce complexity when making
a decision, thus avoiding great mental efforts. In (Carrion, 2010) It is mentioned to Anthony
R. Pratkains, he says that we use heuristics in situations where: we do not have time; When
we do not have enough information; When we consider that we don't have enough
knowledge. In addition, he argues that "people who are able to make good decisions are not
necessarily those that process more information in less time, not even those who spend more
time reflecting in depth, but those who are able to synthesize and extract "The few factors
that really matter in fractions of a second. Therefore, with the use of heuristics we could
convert the "slow" process of system 2 into a simpler one and that requires less mental effort
and at the same time can be more accurate than system 1. Also by reformulating the problem,
changing the way we perceive the information, being able to prevent impulsiveness taking
control, and thus analyzing the problem in a more detailed way, reducing the likelihood of
error and biases. Preventing impulsiveness from taking control, and thus analyzing the
problem in a more detailed way, reducing the likelihood of error and bias. Otro practical step
is reducing cognitive ease (no threats, nothing unusual, feels good), Because when using
cognitive ease, we do not pay any necessary or extra attention to a certain situation as we
seem familiar we continue using the System 1 and therefore we run the risk of making
erroneous decisions through intuition and impulsivity. Consequently, through these practical
steps we can improve the decision-making.

Finalmente, se pueden hacer recomendaciones sobre como los tomadores de decisiones

pueden ser ms realistas but useful decisions in this context. La situacin de votar o no
votar es una decisin difcil e importante a la vez, por eso adems de fijarnos en como
deberamos tomar la decisin (modelo normativo), debemos prestar atencin tambin en
como realmente decidimos (modelo descriptivo, they describe how people actually think in
reality (for example maybe people consistently make wrong choices, understanding biases
allows for improvement of decisions)). Al saber cmo realmente tomamos las decisiones,
podremos darnos cuenta de los errores que cometemos al decidir sobre una determinada
situacin. Tambin al utilizar un Outside View (More likely to be objective More ability to
generalize across other situations, ask others), podremos complementar nuestra informacin
y tambin ampliar nuestra visin del problema, logrando verlo desde otra perspectiva. Otro
punto a recomendar, es lograr integrar al sistema 1 y 2 de manera equitativa, y no solamente
que uno de ellos dos tome el control de la situacin, sino que se apoyen mutuamente, esto se
puede lograr en el momento de tener una respuesta intuitiva o automtica, no ejecutarla
inmediatamente sino que analizar y pensar ( normatives models) primeramente antes de
tomar una decisin y de esta manera no ser engaados por sesgos o por la aleatoriedad, ya
que en el caso de votar o no votar nos podemos ver inclinados a tomar decisiones por
influencia social o por medio de la intuicin y emociones. Por lo anterior siempre debemos
tener presente que tanto el sistema 1 y 2, como los modelos normativos y descriptivos se
complementan entre si, y al comprender su funcionamiento nos sern de gran ayuda para
evitar sesgos asociados a la toma de decisiones. Esto se puede lograr en el momento de tener
una respuesta intuitiva o automtica, no ejecutarla inmediatamente sino que analizar y pensar
( normatives models) primeramente antes de tomar una decisin y de esta manera no ser
engaados por sesgos o por la aleatoriedad

Finally, we can make recommendations on how decision-makers can be more realistic but
useful decisions in this context. The situation of "voting or not voting" is a difficult and
important decision at the same time, so as well as to look at how we should make the decision
(normative model), we must also pay attention to how we really decided (descriptive model,
they describe how people think in really (for example maybe people consistently make wrong
choices, understanding biases allows for improvement of decisions)). With knowing how we
really make the decisions, we can realize the mistakes we made in deciding on a certain
situation. Also, when using an Outside View (more likely to be objective more ability to
generalize across other situations, ask others), we will be able to complement our information
and also broaden our vision of the problem, seeing it from another perspective. Another point
to recommend is to integrate the system 1 and 2 equitably, and not just one of them to take
control of the situation, but to support each other, they must support each other, this can be
achieved at the time of having an intuitive or automatic response, not to execute it
immediately but to analyze and think (normative models) first before making a decision and
thus not be deceived by bias or by randomness, because in the case of "vote or not vote" we
can be inclined to make decisions by social influence or through intuition and emotions.
Therefore, it should be considered that both system 1 and 2, as well as the normative and
descriptive models, are complemented by each other, and in understanding its operation we
will be very helpful in avoiding biases associated with decision-making. This can be achieved
at the time of having an intuitive or automatic response, not to execute it immediately, but to
analyze and think (normative models) first before making a decision and thus not be deceived
by bias or randomness.