critical thinking

Many good judgments we make every day are automatic or reactive, rather than reflective. Consider the ease with which well-trained pilots fly complicated machines safely taking millions of us to our destina- tions every day. Through training and repetition, vet- eran pilots have internalized and made automatic a series of complex analyses, inferences, and quick effec- tive judgments that novice pilots often find mentally all-consuming. Automatic reactions are also seen in more “grounded” drivers and in other situations. For example, bike riders often pedal along, paying more attention to the beauty of their surroundings than on shifting gears or maintaining their balance. The pro- cess of e-mailing friends is another example. Our fin- gers tap the keys, but our minds are focused more on composing our messages than on locating the let- ters on the keyboards. Human beings do not make all their decisions using only their capacity for delib- erative reflective thought. Human decision making is more complex.1 Some judgments, including many good ones, are quick and reactive, not deliberative or reflective. Although some judgments are best made more automatically or reactively, some are best made reflectively.2 Our real-life critical thinking question is “Which of our reactive judgments ought we to make reflectively?”

For any of us to maximize our personal potential for developing and applying critical thinking to real-life decision making, we first must understand how human problem solving and decision making function in real life. We know that critical thinking, or reflective pur- poseful judgment, can and ought to be applied to a very large array of vital issues and important decisions. And we know from our experience that we do not always use critical thinking. The fact that we do not use critical thinking does not imply that we ought not to be using critical thinking.

This chapter and the next one focus on the skill of self-regulation, because monitoring our own decision making and correcting our own decision making turn out to be essential. Taking a moment to “stop and think” is excellent advice for every one of us, authors included. We begin this chapter with a brief synopsis of the cogni- tive science research on decision making so that we can position critical thinking, and in particular the skill of self-regulation, within that context. We will learn that many reactive judgments are good judgments. But, in some circumstances, reactive judgments can lead to unnecessary risks and mistaken biases. Our work in this chapter is to use self-regulation to become more aware of those circumstances so we can correct ourselves reflectively, using critical thinking, before we make a mistake.

10.1 Our Two Human Decision-Making

Systems

Human decision making emerges from the interplay of two cognitive drivers. One is our human propensity toward self- explanation known as argument making. The other driver is the influence on our decision making of mental “shortcuts” known as cognitive heuristics. Argument making, as we saw in the previous chapters, is the effort to be logical—that is, to rely on the relevant reasons and facts as we see them when mak- ing our decisions. In general, humans value making important decisions as rationally as the circumstances, significance, and content of their judgments permit. This is not to say that we are always successful in this effort. In fact, we often are not. And yet we explain our choices and judgments to ourselves, if not to others, in terms of the relevant reasons and facts—again, as we see them. For example, you ask me why I stayed overnight at a friend’s house in another city instead of driving home. I reply that it was late and I was very tired, too tired to drive.

Heuristic thinking is the tendency, which is at times quite useful, of relying on highly efficient and generally reliable cognitive shortcuts when reaching a decision. In the research literature, these mental shortcuts are known as cognitive heuristics. These mental maneuvers are as much a part of the human reasoning process as argument making. Cognitive heuristics often enable us to make judg- ments and decisions more expeditiously and efficiently. Their influences, while often positive, can introduce errors and biases into human decision making.

The “Two-Systems” Approach

to Human Decision Making

Research on human decisions made in naturalistic, every- day contexts, describes the interaction of two overlapping decision-making systems.3 One is reactive, instinctive, quick, and holistic (System-1). The other is reflective, deliberative, analytical, and procedural (System-2). Both valuable systems function simultaneously, often checking and balancing each other.

Reactive (SyStem-1) tHinking System-1 thinking

relies heavily on situational cues, salient memories, and heuristic thinking to arrive quickly and confidently at judg- ments, particularly when situations are familiar and immedi- ate action is required. Many freeway accidents are avoided because drivers are able to see and react to dangerous situ- ations quickly. Good decisions emerging from System-1 thinking often feel intuitive.4 Decisions good drivers make in those moments of crisis, just like the decisions practiced ath- letes make in the flow of a game or the decisions that a gifted

teacher makes while interacting with students, are born of expertise, training, and practice. Often we decide first, quickly, and reactively, and then, if asked about our decisions, we explain how we analyzed the situation and we provide the reasons and arguments to explain those snap judgments, which are System-1 decisions. You are suddenly and unex- pectedly confronted with an attack dog, you instantly react defensively. It is natural. So what if the owner tries to reas- sure you with a confident “He won’t bite.” Your System-1 decision making self-protective reaction kicked in, flooding your body with adrenalin and triggering your natural “fight or flee” reaction. If our ancestors had waited around debat- ing what to do when attacked by ferocious carnivorous pred- ators, our species probably would not be around today. Overt explanations using rationalistic argument making in the case of System-1 decisions are retrospective. We look back at what we did and explain the instantaneous System-1 inferences we made at the heat of the moment.

Reflective (SyStem-2) tHinking System-2 think- ing is useful for judgments in unfamiliar situations, for pro- cessing abstract concepts, and for deliberating when there is time for planning and more comprehensive consideration. Humans use heuristic maneuvers in System-2 thinking as well, often integrated as components of their logical argu- ments. Argument making is often part of the inference and deliberation process when making System-2 decisions. And, of course, explanations involve making arguments and giv- ing the reasons we used during our deliberations. When we share our reflective interpretations, analyses, evalua- tions, and inferences, we are offering explanations. Because of this, critical thinking is self-regulated System-2 thinking. Critical thinking is System-2 thinking focused on resolv- ing the problem at hand and at the same time monitoring

and self-correcting one’s own process of thinking about that problem.

As you think about the “two-systems” approach, please avoid all the harsh, rigid, stereotypic, divisive, commercialized oppositional, oversimplified, pop cul- ture dichotomies. We are not characterizing human deci- sion making by expressions and false dichotomies such as “emotion vs. reason,” “head vs. heart,” “feeling vs. judg- ment,” “intuitive vs. logical,” “expansive vs. linear,” “cre- ative vs. critical,” “right brained vs. left brained,” “warm vs. cold,” “from Venus vs. from Mars,” or “blink vs. wide- eyed.” Human decision making is neither this superficial nor this simplistic. We are not saying that normal human thinking is schizophrenic or psychologically disordered in any way. We are not suggesting that some people are only System-1 thinkers while others are only System-2 thinkers.

Normal human beings have and use both systems in problem solving and decision making every day. The two- systems approach to understanding human decision mak- ing accounts for the pushes and pulls that normal human beings often describe as part of their decision making. System-1 is the rapid-fire decision making we all experi- ence on some occasions, while System-2 is the more reflec- tive decision making we all experience on other occasions.

Because it is considered more useful for addressing novel and complex problems in a reflective and methodi- cal way, System-2 is the mode of reasoned, informed, and thoughtful problem solving and decision making that a broad undergraduate liberal arts and sciences educa- tion cultivates. System-2 is also the mode addressed by

the evidence-based practice and research methods com- ponents of one’s professional or graduate studies. All levels of education, which aim at improving one’s criti- cal thinking—improving one’s skills and dispositions to engage successfully in purposeful reflective judgment— is education focused directly on strengthening System-2 problem solving and decision making.

Is the two-systems approach only a helpful way of imagining how our minds work, or is there some basis for it in the neural chemistry of the human brain? In fact, it is the second. Using functional MRI scans scientists can now see the changes in brain activity as a person’s think- ing moves from one system to the other during learn- ing.5 System-1 processing appears highly reactive, like a reflex automatically triggered by a stimulus. By contrast, System-2 reasoning is described as much more reflective, analytical, mindful, and meta-cognitive. But System-2 can override System-1, which gives all of us hope that our decisions can be more than knee-jerk reactions.

The Value of Each System

System-1 and System-2 are vital decision-making tools, par- ticularly when stakes are high and uncertainty is an issue. We can often rely on System-1 to get us through our day-to-day activities while engaging System-2 on some other topic of con- cern. People report they can drive from home to work without remembering any of the hundreds of routine automobile oper- ating decisions necessary to make the trip. Others report being able to drink a cup of coffee and finish a bowl of breakfast cereal almost without noticing because they are so engrossed in the morning news. Have you ever had any of these kinds of experiences in your life—experiences where you did some- thing “without really thinking about it” while your mind was preoccupied with a completely different problem or issue?

We do not store the memories of our System-1 guided actions if we are simultaneously engaged in deliberating about something using System-2. For example, when we are thinking about something else, like a work assignment, a relationship issue, or a financial problem, we are distractedfrom the simpler System-1 decision making we may be doing, like walking in a familiar place, driving home on a familiar route, or eating lunch. Our mental focus is on the System-2 work, and, during those times, System-1 oper- ates in the background. This is why we may not remember routine System-1 judgments, like why we’ve walked into a room, whether we’ve already passed our freeway exit, or if we’ve already put sugar in our coffee.

System-1 functions in the background or “behind the scenes” more than System-2, but each system is capable of overriding the other. Conflicted decision-making contexts have, through the ages, been described in different ways— ”temptation” being only one example. We are drawn one way, but at the same time, pulled the other way. Although we do not accept the implication that the colloquial expres- sions are scientifically accurate, we can spot oblique refer- ences to the behind-the-scenes pushes and pulls of the two systems in the way people ordinarily talk about their deci- sion making. We have all heard people say things like “My gut says to do X, but my brain says to do Y”; “We looked at all the evidence and all the options and yet we don’t feel comfortable with where the deliberations are head- ing”; or “Emotionally I want to do this, but rationally I think I should do that.” Some theorists suggest these com- mon ways of talking are evidence that, in certain kinds of ambiguous or complex situations, the two systems might conflict, drawing the decision maker in different directions. In general, this is thought to be an advantage that reduces the chance of making poor, suboptimal, or even dangerous errors in judgment—a natural system of checks and bal- ances, as it were.

Even a good thinker makes both System-1 and System-2 errors from time to time. We misinterpret things, overestimate or underestimate our chances of succeeding, rely on mistaken analogies, reject options out of hand, trust feelings and hunches, judge things credible when they are not, etc. Often mistakes like these are directly related to the influences and misapplications of cognitive heuristics. We all share the propensity to use these heuristics as we make decisions, because at times the heuristics seem to be

Example of System-1 Thinking: A well-trained soldier reacting quickly and correctly under fire.

Example of System-2 Thinking: Experienced policy makers carefully considering possible responses to budget challenges.

hardwired into our species. Since the critical thinking skill of self-regulation can help us avoid some of these errors if we become more familiar with how they look in practice, let’s examine several in closer detail.

“To paraphrase Socrates, the unexamined thought is not worth thinking.”

Pat Croskerry, MD.6

10.2 Heuristics: Their Benefits and Risks

Shakespeare called humans the paragon of animals. Aristotle said “rational animals.” For Plato, “featherless bipeds” was good enough. Perhaps not the most honorific descriptions, yet humbling and useful reminders that there are times when we base our judgments on unfounded assumptions and fallacious reasoning. The long list of argument fallacies in the table we put at the end of the Chapter 9 titled “Warranted Inferences” does not include all the ways that our decision making can go astray. In the current chapter we consider a whole new set of biases and errors emerging from the misapplication of those ordinarily reliable reasoning maneuvers known as “heuristics.” Given the natural limitations of human rationality, it turns out that errors in heuristic thinking can result in serious problems when the risks are great and the stakes are high.

The correct application of cognitive heuristics is abso- lutely essential for day-to-day living. We would exhaust ourselves mentally and accomplish very little if every single judgment was a full-blown reflective decision. We get through the routine parts of our day making quick, automatic reactive heuristic judgments. We rely on these snap judgments because (a) most of the time they are good enough for the purpose at hand; (b) we need to conserve our mental energy for bigger, more important, and less familiar problems that life throws our way; and (c) often, Chapter 10

we have no time for reflective thought. This will be clearer as you review the examples and do the exercises in con- junction with each of the following heuristics.

Individual Cognitive Heuristics

cognitive heuristics are natural human decision- making shortcuts we all rely upon in real life to expedite our judgments about what to believe or what to do. There are potentially beneficial consequences associated with rely- ing on the cognitive shortcuts we’ll discuss. In each case we examine the heuristic shortcut or maneuver itself and note potential advantages and disadvantages of relying on the heuristic. A brief, true-to-life vignette and other examples illustrate how that heuristic looks in real life. In most cases a short exercise invites you to apply your critical thinking— and in particular your skill at reflective self-regulation—to occasions in your own life when reliance on that particular heuristic may have resulted in outcomes that were less suc- cessful than you had hoped. There are 17 common heuris- tics described in this chapter. Each is likely quite familiar.

1. SatiSficing and 2. tempORizing The first time he was at the beach, young Jerome darted down to the wet sand and watched as a small wave washed up toward him. A wave came in and lapped at his toes and ankles, the chilly wet water sending him scurrying up the sand. He turned and cautiously approached the water a second time. Again he got close enough to just let the water touch the tips of his toes, and scooted up the sand. But not nearly as far as the first time. The third time he approached the surf he anticipated the wave as it approached and, instead of turning to run, he back-pedaled a few steps. Just far enough not to be hit by the salty bubbles. He went just far enough! The kid satisficed, I thought, and, more interestingly, nobody taught him how.

The Satisficing Heuristic: Having found an option that is good enough, we take it. We human beings typically do only what must be done to achieve our purposes. In day-to-day living, when faced with choices, instead of expending the resources necessary to identify and then attain the maximally optimal alternative, we decide in favor of an alternative we deem satisfactory.7 How many times have we read the whole menu in a restaurant compared to reading along only until we spot an entrée that strikes our fancy? We tend to divide the world into “good enough” and “not good enough” and search for a solution until a solution is found that is good enough to attain the desired outcome. Truisms like “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it,” and “Perfect is the enemy of good” reflect the satisficing cognitive maneuver. Humans satisfice in System-1 and System-2 decision making situations.

• Example (System-1): Being thirsty, how much water would we drink? Only enough to slake our thirst.

• Example (System-2): Seeking a new job, how hard would we look? Only hard enough to find one

The water is so captivating and inviting to the young child. But scary too, like lots of things in life. How far from danger is “far enough”?

that meets whatever are our basic criteria for pay, proximity to home, nature of the work, etc.

• Example (System-2): Having arrested a suspect who had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crime, how hard can we expect police detectives to strive to locate other suspects? Satisficing sug- gests hardly at all because they have a stack of other crime cases needing their attention. The question of the actual guilt or innocence of the subject becomes the concern of the prosecuting attorney and the courts.

The Temporizing Heuristic: Deciding that a given option is “good enough for now,” or temporizing is satisficing’s running mate. We often move through life satisficing and temporizing. At times, we look back on our situations and wonder why it is that we have settled for far less than we might have. If we had only studied harder, worked out a little more, or taken better care of our relationships and ourselves, perhaps we would not be living as we are now. But at the time, each of the decisions along the way was “good enough for the time being.”

We must not overlook the important potential advan- tages to satisficing. These include conserving time, money, and energy.8 If you have to put in 10 percent more effort and time to gain only 1 percent more value, your return on that investment of effort may not be worth the cost. The main disadvantage of satisficing is that we may be mis- taken in our estimation of how much is “good enough.” Why did the better team lose the game? Because, in under- estimating its opponent, the team failed to play up to its own potential. Why did we have trouble on the exam? Because we did not do the homework exercises and study hard enough. Why did my boss not give me a better evalu- ation compared to my peers? Because I was not produc- tive enough, even though I had thought all along that I was doing just fine. Using our critical thinking in real time,

we should take a moment in key situations to be sure our heuristic estimate of “good enough” is really accurate. To achieve greater success we will have to self-correct and recalibrate our sense of how much is enough.

3. affect: “gO WitH yOuR gut” “I proposed on our first date. She said no. But somehow we both knew that her response was not going to be her final answer. A few months later we were engaged. More than 40 wedding anniversaries later, we are still in love. Perhaps we have been lucky; our marriage could have been a disaster. Whatever was reflec- tive and rational about that decision—as I recall trying to explain it to her folks and mine—had to have been an effort to build a case for a decision we had already made.”

The Affect Heuristic: Making a decision based on your initial affective (“gut”) response.9 There is no question that many different kinds of experiences can cause us to respond with joy or sorrow, with desire or revulsion, with enthusi- asm or dread. A “gut reaction,” that is, an affective response, is a strong System-1 impetus, either positively or negatively, toward the object.10 It is natural to have the response.11 That response may be the “first word” on the matter, but System-2 self-regulation demands that we ask ourselves whether that should necessarily be the final word on the matter.

• Example: “Oh, I like those shoes. . . . You know, they would look great with the blue jacket I bought.”

• Example: “Did you see his eyes? Pure evil! Made my blood run cold. Believe me, a guy like that, no way should you trust him.”

• Example: “Forget it. I don’t want to hear about how you think we can balance the budget. You said the ‘T’ word and I won’t have anything to do with that. Read my lips, ‘No new taxes!’ We all pay too much in taxes as it is.”

Our natural, initial affective response to ideas, ques- tions, images, people, events, etc., can have obvious advantages and disadvantages. Research on the relation- ship between facial and body symmetry, perceived attrac- tiveness, and physical health suggests that first affective impressions we have about another human being as a pos- sible mate are evolutionarily selected for and contributes to the survival of the species. Our System-1 affective reac- tion can influence us toward embracing a choice that “just feels right” or away from an option that appears frighten- ing or repugnant when our System-2 decision making gets bogged down with too many factors to consider, too many divergent criteria, and too much uncertainty. Were it not for this, some of us might never get unstuck and make a decision when one is needed.

But, what if that initially frightening option is actually the best and most reasonable? For example, what if our fear of the anticipated consequences of radiation or chemother- apy influenced us to reject those options when one or both of them were the best possible cancer treatment options? It may take significant amounts of reflective System-2 reason- ing to overcome a powerful System-1 affective response to an idea, but it can be done. And at times it should happen, because there is no guarantee that our affective responses are necessarily always true. Strong critical thinking demands that we check our affective responses. Simply having them is not nearly enough for wise, reflective decision making.

The affect heuristic influences us to make judgments and decisions based on our initial impulsive and sublimi- nal responses. Knowing this, marketing experts coined the expression, “The package is the product,” to indicate

how important the wrapping, the container, and the initial appearance of a product are to making the sale.12 Certainly a broken residence hall window and an unkempt campus lawn are not necessarily indicative of an academically sub- standard college. But college recruiters know that these things had better be fixed before prospective students show up for the campus tour. And on reflection, no one would argue that a cabernet in an attractively designed bottle with a classy label is necessarily superior to a caber- net in a generic bottle with a plain looking label.13 There is no question that first impressions count when choosing a college, choosing a wine, or choosing a mate.

4. SimulatiOn “I was in center field, my favorite posi- tion, and the runner at third was itching to tag up and dash for home if the batter hit a fly ball. I imagined what I would do if it were hit to me, how I would run in, position my body, make the catch and fire the ball to the plate on one hop so the catcher could handle the throw easily and tag out the runner. The odds were overwhelming that the batter would hit the ball someplace else. But no! The ball was in the air arcing over the infield and sailing out toward center. I darted to my right, took the fly out of the air with my gloved left hand and made my throw toward the plate. The runner had tagged, leaving early I think. But he didn’t have a chance. My throw, just up the third baseline from home, was on target and on time. The catcher put the tag on the runner for the third out. It was like I had made a movie in my mind, watched the movie, and then lived the scene almost exactly.”

The Simulation Heuristic: Estimating the likelihood of a given outcome based on how easy it is to imagine that outcome.14 Simulation is a mental process of imagining ourselves doing something successfully or unsuccessfully. Before giving a speech we might “see ourselves” at the podium talking to the audience with confidence, making our point, and delivering our message effectively. Or we may simulate the opposite, seeing ourselves messing up, getting flustered, and forgetting to say things we had wanted to say. If we experience ease in processing a simulation, this influ- ences us to believe that achieving the anticipated outcome is more likely.15 A person choosing among several options might simulate what it would be like to select an option and then, like making a movie in his or her mind, imagine what life would be like having selected that option. Unless we are being reflective about the actual probabilities that what we picture will actually happen, the simulation heuristic can influence us to select an option that plays out in our minds as the one offering the most desirable result. This might be called “wishful thinking,” but whatever it is called, it is not a reflective and well-informed System-2 decision about the actual probability. The same would be true of pessimisti- cally overestimating the likelihood of a bad outcome.

•

Example: “You know, I didn’t go there to buy a car. But when I was on the lot looking, this salesman came up to me and invited me to sit behind the wheel. Then we went on a test drive, and I could really see myself tooling along I-70 in this baby. So, here it is. My new set of wheels.” • Example: “I don’t know what happened, sir!” said the sales representative to the manager after the failed presentation. “Yesterday I could see myself closing that deal.”

• Example: “Day trading. I took it up for a while. Lost a lot of money, too. You know it just seemed like it was going to be so easy. All I had to do was invest in some stocks in the morning and watch them increase in value as the day went along. Then sell them just before the market did its typical end-of-day little dip. Well. Things didn’t turn out that way at all. I think the only people who made money on my day trading were the guys who work at the brokerage house.”

Psychologist Albert Bandura’s research on social learning demonstrates the value and power of simulation to increase attitudes of self-efficacy.16 Mentors and coaches use the simulation heuristic, (they may call it visualiza- tion) as a technique to improve performance and to help people anticipate being able to succeed at challenging things. Successful advertising often depends on stimulat- ing simulation. Car ads, for example, often show someone with demographics just like the intended buyers taking great pleasure in driving the model of car the ad is promot- ing. The idea is that if you match those demographics, you

would then be led to see yourself in that car and then want to buy it. The process of simulation is quick, easy, and need not be reflective. In fact, it might be better for the adver- tiser if you do not reflect too much on the actual costs and benefits of buying that new car. The obvious disadvantage of simulation is the potential to err in estimating the like- lihood of the imagined outcomes. This can result in mis- placed confidence and unwarranted optimism.

Everyone knows that simulating academic success is not a replacement for actually studying, doing the assign- ments, and doing well on exams. But along with those things, simulation can be very helpful. Take a moment and see yourself being a successful student by simulating how you will structure your time so that you can read the text- book and do all the exercises and assignments. Simulate how you will be organized, focused, and highly efficient in your use of that study time. See yourself going to class or taking tests justifiably confident in what you have learned, well prepared and ready to demonstrate your knowl- edge on exams and assignments. Oh, yes, and the critical thinking skill of self-regulation requires that we remind ourselves that we have to carry out the study plans that we have simulated, if we are to have a reasonable shot at achieving the learning and enjoying the success we anticipate.

5. availability “I was doing 75+ heading eastbound on I-96 from Michigan State back home to Detroit, alone, late at night. Darkness had engulfed the rural stretch of interstate. Occasionally, a car heading west passed by on the other side of the wide grassy median. Eastbound was two lanes, and I liked driving in the left lane because it was smoother since the heavy 18-wheelers had not furrowed and gnawed the pavement. But for rea- sons I’ll never know, I decided that night to do the right thing, the thing I’d been taught in driver’s education back in high school, and I moved back into the right- hand lane. Then, ahead, just over a slight rise in the interstate, I saw the glare of an approaching vehicle’s high beam headlights. It didn’t make sense—there shouldn’t be any traffic heading west directly in front of me. I drove on, never reducing my speed. The lights grew brighter and brighter. I reached the crest of the rise in the freeway just as the other vehicle did. In a shocking blur it roared by, easily doing 75+. Heading west. On the east- bound side of I-96. And, thank God, he was in his right lane too. Moral of the story. Stay to the right, son, or you’ll never know what hit you.”

The Availability Heuristic: Estimating the likelihood of future events based on a vivid memory of a past expe- rience that leaps easily to mind. Let’s experiment with a memory. Imagine a conversation you may have had about foods you can’t stand. Does a particularly awful experience with that food leap to mind? For example: “I hate mush- rooms. Once when I was a kid I got sick on mushrooms at a restaurant.” That quick, automatic connection is a mani- festation of the availability heuristic. “No mushrooms on my pizza! Please.” This heuristic leads us to estimate the likelihood of a future event based on the vividness or ease of recalling a similar past event.17 Because a past experi- ence leaps vividly to mind or because it was so important, we overestimate the probability that future outcomes will be the same as they were back then. People tell stories of things that happened to them or their friends all the time as a way of explaining their own decisions and warning or advising their friends and family about the future. Often these are helpful because they vicariously increase our own range of experiences. The use of stories makes it much easier for us to remember their lessons or morals. Aesop’s fables have more than entertainment value; they remind us not to “cry wolf,” not to devalue what we have by coveting something we cannot get (as did the fox with the grapes), and many other solid bits of wisdom. On the other hand, there is always the risk that in the retelling, the actual events may be mistakenly remembered, misunderstood,

M10_FACI9661_03_SE_C10.indd 202

12/24/14

2:36 PM

“That could be me! What would I do? Where would I go?”

or misinterpreted. Whether accurate or not, stories have an unwarranted amount of influence on decisions about what to expect, what to believe, and what to do.

Availability sells. The news media, knowing the power of a compelling narrative, regularly “put a human face” on news reports. They know it is boring to hear newscasters drone on about statistics and abstractions—for example, about how many homes were damaged by a tornado or how many families lost electric power due to the storm. So instead, the news crew will interview an emotionally distraught person. They will take pictures or video of the person, the damaged home and felled trees in the back- ground, looking lost among the scatterings of furniture and the family’s ruined and irreplaceable mementoes. This makes abstractions like “terrible tornado,” “brutal shoot- ing,” “five alarm fire,” and “devastating flood,” vividly available to us. And because of the availability heuristic, we, unreflectively, jack up our estimate of the chances that we too might become a hapless storm victim—just like that sad person we’re seeing in the news report.

The disadvantage of basing judgments on the avail- ability heuristic is that we will wrongly estimate the actual probabilities that a given outcome will occur.18 Or worse, while we are worrying about the far less likely possibility, we will stop paying attention to threats and problems that are far more likely to happen.

In the aftermath of the horrendous killings of over 30 people at Virginia Tech (VT) in 2007, parents, students, fac- ulty, and staff at the nation’s more than 4,200 colleges and universities sharply revised their estimates of the probabil- ities of a similarly deranged killer’s assault on their own campuses. Campus security increased, counseling centers received more funding, legislators held hearings at the state and national levels, and campus authorities updated emergency plans and conducted readiness drills. Although

these might have been good things to do, resources are finite. Were these the most urgent things for a campus to do, given all the other risks and threats out there? Probably not. Fire preparedness, weather disaster preparedness, theft detection and prevention, rape and assault protec- tion, food poisoning prevention, and flu epidemic pre- paredness are just a few projects that address tragically lethal and somewhat more probable eventualities. But all the attention was on the VT situation. It was vividly in mind for administrators, students, parents, and the media. Those other more likely dangers were not on their minds right then. Hence, the disproportionate allocation of time, money, and attention.

the genetic and environmental factors that estimate a per- son’s cancer risks. But absent that self-corrective reflection, we risk allowing the analogical representation heuristic to influence our beliefs and choices unduly.

If the similarity between two things is fundamental and relevant, it’s more likely that the analogy will be reli- able. For example, suppose your co-worker was fired for missing sales targets. You might draw the reasonable con- clusion that you are no different in relevant respects from your co-worker. Thus, if you miss your sales targets, you’ll be fired too. Good thinking.

Or the similarity might be superficial or not connected with the outcome, which would make the analogical infer- ence much weaker. For example, we see a TV commer- cial showing trim, sexy young people enjoying fattening fast foods and infer that because we’re young, too, we can indulge our cravings for fast foods without gaining unhealthy excess poundage. This is another example show- ing that heuristic thought needs to be monitored when it is used to make important decisions. As we develop our critical thinking skill of self-regulation, we become more adept at noticing when our decisions hinge on the analogi- cal representation heuristic. And we can correct ourselves before making a decision that is not well thought out. Self- monitoring and self-correcting one’s thinking can help ensure that conclusions are warranted. In a later section entitled “Comparative Reasoning” we will explore the cri- teria for the evaluation of analogical inferences in detail.

7. aSSOciatiOn “We were having a good time, prob- ably on our third beer, Sports Center was on TV someplace nearby, but we’re not really paying attention because Bill was talking about how the girl he was seeing really liked dogs, and he did, too. So, he’s saying that she has a pit bull. And I have no idea what Harry was thinking but he says, ‘How do you think Michael Vick will do this season? He

JOURNAL

That Reminds Me of the Time When . . .

Provide an example of when someone gave you advice about a really important matter and their only argument was that your situation reminded them of their own or someone else’s situation.

“Uncle John did not smoke cigars at the track, he chewed them. Today he liked the filly—a sleek 3-year-old who looked fast. He would have to find her name in the racing form. But just watching her in the paddock, she reminded him of a horse he’d seen run so well at Bay Meadows a couple of years back. Same mark- ings, same look of a winner in her dark, intense eyes. Hadn’t he won a couple of Benjamins at 8 to 1 on that filly? To Uncle John it only made sense to put down a bet on this one to win.” Uncle John made the snap judgment that because this horse looked like that other horse, this horse

would perform like the other horse. The Representation Heuristic: Making the

snap judgment that X is like Y in every way upon noticing that X is like Y in some way. A perceived similarity becomes the basis for assuming that there is an analogical relation- ship between two things, an analogy that may or may not be warranted.19 For example, some- one might say, “My father and I were alike in so many ways—in our lifestyles and how we thought about things. Dad died a few years ago of lymphoma. He was only 69. You know, as much as I don’t like the idea, I probably have about 30 years before lymphoma gets me, too.” The speaker in this example is overestimating the probability of contracting a fatal lymphoma or even of dying at age 69. This thinking is disconnected from any System-2 analytical reflection on the scientific evidence regarding

6. RepReSentatiOn

H

was amazing his first year back in the NFL, but his third year in Philadelphia was a bust. So the Eagles dump him and the Jets pick him up?’ We all look at Harry because he’s on some other planet and say, ‘Where did that come from?’ And he’s like, ‘Pit bulls, dogs, dog fights, illegal, prison, Michael Vick.’ And then I’m like, ‘I wonder if Tiger Woods will pull off a comeback.’ And now they’re all looking at me. So I’m like, ‘Hey, you know! Michael Vick, troubled athlete, big comeback after major issues. Can Tiger do the same? Which reminds me, are we all still on for golf this weekend?’”

The Association Heuristic: Connecting ideas on the basis of word association and the memories, meanings, or impressions they trigger. We all have experienced con- versations in which one comment seems connected to another by nothing more than word association. Someone might suggest, “Let’s take our drinks outside to the picnic table.” To which someone else might respond, “Remember the picnic three years ago when Grandpa had his heart attack? I’m never going to that park again.” The repre- sentativeness, or associational heuristic maneuver, is trig- gered when a word or idea reminds us of something else. Typically, this is System-1 thinking: reactive, associational, and not critically reflective. For example, one person might associate sunshine with happiness, and another per- son might associate sunshine with sweaty work picking strawberries. Or, as in the example above, “picnic” with Grandpa’s heart attack. The salient negative experience

brought to mind by the mere use of the word picnic influ- enced the speaker to assert the decision never to return to the park where the sad event occurred. This unreflective decision emerged from the System-1 reaction triggered by the word association in this person’s mind.

Associational thinking, an unmonitored nearly stream-of-consciousness mind flushing twitter-blab of ideas, is of very little value, logically speaking. But if the associational thinker is also saying out loud everything that comes to mind, it can be creative, frustrating, and entertaining all at the same time. And way too personal! It is rather commonplace in today’s culture, and yet we seem unconcerned that judgments made using associa- tional thinking can be very flawed. Instead the media report the results of causal twitter fests and “instant polls” as though these represented our best and most informed thinking on a given topic.

8. Stereotyping “I met this Marine, a young corporal, and he was an impressive young man. I could tell just talk- ing to this young soldier that our servicemen and service- women are wonderful people.” Stereotypes are general- ized perceptions that members of one group of people have regarding another group. They shape how we see others and how others see us. The System-1 tendency is to think that everyone in the group has the characteristics, positive or negative, associated with the stereotype. Societal stereo- types tend to evolve slowlyThe Stereotyping Heuristic: Making a snap judgment about an entire group based on a single instance. Although an anecdote is not data, we have all heard people draw conclusions about whole groups of people based on their experience with only one or two people who are members of that group. We call this stereotyping or profiling. There are advantages to stereotyping, because it is a highly effi- cient way of thinking. For example, we tend to stereotype grandparents as loving caretakers. So if I say that I am hav- ing Grandma watch my daughter, you are not likely to worry too much about the child. On the other hand, there are risks associated with stereotyping. Profiling groups of people based on unfortunate experiences with one or more of its members can lead to bigotry, prejudice, misunder- standing, and mistrust, to name only a few.

Humans do not have the time to make systematic scientific surveys of everything we may need to know. So, we take the shortcut of basing decisions on relatively few instances. This is what we are doing when we ask a friend if she or he knows a good dentist, doctor, real estate broker, or lawyer. Or if we ask an alumna to tell us how good her college experience was when we are trying to decide where to go to school. The trade-off between effort expended and the reliability of the information derived makes this approach risky. Yes, it’s a starting point to get some preliminary information, but it is not an ending point of a thorough investigation. Here again, monitoring one’s habits of mind is a good idea.

The tendency to think that our personal experience of a single instance is predictive of what we would find were we to sample more systematically a whole class of individuals can undermine decision making in almost any context. We eat a burger at a fast food restaurant and make a snap judgment about everything on the menu there and at every other restaurant in the same chain. Does this work for paintings by a given artist, songs by a given songwriter, and novels by a given author? What about courses taught by a given professor, patient problems treated by a given health care provider, or building proposals by a real estate developer?

One example of false and negative stereotyping in contemporary America is the idea that all Muslims are ter- rorists.21 Like other negative stereotypes based on race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality, this one fuels fear and hatred. In our more reflective moments we realize that Muslim Americans were victims in the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers along with Jewish Americans, Christian Americans, and Americans who practiced no religion. We know that Muslim Americans serve with distinction in our armed forces, including side by side with soldiers of other faiths in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. And we know that millions of American Muslims go to work every day, take care of their families, pay their taxes, and contribute in numerous ways to the quality of our commu- nities. The same is true of millions of African Americans, Jewish Americans, Mexican Americans, Native Americans, Mormon Americans, Catholic Americans, Chinese Americans, etc. But our System-2 reflective considerations about freedom of religion and the rights of others can evaporate if System-1 kicks into overdrive. Negative ste- reotyping can trigger just that kind of kneejerk defensive hostility. And when that happens, occasionally System-2 is dragged into the skirmish, because all of us are naturally inclined to seek rationalizations in support of our unreflec- tive reactions.

Sensationalist media and unscrupulous politicians rel- ish playing on our weakness for stereotypes. Stereotyping, particularly vicious negative stereotyping, sells papers and garners votes. And, say the unethical journalists and poli- ticians, “Who cares who you have to hurt as long as you make money and win election, right?”

We know that it is difficult to root out the System-1 reactive stereotypic responses. On occasion it takes encountering a remarkable person or story to help us real- ize that our kneejerk stereotypes about people can get in the way of good judgment. Recently, for example, a 6-year- old little girl was rescued from a kidnapper by a brave man and his wife. Seeing the kidnapper snatch the child, they took immediate action. He chased the kidnapper while she called the police. The man who pulled the child out of

the grasp of the kidnapper was honored by the mayor as a hero. The national news picked up the story. Oh, and, as it turns out, he was an illegal immigrant.22

Speaking about jarring counterexamples that chal- lenge strong critical thinkers to examine their unreflec- tive stereotypes about people, do you know who Ayaan Hirsi Ali is? Yes, exactly, she is the former member of the Dutch Parliament, native of Somalia, ex-Muslim, feminist who advocates Islamic–Christian dialogue in America.23 Or do you know Sgt. Maj. Kent Dolasky, retired com- mandant of the US Joint Special Operations Forces Senior Enlisted Academy with multiple combat tours? Right, he’s the army veteran who teaches business at the community college level and founded the Buckets of Hope volun- teer organization to assist the homeless in Tampa.24 And, above all, strong critical thinkers know that none of us are obliged to live out the stereotype that anyone is trying to force upon us.

9. “uS vS. tHem” “I went to Congress to lobby for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and to sup- port increased funding for Pell Grants and other forms of non-exploitive student aid. I explained that higher educa- tion is a benefit to the person who is fortunate enough to afford to go to college. Research shows consistently higher earnings for college graduates than for those who have not gone to college. But, I added, college education benefits society as a as well. The teachers, nurses, businesspeople, engineers, journalists, social workers, and the like, who attained access to those professions through their college education, provide much needed services for everyone in the community. I was told by one member that he simply did not agree with that. His reason was simple: ‘I’ve heard all that before because it’s what the other side says.’ I asked

Stereotype breaker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali

the member to help me understand his thinking better and he replied, ‘You see, on the Hill, it’s good guys vs. bad guys. They’re the bad guys. Whatever they say, whatever they want, whatever argument they make, I don’t buy it’.”

The “Us vs. Them” Heuristic: Reducing decisions to the choice between two starkly opposing options and then rejecting whatever option your opposition favors. This could be named the “good guys vs. bad guys” heu- ristic as well because applying this heuristic results in an automatic competitive and oppositional relationship. And our tendency, evolving from the earliest survival instincts of our species, is to band together with “our own people” to fight “those other guys.” Battle lines are drawn with phrases like “Those who are not with me are against me”; “There can be no middle ground”; “Never compromise”; and “There can be no negotiations.”25 Once our minds apply the Us vs. Them heuristic to a situation, many other decisions about the people or issues involved become very simple. We have no obligations toward “them” or toward anything they want or anything they represent. But, if you are one of “us” we will stand by you through thick and thin.26 In its most extreme manifestations, the Us vs. Them heuristic can set up the tendency to regard “them” as non- persons, objects off the ethical radar screen, “others” who can be manipulated or removed without ethical concern. As a nation, we saw this in the torture and prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib. Called the false polarization effect,27 this tendency to divide the world into two opposing camps can be a very dangerous approach to problem solving and a potentially explosive and negative strategy for a society or a leader to take.

Let us not be naïve about this. If humans are strongly influenced by Us vs. Them thinking, then it would be

foolish of us not to take that into consideration when approaching others for the first time. Generosity of spirit and openness are wonderful virtues, but venturing into potentially hostile territory with caution thrown to the wind is seldom likely to be the optimal choice. An advan- tage of this heuristic is that it orients our thoughts and actions in support of our family, our team, our platoon, our business, our community, “our kind.” And, obviously, the disadvantage is that we lose objectivity and impartiality, and we can be prone toward bias and prejudice if we are not reflective. In instances like these, our critical thinking (System-2) must override the pull toward prejudice arising from the misapplication of the Us vs. Them heuristic.

High school might be described as the Kingdom of “Us vs. Them.” In the black-and-white thinking that char- acterizes adolescent cognitive development, the tribal

divisions, loyalties, rituals, and rival- ries of the Us vs. Them mindset flour- ish. For example, search and watch the “Pep Talk” scene from Glory Road. The coach begins by antagonizing his play- ers with racial stereotyping, and their gut response (affect heuristic) is silent anger and resentment. The coach says that they cannot win the national championship, because they cannot think. He describes them losing the game, they can see it hap- pening (simulation) in their minds, and they become even more agitated because he is the authority figure and he is say- ing they will lose. They do not want to lose. This is not “just a game.” Then the coach changes his tone and evokes the Us vs. Them heuristic to rally the players and unify the team. The short scene ends with one of the players making the point

foolish of us not to take that into consideration when approaching others for the first time. Generosity of spirit and openness are wonderful virtues, but venturing into potentially hostile territory with caution thrown to the wind is seldom likely to be the optimal choice. An advan- tage of this heuristic is that it orients our thoughts and actions in support of our family, our team, our platoon, our business, our community, “our kind.” And, obviously, the disadvantage is that we lose objectivity and impartiality, and we can be prone toward bias and prejudice if we are not reflective. In instances like these, our critical thinking (System-2) must override the pull toward prejudice arising from the misapplication of the Us vs. Them heuristic.

High school might be described as the Kingdom of “Us vs. Them.” In the black-and-white thinking that char- acterizes adolescent cognitive development, the tribal

to his teammate that he needs to play good defense (not satisfice), because the usual effort will not be good enough. There are some great “Us vs. Them” moments, simula- tions, and System-1 affect heuristic appeals to be discov- ered if you search for the “best movie pep talks of all time.”

Journalists, politicians, zealots, coaches, and evangelists of all stripes use our natural tendency to mis- trust “those other people”—the ones who are not part of “us,” the ones who are different, the ones with whom we disagree. Unscrupulous people make an enemy of the opposition and ascribe to them evil and dangerous inten- tions. This rallies the troops against the external threat and makes it unnecessary to take seriously what “they” have to say. In the cut-throat competition for high office, campaigners strive to marginalize or even demonize their opposition, engender fear in “us,” lest “they” should “get

divisions, loyalties, rituals, and rival- ries of the Us vs. Them mindset flour- ish. For example, search and watch the “Pep Talk” scene from Glory Road. The coach begins by antagonizing his play- ers with racial stereotyping, and their gut response (affect heuristic) is silent anger and resentment. The coach says that they cannot win the national championship, because they cannot think. He describes them losing the game, they can see it hap- pening (simulation) in their minds, and they become even more agitated because he is the authority figure and he is say- ing they will lose. They do not want to lose. This is not “just a game.” Then the coach changes his tone and evokes the Us vs. Them heuristic to rally the players and unify the team. The short scene ends with one of the players making the point

foolish of us not to take that into consideration when approaching others for the first time. Generosity of spirit and openness are wonderful virtues, but venturing into potentially hostile territory with caution thrown to the wind is seldom likely to be the optimal choice. An advan- tage of this heuristic is that it orients our thoughts and actions in support of our family, our team, our platoon, our business, our community, “our kind.” And, obviously, the disadvantage is that we lose objectivity and impartiality, and we can be prone toward bias and prejudice if we are not reflective. In instances like these, our critical thinking (System-2) must override the pull toward prejudice arising from the misapplication of the Us vs. Them heuristic.

High school might be described as the Kingdom of “Us vs. Them.” In the black-and-white thinking that char- acterizes adolescent cognitive development, the tribal

to his teammate that he needs to play good defense (not satisfice), because the usual effort will not be good enough. There are some great “Us vs. Them” moments, simula- tions, and System-1 affect heuristic appeals to be discov- ered if you search for the “best movie pep talks of all time.”

Journalists, politicians, zealots, coaches, and evangelists of all stripes use our natural tendency to mis- trust “those other people”—the ones who are not part of “us,” the ones who are different, the ones with whom we disagree. Unscrupulous people make an enemy of the opposition and ascribe to them evil and dangerous inten- tions. This rallies the troops against the external threat and makes it unnecessary to take seriously what “they” have to say. In the cut-throat competition for high office, campaigners strive to marginalize or even demonize their opposition, engender fear in “us,” lest “they” should “get

what they want,” “come to power,” or “take what is right- fully ours.” The risks associated with dualistic thinking are serious, and these risks are compounded when fear and mistrust are set in opposition to loyalty and group identity.

The Us vs. Them Heuristic is a favorite tool of zeal- ots, extremists, hate-mongers, and bigots. Why does it work for them? Too often because, fearing their wrath, the rest of us fail to muster the courage to challenge their caustic and divisive rhetoric with accurate information and sound reasoning. The positive critical thinking habit of truth-seeking requires the courage to ask tough ques- tions and to follow reasons and evidence wherever they lead. History shows us how devastating and explosive religion in the blind service of nationalism can be. That has not changed. So it is not an exaggeration to say that the lives of tens of millions of people may depend on the courage and capacity of educated and truth-seeking men and women to stand up to those whose ambitions or beliefs demand the economic, political, or military anni- hilation of all of “them.”

At this time in our national history the electorate is almost evenly divided between the two major parties. This is why voting is such an important responsibility. In statewide and national elections, political control turns on changing the minds of small percentages of people. A shift of 5 percent one way or the other can empower one party or the other to have control of the one or both houses of Congress, the Presidency, or to win the governorship of a state. Explore how shifting just a few Senate seats can impact control of that house of Congress.

Passing or defeating a statewide referendum or elect- ing a President can depend on shifting just a few percent of the likely voters this way or that. Political parties use wedge issues, like gay marriage, immigration, and mari- juana legalization, play on our System-1 heuristic thinking. Can our collective System-2 critical thinking overcome the divisiveness with reasoned judgment?

10. pOWeR diffeRential “I once worked on a senior management team that was headed by a CEO who was the personification of the ‘alpha male.’ I recall one meet- ing where the other nine vice presidents and I were sitting along both sides of a conference table, with the CEO at the head of the table. He wanted us to discuss a proposal he had come up with the night before. He presented his idea by handing out five pages single-spaced and talking non- stop for half an hour. Then he said, ‘OK, now I’d like to hear from you.’ Nobody spoke. Nobody believed he actu- ally wanted to hear our views. Nobody wanted to rock the boat or risk crossing him by pointing out even the smallest flaw or raising even the most tentative counterargument. The CEO waited less than two seconds. When nobody

responded, he said, ‘OK, then. That’s it. We’ll implement this. Now, next topic.”

The Power Differential Heuristic: Accepting without question a belief as stated by, a problem as presented by, or a solution as proposed by, a superior authority. Social hierarchies abound at home, at work, in government, in religion, and even in recreation. Many are benevolent and respectful. But even in these cases, and certainly in those that are manipulative and abusive, there is a tendency to defer to the individual (or subgroup) in charge. It may be something as benign as agreeing on when to eat dinner or which TV show to watch. The decision to defer—that is, not to dispute or challenge—the decisions of others higher in the social pecking order is natural. It manifests itself in our accepting what “those above us” may decide to have us do. This heuristic leads us to see the world as how our leaders see it and to understand problems and issues the way our leaders describe them to us. Middle managers in a corporate culture are susceptible to similar pressures from senior executives, as are second children from their elder

sibling, or junior officers relative to their superiors. But “pressure” is not exactly the correct word, for this heuristic makes compliance with authority the automatic reaction. Thus, when one is out of step with one’s “higher-ups,” one often feels more discomfort than when one is “going along to get along.” In a gang, for example, the power differential between the gang leader and his or her followers, when combined with the Us vs. Them heuristic for viewing the world, can strongly influence gang members to internal- ize gang rivalries and to agree with violent responses to perceived threats.

There are some advantages to recognizing the reali- ties of power differentials and not bucking the system. Not only can this save cognitive resources, it might save your job and your domestic happiness as well. After all, if the boss wants the client list updated, why not update it? And if your partner wants to go to a movie that might not have been your first choice, why not go anyway? Having people see things your way may not be the highest of all values, even if you are smarter than they are about some things. Societal harmony and domestic tranquility are values, too

On the other hand, how many times have we seen clearly that the boss was heading the department in the wrong direction, that the team captain was employing an ineffective strategy, that our elder sibling was wrong, or that our leaders were motivated more by self-interest than by the common good? Any full evaluation of the reason- ing presented by those in power over us—coaches, teach- ers, ministers, managers, governmental authorities, or otherwise—should include consideration of whether the benefits derived from the current power structure rela- tionship warrant continuing that relationship or whether it is time to consider seriously other options. In reviewing one’s options, do not forget the influence that the satisfic- ing heuristic, discussed earlier, can have on our sense that, however flawed our current situation may be, it is “good enough.”

11. ancHORing WitH adjuStment “The first book report I wrote as a ninth grader was about the novel Space Cadets. My report earned a C−. The teacher, a lover of eigh- teenth- and nineteenth-century British literature, found scant merit in the silly juvenile novel I had chosen and even

less merit in my futile attempt to state its theme and explore how its author had developed plot and characters. A friend of mine received an A on his report on George Elliot’s (Mary Ann Evans') 1861 novel, Silas Marner. About halfway through the academic year I was consistently making C−, C,orC+onmywork,andmyfriendwasdoingA−orA work. So, we switched. I started writing reports using his name and he wrote reports using my name. My grades (that is, the grades he earned for me) edged up into the C+ and B− range. His grades (that is, the grades my reports earned for him) held steady except for one B+ late in April. Our analysis: In the mind of our teacher from the first paper we submitted in September and throughout that whole year, I was a C student and my friend was an A student.”

The Anchoring with Adjustment Heuristic: Having made an evaluation, adjust only as much as is absolutely necessary and then only if new evidence is presented.28 When we are making evaluative judgments, it is natural to locate or anchor our evaluation at some point along whatever scale we are using. If we are being more reflec- tive, we may have established some criteria and we may be working to apply them as fair-mindedly as possible. As other information comes our way, we may adjust our evaluation. The interesting thing about this cognitive maneuver is that we do not normally start over with a fresh evaluation. We have dropped anchor and we may drag it upward or downward a bit, but we do not pull it off the bottom of the sea to relocate our evaluation. First impressions, as the saying goes, cannot easily be undone.

One advantage of this heuristic is that it permits us to move on. We have done the evaluation; there are other things in life that need attention. We could not long endure if we were to constantly reevaluate everything anew. Part of developing expertise is learning to calibrate and nuance one’s judgments, refine one’s criteria, and adjust the cri- teria to fit the complexities of the circumstances of judg- ment. Anchoring with adjustment can reflect a progression toward greater precision, a way to refine not only judg- ments about particular things, but the criteria applied when making those judgments.

The unfortunate thing about this heuristic, however, is that we sometimes drop anchor in the wrong place; we have a hard time giving people a second chance at making a good first impression. How often have we seen it hap- pen that a co-worker’s performance is initially evaluated as sub-par (outstanding) and almost nothing that happens subsequently can move that initial evaluation marker very far from where it started? Subsequent outstanding work (poor work) is regarded as a fluke or an anomaly, not as genuine counterevidence that should result in a thorough reevaluation.

12. illuSiOn Of cOntROl “They hired me because I was known as a corporate gunslinger. I know how to take

a failing organization and turn it around in short order. I kick ass and take names. I hire people who want to bust their butts to get the job done, and I fire the deadwood and anyone who gets in the way of what we’re trying to do. Within 90 days I had reorganized the finance division and the technology division. Sales needed major work. That took another three weeks, but I put in the right people and revised our marketing approach. Then it was time to increase productivity and decrease costs in our manufac- turing operation. In six months I had stopped the bleed- ing. In nine, we had bottomed out and were starting to see the signs of a turnaround. We posted our first net profits at the end of my fourth quarter with the corporation. I stayed another two years and then the job got so boring that I had to move on. So, now I’m on the market looking for another company that needs my skill set to save its cookies.” The gunslinger’s constant references “I did this” and “I did that” give no credit to the team effort it really takes to turn an organization around. Perhaps the gunslinger deserves praise and credit for his or her leadership contributions. But from my own personal experience, I assure you that turning around a large organization that is in real trouble is a group project, not a one-person show. The gunslinger in this example is looking back on the project with an exag- gerated and illusory sense of his or her own personal con- trol over how events turned out.

The Illusion of Control Heuristic: Estimating the con- trol you have over events by the amount of energy and desire you put into trying to shape those events. When used correctly, this heuristic helps calibrate estimates of our effectiveness and thus helps us gauge how hard we should try. When misapplied, the illusion of control heu- ristic leads us into snap judgments that are nothing more than wishful thinking. We frequently overestimate our actual ability to control the outcomes of events because we consistently fail to account for contingencies.29 We overestimate our control of a situation because we underestimate the influences of other people and events. As a result, we imagine wrongly that there is a very strong relationship between whatever we might do and how things are going to ultimately turn out. Wanting a given outcome strongly, we tend to think that decisions we make or actions we take are genuinely instrumental in bringing about or failing to bring about that outcome regardless of the actual contingencies, forces, and factors at work.

13. OptimiStic biaS and 14. HindSigHt biaS Please answer these three questions: Are you any more or less likely than others just like you to contract cancer at your age? Are you more or less likely than others just like you to suffer a debilitating injury in a traffic accident? Are you below average or above average in your ability to get along with others?30

The Optimistic Bias Heuristic: Tendency to underes- timate our own risks and overestimate our own control in dangerous situations.31 Responding to the third ques- tion, most will say they have above average abilities, even though mathematically it cannot be true that most peo- ple are above average. On the first two questions above, approximately 75 percent of us will estimate our risks to be lower and about 25 percent will say higher. But, the true answer is that our risks are neither higher nor lower than persons just like us. This natural tendency toward optimistic bias has the evolutionary advantage for our species of providing us with the cour- age to move ahead in life. The constant dread of serious hazards could be mentally detrimental and debilitating. However, since our risk of hazard is actually no bet- ter and no worse than others’ just like our- selves, all things being equal, this built-in bias results in poorer and perhaps riskier judgments in some situations. Our sense that we will succeed where others have failed, or that we are not as likely as others to suffer misfortune or the ill effects of bad decisions can lead us to take unnecessary risks.

Please answer these questions: Have you ever felt that you did not receive your

fair share of the credit for your contribution to a highly successful project? Were you ever unfairly blamed when things went wrong, even though the unfortunate outcomes were beyond your control?

The Hindsight Bias Heuristic: Tendency to remember suc- cessful events as being the result of the decisions we made and actions that we took and past failures as having resulted from bad luck or someone else’s mistakes.32 Our human

need for accuracy, predictability, and self-justification is believed to motivate this hindsight-biasing behavior.33 Hindsight bias adds fuel to the fire of our false confidence, for it inclines us to believe that our decisions and actions had a strong positive impact on the outcome of events, or, if things did not turn out as hoped, the fault was not ours. The tendency to take undeserved credit for good outcomes or to shift responsibility to others for undesirable outcomes is something we humans seem to have in common.

We do not mean to suggest that we are mistaken every time we feel unfairly blamed nor that we are mis- taken every time we feel in control of a situation. By noting these potentials for wrong judgments, however, we are able to anticipate the possibility of a mistake and correct our thinking before we dig in too deeply to the feelings of pride or resentment that come with being mis- takenly praised or blamed. We can use our self-regulation critical thinking skills to monitor ourselves for optimistic bias and hindsight bias so that our estimations about how much we really can control or how much blame or credit we deserve are made more reflectively, and hopefully, more accurately.

15. eliminatiOn by aSpect: “One StRike and yOu’Re Out” “I went on four job interviews, which was great because many of my friends were having trouble getting any interviews. The interviewers all wanted me to make a PowerPoint presentation. And, of course, there was a lot of meeting individuals and groups of people. And the mandatory lunch when you have to remember to order lemonade instead of anything alcoholic. All those parts went fine. But at one place there was this guy who kept interrupting my PowerPoint to ask questions. I don’t want

to work there, not with jerks like him in my work group. This other place was OK, great new computers in fact, but the cubicles were gray and so was the carpet. I just didn’t like how blah it looked—too institutional, you know. So, really, it’s down to the other two places, and I’m hoping to get an offer from one or both of them real soon.”

The Elimination by Aspect Heuristic: Eliminating an option from consideration upon the discovery of one undesirable feature. There are simply too many choices! The Excalibur Hotel in Las Vegas boasts a 500-dish smor- gasbord. DIRECTV and Comcast offer hundreds of chan- nels. Want to buy a car, rent a downtown condo, enroll in an MBA program, or select a can of soup from the grocery shelf? There are thousands from which to pick. How do we move efficiently through this maze of opportunities? Certainly not by giving our full attention and due consid- eration to every aspect of every option. Rather, we hack through the choices individually or in whole bunches at a time, pushing the clutter out of our cognitive path as quickly and efficiently as possible. Elimination by aspect is our heuristic strategy. As soon as we identify a “reason why not,” we dump that option and options like it. The reason does not have to be monumental. I don’t like brown cars or used cars. That’s it. For me, the car-buying choices have just been reduced by tens of thousands. Don’t like cream sauces? Great, that cuts the smorgasbord problem down by a huge percentage. Don’t like to wait behind other folks grazing through the food line? Fine, step around them to an open spot along the buffet and never worry about look- ing back at the dozens of culinary delights you may have skipped.

In situations where we enjoy a plethora of acceptable choices, the cognitive utility of elimination by aspect cannot be overestimated. However, the price we pay for conserving

Do you think retailers know that too many choices can overwhelm System-2, causing us to fall back to our reactive heuristic-driven System-1 responses? If so, isn’t that exactly what they want—that we should just buy without thinking through our decisions?

all that energy and time is clear, too. Applying this heuristic may result in a final selection that does not reflect the best holistic choice we might have made. The used car I refused to consider may have been just as good in every way as a new car of the same make and model, but thou- sands of dollars less expensive. I will never give that car its due consideration, having eliminated it entirely from view when I rejected it along with all others that were labeled “used.” In situ- ations where our choices are limited and where no option is perfect, this heuristic can be a major liability. Because nobody is perfect, balancing the good with the bad is a sign of wisdom. The one strike and you’re out approach denies this reality. Political litmus tests, for example, could paralyze a pluralistic democracy. We would all soon become hermits if we tried to select our employees, friends, and leaders on the principle that any one flaw is a fatal flaw.

16. lOSS and RiSk aveRSiOn “Early in my career I was offered an entry-level management position with a new company in a new industry. The company was called Cingular Wireless. I didn’t seek the job. And I was a bit surprised when the offer was extended one evening dur- ing a dinner party. It would have meant a lot more money than I was earning as a part-time instructor. A job like that would have been the ticket to a lucrative corporate career. But I had a job in the field of higher education, and, with a couple years of experience, I was becoming comfort- able in the role of college teacher. I didn’t want to lose the identity I had just begun to create for myself. I wasn’t sure what it would be like to work in the corporate sector, having all my life been either a student or a teacher, and recently a new mother. My daughter was less than a year old at that time. What if the job with Cingular didn’t work out? Somehow the idea of remaking myself into a corpo- rate junior executive seemed too risky and there was too much to lose. So, I thanked the person but declined her offer.”

The Loss and Risk Aversion Heuristic: Avoiding risk and avoiding loss by maintaining the status quo. Not losing any- thing, not going backward, at least staying where we are, for most humans, is the preferred default outcome, particularly under conditions of uncertainty. Research demonstrates that most humans are more likely to pass up an opportunity to make a gain rather than risk a loss.34 Humans psychologi- cally privilege the status quo. Whenever possible, humans take an incremental approach, seeking to avoid uncertainty and the difficult cognitive tasks of weighing and combining information or trading-off conflicting values, rather than opting for more dramatic change. Muddling through per- sonal decisions, attempting to avoid any loss, is the norm rather than the exception. We’ve all heard the old adage “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”

Making decisions on the basis of what we do not want to risk losing can have advantages in many circumstances. People do not want to lose control, they do not want to lose their freedom, and they do not want to lose their lives,

their families, their jobs, or their possessions. And so, in real life, we take precautions. Why take unnecessary risks? The odds may not be stacked against us, but the conse- quences of losing at times are so great that we would pre- fer to forgo the possibilities of gain to not lose what we have. Can you think of an example of this in your life?

We are more apt to endure the status quo, even as it slowly deteriorates, than we are to engage in change that we perceive as “radical” or “dangerous.” Loss and risk aversion have the disadvantages of leading to paralysis or delay precisely when action should be taken. Having missed that opportunity to avert a crisis, we discover later that it requires a far greater upheaval to make the necessary transformations once the crisis is upon us. Worse, on occasion, the situation has deteriorated beyond the point of no return. In those situations we find ourselves wondering why we waited so long before doing something about the problem back when it might have been possible to salvage the situation. History has shown time and time again that businesses that avoid risks often are unable to compete successfully against those willing to move more boldly into new markets or into new product lines.

Uncertainty, risk, and fear of loss are the tools of those who oppose change, just as optimistic bias and simulation are the tools of the proponents of change. There were and continue to be abundant example of both in the protracted and highly politicized debate over Obamacare. And, of course, both sides use satisficing, temporizing, affect, avail- ability, representation, stereotyping. and “Us vs. Them.”

17. “all OR nOtHing” “I heard that there were going to be budget cuts and layoffs. We all knew that the economy was in the tank. But this is a big university with an annual operating budget over $230,000,000 and more than 1,800 faculty and staff members. So, I figured that the chances that they would cut the course that I was going to take next semester out of the budget had to be about 100,000 to 1. I mean, they probably offer thousands of courses here everyyear. And there are so many other places to save money at a university without cutting academics. So, I planned my work hours and day care around taking that course. And then I go to register and it’s not in the schedule. I learned they dropped it for budget reasons. Can you imagine! How am I supposed to complete my program if they cut required courses like that one?”

The “All or Nothing” Heuristic: Simplifying decisions by treating remote probabilities as if they were not even possibilities. By and large, when making decisions, we do not calculate Bayesian probabilities. Computers might, but humans do not. But over the millennia as a species, we humans have done reasonably well for ourselves (so far) by operating as if the exact probabilities did not really mat- ter. Instead of thinking that there is precisely a 92 percent chance of this occurring or a 12 percent chance of that occur- ring, we tend to simplify our estimations and move them toward the extremes. In fact, we behave as if the odds were either 0 (no possibility at all), or 1 (it definitely will happen). Whether the chances are 1 in 100, or 1 in 10,000, do we really think about the mathematical differences in those situa- tions? No. Instead we tend to treat both of them as if the odds were the same, and, in fact, as if they were both zero. The all or nothing heuristic treats these remote possibilities as if they were, for all practical purposes, “impossible.” That is, as if the actual odds were 0 in 100 or 0 in 10,000.

When we stop and really think about things, there are all kinds of risky situations. A person walking across the street could be hit by a car. But, really, what are the chances? They are in fact not equal to zero. But if even the smallest risk of such a great loss as the loss of one’s life were per- ceived, some of us might never venture out into the world. So, we push that decimal point out further and further in our minds, nullifying the risk, treating it as if it were not present at all. I’ve ice-skated hundreds of times, so what are the chances that tonight I’ll fall and crack my skull? There are thousands of commercial flights each day, so what are the chances of a near miss involv- ing my flight? Sadly, if one of those remote and unfortunate possibilities were to occur, we often think, “I never thought that would happen to me.” A main advantage to the all or nothing heuristic is that it balances the paralyzing influ- ences of loss and risk aversion.

Heuristics in Action

In real-world conversations in which we focus on our own issues, cognitive heuristics expe- dite our thinking by generating ideas, but not necessarily reflectively. Here is an example of a person explaining why he decided to invest in high-tech stocks in late 2007. What could go wrong? “I know some businesses fail, particularly those based on technological innovation. But only 3 percent of new ventures failed last year, so I decided that the risk of failure was actually pretty small [All or Nothing], and I decided to go for broke and invest, and . . . you know. . . I’m pretty good at what I do, and I am really watch- ing things closely now so that nothing happens that will threaten my investment. [Illusion of Control] I just don’t think I can miss on this one.” [Optimistic Bias]

True, it was smart to consider the percentage of busi- nesses that failed, and to do all that one can to run a business well. And the business may not fail, but even the speaker himself would not be likely to invest with confidence were it not for the misuse of heuristic thinking, providing hope, a bit of confidence, and a sense of being in control of the investment. The worldwide economic disaster known now as the Great Recession of 2008 demonstrated that the previ- ous reasoning was a house built on sand.

Often, cognitive heuristics work in tandem with one another. For example, parents often worry about their chil- dren getting sick from germs that may be lurking in the environment, like on playground equipment, neighbors’ houses, or in public bathrooms. The gut feeling “Germs = Bad!” is an example of the affect heuristic. Fueled by the illusion of control heuristic, many parents set high stan- dards for cleanliness, especially for their daughters. But research suggests that keeping little girls squeaky clean may in fact be the opposite of what they need.35

In the following example of a casual family conver- sation over morning coffee, several heuristics are in play, including association, affect, and stereotyping:

• Husband to wife: “I’m looking forward to retiring. I’ve worked for 35 years in offices without windows, and, when I’m retired I want to be outside. I can see myself on the fifth tee right now!”

• Wife replies: “Same as my Dad; he used to say how much he hated the winter especially going to work when it was dark outside, working in a windowless office all day, and then coming home when it was dark.”

• Mother-in-law: “That senior ’s apartment you showed me was terrible. Only one window! I need more light. I’m never moving to an apartment! You’re going to have to drag me out of my house.”

In the first paragraph, availability and simula- tion influence the husband immediately to link the idea of being outside to his vivid and happily remembered hobby [availability]. He sees himself golfing [simulation],

projecting how much easier it will be to play golf when retired. As is common with the availability heuristic, he may be overestimating his opportunities to be on the fifth tee. Meanwhile, his wife is still thinking about the origi- nal topic, namely retirement. However, she connects her husband’s expressed distaste for his windowless office with her father’s similar expressions of distaste for the same work environment [representation]. At that point the mother-in-law introduces a new topic, her mind having jumped from “windowless” to an association with dark- ness [association] and from there to her vividly recalled [availability], negative [affect] experience of recently see- ing one dark apartment. Clearly, she is overestimating thelikelihood that all apartments will be dark. And, given that she has introduced this new topic, rather than join the conversation, this comment has the ring of a bolster- ing argument for a long-term debate about whether she will agree to move to an apartment. The option of moving to an apartment is off the table as far as she is concerned. And more, not wanting to lose control [loss aversion] over her own life, she expresses her decision to her children— regardless of their obvious age in this context—as a deci- sion she will not permit them to override.

We end this chapter with an example to remind our- selves that heuristic thinking, while generally useful, can lead to some very poor decisions too. Consider this true story. A black high school senior was visiting a college campus with two friends on a recruiting trip. One of the

university’s white undergraduates accosted the three in the parking lot, questioning their purpose and presence. All the while the student video recorded the younger visitors with her cell phone. The visitors asked why they were being videotaped and the college student replied “just in case”. Offended, disillusioned, and a little bit angry about the WWB36 profiling of the college student, the visitors decided to leave. Moments later the three were coming out of a nearby grocery store only to be met by the campus police who had been alerted by the college student to “suspicious behavior.” A series innocent mis- takes and misunderstandings? Perhaps. But one based on stereotyping, association, “Us vs. Them,” and representa- tion on the part of the college student, the visitors, and perhaps the police too.