<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>The Gong Show - Latest Comments in Decision Making</title><link>http://andrewparker.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://andrewparker.disqus.com/decision_making/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:08:07 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Decision Making</title><link>http://blog.andrewparker.net/2008/07/22/decision-making/#comment-999633</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Very interesting.  I love the dialog in blogging!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">andrewparker</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:08:07 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Decision Making</title><link>http://blog.andrewparker.net/2008/07/22/decision-making/#comment-999002</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Andrew, my subjective experience and observations are similar; however I think that there is a way for higher levels of consciousness to shape subjective, instinctive, heuristic decision making without shifting the locus of the decision from a sub-conscious to a conscious level.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The key (I think) is to provide a way for all of the pertinent considerations to be surfaced and made transparent to the individual decision maker (or all the individual members of a deciding group), so that the instinctive, sub-conscious decision flows from the richest possible understanding of the context of the decision.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In essence, this is one of the dynamics live in a successful mediation or conflict resolution process along the lines developed by the Program on Negotiation team at Harvard.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Guest</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:01:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Decision Making</title><link>http://blog.andrewparker.net/2008/07/22/decision-making/#comment-970656</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Those who follow the herd risk stepping in shit.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">BobC</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:28:48 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Decision Making</title><link>http://blog.andrewparker.net/2008/07/22/decision-making/#comment-969774</link><description>&lt;p&gt;We certainly do simplify all the time, but I don't think it is often done&lt;br&gt;intelligently.  Most often (and this is David Brooks insight again) we&lt;br&gt;simplify based on the actions we observe our peers doing, and we do this&lt;br&gt;simplification unconsciously.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Intelligently formed heuristics (like taking the the theory of gravity for&lt;br&gt;granted rather than rediscovering it with every step we take) are great.  By&lt;br&gt;contrast, heuristics formed simply by following the herd are a fact of life,&lt;br&gt;but a disappointing one.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">andrewparker</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:14:09 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Decision Making</title><link>http://blog.andrewparker.net/2008/07/22/decision-making/#comment-969672</link><description>&lt;p&gt;But heuristics are quite rational...we intelligently simplify all the time.  Irrational thinking is a blatant ignorance or fabrication of visible facts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;On another note, the funny thing is that irrational thinking is simultaneously said to be "what makes us human" as well as "what makes us stupid" (it just depends on whether you're talking about who to marry or which stock to buy!)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">qwang</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:04:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Decision Making</title><link>http://blog.andrewparker.net/2008/07/22/decision-making/#comment-967296</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Totally agree. Heuristics are essential.  I always thought it was so silly&lt;br&gt;how "stereotypes" are demonized in grade school.  Stereotypes are essential&lt;br&gt;to survival.  They serve a very necessary biological function.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">andrewparker</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:38:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Decision Making</title><link>http://blog.andrewparker.net/2008/07/22/decision-making/#comment-966780</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I kind of agree in theory but the problem is that all those "non rational" and "non logical" processes (biases) are heuristics.  They exist because they work pretty well most of the time (on a global scale) and save us a lot of time.  For any single decision there are (near) infinite relevant facts.  If you really tried to consider them all you would have a hard time making any decision ... unless you started taking shortcuts (heuristics/biases) and filtering the information.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Julio Barros</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:43:51 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>