Why shouldn’t we rely on intuition to answer questions about human behaviour?
give me answer long short not...plz plz fast anser
Answers
Answer:
they are appraisals of what you have just experienced or thought of – in this sense, they are also a form of information processing. Intuition or gut feelings are also the result of a lot of processing that happens in the brain. ... You are glad you relied on your gut feeling even if you don't know where it came from.
Explanation:
Answer:
Economics Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman theorizes that intuitive thinking has both advantages and disadvantages: it is faster than a rational approach but more prone to error.
Whether we rely on our gut or turn to sober analysis to make a decision seems to depend on a variety of factors, such as our past experiences with similar situations and the complexity of the problem.
Many cognitive scientists argue that intuitive and analytic thinking should not be viewed as opposites. Studies indicate that our decision-making often works best when we blend both strategies.
Decisions made intuitively are not necessarily based on simple rules.
“I go with my gut feelings,” says investor Judith Williams. Sure, you might think, “so do I,”— if the choice is between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. But Williams is dealing with real money in the five and six figures.
Williams is one of the lions on the program The Lions’ Den, a German television show akin to Shark Tank. She and other participants invest their own money in business ideas presented by contestants. She is not the only one who trusts her gut. Intuition, it seems, is on a roll: bookstores are full of guides advising us how to heal, eat or invest intuitively. They promise to unleash our inner wisdom and strengths we do not yet know we have.
But can we really rely on intuition, or is it a counsel to failure? Although researchers have been debating the value of intuition in decision-making for decades, they continue to disagree.
A SOURCE OF ERROR?
Intuition can be thought of as insight that arises spontaneously without conscious reasoning. Daniel Kahneman, who won a Nobel prize in economics for his work on human judgment and decision-making, has proposed that we have two different thought systems: system 1 is fast and intuitive; system 2 is slower and relies on reasoning. The fast system, he holds, is more prone to error. It has its place: it may increase the chance of survival by enabling us to anticipate serious threats and recognize promising opportunities. But the slower thought system, by engaging critical thinking and analysis, is less susceptible to producing bad decisions.
Kahneman, who acknowledges that both systems usually operate when people think, has described many ways that the intuitive system can cloud judgment. Consider, for example, the framing effect: the tendency to be influenced by the way a problem is posed or a question is asked. In the 1980s Kahneman and his colleague Amos Tversky presented a hypothetical public health problem to volunteers and framed the set of possible solutions in different ways to different volunteers. In all cases, the volunteers were told to imagine that the U.S. was preparing for an outbreak of an unusual disease expected to kill 600 people and that two alternative programs for combating the disease had been proposed.
For one group, the choices were framed by Tversky and Kahneman in terms of gains—how many people would be saved:
If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.
If Program B is adopted, there is 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no people will be saved.
The majority of volunteers selected the first option, Program A.
For another group, the choices were framed in terms of losses—how many people would die:
If Program C is adopted 400 people will die.
If Program D is adopted there is 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and 2/3 probability that 600 people will die.
In this case, the vast majority of volunteers were willing to gamble and selected the second option, Program D.
In fact, the options presented to both groups were the same: The first program would save 200 people and lose 400. The second program offered a one-in-three chance that everyone would live and a two-in-three chance that everyone would die. Framing the alternatives in terms of lives saved or lives lost is what made the difference. When choices are framed in terms of gains, people often become risk-averse, whereas when choices are framed in terms of losses, people often became more willing to take risks.