Цитаты из книги Thinking, Fast and Slow

У организаций, возможно, больше шансов обуздать оптимизм и его носителей, чем у отдельных лиц. Лучшую идею для этого предложил Гэри Кляйн, мой завзятый противник и соавтор. Он обычно защищает интуитивное принятие решений, когда этот метод обвиняют в ошибочности, и недолюбливает алгоритмы. Он назвал свою методику «прижизненным эпикризом». Процедура проста – если организация оказывается на пороге важного решения, но еще не берет на себя обязательство его исполнить, посвященных в план следует созвать на совещание и объявить им: «Представьте, что вы попали в будущее. Мы внедрили план в существующем виде. Последствия оказались катастрофическими. Просим вас за 5–10 минут вкратце изложить историю катастрофы – как все произошло».

Идею Гэри Кляйна составить прижизненный эпикриз обычно встречают с бурным энтузиазмом. После того как я вкратце описал процедуру во время семинара на Всемирном экономическом форуме в Давосе, один из присутствующих шепнул соседу: «Ради одного этого стоило приезжать!» Позже я узнал, что слова принадлежали директору крупной международной корпорации. У прижизненного эпикриза есть два крупных достоинства: он позволяет отойти от шаблонного группового мышления, поражающего многие команды, как только те сообща приходят к решению, и подталкивает к размышлениям в указанном направлении.

Если команда сообща приходит к решению (да еще и лидер голосует «за»), публично высказанные сомнения по поводу мудрости спланированного шага постепенно подавляются, их начинают считать признаком нелояльности. Подавление сомнений способствует развитию излишней самоуверенности в группе, где право голоса даруется только согласным с решением управленцев. Таким образом, первейшее достоинство прижизненного эпикриза состоит в том, что он узаконивает сомнения. Более того, эта методика побуждает даже сторонников принятого плана искать угрозы его осуществлению, не изученные ранее. Впрочем, прижизненный эпикриз – не панацея: он не защищает от неприятных сюрпризов, хотя и позволяет снизить возможный ущерб от решений, принятых под влиянием ошибок WYSIATI и неуемного оптимизма.

The striking finding was that people who had received a message extolling the benefits of a technology also changed their beliefs about its risks. Although they had received no relevant evidence, the technology they now liked more than before was also perceived as less risky. Similarly, respondents who were told only that the risks of a technology were mild developed a more favorable view of its benefits. The implication is clear: as the psychologist Jonathan Haidt said in another context, “The emotional tail wags the rational dog.” The affect heuristic simplifies our lives by creating a world that is much tidier than reality. Good technologies have few costs in the imaginary world we inhabit, bad technologies have no benefits, and all decisions are easy. In the real world, of course, we often face painful tradeoffs between benefits and costs.

As mentioned earlier, Slovic eventually developed the notion of an affect heuristic, in which people make judgments and decisions by consulting their emotions: Do I like it? Do I hate it? How strongly do I feel about it? In many domains of life, Slovic said, people form opinions and make choices that directly express their feelings and their basic tendency to approach or avoid, often without knowing that they are doing so. The affect heuristic is an instance of substitution, in which the answer to an easy question (How do I feel about it?) serves as an answer to a much harder question (What do I think about it?).

The Psychology of Availability   A major advance in the understanding of the availability heuristic occurred in the early 1990s, when a group of German psychologists led by Norbert Schwarz raised an intriguing question: How will people’s impressions of the frequency of a category be affected by a requirement to list a specified number of instances? Imagine yourself a subject in that experiment: First, list six instances in which you behaved assertively. Next, evaluate how assertive you are.   Imagine that you had been asked for twelve instances of assertive behavior (a number most people find difficult). Would your view of your own assertiveness be different? Schwarz and his colleagues observed that the task of listing instances may enhance the judgments of the trait by two different routes:   the number of instances retrieved the ease with which they come to mind   The request to list twelve instances pits the two determinants against each other. On the one hand, you have just retrieved an impressive number of cases in which you were assertive. On the other hand, while the first three or four instances of your own assertiveness probably came easily to you, you almost certainly struggled to come up with the last few to complete a set of twelve; fluency was low. Which will count more—the amount retrieved or the ease and fluency of the retrieval? The contest yielded a clear-cut winner: people who had just listed twelve instances rated themselves as less assertive than people who had listed only six. Furthermore, participants who had been asked to list twelve cases in which they had not behaved assertively ended up thinking of themselves as quite assertive! If you cannot easily come up with instances of meek behavior, you are likely to conclude that you are not meek at all. Self-ratings were dominated by the ease with which examples had come to mind. The experience of fluent retrieval of instances trumped the number retrieved.

The evidence that we have about good feelings, cognitive ease, and the intuition of coherence is, as scientists say, correlational but not necessarily causal. Cognitive ease and smiling occur together, but do the good feelings actually lead to intuitions of coherence? Yes, they do. The proof comes from a clever experimental approach that has become increasingly popular. Some participants were given a cover story that provided an alternative interpretation for their good feeling: they were told about music played in their earphones that “previous research showed that this music influences the emotional reactions of individuals.” This story completely eliminates the intuition of coherence. The finding shows that the brief emotional response that follows the presentation of a triad of words (pleasant if the triad is coherent, unpleasant otherwise) is actually the basis of judgments of coherence. There is nothing here that System 1 cannot do. Emotional changes are now expected, and because they are unsurprising they are not linked causally to the words. This is as good as psychological research ever gets, in its combination of experimental techniques and in its results, which are both robust and extremely surprising. We have learned a great deal about the automatic workings of System 1 in the last decades. Much of what we now know would have sounded like science fiction thirty or forty years ago. It was beyond imagining that bad font influences judgments of truth and improves cognitive performance, or that an emotional response to the cognitive ease of a triad of words mediates impressions of coherence. Psychology has come a long way.

If you care about being thought credible and intelligent, do not use complex language where simpler language will do. My Princeton ton colleague Danny Oppenheimer refuted a myth prevalent among undergraduates about the vocabulary that professors find most impressive. In an article titled “Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly,” he showed that couching familiar ideas in pretentious language is taken as a sign of poor intelligence and low credibility.

The various causes of ease or strain have interchangeable effects. When you are in a state of cognitive ease, you are probably in a good mood, like what you see, believe what you hear, trust your intuitions, and feel that the current situation is comfortably familiar. You are also likely to be relatively casual and superficial in your thinking. When you feel strained, you are more likely to be vigilant and suspicious, invest more effort in what you are doing, feel less comfortable, and make fewer errors, but you also are less intuitive and less creative than usual.

The general theme of these findings is that the idea of money primes individualism: a reluctance to be involved with others, to depend on others, or to accept demands from others. The psychologist who has done this remarkable research, Kathleen Vohs, has been laudably restrained in discussing the implications of her findings, leaving the task to her readers. Her experiments are profound—her findings suggest that living in a culture that surrounds us with reminders of money may shape our behavior and our attitudes in ways that we do not know about and of which we may not be proud.