Tag: Gerd Gigerenzer

Annual World Science Festival took place this week in New York City.  It is a wonderful fair with over 40 events and I try to catch at least two or three.  One of the discussions, I felt, was important for me to attend this time was The Illusion of Certainty: Risk, Probability, and Chance. 

Not only that I find practical application of mathematical, statistical and cognitive theories to business risks, economic uncertainty and commercial intuition to be imperative for strategically inclined CFOs and Controllers, but also my upcoming book on functionality of hands-on financial executives will have a chapter on Risks.  Besides, I've enjoyed books penned by two of the panelists – Leonard Mlodinow's The Drunkard's Walk: how randomness rules our lives and Gerd Gigerenzer's Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious (both are featured on by book list to the right).  And even though the distinguished panel, which also included mathematician Amir Aczel and MIT's professor of Computational Cognitive Science Josh Tenenbaum, ran out of time before they got anywhere near concepts of risks, they have touched on quite a few other fascinating concepts  that have direct application to our professional lives.

Here are few highlights.

I.  Self-confidence vs. probability and empirical evidence.  Our ambitions and drive to succeed mandates nurturing of confidence.  Business schools and work experiences show us that only assertive people who stick to their positions, even if they are based on guesses, achieve their goals.  Here comes, the Monty Hall Paradox – a logical statistical problem with an odd, but empirically demonstrable result. 

It is a probability puzzle based on the TV program Let's Make a Deal originally hosted by Monty Hall.  In the first round, the contestants on the show had to chose one out of three closed doors – two concealing goats and one hiding a car.  Then, the host would open one of the remaining doors revealing goats.  Now, that this door is eliminated, the following question is posted: do you want to switch or retain your original choice.  The confident, "believe-in-yourself" people like us most likely will stick to their guns.  Yet, years of replicating the experiment showed that changing your original choice doubles the probability of winning the car: from 1 in 3 to 2 in 3.  This maybe a good indication that there is nothing wrong with rethinking your position – it may actually be beneficial.

II.  Influence of visual presentation on interpretations of data.  Throughout our careers we have been using graphs, charts, dashboards, etc. in presentations of performance results and other information, because experience shows that it impresses the data recipients better than numbers in tables or narratives.  The reason it works so well is because our instinctive cognitive abilities are much better than conscious digestion of facts.  We are capable of processing visual data flowing at us without even thinking about it. 

Like in the chart below, which shows the relationship between marketing expenses (Y-axis, in thousands of dollars) and sales (volume represented by the bubbles, in millions of dollars).  Just by glancing at the chart anyone can see that the larger bubbles (sales) correspond with higher marketing expenses.  Biologically, it is not that much different from our ability to discern danger when we walk through the jungle.  So, when we design our graphic presentations, we should keep that in mind and try to create images that don't just look pretty, but actually transmit the most valuable messages.

III.  People's blind belief in numbers.  This is something that all financial professionals constantly use while communicating with lenders, investors, bosses, commercial partners, etc., without even thinking twice about underlying scientific theories.  Everybody knows, when you pitch a proposal, renew a credit line, or report on the business results, the more numbers you throw at "them," the better.  Presence of the numbers in a message on its own creates the illusion of certainty, regardless of their substance. 

Advertisers know that very well too.  When we hear in a commercial that 9 out of 10 users of this new cosmetic product saw an improvement in their appearance (or whatever), we automatically accept this as a proof of great achievement.  People forget that because these values are assigned by humans, they cannot be precise.   First of all, what is the definition of "improvement?"  And what if I tell you that the product was used on a group of 30 healthy, good-looking people, ages 20 to 25.  Will you still think that it will work on you as well?