I seek evidence on the following question:

How does one know when to trust a snap judgment and when not to? 
Under what conditions are snap or intuitive judgments better
predictors of an event or a person than those based on more
information etc?

In short, what are the boundary conditions between a trustworthy snap
or intuitive judgment and an untrustworthy one?

The evidence I seek should be drawn specific experimental studies
(including reference citation and brief description, say an abstract)
from cognitive or cognitive social psychology.

---

Request for Question Clarification by maniac-ga on 20 Feb 2005 17:51 PST

Hello Richard2222,

When you refer to
  "snap judgements"
do you want to include or exclude decisions based on training. [I
assume exclude, but that will rule out a lot of research]

For example, when a pilot is trained to respond to emergency
conditions, the pilot will not make a "reasoned decision" but will
take action based on prior training (basically a conditioned
response). The judgement may still be untrustworthy (due to a variety
of causes) but is still made in a "snap".

[this is certainly a factor for the "driving a car" example but can
affect several other situations as well that you may not expect]

  --Maniac
p

---

Clarification of Question by richard2222-ga on 21 Feb 2005 04:49 PST

A snap judgment is defined in terms of a temporal dimension.  It is
usually made quickly, sometimes instantaneously, in a "blink of an
eye" to use Gladwell's phrase.  Some snap judgments are made without a
great deal of training or experience others are made after a great
deal.  Past history is not relevant to the definition of snap
judgments.  But it may play a role in their accuracy.  Gladwell seems
to imply that snap judgments are more trustworthy when they are based
on a good deal of experience.  I would like to see the evidence for
this claim, namely experimental evidence demonstrating that prior
experience/training is strongly associated with the accuracy of snap
judgments--the more experience a person has in the relevant situation
the more trustworthy their snap judgments.

You may already know this, but Malcolm Gladwell has published a book
on this just in the last few weeks.  The title is "Blink"  Here's a
link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316172324/qid=1108777407/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-7597080-2706351

Yes, of course, I knew about Gladwell's book.  The question is derived
from his account.  It is one he never confronts directly.

I have been haunted by your question since the first time I read it-
and will get the book "Blink" to see what sparked your it.  I'm not
really sure your question can be answered completely- certainly not
through research- since there could be huge debate as to what defines
trustworthy vs untrustworthy.  Do you mean snap judgements that  are
meant to assist us in avoiding physical harm or death?  This might be
the easiest to set of boundary conditions to study.  Whenever we get
into a car and pull out onto a street or highway shared with hundereds
of other vehicles-our life- and the lives in vehicles around us are in
our hands - are we using our intuition to make instantaneous decisions
moment by moment?  I am curious about this since I spent years working
in large organizations on making "better", "Good" or "right"
decisions.  Interesting enough- when we autopsied the decsions that
were being made- good or bad- we discovered that people typically
always made decsions that FELT right or good to them.  Is this what
you mean by "intuition"- a feeling that you have that seems correct 
to pay attention and or follow?  For most of the decsion makers e
workedwith we discovered that people collected evidence and data to
support the feeling they had about the decision.  What was passing as
"Fact Based" decision making was really more artful story telling to
get others to "feel" the way you did about a paqrticular decision. 
For some of my clients this was very freeing- for others- especially
scientists and engineers- this was very bad news- yet even they
admitted in the end that they trusted their core feelings about a
decsion.  I hope one of the esteemd GA researchers finds this
interesting enough to grab this one!

Hi richard,

Decision making is one of my favorite topics, I have to comment...

      ...Snap decision feelings?  Sure, experience them, revel in them, roll in
      the mud, but I'll wait until the pregnant moment to render my decision....

I have no studies to back up my opinion, except for a wise and very
sucessful Father that consciously taught me the art of "Decision
Making," and a lifetime of practice in the Art of Decision Making.

Decision making, on the whole, is a learned process whether one
recognises it or not.  If one makes "snap" decisions and gets rewarded
early, they come to believe that snap decisions are accurate; -they
can be, --but this is not necessarily so.  We all want to be right,
and I have learned how to right more often...

Any decision depends on several factors, otherwise there would be no
cognitive functions necessary.  The best time to make *any* decision
is at the "Pregnant Moment."  The process leading up to that moment is
the learned ability.

Reasoned decision making allows for the feelings and ----------------
of snap decisions.  Snap decisions alone leave no room for reasoning,
they depend totally on gut instinct.

The pregnant moment is defined specifically as the moment when a
decision must be rendered, and all relevant information you've
gathered up to that moment has been considered, weighed, judged, and
now must be voiced in totality as a choice.  The moment when you
cannot procrastinate the choice any longer because additional time
would take away some of your choices.  The moment when waiting longer
to commit to a choice will become a detriment, not an advantage to the
overall decision.

Sometimes it's better to be wrong, than to never have chosen at all.

Not choosing at all is passive aggressive behavior.
Snap decisions [without reasoning] is narcisstic behavior.

I employ a process that I fondly call: "calculated waiting"  It's okay
to have a snap feeling, a direction, an opinion...  but you absolutely
must remain open minded about all information that might possibly
affect your decision and consciously be a sponge, soak up all
information that could be relevant.  Then, over time, weigh your snap
feeling in with the available information and ultimately make a
reasoned decision.  But only at the pregnant moment, never before.

Decision making is a learned process.  With practice, the process
becomes like driving a car, automatic and effortless.

      ...Snap decision feelings?  Sure, experience them, revel in them, roll in
      the mud, but I'll wait until the pregnant moment to render my decision.      

My humble opinion...

~~Cynthia

Sorry ...

-------------  =  [some word I still can't remember], --possibly "inclinations".

Hence, the sentence would read:

...Reasoned decision making allows for the feelings and inclinations 
of snap decisions.  Snap decisions alone leave no room for reasoning,
they depend totally on gut instinct...

Cynthia:
Thank you for your clarification and earlier comment.  I appreciate
your interest.  I will ponder the matter, still hoping to get some
comparative studies, that is, evidence (ideally experimental studies)
comparing the reliability of intuitive or snap judgments verusus more
reasoned ones under the same conditions.
Richard (rkatzev@teleport.com)

richard...

I can only tell you a story of something that happened to me, in which
my life was saved by an instantaneous response that was not based on
reasoning or even on normal sensory input. I'll leave it to you to 
decide whether to call it intuitive.

I was driving to work, as I did on a daily basis, on a crowded 8-lane
divided highway (not a freeway), in Virginia, with a speed limit of
about 45. I was driving a '67 Volkswagen van, headed north.

The previous morning, as traffic passed over a bridge which spanned
a river, I had noticed the attractive orange of the sunrise in the
space between the trees and other impediments to sight on either side
of the river. It was an amazing sight with a gorgeous color, but I 
only got to see it for an instant, glancing to my right as we passed
it, since I had caught it out of the corner of my eye, and turned too
late to see it fully.

This morning, I had decided (a reasoned decision) to get a better look
at this inspiring sight. As the heavy traffic approached the bridge,
I carefully observed it, noting the absence of brake lights in the 
four lanes ahead, which indicated that traffic was flowing smoothly,
and might afford me a good look. I slowed slightly to create some
space in front of me, should I need it, but not so much as to let
another car cut in.

Having thus prepared, I looked to the right to catch this awesome
view of the sunrise, which would surely be unavailable in a couple
of days, as the time of sunrise advanced. Sure enough, as the trees
on the south bank gave way to the horizon provided by the river,
I was rewarded with the glorious orange of the sun as it kissed the
horizon goodbye on its way to the heights of the sky. I was almost
entranced, captivated by this beauty to the temporary exclusion of
anything else.

Suddenly, I felt a jolt in the pit of my stomach, and found my 
right leg coming off the gas pedal and hitting the brake. All of
this was actually occurring *as* my head was turning back to look
forward, and without any volition on the part of my consciousness.
I saw that the car in front of me had braked, due to something 
slowing the traffic in the lane further ahead. I was going too 
fast, and was too close to stop without hitting it. So I started
turning into the lane to my left *as* I looked in the right-side
safety mirror to see if there was a space. Thankfully, there was,
and I narrowly missed the car ahead of me as I squeeked into the
left lane and passed.

All of this occurred without any conscious awareness, until my
turning head took in what was happening. Before that, I was
already braking, without any idea why I was doing so. There 
had been no indication, such as a peripheral vision of the
brake lights of the car ahead, to give me any awareness of
a problem.

I've had a couple of other experiences of such a phenomena, 
which weren't life-threatening situations, which seemed to
indicate that the body itself has this amazing sensitivity
to what is going on around it, and that our normal conscious
process is slow by comparison, and often, when something 
seems to catch our attention, our consciousness is simply
"catching up" with something of which the body has already
been aware. In those instances, since the situation wasn't
life-threatening, there was no "jolt", but rather a smooth
transition, which I was fortunate enough to become aware of.
But when the situation is more dangerous, my experience tells
me that the body is able to not only be aware of, but also
respond to those situations, without the cooperation of 
(or, for that matter, the interference of) the conscious mind.

So I'd say that when snap decisions are based on the body's
apparently much greater awareness of a situation than the
conscious mind's slower, narrower, and thought-based process,
they are definitely to be trusted with your life. 

Of course, distinguishing these "gut reactions" from emotional
responses (which are usually based on our thought processes)
may take some refined discernment. The key is to notice whether
some form of conscious process such as thoughts or beliefs
preceeded the snap decision. In the life-threatening instance
I described, it was clear that they were not involved, but in
the subtler situations of daily life, the difference may not
be as easily discernible.

In daily life, beliefs may produce subtle emotional responses
which look and feel like true gut reactions from the body's
great intelligence and sensitivity, but may simply amount to
prejudices based on transparent beliefs.

If you find that this personal experience satisfies your 
inquiry, let me know, and I'll post it as an official answer.
Otherwise, I hope it serves to illuminate the topic.

sublime1-ga

There's actually a term used to decribe the phenomena in sublime1-ga's
story.  Proprioceptive intelligence.  This is being used more and more
to ackowledge and honor the broader intelligence located throughout
our body and even environment- that when we are connected or open to
it - expands our capacity for "intuitve" insight and action.

Dear Sublime1-ga (and dancingbear-ga):

Thank you for your detailed report of your driving experience.  Surely
not all instances of ?body?s great intelligence? as you put it or
?proprioceptive intelligence? as dancingbear-ga puts it are to be
trusted.  For example, in your own example, you might not have been so
fortunate to have an open space as you veered into the left lane.  If
that had been the case, I don?t think you would want (or perhaps even
be able) to say your body was quite so intelligent.  Again, sometimes
the wisdom of the body fails us, say for example, when our appetite
leads to overeat, or when our eyes deceive us as they do with
countless visual illusions.  Therefore, the intelligence of the body
does have limits.  When and under what conditions should we trust the
snap judgments of our body?  The answer to that question cannot be
based on anecdotal evidence.  What we need are investigations that
begin to specify the boundary conditions between trustworthy and
non-trustworthy responses of the kind you and dancingbear-ga describe.

richard...

While I can appreciate your interest in a more precise
study of the phenomena I described, at the least, I
should clarify your apparent misperception of the details
of my story, and your resulting conclusions.

You noted: "...you might not have been so fortunate to have
an open space as you veered into the left lane. If that had
been the case, I don?t think you would want (or perhaps even
be able) to say your body was quite so intelligent."

I should point out that the steering into the left lane was
something I consciously chose to do *after* I was able to take
in the situation:

"I saw that the car in front of me had braked, due to something 
slowing the traffic in the lane further ahead. I was going too 
fast, and was too close to stop without hitting it. So I started
turning into the lane to my left *as* I looked in the right-side
safety mirror to see if there was a space."

That was a "reasoned decision", and I was aware of the risk I was
taking before I was able to confirm the empty space in the lane.

This is in complete contrast to the response of hitting the brakes
prior to my head even turning to see the situation. It was entirely
automatic, and completely independent of my conscious awareness:

"Suddenly, I felt a jolt in the pit of my stomach, and found my 
right leg coming off the gas pedal and hitting the brake. All of
this was actually occurring *as* my head was turning back to look
forward, and without any volition on the part of my consciousness."

That, and that alone, is the only part of my experience which I am
saying represented some astonishing sensitivity and intelligence
of the body, which, though perhaps impossible to control or invite,
is worthy of complete confidence.

I'm sorry if that wasn't as clear as it could have been. Perhaps
the asterisked *as* in the second part of the story, after I was
made conscious of the situation, contributed to the perception
that turning into the left lane was part of the same movement 
that had me hitting the brakes in the first place.

Sadly, while I'm convinced that this particular phenomena represents
the epitome of trustworthiness when it comes to snap decisions or
judgments, I'm also quite certain that attempting to study and/or
comprehend it with the slower, narrower processes of the intellect
would be comparable to trying to understand the essence of a bird
with a microscope. The instrument just isn't up to the task, not to
mention that the intervention of the body's intelligence in this way
is not something I'm aware of as being reproducible on demand. So I
don't believe you'll find such a study, at least in regard to this
particular basis for 'snap' decisions.

sublime1-ga

Dear Sublime1-ga:

Thank you for your clarification.  I now understand your experience better.

However, I wish to take issue with your claim about the potential for
investigating the question I posed.  Comparable questions are studied
in and out of the lab by cognitive scientists in several disciplines. 
Perhaps this one has not.  Perhaps it is too difficult to study. 
Perhaps the proposed answers will fail to get at the heart of the
matter.  I am aware that there are many questions that cannot be
adequately answered by experimental analysis, at least, not yet.  In
contrast, a goodly number have been.  I'd rather wait for the evidence
to fall into place before concluding the question does not lend itself
to empirical inquiry.

Another book which seems to substantiate "BLINK" is "THE GIFT OF FEAR"
by Cavin DeBecker. Mr. DeBecker is an expert in protecting people and
in discusses when to listen to one's intuition about danger. He really
explains it well and I recommend it highly.

Thank you for the suggestion.  I will look into the book.

Tons and tons of work. Never heard of Gladwell.
Try: Gigerenzer, G. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A
reply to Kahneman and Tversky. Psychological Review, 103, 592-596.

Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics: The
adaptive  tool box. In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & the ABC Research
Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 3-34). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible
uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Read also about- Coherance metatheory (reasoned/analytical) and
correspondance metatheory (intuition)for a discussion on evaluating
competencies.

There is no single boundry condition- Depends on the ecological
context the brain is embedded in as well as individual difference
variables (search probabilistic functionalism).  Primarily- reasoned
thought is evaluated by the extent to which a person follows (coheres)
to a specific algorithm/rule/axiom/normative model etc.  Intuition is
benchmarked by the correlation with an actual outcome..or its accuracy
(how it corresponds to a criterion)...

Finally, please appreciate that the ability for intuition is in our
genes.. its adaptive. "reasoned thought (application of propositional
logic, ideological maxims, Baysian/Fisherian statistics, mathematics,
etc...) came much much much later and it must be formally learned.