In a recent article, I explored how valuable heuristics are in allowing us to make robust decisions extremely quickly. Heuristics can be especially powerful in helping us to make sense of a complex environment.
The likes of Steve Jobs was a famous advocate of intuition, and argued that it’s usually more effective than intellect. While using our intuition can be fantastic, however, recent research from Yale reminds us that it’s not something without risk, especially as we struggle to move beyond our intuition, even when it’s clearly shown to be wrong.
Discovering the truth
At the heart of the research was the so-called “bat and ball problem”, whereby a bat and ball cost $110 in total, with the bat costing $100 more than the ball. Participants are asked how much the ball costs. It’s an extremely popular thought experiment, precisely because so many people default to $10, despite that clearly being the incorrect answer.
It’s a problem known in behavioral economics as an example of “dual system theory”, which was famously demonstrated by Daniel Kahneman’s fast and slow forms of thinking. It reflects how our instinctive response can lead us astray unless we engage in deliberate reflection to overcome it.
The researchers tested whether being encouraged to engage in this reflection would result in us making the right decision more often. The results highlight that even such a prompt isn’t as effective as we’d perhaps like to think.
Hard to change
The researchers found that wrong ideas are surprisingly hard to change, even when trying different ways to help people spot their mistakes.
In one study, participants were warned that “the problem is trickier than it looks.” In another, they were given a second chance after being told the answer was not $10. In a third, they were prompted to “consider whether the answer could be $5.”
In another study, participants were even told: “The answer is $5. Please write the number 5 in the blank below.” While these methods did increase the number of correct answers, only the last one got most people to answer correctly. Even then, 18% still gave the wrong answer, insisting it was $10.
Thinking isn’t enough
The findings challenge the notion that simply asking people to slow down and reflect on a problem is enough to ensure that we don’t go down instinctive rabbit holes.
The researchers grouped respondents into four types: the reflective, who get the answer right initially; the careless, who answer incorrectly but can solve the problem when told $10 is not the answer; the hopeless, who cannot or will not solve the problem; and the stubborn, who stick with their $10 answer even after being told it is wrong.
The intuitive response is hard to change partly because people are so confident in it: most respondents who answered $10 were 100% sure they were right.
Shaping our instinct
Although the bat-and-ball problem was the focal point of the paper, the researchers used other examples to show how a problem’s structure can trigger correct or incorrect intuition. Consider two versions of their “smokers” question:
If 1 in 10 men smoke and 1 in 30 women smoke, then 1 in ___ people smoke.
versus
If 3 in 30 men smoke and 1 in 30 women smoke, then 1 in ___ people smoke.
Though these questions are nearly the same and have identical answers, only 7% solved the first problem, while 49% solved the second. In both problems, people tend to average the numbers: 10 and 30 in the first version, or 3 and 1 in the second.
If you, like most, answered 1 in 20 to the first problem, consider what the average rate would be if no women smoked. The answer would then be 1 in 20. But since some women do smoke, that can’t be the answer to the question.
The authors note that forming and revising intuitions affects more than just math puzzles. Marketers, managers, and politicians should understand how to frame problems to create a clear intuition that supports their goals and how to reframe them when it doesn’t. The research also shows how hard it is to change strongly held intuitions, even with new evidence and arguments.
This research reminds us that while intuition and quick thinking can certainly help us navigate a complex world, they aren’t always reliable. Wrong intuitions can be hard to change, even when we’re presented with clear evidence.
We need to do our best to encourage deeper thinking and reflection, but also recognize that these strategies have their limits. It reminds us that striking a balance between intuition and careful analysis is essential for finding the truth and making good decisions.
