The Blink thesis can be summarised thus: * Split-second decisions can be far more accurate than drawn-out, deliberate, “rational”, decisions. * However, split-second decisions can also be heavily flawed. * Interventions can be made to help people harness the power of split-second decisions. EVIDENCE OF SPLIT-SECOND DECISIONS OVER DELIBERATE DECISIONS * Experiment subjects quickly started following the profitable strategy in a card game, but could not explain why until much later. * The running example in Blink is an art artifact which immediately made art experts suspicious, but had been deemed authentic by the deliberate legal tracking process. The Greek sculpture turned out to be a fake. * A singer’s talent stunned veterans of the music industry and wowed audiences, but formal audience surveys ruled him commercially inviable. Keenna turned into a big success. * A military simulation pitted the Blue Team, USA, against the Red Team, a rogue dictator. The Blue Team used sophisticated decision-making processes and frequent explicit communication, whereas the Red Team communicated little and relied on the intelligence of individual units. The Red Team won. EVIDENCE OF FLAWS IN SPLIT-SECOND DECISION-MAKING.
* A study inferred that car salespeople judged women and blacks to be less savvy, even when all actors were attributed with the same income and professions. * Warren Harding ascended to American presidency on the basis of one key attribute: he looked “presidential”. * Doctors possessed charts of current heart activity, but their diagnoses were heavily influenced by demographic factors which were largely gratuitous in light of the charts. STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE SNAP-DECISION MAKING
* Practice, practice, practice. “Expert judgment” goes hand-in-hand with “snap judgment”. Many of the benefits of quick judgments are * Use technology to break the instant down. Many examples involve analysing videotapes. A tennis coach works...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document