How We Decide

.
How We Decide is a book by Jonah Lehrer based on “the historic dichotomy between ‘emotional’ decision-making and ‘rational’ decision-making and what modern neuroscience can tell us about these two modes of thinking” (Doctorow). In an article on the website, boingboing, Cory Doctorow discusses some of the aspects of the book. Things discussed vary between how someone with damage to the emotional part of their brain is unable to make a decision “because their rational mind dithers endlessly over the possible rational reasons for each course of action,” (Doctorow) and the difficulty of making decisions in certain situations. One example given was based on two groups of 10-year-olds that were given an easy test. One group, the control group, was praised for their work, while the other group, the experimental group, was given the trying hard speech. Next the two groups were given another test, only difference being that it was harder this time. The kids that were originally considered the smart group did worse, while the other ones improved. The choices they made on the second test were affected by the praise they received after the first test.

This article was great insight into the book. In all books, you get the background information on what’s going on inside. However, sometimes these summaries can be misleading, or even lacking in information that could make you want to buy it. A review like this helps in this decision. It gives examples but it doesn’t give you too much to the point that you feel like you already read the book. The author makes me want to buy not only this book but also others that pertain to the subject of decision making.
Doctorow, Cory. "How We Decide: mind-blowing neuroscience of decision-making." boingboing 8 Sep. 2009: n. pag. Web. 16 Apr 2010.

Battle in the Brain

Bjorn Carey writes about how your brain has a battle with itself in the article, “Battle in the Brain: How We Make Tough Choices.” The basis of this article is how the brain chooses between a rewarding decision and a logical decision. The study covers “when a person decides whether to exploit a known commodity or explore a potentially better option” (Carey). As part of the study, researchers analyzed the brain activity of volunteers in a gambling game. A specific area would show up when someone went to what they believed to be a higher paying machine, and the same if they stayed at their own. Would you rather wait 10 minutes to eat tow cookies or eat one now?
Another interesting article on the internal battles of the human body. The author’s exploring/exploiting theory can be used in practically every single choice made. I think that’s the thing that most interest me about this theory. It ended really fast, though. It didn’t go as in depth as I expected.
Care, Bjorn. Battle in the Brain: How We Make Tough Choices. Live Science. 14 Jun. 2006. http://www.livescinec.com/health/060614_choice_activity.html

blink

Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Blink, is about the choices people make without even thinking. He covers everything from thin-slicing and snap decisions to first impressions and mind reading. The main thing that Gladwell is trying to get his readers to understand is that most decisions are usually made within the subconscious mind. Maybe you’re an expert on sculptures and can tell that the one you’re looking at isn’t real in a mere glance. Or perhaps you’re a police officer and you suspect that the person you’re following has a gun, and you need to decide whether or not to shoot him before he shoots you. Gladwell hopes that one day everyone will believe that “the task of making sense of ourselves and our behavior requires that we acknowledge there can be as much value in the blink of an eye as in months of rational analysis.” (Gladwell)
Okay, so I guess I should start off with what I hated about this book. It’s excruciatingly long. Normally, I don’t consider a 255 page book long, especially after reading Breaking Dawn. However, in this case I must make an exception. I’m guessing that’s because this wasn’t an adventure or a romance, there wasn’t a storyline that kept me interested. Even though I know that it’s not that type of book. The constant use of psychological terms on top of the topics used for examples just seemed to bore me every now and then.
I know that I just complained about the topics, but here I think I can admit that I enjoyed them at the same time. Gladwell took these seemingly casual topics, gave them a twist and made them interesting to me. I kept reading, not because I had to finish the book, but because I actually wanted to see what other real-life situations I would read about. To learn in the first chapter about a museum taking in this sculpture after months of research to make sure it was real, only to wait until after they bought it to show experts who told them it was a fake, is amazing to me. It just goes to show that sometimes research can do absolutely nothing for you.
Gladwell, Malcolm. Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. 1st ed. . New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company, 2005. Print

Gambling

On the Discovery Channel website, there are a series of videos on understanding odds. The Decision Making edition covers horse racing and the jobs of handicappers. It mentions that "psychologists tell us that part of the attraction of gambling is in the fact that it mirrors the uncertainty we experience in life" (Understanding Odds: Decision Making). The video explains that people gamble because they learn whether or not their decision was a good one in a short period of time, but in real life, decisions on a job or marriage can take years for a person to figure out that it was the wrong decision for them (Understanding Odds: Decision Making). One thing that researchers have noticed while watching handicappers is that even though tons of information may go in to a race, it’s not all important. The more information they have doesn’t help improve odds on figuring out which horse might win.

Thankfully, this video was short, sweet and to the point. One good example used to tell me exactly what they wanted me to know. No fluff. The worst part of the whole thing was having to stop and look up what the term “handicappers” meant. For future reference, a handicapper is a person that predicts the outcome of a horse race. Other than that it was good watch.
"Understanding Odds: Decision Making." Discovery Channel. Web. 2 May 2010. .

Cognitive Reflection Test

In the video, Intelligent, Cognitive Reflection, and Decision Making, Shane Fredrick talks about his cognitive reflection test (CRT). In the test, Fredrick is able to “predict an individual’s predilection,” (Intelligent, Cognitive Reflection, and Decision Making). In other words, he’s able to predict a person’s preference for something. The test involves only 3 questions and a survey on financial gambles and other risk based decisions. These topics are questioned because of Fredrick’s findings that “people have widely varying tastes for risks, and different levels of patience.”(Intelligent, Cognitive Reflection, and Decision Making)

I found this video to be intriguing and long. The length of things has seemed to really mess me up on this project (facebook is only a click away). After all the research I’ve done, one of the biggest trends I’ve noticed is the lack of need for a lot of information to be able to make a conclusion about someone or something. Like with the CRT only having 3 questions. In most other cases it takes way more than 3 questions to learn about a person. Another thing that gets me is that this video was made 4 years ago. I hadn’t really noticed much on when most of my information was dated. So, I hadn’t thought about how long researchers have been working on this topic. But I guess now I know.
"Intelligent, Cognitive Reflection, and Decision Making." MIT World: Distributed Intelligence. Web. 14 April 2010. .

Does the Heart Rule the Head?

Rowan Hooper clarifies making decisions based on reason and emotion in the article entitled “Clear Pictures of How We Think.” Evidence is bringing scientists closer to figuring out “whether the heart rules the head” (Hooper). Through the use of a functional magnetic-resonance imaging, scientists are able to determine which parts of the brain are most active in everyday situations. Hooper uses the example of there being certain parts that are more active when someone falls in love. Originally, the only way to learn about the parts of the brain was to watch those that had suffered brain damage. Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen, two professors at Princeton University, started their own study that “look into the factors that influence moral judgment” (Hooper). In their study, they took volunteers and told them to imagine what they would do in a horribly tricky situation while they scanned their brains. Not only do the emotions you feel show up on the scan, but also the areas controlling the logical aspects that you’re forced to consider. In conclusion, Hooper answers his opening question by saying that the heart does rule the head sometimes, however, “the head doesn’t give in without a fight” (Hooper).

To me, this was a very interesting piece of work. The idea that logic and emotions can be at a constant battle to help you try and make the right decision is quite intense. I even think that it may be a little confusing. Some people always want there to be a right or wrong way to do things. There are people who refuse to follow their emotions because that’s not logical and vice versa. However, Hooper tells you that there’s no real reason to choose. You have to use both things to make your decision. If you don’t, you’re probably making a mistake.

Hooper , Rowan. "Clear Pictures of How We Think." Wired 20 Nov. 2004: n. pag. Web. 7 Apr 2010. .

The Science Behind It All

Like many colleges, Brown University has its own personal research projects. Science Daily, an online research new source, recently commented on the newest findings on where the decision making process happens in an article titled, “Evidence Appears to Show How and Where the Brain’s Frontal Lobe Works”. The writer explains that “the frontal lobe of the human brain controls decision-making along a continuum from abstract to concrete, from front to back”(Brown University). He clarifies with an example like deciding to brush your teeth which is an abstract decision. Concrete decisions are the steps used to brush your teeth. Through the use of stroke patients the scientists were able to figure out that the front part of the frontal lobe controls the abstract decisions while the back area does concrete. The best part to all this being that the new evidence may be used to treat stroke patients and learning how we develop thoughts.

I sort of wished that I would have done this article first. It was a good look into the actual scientific aspects of how we make decisions. There were some areas that sort of confused me because I wasn’t sure where the author was going at times. Now I have an inside look on how things actually work, and how people perceive that their decisions are made.

Brown University. "Evidence Appears To Show How And Where Brain's Frontal Lobe Works." ScienceDaily 3 March 2009. 2 April 2010 .