|
It is necessary to be
very sceptical |
| |
Decision Making Isn't Always As Rational As You Think (or
Hope)
When making tough choices about terrorism, troop surges or
crime, we usually go with our gut.
Science Daily
16 Feb 2007
The human brain is set up to simultaneously process two kinds of
information: the emotional and the empirical. But in most people, emotional
responses are much stronger than the rational response and usually take
over, according to Michigan State University environmental science and
policy researcher Joseph Arvai.
"People tend to have a hard time evaluating numbers, even when the numbers
are clear and right in front of them," Arvai said. "In contrast, the
emotional responses that are conjured up by problems like terrorism and
crime are so strong that most people don't factor in the empirical evidence
when making decisions."
Arvai joined four other scientists to discuss how people make decisions and
evaluate risk at a symposium, titled "Numbers and Nerves: Affect and Meaning
in Risk Information," at the American Association for the Advancement of
Science annual meeting.
In his research, Arvai and graduate student Robyn Wilson, of Ohio State
University, asked individuals to consider two risk scenarios common in many
state parks. One involved crime -- vandalism and purse snatching -- and the
other involved damage to property from white-tailed deer, such as auto-deer
collisions. The participants were asked to indicate which problem required
more attention from risk managers.
"The neat thing with crime and deer overpopulation is that both risks could
be measured on the same scale, which made our jobs as researchers easier,"
Arvai explained. "But because crime incites such a negative emotional
response from most people, it consistently received more attention, even
when the numbers showed that the risks from deer were much worse. We had to
ratchet up the deer damage until it was ridiculously high before people
noticed that it was a higher risk than crime.
"The bigger problem we've uncovered is that this response isn't limited to
crime and deer," he continued. "We see it happening in other areas:
terrorism, the war in Iraq and infectious diseases."
Can this heart over head thinking be reversed?
"People can be given tools that help them to 'listen' more to the empirical
side of their brains," Arvai said. "But in our experiments, the effects of
these tools tend to be relatively short term. We've been able to make people
aware that they're letting their emotions guide them, and we've developed
decision aids that help them strike a better balance between their emotions
and the numbers. But people tend to revert to decisions guided by emotions
once the experiment is over, and they leave the room."
Arvai's research is funded by the National Science Foundation, NASA, the
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station and Ohio State University.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Michigan
State University.
|
What is a "double-blind"
experiment?
The best and most reliable form of research is the double-blind
placebo-controlled study. For example, a health
treatment cannot really be said to be proven
effective unless it has been examined in properly designed and sufficiently
large studies of this type.
In these experiments, one group of subjects receives the "real thing" ie.
the active substance being tested. The other half receives a placebo
designed to appear, as much as possible, like the real thing.
Individuals in both groups don't know whether they
are getting the real treatment or placebo (they
are "blind"). Furthermore, the researchers administering
placebo and real treatment are also kept in the dark about which
group is receiving which treatment (making it a
"double-blind" experiment). This last part is
important, because it prevents the researchers from unintentionally
tipping off the study participants, or unconsciously biasing their
evaluation of the results.
The purpose of this kind of study is to eliminate the power of suggestion.
It is true, although hard to believe, that people given placebo
(fake) treatment frequently report dramatic and
long-lasting improvements in their symptoms.
However, if the people in the real treatment group fare
significantly better than those in the placebo group, it is a strong
indication that the treatment really works.
|
| |
|
The Skeptic's Dictionary |
| |
| |
|
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies
because they become fashions" - G. K. Chesterton |
| |
|