Daniel Kahneman: It's "more enjoyable to identify the mistakes of others"

More wisdom on mistakes and self-knowledge from one of the best books of 2011, Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow":

It is much easier, as well as far more enjoyable, to identify and label the mistakes of others than to recognize our own. Questioning what we believe and want is difficult at the best of times, and especially difficult when we most need to do it, but we can benefit from the informed opinions of others.

Part of what I'm trying to figure out here is if we can make it a little easier to look inside ourselves, to get a better idea of what we "believe and want," so we can make better decisions and sidestep avoidable mistakes. Another objective is to get us to think about how to make better mistakes, so that given our difficulty in truly knowing what drives us, we can find that out by trial and error with lower cost to ourselves and others. Finally, by sharing others' mistakes, I hope you can learn more about your own situations and maybe take that learning into account in your own decision-making.

Check out the complete collection of our Kahneman-related posts.

Best Books of the Year 2011

It has been a spectacular year for books about mistakes and learning from them. Here's the list of must-haves:

1. Brilliant Mistakes, Paul Schoemaker. Five years after publishing a terrific HBR article on the subject, Schoemaker celebrates mistakes as, in Joyce's words, "portals of discovery," a way of navigating through a largely unpredictable world. And he presents a compelling case for making "deliberate mistakes"--creating projects that go against the conventional wisdom in a strategic way, in order to uncover invalid assumptions and shifts in the environment. From Schoemaker: Companies strive for error elimination, hiring advisers and relying on sophisticated management tools such as Six Sigma. It’s little wonder, then, that most decision-making books follow suit, encouraging you to focus narrowly on mistake avoidance today rather than provoking you to plan for the stream of decisions that you will face tomorrow.

2. The Progress Principle: Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement, and Creativity at Work, Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer. A mammoth research project that tracked the activity and temperament of dozens of workers and managers on a daily basis brought forth a simple, startling insight: workers are happier and more productive when they make continual progress toward meaningful goals, and unhappy/unmotivated when obstacles are put in their way. The application of this insight improves both managers' effectiveness and workers' self-regard. Why is this book on the Mistake Bank list? Because the authors urge managers and workers to face reality, even if it's unpleasant, and handle setbacks with grace and persistence. From the book: By its very nature, meaningful work is hard; people often get the greatest satisfaction from overcoming the most difficult challenges. Failure is inevitable along the path to innovation. Though you should try to minimize obstacles and setbacks under your control, you can never create a problem-free bubble for your people. You can't nourish inner work life if you drive yourself and your team crazy trying to avoid all problems. Rather, focus on providing people with the catalysts and nourishers they need to overcome the obstacles they will inevitably face.

3. Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman. One of the fathers of behavioral economics and a Nobel Prize winner, Kahneman sums up the lessons he's learned in his decades of studying human nature - and is not above using himself as a subject. Kahneman writes: One of [my] themes is that people who face a difficult question often answer an easier one instead, without realizing it. We were required to predict a soldier's performance in officer training and in combat, but we did so by evaluating his behavior over one hour in an artificial situation. This was a perfect instance of a general rule that I call WYSIATI, "What you see is all there is." We had made up a story from the little we knew but had no way to allow for what we did not know about the individual's future, which was almost everything that would actually matter.

4. Better Under Pressure: How Great Leaders Bring Out the Best in Themselves and Others, Justin Menkes. A book that illustrates what corporate senior leaders need to do to succeed. Menkes describes great executives' understanding of their own fallibility and their willingness to take responsibility for mistakes ("owning their missteps") as keys to flourishing in the pressure-cooker of corporate leadership. From Menkes: Leaders adjusting to a significant increase in responsibility invariably make many mistakes. Those who ultimately excel recognize and own these missteps quickly and use the experiences to grow into their positions of elevated authority and increased complexity. But for this learning curve to occur, it is absolutely crucial that they accept their role in these mistakes. If they have a low sense of agency, they cannot, and will fail.

5. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Carol Dweck. I'm cheating here - "Mindset" was published in 2006. But I didn't read it till this year, and without a doubt Dweck's research and writing are among the most influential in the learning field, especially among other academics. She was referenced in more of my reading than any other scholar (Kahneman was #2).

From Dweck: Tom Wolfe, in The Right Stuff, describes the elite military pilots who eagerly embrace the fixed mindset. Having passed one rigorous test after another, they think of themselves as special, as people who were born smarter and braver than other people. But Chuck Yeager, the hero of The Right Stuff, begged to differ. “There is no such thing as a natural-born pilot. Whatever my aptitude or talents, becoming a proficient pilot was hard work, really a lifetime’s learning experience.… The best pilots fly more than the others; that’s why they’re the best.”

What were the best business books you read this year? Weigh in below in the comments section.

Kahneman: "What you see is all there is"

Here's another great excerpt from Nobelist Daniel Kahneman's new book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow," via the New York Times Magazine. Here, Kahneman discusses his Israeli army assignment of assessing leadership candidates on the basis of a group exercise, an assignment that the group learned, to its dismay, did little to predict future leadership success:

Despite our certainty about the potential of individual candidates, our forecasts were largely useless. The evidence was overwhelming. Every few months we had a feedback session in which we could compare our evaluations of future cadets with the judgments of their commanders at the officer-training school. The story was always the same: our ability to predict performance at the school was negligible. Our forecasts were better than blind guesses, but not by much.

We were downcast for a while after receiving the discouraging news. But this was the army. Useful or not, there was a routine to be followed, and there were orders to be obeyed. Another batch of candidates would arrive the next day. We took them to the obstacle field, we faced them with the wall, they lifted the log and within a few minutes we saw their true natures revealed, as clearly as ever. The dismal truth about the quality of our predictions had no effect whatsoever on how we evaluated new candidates and very little effect on the confidence we had in our judgments and predictions.

I thought that what was happening to us was remarkable. The statistical evidence of our failure should have shaken our confidence in our judgments of particular candidates, but it did not. It should also have caused us to moderate our predictions, but it did not. We knew as a general fact that our predictions were little better than random guesses, but we continued to feel and act as if each particular prediction was valid. I was reminded of visual illusions, which remain compelling even when you know that what you see is false. I was so struck by the analogy that I coined a term for our experience: the illusion of validity.
I had discovered my first cognitive fallacy.

Decades later, I can see many of the central themes of my thinking about judgment in that old experience. One of these themes is that people who face a difficult question often answer an easier one instead, without realizing it. We were required to predict a soldier's performance in officer training and in combat, but we did so by evaluating his behavior over one hour in an artificial situation. This was a perfect instance of a general rule that I call WYSIATI, "What you see is all there is." We had made up a story from the little we knew but had no way to allow for what we did not know about the individual's future, which was almost everything that would actually matter. When you know as little as we did, you should not make extreme predictions like "He will be a star." The stars we saw on the obstacle field were most likely accidental flickers, in which a coincidence of random events - like who was near the wall - largely determined who became a leader. Other events - some of them also random - would determine later success in training and combat.

I see this every day: "We had made up a story from the little we knew but had not way to allow for what we did not know." And leaders are the best creators of stories out of this limited information - whether or not they are true. They are also powerful and persuasive. This is how delusion expands from individuals, to groups, to entire corporations.

Nobelist Daniel Kahneman: "Experts may be in the grip of an illusion"

The field of behavioral economics, basically unknown thirty years ago, has had a profound influence on management, negotiations, marketing and many other fields [sadly, it seems to have had less influence on economics, a subject that sorely needs some shaking up]. The dean of behavioral economics is Daniel Kahneman, recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics in 2002 along with Vernon L. Smith.

Behavioral economics upends traditional economic thinking by asserting that people are not rational actors - instead they are composed of biases, blind spots, evolutionary holdovers and other components that get in the way of logical thinking. As a result, we act in ways that seem perfectly sensible to us, but bewilderingly mysterious to others. These defects (or so Mr. Spock would call them) contribute to both our making mistakes and failing to learn from them.

Kahneman has a new book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow," which was excerpted in the New York Times Magazine. In the excerpt, Kahneman relates a story from his long-ago assignment with the Israeli military, in which his team of psychologists were unable to predict leadership qualities based on a field test designed to establish exactly that. Notice below that true expertise involves humility - recognizing mistakes quickly and absorbing those lessons, again and again. [There's a simple name for this process: "experience."]

We often interact with professionals who exercise their judgment with evident confidence, sometimes priding themselves on the power of their intuition. In a world rife with illusions of validity and skill, can we trust them? How do we distinguish the justified confidence of experts from the sincere overconfidence of professionals who do not know they are out of their depth? We can believe an expert who admits uncertainty but cannot take expressions of high confidence at face value. As I first learned on the obstacle field, people come up with coherent stories and confident predictions even when they know little or nothing. Overconfidence arises because people are often blind to their own blindness.

True intuitive expertise is learned from prolonged experience with good feedback on mistakes. You are probably an expert in guessing your spouse's mood from one word on the telephone; chess players find a strong move in a single glance at a complex position; and true legends of instant diagnoses are common among physicians. To know whether you can trust a particular intuitive judgment, there are two questions you should ask: Is the environment in which the judgment is made sufficiently regular to enable predictions from the available evidence? The answer is yes for diagnosticians, no for stock pickers. Do the professionals have an adequate opportunity to learn the cues and the regularities? The answer here depends on the professionals' experience and on the quality and speed with which they discover their mistakes. Anesthesiologists have a better chance to develop intuitions than radiologists do. Many of the professionals we encounter easily pass both tests, and their off-the-cuff judgments deserve to be taken seriously. In general, however, you should not take assertive and confident people at their own evaluation unless you have independent reason to believe that they know what they are talking about. Unfortunately, this advice is difficult to follow: overconfident professionals sincerely believe they have expertise, act as experts and look like experts. You will have to struggle to remind yourself that they may be in the grip of an illusion.