Podcasts about gigerenzer

Auch heute freue ich mich wieder darüber, einen äußerst kompetenten und prominenten Gast vorstellen zu dürfen: Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer. Das Thema ist eines, das uns seit einiger Zeit begleitet, und auch noch weiter begleiten wird, denn es gehört zu den wesentlichsten Fragen der heutigen Zeit. Werden wir von der stetig steigenden Komplexität in unserer Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft überrollt, oder gelingt es, Mechanismen zu entwickeln, trotzdem kluge und resiliente Entscheidungen zu treffen? Entscheidungen, die uns auch helfen, mit komplexen Risiken umzugehen? Gerd Gigerenzer war unter anderem langjähriger Direktor am Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, ist Direktor des Harding Center for Risk Literacy an der Universität Potsdam, Partner von Simply Rational - The Institute for Decisions und Vizepräsident des European Research Council (ERC). Er ist ehemaliger Professor für Psychologie an der Universität von Chicago und John M. Olin Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Law an der Universität von Virginia. Darüber hinaus ist er Mitglied der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften und der British Academy sowie Ehrenmitglied der American Academy of Arts and Sciences und der American Philosophical Society. Er hat unzählige Preise gewonnen sowie zahlreiche Bücher geschrieben, die nicht nur inhaltlich höchst relevant sondern zudem auch noch sehr zugänglich für eine breite Leserschicht sind.  Zu seinen Forschungsschwerpunkten zählen: Entscheidungen unter Unsicherheit und Zeitbeschränkung Risikokompetenz und Risikokommunikation Entscheidungsstrategien von Managern, Richtern und Ärzten Und genau über diese Themen werden wir uns in der Episode unterhalten. Wie geht man in Situationen großer Unsicherheit mit Daten und Informationen um? »Je größer die Unsicherheit ist, desto mehr Informationen muss man ignorieren.« Was ist eine Heuristik, und welche Heuristiken wenden wir erfolgreich in welchen Situationen an? »In Situationen von Unsicherheit, verlassen sich Menschen nicht auf die ganze Vergangenheit, sondern auf die jüngste Vergangenheit — das nennt man recency Heuristik.« Warum führen mehr Daten nicht immer zu besseren Entscheidungen? »Ein Datenpunkt, gut gewählt, erlaubt [in vielen Fällen] bessere Vorhersagen als Big Data« Was ist Intuition und unter welchen Umständen ist intuitives sinnvoller als vermeintlich rationales Entscheiden? »Intuition ist keine Willkür. Intuition ist gefühltes Wissen, das auf jahrelanger Erfahrung beruht.« Was ist von den neuen Theorien der Rationalität, z. B. dem System 1 und 2 von Kahnemann zu halten? »The abject failure of models in the global financial crisis has not dented their popularity among regulators.«, Mervyn King Was ist defensives Entscheiden, und warum ist es eines der größten Probleme unserer modernen Welt? »Der Arzt ist nicht in einer Situation, dem Patienten das Beste zu empfehlen. Viele Ärzte fürchten, dass die Patienten klagen, insbesondere, wenn etwas unterlassen wurde. Die Patienten klagen nicht, wenn unnötige Operationen vorgenommen wurden.« Weniger kann oft mehr sein: »Viele Menschen denken — auch in der Wissenschaft — mehr ist immer besser.« Dabei gilt in den meisten Fällen, gerade auch dort, wo wir häufig versuchen, komplexe Modelle anzuwenden: »Je größer die Unsicherheit ist, umso einfacher muss man die Regulierung [oder das Modell] machen.« Eine Erkenntnis, die im Grunde jedem klar ist, der sich mit der Steuerung komplexer Systeme auseinandersetzt. Warum handeln wir stetig dagegen? »Wir brauchen eine Welt, die den Mut hat zur Vereinfachung.« Und dann gibt es noch den Aspekt der Rückkopplung von (schlechten) Modellen auf die Welt, die sie vermeintlich beschreiben oder vorhersagen, und wir kommen leicht in einen Teufelskreis der zirkulären und selbstverstärkenden Fehler. Wie lassen sich diese vermeiden? Was wird die Folge sein, wenn diese Formen der Modellierung und Verhaltenssteuerung auf eine immer totalitärere und total überwachte Gesellschaft trifft? Entwickeln wir uns aber in der Realität mit künstlicher Intelligenz, Large Language Models und IT-getriebener Automatisierung, aber nicht gerade ins Gegenteil? Eine Welt, deren Entscheidungen von immer komplexeren Systemen intransparent getroffen werden, wo niemand mehr nachvollziehen oder bewerten und in Wahrheit verantworten kann, ob diese Entscheidungen sinnvoll sind? Denken wir beispielsweise an Modelle, die Rückfallwahrscheinlichkeiten von Straftätern bewerten. »Viele Menschen lächeln über altmodische Wahrsager. Doch sobald die Hellseher mit Computern arbeiten, nehmen wir ihre Vorhersagen ernst und sind bereit, für sie zu zahlen.« Zu welcher Welt bewegen wir uns hin? Zu einer, in der wir radikale Unsicherheit akzeptieren und entsprechen handeln, oder einer, wo wir uns immer mehr der Illusion von Kontrolle, Vorhersagbarkeit und Steuerbarkeit verlieren? »In einer Welt, in der Technik (vermeintlich) smart wird, brauchen wir vor allem eines, nämlich Menschen, die auch smart werden. Also Menschen, die mitdenken, die sich nicht zurücklehnen und konsumieren; die sich nicht auf das reduzieren lassen, was man ihnen empfiehlt.« Und zum Ende macht Prof. Gigerenzer noch den wichtigsten Aufruf der heutigen Zeit: Mitdenken! Denn es gilt: »The world is inherently uncertain and to pretend otherwise is to create risk, not to minimise it.«, Mervyn King Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 121: Künstliche Unintelligenz Episode 118: Science and Decision Making under Uncertainty, A Conversation with Prof. John Ioannidis Episode 112: Nullius in Verba — oder: Der Müll der Wissenschaft Episode 109: Was ist Komplexität? Ein Gespräch mit Dr. Marco Wehr Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 106: Wissenschaft als Ersatzreligion? Ein Gespräch mit  Manfred Glauninger Episode 99: Entkopplung, Kopplung, Rückkopplung Episode 92: Wissen und Expertise Teil 2 Episode 80: Wissen, Expertise und Prognose, eine Reflexion Episode 79: Escape from Model Land, a Conversation with Dr. Erica Thompson Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer Prof. Gigerenzer amd MPIB-Berlin Fachliche Referenzen Gerd Gigerenzer, Bauchentscheidungen: Die Intelligenz des Unbewussten und die Macht der Intuition, Goldmann (2008) Gerd Gigerenzer, Das Einmaleins der Skepsis: Über den richtigen Umgang mit Zahlen und Risiken, Piper (2015) Gerd Gigerenzer, Risiko: Wie man die richtigen Entscheidungen trifft, Pantheon (2020) Gerd Gigerenzer, Klick: Wie wir in einer digitalen Welt die Kontrolle behalten und die richtigen Entscheidungen treffen, Bertelsmann (2021) Gerd Gigerenzer, Smart Management: Mit einfachen Heuristiken gute Entscheidungen treffen, Campus (2025)  Daniel Kahnemann, Schnelles Denken, langsames Denken, Siedler Verlag (2012) Gerd Gigerenzer, The rationally wars: a personal reflection, BPP (2024) Konstantinos Katsikopoulos, Gerd Gigerenzer et al, Transparent modeling of influenza incidence: Big data or a single data point from psychological theory?, International Journal of Forecasting (2022) Mervyn King, John Kay, Radical Uncertainty, Bridge Street Press (2021) Rory Sutherland, Alchemy, WH Allen (2021) Peter Kruse, next practice. Erfolgreiches Management von Instabilität. Veränderung durch Vernetzung, Gabal (2020) John P. Ioannidis, Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed, International Journal of Forecasting (2022)

Elon Musk's hiring strategy goes against conventional wisdom—he asks just two questions and relies on gut instinct. But does it actually work? Today, Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer reveals why Musk's method might be smarter than traditional hiring processes and explores the psychology behind better decision-making. You'll learn: Why Musk's hiring heuristic could outperform complex selection methods (feat. insights from Gerd Gigerenzer). How experienced managers naturally use heuristics to make better hiring decisions. The surprising downside of having multiple interviewers (feat. findings from a 2014 hiring study). A smarter way to assess job candidates (that goes beyond endless questions). ---- Download the Reading List: https://nudge.kit.com/readinglist Sign up to my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list  Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew-22213187/  Watch Nudge on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nudgepodcast/ Gerd's book Smart Management: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262548014/smart-management/ ---- Sources:  Reb, J., Luan, S., & Gigerenzer, G. (2024). Smart management: How simple heuristics help leaders make good decisions in an uncertain world. The MIT Press. Luan, S., Reb, J., & Gigerenzer, G. (2019). Ecological rationality: Fast-and-frugal heuristics for managerial decision making under uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6).  Fific, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Are two interviewers better than one? Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1771–1779.

Golf players, investors and CEOs perform better if they take their time. Or do they?  Today, Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer reveals why intuition often outperforms complex analysis and how shortcuts can lead to smarter decisions in business, sports, and investing. You'll learn: Why gut instinct can beat data-driven decisions (feat. insights from Gerd Gigerenzer). How firefighters, CEOs, and handball players make better choices under pressure. The dangers of overthinking—why too much time can worsen decisions (feat. 2004 golf study). Why simple rules predict outcomes better than complex models (feat. Wimbledon & NFL studies). ---  Sign up to my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list  Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew-22213187/  Watch Nudge on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nudgepodcast/ Gerd's book Smart Management: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262548014/smart-management/ ---  Sources:  Baum, J. R., & Wally, S. (2003). Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24(11), 1107–1129. Beilock, S. L., Bertenthal, B. I., McCoy, A. M., & Carr, T. H. (2004). Haste does not always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(2), 373–379. DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., & Uppal, R. (2009). Optimal versus naive diversification: How inefficient is the 1/N portfolio strategy? The Review of Financial Studies, 22(5), 1915–1953. Dörfler, V., & Eden, C. (2017). Becoming a Nobel Laureate: Patterns of a journey to the highest level of expertise. AoM 2017: 77th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA, August 4-8. Easterbrook, G. (2010). TMQ's annual bad predictions review. ESPN. Eslam sdt Henry. (2018). Best football trick world cup 2006 Jens Lehmann [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/LRAOEWAbO00 Johnson, J., & Raab, M. (2003). Take the first: Option-generation and resulting choices. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 215–229. Klein, G. A. (1999). Sources of power: How people make decisions. MIT Press. Reb, J., Luan, S., & Gigerenzer, G. (2024). Smart management: How simple heuristics help leaders make good decisions in an uncertain world. The MIT Press. Serwe, S., & Frings, C. (2006). Who will win Wimbledon? The recognition heuristic in predicting sports events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(4), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.530 West, D. C., Acar, O. A., & Caruana, A. (2020). Choosing among alternative new product development projects: The role of heuristics. Psychology & Marketing, 37(12), 1719–1736. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21397

In this episode, I discuss the science behind bounded rationality and offer ways to navigate our decision-making process. In this exciting episode, I delve into the fascinating realm of bounded rationality and uncover the hidden factors that influence our choices. Join me as I share insightful strategies that can empower you to make better decisions, enhance your problem-solving skills, and confidently navigate the complexities of daily life. Don't miss out on these powerful tools that can transform your thoughts and decisions! References1. Viale, R., Gallagher, S., & Gallese, V. (2023). Bounded rationality, enactive problem solving, and the neuroscience of social interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1152866. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.11528662. Petracca, E. (2021). Embodying Bounded Rationality: From Embodied Bounded Rationality to Embodied Rationality. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 710607. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.7106073. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. Macmillan.4. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.2307/18848525. Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1(1), 161-176.6. Simon, H. A. (1981). The Sciences of the Artificial (2nd ed.). MIT Press.7. Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2012). Ecological rationality: Intelligence in the world. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195315448.001.0001Join the discussion on Youtube or reply to my post on Bluesky

Neil Rackham's groundbreaking research uncovered what separates skilled negotiators from the average. Drawing insights from real-world negotiation sessions involving union disputes, management decisions, and high-stakes contracts, this episode unpacks the actual behaviour of skilled negotiations.  You'll learn: The specific ways skilled negotiators prepare differently from average negotiators (feat. 48 skilled negotiators). Why immediate counterproposals can ruin a negotiation (feat. insight from 102 negotiations).  The critical role of long-term thinking in effective negotiations.  Key behaviours that skilled negotiators use to foster collaboration and transparency. Practical tips you can use.  ---- Sign up to my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew-22213187/ Watch Nudge on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nudgepodcast/ ---- Sources: Rackham, N. (2003). The behavior of successful negotiators. McGraw Hill/Irwin, New York. Reb, J., Luan, S., & Gigerenzer, G. (2024). Smart management: Why successful leaders must embrace simple strategies in an increasingly uncertain and complex world. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262548014/smart-management/

In this episode of the Mind Gut Conversation podcast, I talk to Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer, an icon in the field of intuition research and gut-based decision making. Dr. Gigerenzer is the long-time director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin and the director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam. He is the author of the award-winning popular books Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings, Risk Savvy and How To Stay Smart In A Smart World, which have been translated into more than 20 languages. He has trained U.S. federal judges, physicians and top managers in decision-making. The Swiss Duttweiler Institute has distinguished Gigerenzer as one of the top 100 Global Thought Leaders worldwide. During this episode, we talk about a number of fascinating topics, including: - What are the main differences between a rational and an intuitive decision? - Are females better in making intuitive decisions, or is this idea a prejudice based on our paternalistic bias? - Does the advantage of decisions based on intuition vs rational thinking depend on the context? - Does AI make intuitive decisions? Are you enjoying our podcast? Please leave us a review and any feedback to improve our show!

In this episode of the Mind Gut Conversation podcast, I talk to Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer, an icon in the field of intuition research and gut-based decision making. Dr. Gigerenzer is the long-time director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin and the director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam. He is the author of the award-winning popular books Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings, Risk Savvy and How To Stay Smart In A Smart World, which have been translated into more than 20 languages. He has trained U.S. federal judges, physicians and top managers in decision-making. The Swiss Duttweiler Institute has distinguished Gigerenzer as one of the top 100 Global Thought Leaders worldwide. During this episode, we talk about a number of fascinating topics, including: - What are the main differences between a rational and an intuitive decision? - Are females better in making intuitive decisions, or is this idea a prejudice based on our paternalistic bias? - Does the advantage of decisions based on intuition vs rational thinking depend on the context? - Does AI make intuitive decisions? Are you enjoying our podcast? Please leave us a review and any feedback to improve our show!

In this episode of PsychChat, I discuss the pervasive behaviour of defensive decision-making in the workplace. Listen to this episode, where I share tips to mitigate such behaviour in the workplace.ReferencesArtinger, F., Petersen, M., Gigerenzer, G., & Weibler, J. (2015). Heuristics as adaptive decision strategies in management. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S33-S52.Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 35-66.Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Risk savvy: How to make good decisions. Penguin.Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 438-448.Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46.Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103-128.Marx-Fleck, S., Junker, N. M., Artinger, F., & van Dick, R. (2021). Defensive decision making: Operationalization and the relevance of psychological safety and job insecurity from a conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,  Vol 94 (3), 485-788.Mello, M. M., Chandra, A., Gawande, A. A., & Studdert, D. M. (2010). National costs of the medical liability system. Health Affairs, 29(9), 1569-1577.

In dieser Episode ist Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer zu Gast. Er war langjähriger Direktor am Max Planck Institut für Bildungsforschung in Berlin und leitet heute das Harding-Zentrum für Risikoforschung an der Universität Potsdam. Gerd Gigerenzer ist Autor und hat u.a. das Buch “Risiko” geschrieben. Die Frage "Wie trifft man richtige Entscheidungen“ interessiert uns sehr, und genau diese haben Marco und Gerd eingehend diskutiert. Gemeinsam beleuchten sie, wann man besser auf seine eigene Intuition vertrauen sollte und unter welchen Rahmenbedingungen man davon ausgehen kann, dass künstliche Intelligenz und Big Data in der Lage sind gute und vielleicht sogar bessere Entscheidungen zu treffen. Außerdem diskutieren die beiden, wie man sich die Fähigkeit zum kritischen Denken erhalten und vielleicht sogar fördern kann, und warum das in Zukunft wahrscheinlich extrem wichtig sein und bleiben wird. Diese Folge findest du auch als Podcast auf: https://murakamy.com/blog/podcast-80-gigerenzer-entscheidungen-risiko Alle bisherigen Folgen findest Du hier: https://murakamy.com/blog/tag/Podcast Besuche uns auch auf https://murakamy.com Links zu Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer: https://www.hardingcenter.de/de https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3tCOQO80vU “Risiko: Wie man die richtigen Entscheidungen trifft”: https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Gerd-Gigerenzer/dp/3570554422 “Bauchentscheidungen”: https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Gerd-Gigerenzer/dp/3442155037 “The Intelligence of Intuition”: https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Gerd-Gigerenzer/dp/1009304895 “Klick: Wie wir in einer digitalen Welt die Kontrolle behalten und die richtigen Entscheidungen treffen”: https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Gerd-Gigerenzer/dp/3570554767 Links zur Folge: John Kay und Mervyn King “Radical Uncertainty”: https://www.amazon.de/Radical-Uncertainty-Decision-Making-Beyond-Numbers/dp/1324004770 Cixin Liu “The Three-Body Problem”: https://www.amazon.de/Three-Body-Problem-Remembrance-Earths-Past/dp/0765377063 Lorraine Daston “Rules”: https://www.amazon.de/Rules-Short-History-Lawrence-Lectures/dp/0691254087 “Was ist die Aufklärung? Thesen und Definitionen”: https://www.amazon.de/Was-ist-Aufklärung-Thesen-Definitionen/dp/3150097142

Gerd Gigerenzer ist ein weltweit renommierter Experte für Risikokompetenz. Ein Gespräch über iPads im Unterricht, die Bereitschaft für Facebook zu zahlen und die wirklichen Gefahren durch KI. Der Psychologe Gerd Gigerenzer war langjähriger Direktor am Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung. Derzeit leitet er das Harding-Zentrum für Risikokompetenz an der Universität Potsdam. Er war Professor an der University of Chicago und ist Mitglied der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Gigerenzer gilt als Koryphäe im Gebiet der Risikokalkulation. Eine kürzlich veröffentlichte Studie zeigte, das 18- bis 39-Jährige im vergangenen Jahr im Schnitt 93 Stunden pro Woche im Internet waren. Laut Gigerenzer ergeben sich aus diesem Fakt Risiken für den Einzelnen, gerade durch die enorme Zeit, die man in sozialen Medien verbringt: »Das Problem ist nicht Social Media, sondern vielmehr das anzeigengestützte Geschäftsmodell«, sagt Gigerenzer. Wer mit seinen Daten bezahle, sei eben nicht Kunde, sondern Produkt. »Eine von mir für einen Versicherer durchgeführte Studie zeigte allerdings, dass 75 Prozent der Deutschen nicht bereit sind, auch nur einen Cent für die Benutzung sozialer Netzwerke zu zahlen«.+++ Alle Infos zu unseren Werbepartnern finden Sie hier. Die SPIEGEL-Gruppe ist nicht für den Inhalt dieser Seite verantwortlich. +++ Alle SPIEGEL Podcasts finden Sie hier. Mehr Hintergründe zum Thema erhalten Sie bei SPIEGEL+. Jetzt für nur € 1,- für die ersten vier Wochen testen unter spiegel.de/abonnieren Informationen zu unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer ist Direktor am Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung in Berlin und leitet das Harding-Zentrums für Risikokompetenz an der Universität Potsdam. Der Psychologe wurde mit dem Preis der American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) für den besten Zeitschriftenartikel in den Verhaltenswissenschaften, dem Deutschen Psychologie-Preis und dem Communicator-Preis ausgezeichnet. Gigerenzer trainiert Manager, Ärzte und amerikanische Bundesrichter im Umgang mit Risiken und Unsicherheiten. Das Gottlieb Duttweiler Institut nannte Gigerenzer einen der 100 einflussreichsten Denker der Welt.

In The Intelligence of Intuition, Gerd Gigerenzer challenges a commonly held view of intuition—namely, that it is somehow inferior to logical rationality.Gigerenzer is director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam, director emeritus of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, and an expert on human decision-making. He argues that intuition is a form of unconscious intelligence shaped experience and evolution in dealing with uncertain and dynamic situations—situations for which logic and algorithms are often ill-fitted. As leaders deal with uncertainty and complexity and embrace new AI technologies, they must not forget the power of intuition.Together with Martin Reeves, Chairman of the BCG Henderson Institute, Gigerenzer explores the power of intuition, when to use it in business, and how to cultivate and employ it.Key topics discussed: 01:23 | Difference between intuition and rationality04:49 | Role of heuristics06:29 | Why intuition is often looked down upon08:06 | Power of intuition15:21 | How to use intuition in business18:45 | Distinguishing right intuition from wrong intuition25:12 | Considering how AI use intuitionAdditional inspirations from Gerd Gigerenzer:How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms (The MIT Press, 2022)Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious (Penguin Books, 2008)Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You (Simon & Schuster, 2003)This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Chartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

In this episode, Brains, Black Holes, and Beyond sits down with Dr. Thalia Gigerenzer on the impact of technology and dating apps on modern interpretations of love. Dr. Gigerenzer's research as an anthropologist has focused on Muslim communities in India, including deep dives into the impacts of technology on relationships and courtship. Dr. Gigerenzer's Page (publications, projects, and more!): https://www.thaliagig.com/about-me---Credits:Writers - Noelle Kim, Lina KimAudio engineer - Laura Sabrosa

Camillo Padoa-Schioppa is a Professor of Neuroscience at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. In this conversation, we talk about Camillo's work on economic values in the brain, whether it is causally involved in choice, Camillo's career, working with different species, and much more.BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith.Support the show: https://geni.us/bjks-patreonTimestamps0:00:00: The historic background of economic value0:12:31: How Camillo became a neuroeconomist0:38:50: What does neuroscience add to our understanding of behaviour?0:47:52: Value in the brain / discussing Camillo's 2006 Nature paper1:05:47: Does the brain even need to compute value?1:11:59: Causality in neuroscience / discussing Camillo's 2020 Nature paper1:27:19: Trivial decisions1:31:26: Is it wise to do neuroscience in humans and in animals, or should I focus on one approach?1:40:15: A book or paper more people should read1:43:19: Something Camillo wishes he'd learnt sooner1:45:53: Advice for PhD students/postdocsPodcast linksWebsite: https://geni.us/bjks-podTwitter: https://geni.us/bjks-pod-twtCamillo's linksWebsite: https://geni.us/padoa-schioppa-webGoogle Scholar: https://geni.us/padoa-schioppa-scholarTwitter: https://geni.us/padoa-schioppa-twtBen's linksWebsite: https://geni.us/bjks-webGoogle Scholar: https://geni.us/bjks-scholarTwitter: https://geni.us/bjks-twtReferencesBallesta ... & Padoa-Schioppa (2020). Values encoded in orbitofrontal cortex are causally related to economic choices. Nature.Bentham (1780). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation.Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual review of psychology.Hayden & Niv (2021). The case against economic values in the orbitofrontal cortex (or anywhere else in the brain). Behavioral Neuroscience.Homer. Iliad.Homer. Odyssey.Padoa-Schioppa (2009). Range-adapting representation of economic value in the orbitofrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience.Padoa-Schioppa (2011). Neurobiology of economic choice: a good-based model. Annual review of neuroscience.Padoa-Schioppa & Assad (2006). Neurons in the orbitofrontal cortex encode economic value. Nature.Padoa-Schioppa & Conen (2017). Orbitofrontal cortex: a neural circuit for economic decisions. Neuron.Padoa-Schioppa ... & Visalberghi (2006). Multi-stage mental process for economic choice in capuchins. Cognition.Padoa-Schioppa, Li & Bizzi (2002). Neuronal correlates of kinematics-to-dynamics transformation in the supplementary motor area. Neuron.Smith (1759). The theory of moral sentiments.Salzman ... & Newsome (1990). Cortical microstimulation influences perceptual judgements of motion direction. Nature.Salzman ... & Newsome (1992). Microstimulation in visual area MT: effects on direction discrimination performance. Journal of Neuroscience.Visalberghi & Trinca (1989). Tool use in capuchin monkeys: Distinguishing between performing and understanding. Primates. Episode w/ Smaldino: https://geni.us/bjks-smaldino_2

Jeden Tag treffen wir Entscheidungen. Mal kleine, mal große. Nicht immer fällt es uns einfach, uns zu entscheiden. Manchmal entscheiden wir uns sogar falsch. Wie können wir bessere Entscheidungen treffen und auch mal ein Risiko eingehen?

We are honored to be joined today by Gerd Gigerenzer. Dr. Gigerenzer is Director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg and partner of Simply Rational – The Institute for Decisions. He is former Director of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition (ABC) at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and at the Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research in Munich, Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago and John M. Olin Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Law at the University of Virginia. In addition, he is Member of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, the German Academy of Sciences and Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society. He was awarded honorary doctorates from the University of Basel and the Open University of the Netherlands, and is Batten Fellow at the Darden Business School, University of Virginia. Awards for his work include the AAAS Prize for the best article in the behavioral sciences, the Association of American Publishers Prize for the best book in the social and behavioral sciences, the German Psychology Award, and the Communicator Award of the German Research Foundation. His award-winning popular books Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, and Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions have been translated into 21 languages. His academic books include Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Rationality for Mortals, Simply Rational, and Bounded Rationality (with Reinhard Selten, Nobel Laureate in economics). His most recent book, The Intelligence of Intuition, is set to be published the week we are recording this podcast! Learn more about Gerd: Connect on LinkedIn See more of his work Where to find the hosts: Brian Moon Brian's website Brian's LinkedIn Brian's Twitter Laura Militello Laura's website Laura's LinkedIn Laura's Twitter

Dr. Gigerenzer explains to me how to make better decisions under uncertainty via use of heuristics, intuition, and narratives. Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer, PhD is Director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg and partner of Simply Rational - The Institute for Decisions. He is former Director of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition (ABC) at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and at the Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research in Munich, Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago and John M. Olin Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Law at the University of Virginia. Awards for his work include the AAAS Prize for the best article in the behavioral sciences, the Association of American Publishers Prize for the best book in the social and behavioral sciences, the German Psychology Award, and the Communicator Award of the German Research Foundation. His award-winning popular books Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, and Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions have been translated into 21 languages. His academic books include Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Rationality for Mortals, Simply Rational, and Bounded Rationality (with Reinhard Selten, a Nobel Laureate in economics). In Better Doctors, Better Patients, Better Decisions (with Sir Muir Gray) he shows how better informed doctors and patients can improve healthcare while reducing costs.

I was confused about "heuristics"! It is always so exciting when I learn something new that makes things clearer to me. According to Dr. Gigerenzer, heuristics are NOT the same as cognitive bias. Cognitive bias describes PAST behavior, often in situations of so-called "risk" (the economic term) (that actually means that all variables are known). Heuristics guide what can be DONE in the FUTURE and are helpful in situations of uncertainty. Dr. Gigerenzer is an international expert on judgments under uncertainty, and this is part 1 of my conversation with him on heuristics. Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer, PhD is Director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg and partner of Simply Rational - The Institute for Decisions. He is former Director of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition (ABC) at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and at the Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research in Munich, Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago and John M. Olin Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Law at the University of Virginia. Awards for his work include the AAAS Prize for the best article in the behavioral sciences, the Association of American Publishers Prize for the best book in the social and behavioral sciences, the German Psychology Award, and the Communicator Award of the German Research Foundation. His award-winning popular books Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, and Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions have been translated into 21 languages. His academic books include Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Rationality for Mortals, Simply Rational, and Bounded Rationality (with Reinhard Selten, a Nobel Laureate in economics). In Better Doctors, Better Patients, Better Decisions (with Sir Muir Gray) he shows how better informed doctors and patients can improve healthcare while reducing costs. 

Überprüfe hier, wie viel deine Krankenkasse erstattet.Wir fühlen mit unserem Bauch. Mal schwirren Schmetterlinge drin herum, mal liegt uns etwas schwer im Magen oder uns plagt ein flaues Gefühl. Unserer „Bauchgefühl“, unsere Intuition, begleitet uns ständig. Gerade in unserer rationalen Welt fällt es vielen Menschen schwer, einen Zugang zu ihrer Intuition finden. Dabei ist unsere Intuition – wenn auch objektiv nicht einfach zu erklären – oft eine hilfreiche Stimme. Im Leben stehen wir immer wieder vor kleineren und größeren Entscheidungen, die sich nicht alle mit einer Pro-und-Kontra-Liste lösen lassen. Es lohnt sich also, wenn wir uns mit unserer Intuition vertraut machen. Was das alles mit Würmern zu tun hat, wann wir unsere Intuition mit Vorsicht genießen und wie wir sie schulen können, erfährst du von Boris und Sinja in der aktuellen Podcast Folge. Du wirst erstaunt sein, wo Intuition überall ihre Wirkung zeigt. Link zur erwähnten Umfrage zu EinsamkeitBechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275(5304), 1293-1295. Zur StudieGoldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The recognition heuristic: How ignorance makes us smart. In Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 37-58). Oxford University Press. Zur StudieGigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological review, 103(4), 650. Zur StudieMelnikoff, David E., & Bargh, John A. (2018). The mythical number two. Trends in cognitive sciences, 22(4), 280-293. Zur StudieWilson, T. D., Lisle, D. J., Schooler, J. W., Hodges, S. D., Klaaren, K. J., & LaFleur, S. J. (1993). Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(3), 331-339. Zur StudieDu erreichst uns über eine Whatsapp Nachricht an die 01782039465 oder via E-Mail an podcast@balloonapp.deUnsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://art19.com/privacy. Die Datenschutzrichtlinien für Kalifornien sind unter https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info abrufbar.

In diesem Podcast habe ich mal wieder ein Experten-Interview für dich veröffentlicht. Ich habe Herrn Prof. Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer zum Thema "Intuition" für dich interviewt. Dr. Gigerenzer ist Psychologe und Direktor am Harding-Zentrum für Risikokompetenz. Er hat sich mehrere Jahre über das Thema Intuition geforscht und seine Erkenntnisse in dem Buch "Bauchentscheidungen. Die Intelligenz des Unbewussten und die Macht der Intuition." veröffentlicht. In diesem Interview erfährst du: • Was eigentlich Intuition ist.  • Warum Intuition nichts mit Esoterik zu tun hat. • Wie du deine Intuition stärken kannst. • Wann deine Intuition zu besseren Entscheidungen führt. • Warum auch Ärzte und Dax-Vorstände ihrer Intuition folgen sollten.  • Warum du Mut brauchst, um deiner Intuition zu folgen.  • Wie du deinen Zugang zur Intuition wiederfindest.  • Warum es wichtig für deine Intuition ist, zu lernen, Fehler zu machen. Ich wünsche dir viele Erkenntnisse beim Hören und Schauen! Wenn dir die Folge geholfen hat, freue ich mich wie immer über positive Bewertungen! Wenn du mehr Fragen zu diesem Thema hast, die du gerne mit mir persönlich ergründen willst, dann komm hier in meine online Coaching Gruppe ⁠Coaching Masterclass⁠. Für den ultimativen Erfülllungs- und Erfolgsbooster, melde dich hier für meine ⁠Life Coaching Ausbildung⁠ an. In Liebe, Anna

Dlf-Hörer Martin Spieler vermisst einen transparenteren Umgang mit Fehlern im Journalismus. Vertrauen könnte damit gestärkt werden. Mit Juliane Leopold, Tagesschau, und dem Psychologen Gerd Gigerenzer diskutiert er über Korrekturen, Druck und Angst.Behme, Pia; Spieler, Martin; Leopold, Juliane; Gigerenzer, GerdDirekter Link zur Audiodatei

Colin hat in dieser Folge Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer zu Gast. Er ist Direktor des Harding-Zentrums für Risikokompetenz an der Universität Potsdam, Gründer und Gesellschafter von 'Simply Rational - Das Institut für Entscheidung' sowie Direktor emeritus am Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung. Er ist der Guru, wenn es darum geht, wie man Entscheidungen schnell, gut und entspannt trifft, wie Menschen und Organisationen mit Risiken umgehen und wie man Entscheidungen unter Ungewissheit trifft. Prof. Gigerenzer muss zu Beginn auch die Einstiegsfragen beantworten und da nennt er eine spannende Lieblingsmarke: Das Max-Planck-Institut, mit dem er eine längere Geschichte verbindet. Und dann sprechen sie über das Kernthema "Entscheidungen": - Wie trifft man in der diffusen, mehrdeutigen, komplexen Welt von heute Entscheidungen? - Was erschwert das Treffen von Entscheidungen? - Welchen Einfluss haben KI, Big Data und die Digitalisierung? Prof. Gigerenzer hat dazu eine klare Position, die er auch in einem seiner letzten Bücher "Klick" deutlich kommuniziert hat. Ähnlich wie Tjeerd van der Zee, ehemaliger CFO von C&A und Podcast-Gast unserer meistgehörten Folge, plädiert auch Gigerenzer für mehr Bauchgefühl, Intuition und die sogenannte Heuristik. Prof. Gigerenzer spricht unbequeme Wahrheiten an und gibt eine klare Didaktik mit an die Hand, wie man heutzutage Entscheidungen treffen könnte. Er kritisiert nämlich, dass v.a. in großen/börsennotierten Unternehmen Entscheidungen zu langsam getroffen werden und Führungskräfte zu wenig Mut aufbringen, Entscheidungen zu treffen, dazu zu stehen und daraus zu lernen. Prof. Gigerenzer erklärt, mit welchen Entscheidungsfragen Elon Musk und Jeff Bezos früher Personal eingestellt haben, als sie noch klein waren und wie die Heuristik mit wachsender Unternehmensgröße angepasst werden muss. Er warnt davor, dass wir immer langsamer in Entscheidungen und damit innovationsärmer werden - zumindest in börsennotierten Unternehmen - und was man dagegen tun kann. Hört rein und lasst Euch vielleicht wieder von einer Perspektive überzeugen, die wir während der zunehmenden Digitalisierung etwas vernächlässigt oder gar verlernt haben.

Geht es nach Gerd Gigerenzer, müssen nicht nur Maschinen intelligenter werden, sondern auch Menschen. Es müsse im Kopf klick machen, "um zu verstehen, was es bedeutet, in einer Welt zu leben, die von Algorithmen durchsetzt ist", erklärt der Psychologe, erfolgreiche Buchautor und vor allem weltweit anerkannte Risikoforscher seinen Ansatz. Die Menschen müssten verstehen, wo die Algorithmen nützlich sein können und wo es nur "Marketinghype oder techno-religiöse Fantasien sind".In seinem Werk "Klick. Wie wir in einer digitalen Welt die Kontrolle behalten und die richtigen Entscheidungen treffen" beschäftigt Gigerenzer sich mit dem Thema Digitalisierung und der Frage, wie der Mensch in einer smarten Welt ebenfalls smart bleiben kann. Der Mensch müsse erkennen, wer oder was hinter neuen Technologien steckt, wer manipulieren und wer überwachen wolle.Gigerenzer möchte allerdings nicht als Technologiekritiker verstanden werden. Technik sei weder gut noch böse, sagt er. Man müsse die Frage stellen, welche Absichten verfolgt werden: In China passiere die Überwachung offen, in der westlichen Welt verborgen."Wir im Westen gehen eher schlafwandelnd in die Überwachung und geben unsere Daten weg, um nichts zu zahlen", betont Gigerenzer. Warum er trotzdem glaubt, dass Bildung die Menschen für die Digitalisierung schlauer machen könne, erzählt er in der neuen Folge von "So techt Deutschland".Sie haben Fragen für Frauke Holzmeier und Andreas Laukat? Dann schreiben Sie eine E-Mail an sotechtdeutschland@ntv.deUnsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://datenschutz.ad-alliance.de/podcast.html

Geht es nach Gerd Gigerenzer, müssen nicht nur Maschinen intelligenter werden, sondern auch Menschen. Es müsse im Kopf Klick machen, "um zu verstehen, was es bedeutet, in einer Welt zu leben, die von Algorithmen durchsetzt ist", erklärt der Psychologe, erfolgreiche Buchautor und vor allem weltweit anerkannte Risikoforscher seinen Ansatz. Die Menschen müssten verstehen, wo die Algorithmen nützlich sein können und wo es nur "Marketinghype oder Techno-Religiöse Fantasien sind".In seinem Werk "Klick. Wie wir in einer digitalen Welt die Kontrolle behalten und die richtigen Entscheidungen treffen" beschäftigt Gigerenzer sich mit dem Thema Digitalisierung und der Frage, wie der Mensch in einer smarten Welt ebenfalls smart bleiben kann. Der Mensch müsse erkennen, wer oder was hinter neuen Technologien steckt, wer manipulieren und wer überwachen wolle.Gigerenzer möchte allerdings nicht als Technologiekritiker verstanden werden. Technik sei weder gut noch böse, sagt er. Man müsse die Frage stellen, welche Absichten verfolgt werden: In China passiere die Überwachung offen, in der westlichen Welt verborgen."Wir im Westen gehen eher schlafwandelnd in die Überwachung und geben unsere Daten weg, um nichts zu zahlen", betont Gigerenzer. Warum er trotzdem glaubt, dass Bildung die Menschen für die Digitalisierung schlauer machen könne, erzählt er in der neuen Folge von "So techt Deutschland".Sie haben Fragen für Frauke Holzmeier und Andreas Laukat? Dann schreiben Sie eine E-Mail an sotechtdeutschland@ntv.deUnsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://datenschutz.ad-alliance.de/podcast.htmlUnsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://art19.com/privacy. Die Datenschutzrichtlinien für Kalifornien sind unter https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info abrufbar.

Doomsday prophets of technology predict that robots will take over the world, leaving humans behind in the dust. Tech industry boosters think replacing people with software might make the world a better place--while tech industry critics warn darkly about surveillance capitalism. Despite their differing views of the future, they all agree: machines will soon do everything better than humans. In How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms (MIT Press, 2022), Gerd Gigerenzer shows why that's not true, and tells us how we can stay in charge in a world populated by algorithms. Machines powered by artificial intelligence are good at some things (playing chess), but not others (life-and-death decisions, or anything involving uncertainty). Gigerenzer explains why algorithms often fail at finding us romantic partners (love is not chess), why self-driving cars fall prey to the Russian Tank Fallacy, and how judges and police rely increasingly on nontransparent "black box" algorithms to predict whether a criminal defendant will reoffend or show up in court. He invokes Black Mirror, considers the privacy paradox (people want privacy, but give their data away), and explains that social media get us hooked by programming intermittent reinforcement in the form of the "like" button. We shouldn't trust smart technology unconditionally, Gigerenzer tells us, but we shouldn't fear it unthinkingly, either. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Doomsday prophets of technology predict that robots will take over the world, leaving humans behind in the dust. Tech industry boosters think replacing people with software might make the world a better place--while tech industry critics warn darkly about surveillance capitalism. Despite their differing views of the future, they all agree: machines will soon do everything better than humans. In How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms (MIT Press, 2022), Gerd Gigerenzer shows why that's not true, and tells us how we can stay in charge in a world populated by algorithms. Machines powered by artificial intelligence are good at some things (playing chess), but not others (life-and-death decisions, or anything involving uncertainty). Gigerenzer explains why algorithms often fail at finding us romantic partners (love is not chess), why self-driving cars fall prey to the Russian Tank Fallacy, and how judges and police rely increasingly on nontransparent "black box" algorithms to predict whether a criminal defendant will reoffend or show up in court. He invokes Black Mirror, considers the privacy paradox (people want privacy, but give their data away), and explains that social media get us hooked by programming intermittent reinforcement in the form of the "like" button. We shouldn't trust smart technology unconditionally, Gigerenzer tells us, but we shouldn't fear it unthinkingly, either. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Doomsday prophets of technology predict that robots will take over the world, leaving humans behind in the dust. Tech industry boosters think replacing people with software might make the world a better place--while tech industry critics warn darkly about surveillance capitalism. Despite their differing views of the future, they all agree: machines will soon do everything better than humans. In How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms (MIT Press, 2022), Gerd Gigerenzer shows why that's not true, and tells us how we can stay in charge in a world populated by algorithms. Machines powered by artificial intelligence are good at some things (playing chess), but not others (life-and-death decisions, or anything involving uncertainty). Gigerenzer explains why algorithms often fail at finding us romantic partners (love is not chess), why self-driving cars fall prey to the Russian Tank Fallacy, and how judges and police rely increasingly on nontransparent "black box" algorithms to predict whether a criminal defendant will reoffend or show up in court. He invokes Black Mirror, considers the privacy paradox (people want privacy, but give their data away), and explains that social media get us hooked by programming intermittent reinforcement in the form of the "like" button. We shouldn't trust smart technology unconditionally, Gigerenzer tells us, but we shouldn't fear it unthinkingly, either. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

Doomsday prophets of technology predict that robots will take over the world, leaving humans behind in the dust. Tech industry boosters think replacing people with software might make the world a better place--while tech industry critics warn darkly about surveillance capitalism. Despite their differing views of the future, they all agree: machines will soon do everything better than humans. In How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms (MIT Press, 2022), Gerd Gigerenzer shows why that's not true, and tells us how we can stay in charge in a world populated by algorithms. Machines powered by artificial intelligence are good at some things (playing chess), but not others (life-and-death decisions, or anything involving uncertainty). Gigerenzer explains why algorithms often fail at finding us romantic partners (love is not chess), why self-driving cars fall prey to the Russian Tank Fallacy, and how judges and police rely increasingly on nontransparent "black box" algorithms to predict whether a criminal defendant will reoffend or show up in court. He invokes Black Mirror, considers the privacy paradox (people want privacy, but give their data away), and explains that social media get us hooked by programming intermittent reinforcement in the form of the "like" button. We shouldn't trust smart technology unconditionally, Gigerenzer tells us, but we shouldn't fear it unthinkingly, either. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Doomsday prophets of technology predict that robots will take over the world, leaving humans behind in the dust. Tech industry boosters think replacing people with software might make the world a better place--while tech industry critics warn darkly about surveillance capitalism. Despite their differing views of the future, they all agree: machines will soon do everything better than humans. In How to Stay Smart in a Smart World: Why Human Intelligence Still Beats Algorithms (MIT Press, 2022), Gerd Gigerenzer shows why that's not true, and tells us how we can stay in charge in a world populated by algorithms. Machines powered by artificial intelligence are good at some things (playing chess), but not others (life-and-death decisions, or anything involving uncertainty). Gigerenzer explains why algorithms often fail at finding us romantic partners (love is not chess), why self-driving cars fall prey to the Russian Tank Fallacy, and how judges and police rely increasingly on nontransparent "black box" algorithms to predict whether a criminal defendant will reoffend or show up in court. He invokes Black Mirror, considers the privacy paradox (people want privacy, but give their data away), and explains that social media get us hooked by programming intermittent reinforcement in the form of the "like" button. We shouldn't trust smart technology unconditionally, Gigerenzer tells us, but we shouldn't fear it unthinkingly, either. Galina Limorenko is a doctoral candidate in Neuroscience with a focus on biochemistry and molecular biology of neurodegenerative diseases at EPFL in Switzerland. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/technology

Heute spreche ich mit dem Direktor emeritus am Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer darüber, dass wir ständig durch Konzerne manipuliert werden und über den technologischen Paternalismus.

IBM's super-computer Watson was a runaway success on Jeopardy! But it wasn't nearly as good at diagnosing cancer. This came as no surprise to Max Planck Institute psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer, who argues that when it comes to life-and-death decisions, we'll always need real, not artificial, brains. Listen as the author of How to Stay Smart in a Smart World tells EconTalk host Russ Roberts why computers aren't nearly as smart as we think. But, Gigerenzer says, human beings need to get smarter in order to avoid being manipulated by people who use AI for their own ends.

Quite often the ideas of ‘risk' and of ‘uncertainty' get bandied about interchangeably, but there's a world of difference between them and it matters greatly when that distinction gets lost. That's a key message from psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer, who has created an impressive case for both understanding the distinction and then acting appropriately based on the distinction. “A situation with risk,” he tells interviewer David Edmonds in this Social Science Bites podcast, “is one where you basically know everything. More precisely, you know everything that can happen in the future … you know the consequences and you know the probabilities.” It is, as Bayesian decision theorist Jimmie Savage called it, “a small world.” As an example, Gigerenzer takes us a spin on a roulette wheel – you may lose your money on a low-probability bet, but all the possible options were known in advance. Uncertainty, on the other hand, means that all future possible events aren't known, nor are their probabilities or their consequences. Rounding back to the roulette wheel, under risk all possibilities are constrained to the ball landing on a number between 1 and 36. “Under uncertainty, 37 can happen,” he jokes. “Most situations in which we make decisions,” says Gigerenzer, “involve some sort of uncertainty.” Dealing with risk versus dealing with uncertainty requires different approaches. With risk, all you need is calculation. With uncertainty, “calculation may help you to some degree, but there is no way to calculate the optimal situation.” Humans nonetheless have tools to address uncertainty. Four he identifies are heuristics, intuition, finding people to trust, and adopting narratives to sustain you. In this podcast, he focuses on heuristics, those mental shortcuts and rules of thumb that often get a bad rap. “Social science,” he says, “should take uncertainty seriously, and heuristics seriously, and then we have a key to the real world.” When asked, Gigerenzer lauds Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky for putting “the concept of heuristics back on the table.” But he disagrees with their fast-slow thinking model that gives quick, so-called System 1 thinking less primacy than more deliberative thinking. “We have in the social sciences a kind of rhetoric that heuristics are always second best and maximizing would be always better. That's wrong. It is only true in a world of risk; it is not correct in a world of uncertainty, where by definition you can't find the best solution simply because you don't know the future.” Researchers, he concludes, should “take uncertainty seriously and ask the question, ‘In what situations do these heuristics that people use (and experts use) actually work?' and not just say, ‘They must be wrong because they are a heuristic.'” Gigerenzer is the director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam and partner at Simply Rational – The Institute for Decisions. Before that he directed the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and at the Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research. His books include general titles like Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, and Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions, as well as academic books such as Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Rationality for Mortals, Simply Rational, and Bounded Rationality. Awards for his work include the American Association for the Advancement of Science Prize for Behavioral Science Research for the best article in the behavioral sciences in 1991, the Association of American Publishers Prize for the best book in the social and behavioral sciences for The probabilistic revolution, the German Psychology Award, and the Communicator Award of the German Research Foundation. He was a 2014 fellow at the SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind University of California, Santa Barbara (SAGE Publishing is the parent of Social Science Space) and a fellow of the Association for Psychological Science in 2008.

Gigerenzer und Kahneman. Peter und Tobias. Naja - mal nicht übertreiben. Aber die Frage, welche Algorithmen, welche Verfahren und welche Denkmodelle beim Entscheiden helfen: Darüber haben die vier ne ganze Menge nachgedacht. Und mit zwei davon haben wir gesprochen.

Shermer and Vyse discuss: What is a delusion? • veridical perception • perceptual illusions and irrationalities • Kahneman vs. Gigerenzer: rationality, irrationality, and bounded rationality • Rational Choice Theory and Homo economicus • William Clifford v. William James: When is it ok to believe anything upon insufficient evidence? • pragmatic truths, 3 conditions: living hypothesis, forced question, momentous • death and delusion: Is it useful to believe death is not the end of consciousness and self? • paradoxical behavior and the search for underlying reasons for our actions • rational irrationalities • self delusions — that is, delusions about the self • optimism and overoptimism • depressive realism • bluffing self and others • lies vs. bullshit • self-control, will power, and time discounting • status quo bias • superstitions, rituals and incantations • faith and religion • delusion in love and marriage • brainwashing and influence (Stockholm Syndrome, etc.) • conformity, role playing, obedience to authority, and the banality of evil • the core of personality and the constructed self • free will and determinism. Psychologist Stuart Vyse's new book, The Uses of Delusion, is about aspects of human nature that are not altogether rational but, nonetheless, help us achieve our social and personal goals. In his book, and in this conversation, Vyse presents an accessible exploration of the psychological concepts behind useful delusions, fleshing out how delusional thinking may play a role in love and relationships, illness and loss, and personality and behavior. Throughout, Vyse strives to answer the question: why would some of our most illogical beliefs be as helpful as they are? Vyse also suggests that evolutionary pressures may have led to the ability to fool ourselves in order to survive. Stuart Vyse is a behavioral scientist, teacher, and writer. He taught at Providence College, the University of Rhode Island, and Connecticut College. Vyse's book Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstitionwon the 1999 William James Book Award of the American Psychological Association. He is a contributing editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, where he writes the “Behavior & Belief” column, and a Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science and of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

Heute spreche ich mit dem Direktor emeritus am Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer darüber, dass wir keine Statistiken lesen können. Mein Gast sagt, dass Corona eine Chance ist, mit Ungewissheit leben zu lernen. Die erwähnten Bücher von Prof. Gigerenzer:

Was sind Cognitive Biases, so genannte "strukturelle Denkfehler"? Wie kann man die Auswirkungen dieser strukturellen Verzerrungen auf die Arbeit so gering wie möglich halten? Was fangen wir mit diesem Wissen eigentlich im Arbeitsalltag an? Jungwirth & Knecht schauen in Klassiker und/oder Bestseller der "Behavioral Science" wie "Thinking Fast and Slow" (Tversky, Kahneman), "Die Kunst des klaren Denkens" (Dobelli) und "Denken hilft zwar, nützt aber nichts" (Ariely, Zybak) und suchen in einer knappen halben kne:buster-Stunde nach Erkenntnissen und praktischer Anwendbarkeit.   SHOW NOTES Sendung 76 Ariely, Dan, and Maria Zybak. 2008. Denken hilft zwar, nützt aber nichts: warum wir immer wieder unvernünftige Entscheidungen treffen. München: Droemer. Dobelli, Rolf. 2014. Die Kunst Des Klaren Denkens. dtv. Dörner, Dietrich. 2002. Die Logik des Mißlingens: strategisches Denken in komplexen Situationen. 15. Aufl. rororo rororo-Sachbuch rororo science 19314. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Gigerenzer, Gerd. 1991. ‘How to Make Cognitive Illusions Disappear: Beyond “Heuristics and Biases”'. European Review of Social Psychology 2 (1): 83–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779143000033. Halo Effect und zur Anzahl Bomben, die Obama verantwortet: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2016-07-01/obama-drone-casualty-numbers-a-fraction-of-those-recorded-by-the-bureau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes Kahneman, Daniel. 2019. Schnelles Denken, langsames Denken. Translated by Thorsten Schmidt. 25. Auflage. München: Siedler. Klein, Gary A. 2009. Streetlights and Shadows: Searching for the Keys to Adaptive Decision Making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Manoogian, John III, Buster Benson, and TilmannR. 2016. ‘Cognitive Biases Dendigramm'. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cognitive_bias_codex_en.svg. Miller, George A. 1956. ‘The Magical Number Seven, plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.' Psychological Review 63 (2): 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158. Scullen, S. E., M. K. Mount, and M. Goff. 2000. ‘Understanding the Latent Structure of Job Performance Ratings'. The Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (6): 956–70. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. ‘The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice'. Science 211 (4481): 453–58. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683. Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_kognitiver_Verzerrungen   Kne:buster Blog https://digitalien.org/knebuster-wunderkammern-und-missverstaendnisse/  Stefan Knecht bei LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/knecht/ Stefan Knecht Website https://digitalien.org Alex Jungwirth bei LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexander-jungwirth-305908155/    kne:buster - ein Podcast-Satelliten-Snackified Content-Experiment mit Stefan Knecht und Alex Jungwirth Expedition Arbeit, das heißt auch: Immer wieder Experimente, mal fast unmerkliche Veränderungen in der Community, mal gewagte Neuheiten, manchmal einfach das kreative Stochern im Nebel oder das lustvolle Ausprobieren dessen, was Spaß und Spannung verspricht.  Stochern, Spaß und Spannung, das wird es bis auf Weiteres donnerstags geben, im Kurz-Podcast-Gesprächs-Format  “kne:buster”. Der Titel enthält den Namen des Gastgebers, Stefan Knecht und die Funktion des “busting”, was irgendetwas zwischen “auf den Arm nehmen”, “Pleite gehen” und “sprengen” bedeutet. Im Kern geht es um die Aufdeckung von Mythen, einem Hobby, dem Stefan Knecht schon seit geraumer Zeit krawallfrei aber messerscharf und wissenschaftlich fundiert auf seiner Seite digitalien.org betreibt. Seit nun schon langer Zeit regelmäßig dabei ist ein weiterer “pragmatischer Skeptiker” namens Alexander Jungwirth. Alex ist den Hörerinnen und Hörern des Mitglieder Radios aus seiner Audio-Kolumne “Linzer Worte” bestens bekannt und fungiert im Duo Jungwirth & Knecht tendenziell als der Fragesteller an den Viel- und Intensiv-Leser Knecht.  Wer beim lustvollen Dekonstruieren lauschen will, ist herzlich eingeladen. 

Warum sind wir eigentlich so scharf auf verlässliche Strukturen? Folgen wir unseren inneren Bedürfnissen nach Sicherheit und Vorhersehbarkeit? Ist die Risikoaversion, die man allenthalten in Organisationen beobachten kann, Ausdruck eines zutiefst menschlichen Verlangens, die Welt möge doch einfach und beherrschbar sein? Darüber kann uns im Idealfall jemand Auskunft geben, der sich sowohl profund mit der menschlichen Seele, mit Organisationen und mit dem Themenkomplex des Risikos beschäftigt hat. Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer verkörpert alle diese Aspekte in seinem beruflichen Wirken, das er zunehmend auf den Umgang mit Risiken fokussiert hat. Nach vielen Jahren als Direktor am Max Planck Institut für Bildungsforschung leitet er nun das Harding-Zentrum für Risikokompetenz an der Universität Potsdam. Er ist der am häufigsten zitierte Experte, wenn es darum geht, Risiken vernünftig zu bewerten und kluge Entscheidungen zu treffen. Aber wird seine Expertise auch beherzigt? Wir sprechen über die Vorbehalte von Führungskräften, der eigenen Intuition zu trauen, über die grassierende Kennzifferdenke und die Absicherungskultur in Konzernen. Anhand plakativer Beispiele führt er uns ein in das spannende Feld der Risikokompetenz, die er als unabdingbare Kulturkomponente für alle Menschen in verantwortlichen Positionen bewertet. Und nicht nur dort. Hört rein in die im besten Sinne lehrreichen Ausführungen von Prof. Gigerenzer. Interview: Jule Jankowski Literaturempfehlung: Gerd Gigerenzer: "Bauchentscheidungen". Gerd Gigerenzer: "Klick: Wie wir in einer digitalen Welt die Kontrolle behalten und die richtigen Entscheidungen treffen" In unserer Feature Serie laden wir Experten zu der jeweiligen Perspektive ein und diskutieren folgende Fragen: • Wie erlebst, gestaltest Du den Wandel? • Welchen Fragen sollten wir uns aktuell stellen? • Welche Ausprägung der Zukunft gestalten wir gerade? Mit den Features tauchen wir tief in die verschiedenen Perspektiven und Subsysteme unserer Arbeitswirklichkeit ein und schauen genau hin, wie wir die Zukunft gestalten. Die Zeit zu lernen ist: JETZT!

This episode feels almost nostalgic, as it is a return to the theme of the roles and interactions of the conscious and subconscious mind, something which I focused on early in the podcast and came out strongly in my main series on expertise (around episode 20). It also shares some relation to books on the topic of cognitive biases on the one hand, and the complexity of the world on the other. Psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer has two main points to make: firstly, that ignorance and cognitive biases often outperform knowledge and "clear thinking"; and secondly, he proposes a way in which gut feelings work. On the first point, Gigerenzer points us to some experiments which are convincing of their point but difficult to know how to make use of. It turns out that, in tasks like guessing which of two cities has the larger population, if you've heard of one but not the other, the one you've heard of is probably more populous. This requires that you are "somewhat ignorant" - you know one city but not the other - as if you are completely ignorant (not heard of either) or somewhat knowledgeable (heard of both) then you can't use this trick. It seems very impractical to try to reach a perfect state of mild ignorance in everything in order to use this trick, and you would have to give up the benefits of knowledge in order to do so... Nevertheless, the theoretical point is well made. On the second point, Gigerenzer proposes that gut feelings are simple rules that cut out most of the information, and they often make use of an algorithm called "take the best". The algorithm works like this: you compare whether the available options in the most important feature, then the next important feature, and so on, until in one of the comparisons one of the options is clearly better, at which point you choose that one. So, for example, if you're choosing a restaurant, maybe you first think about the food, but two places both have good food; then you compare atmosphere, but both atmospheres are good; then you compare price, and find one is considerably cheaper, so you go there. Overall Gigerenzer's work makes a welcome contribution to thinking about the nature of intuition. Probably the most insightful idea is that gut feelings use simple rules, because that way they can cut out the noise and make decisions easier. Richard Dawkins apparently once claimed that when we catch a ball we must be implicitly solving partial differential equations; Gigerenzer shows that this is probably not what happens. Enjoy the episode. *** RELATED EPISODES Phenomenology of learning / relation between conscious and subconscious mind: 7. The Practicing Mind by Thomas Sterner; 9. The Inner Game of Tennis by Timothy Gallwey; 10. Flow by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi; 17. Blink by Malcolm Gladwell; 49. The Art of Learning by Josh Waitzkin; 64. What Bruce Lee taught me about learning Mental architecture: 79. What learning is; 80. The Chimp Paradox by Steve Peters Expertise: 18. Bounce by Matthew Syed; 20. Genius Explained by Michael Howe; 22. The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle; 24. Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell Expertise in "wicked" domains: 98. Range by David Epstein; 108. Expert Political Judgement by Phillip Tetlock The world is complicated: 113. The Hidden Half by Michael Blastland Cognitive biases: 11. Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman; 12. "Picture yourself as a stereotypical male" by Michelle Goffreda

Gerd Gigerenzer gilt schon lange als einer der ganz Großen der internationalen Intuitionsforschung. Dabei wäre Gigerenzer beinahe Berufsmusiker geworden. Um sein Studium in München zu finanzieren, gründete er eine Jazz-Band. Nach dem Psychologie-Examen stand er vor der Entscheidung: für relativ viel Geld weiter auf der Bühne Dixieland spielen oder auf eine eher mäßig bezahlte Karriere als Wissenschaftler hoffen? Gigerenzer entschied sich für die akademische Laufbahn - rein intuitiv.

Paul Smaldino is an Associate Professor at the University of California, Merced. His research focus is broad and includes cultural and social evolution, cooperation, and philosophy of science.In this conversation, we focus on Paul's recent papers on modelling, which I have found very useful in my own attempts of getting started with creating formal models.BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith. New conversations every other Friday. You can find the podcast on all podcasting platforms (e.g., Spotify, Apple/Google Podcasts, etc.).Timestamps0:00:20: The parable of the cubist chicken & the need for formal models in psychology0:15:48: Why do psychologists not use formal models more?0:26:23: Models specify the relationship between variables0:40:02: What is the difference between a formal model and a theory?0:50:46: If we add formal modelling to the curriculum, what should we take out?Podcast linksWebsite: https://bjks.buzzsprout.com/Twitter: https://twitter.com/BjksPodcastPaul's linksWebsite: http://smaldino.comGoogle Scholar: https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=AwHfbP0AAAAJTwitter: https://twitter.com/psmaldinoBen's linksWebsite: www.bjks.blog/Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=-nWNfvcAAAAJReferencesEisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication monographs.Gigerenzer, G. (1977-present). Everything he ever wrote. Every Journal he ever published in.Kauffman, S. A. (1976). Articulation of parts explanation in biology and the rational search for them. In Topics in the Philosophy of Biology (pp. 245-263). Springer, Dordrecht.Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour.Rabin, M. (2013). An approach to incorporating psychology into economics. American Economic Review.Smaldino, P. E. (2017). Models are stupid, and we need more of them. Computational social psychology.Smaldino, P. (2019). Better methods can't make up for mediocre theory. Nature.Smaldino, P. (2020). How to translate a verbal theory into a formal model. Social Psychology. Smaldino, P. (2020). How to Build A Strong Theoretical Foundation. PsyArXiv. Wimsatt, W. C. (1972, January). Complexity and organization. In PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (Vol. 1972, pp. 67-86). D. Reidel Publishing.

De fleste gennemgange af økonomiens teorihistorie slutter med Keynes' død. Det gør vores også. Næsten. Vi tager også et temaafsnit om Chicago-økonomerne. Inden vi kommer så langt, vil jeg i dagens afsnit lave et lille eksperiment. Jeg vil komme med et meget kort overslag over nogle af de vigtige teoretiske udviklinger indenfor økonomi fra 1946 og frem til nu. Det er et eksperiment, fordi jeg udelukkende bruger min egen hukommelse med en forudsætning om, at jeg må have huske noget af det væsentligste. Der er sikkert meget, der er glemt, men i hvert fald kommer vi igennem as-if-economics, adfærdsøkonomi, eksperimenter, entreprenørens genfødsel og meget mere. Der er sikkert noget, som jeg har glemt, men så vil det med garanti blive dækket i næste sæson, hvor jeg og min nye medvært Otto Brøns vil tale om alle nobelprismodtagerne i rækkefølge. Glæd dig! Har du nogensinde tænkt over, hvad økonomi er for en videnskab? Hvordan opstod den, og hvem var dens grundlæggere? Eller har du interesseret dig for moderne diskussioner om samfundet, herunder ulighed, ressourceforbrug eller konkurrence? Hvis dette er tilfældet, er økonomiens teorihistorie vigtig og nyttig for dig. Den type af diskussioner er nemlig mindst lige så gammel som den økonomiske videnskab selv, og du vil i dens rødder også finde rødderne til de moderne argumenter. Til dagens afsnit har jeg læst:  Artinger, F., Petersen, M., Gigerenzer, G., & Weibler, J. (2015). Heuristics as Adaptive Decision Strategies in Management. Journal of Organizational Behavior, s. 33-52. Becker, G. S. (1993). The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior. Journal of Political Economy, s. 385-409. Boettke, P. (2017). Don't Be a "Jibbering Idiot": Economic Principles and the Properly Trained Economist. The Journal of Private Enterprise, s. 9-15. Bruni, L., & Sugden, R. (2007). The Road Not Taken: How Psychology Was Removed From Economics, and How It Might Be Brought Back. The Economic Journal, s. 146-173. Camerer, C. (1999). Behavioral Economics: Reunifying Psychology and Economics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, s. 10575-10577. Coase, R. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica, s. 386-405. Conlisk, J. (1996). Why Bounded Rationality? Journal of Economic Literature, s. 669-700. De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain. Science, s. 684-687. Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2008). The Case for Mindless Economics. The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics, s. 3-42. Hayek, F. A. (1948). Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk. Econometrica, s. 263-291. Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Management Review, s. 217-226. Smith, V. L. (2003). Constructivist and Ecological Rationality in Economics. The American Economic Review, s. 465-508. Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Environments That Makes Us Smart: Ecological Rationality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, s. 167-171. Williamson, O. (1996). Economics and Organization: A Primer. California Management Review, s. 131-146. I like to dedicate this season to my teachers Ole Bruus and Bruce Caldwell. All mistakes and mispronunciations are mine alone and no fault of theirs.

Die Neurowissenschaft beweist es allen Skeptikern: Weder helfen komplexe Lösungen für komplexe Probleme, noch findet unser Denkapparat schneller als unsere Intuition den richtigen Weg. Es gibt Situationen, da dürfen wir "abschalten", unserem Gehirn Ruhe gönnen - zum Beispiel durch Meditation. Studien zeigen, wie heilsam solche regelmäßigen Auszeiten sein können. In dieser Episode fasse ich die Thesen von Prof. Dr. Gigerenzer, Prof. Dr. Egle und Dr. Hölzel zusammen.

Psychologist and author Gerd Gigerenzer of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development talks about his book Gut Feelings with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Gigerenzer argues for the power of simple heuristics--rules of thumb--over more complex models when making real-world decisions. He argues that many results in behavioral economics that appear irrational can be understood as sensible ways of coping with complexity.

Psychologist and author Gerd Gigerenzer of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development talks about his book Gut Feelings with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Gigerenzer argues for the power of simple heuristics--rules of thumb--over more complex models when making real-world decisions. He argues that many results in behavioral economics that appear irrational can be understood as sensible ways of coping with complexity.

I argue that Steven L. Schwarcz' paper on abstraction bias as a cause of excessive risk-taking is an instance of what Gigerenzer called the bias bias - the tendency to spot biases even when there are none.

Txema Coll nos trae a Gigerenzer. Y por qué médicos, pacientes, periodistas y políticos no entendemos las estadísticas. Y el daño que nos hace. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26161749 Tendrá segunda parte.

Kopf oder Bauch? Wir treffen jeden Tag Entscheidungen und glauben, sie beruhen auf der rationalen Abwägung sachlicher Argumente. Doch das ist ein Irrtum! Viel öfter hören wir auf unser Gefühl. Und damit fahren wir meistens auch ganz gut, denn viele Risiken können wir gar nicht exakt abschätzen. Der Umgang mit Ungewissheiten bei der Entscheidungsfindung hat den Psychologen Gerd Gigerenzer immer schon fasziniert. Er gilt als der Nestor der deutschen Risikoforschung. Der 71-Jährige ist Direktor emeritus des Max-Planck-Instituts für Bildungsforschung in Berlin und hat dort das Harding-Zentrum für Risikokompetenz aufgebaut. Gerd Gigerenzer möchte den Menschen verständlich machen, was unsere Entscheidungen beeinflusst. Die Intuition, auf die wir uns im Alltag so oft verlassen, ist gerade in Führungspositionen geradezu verpönt – zumindest nach außen hin. Bauchentscheidungen lässt ein Vorstand deshalb häufig im Nachhinein durch Zahlenwerk absichern. Gigerenzer warnt vor einer solchen Rechtfertigungskultur, für die viel Zeit und Geld zum Fenster hinausgeworfen wird. Risikokompetenz ist aktueller denn je in Zeiten von Algorithmen und Scoring-Systemen, die unser Leben immer stärker prägen werden. Gigerenzer fordert mehr Risikokompetenz, um Statistiken und Zukunftsprognosen kritisch zu hinterfragen. Das fängt bei der Wettervorhersage an: Was bedeutet eigentlich 30 Prozent Regenwahrscheinlichkeit? Und Data Literacy betrifft auch weniger banale Fragen – wie die Schufa unsere Bonität einschätzt oder welche Therapie uns der Arzt verordnet.

Hvorfor kaster vi oss på moralske nettstormer i sosiale medier? Hva er motivasjonen bak dette – egoistiske interesser eller fordi vi mener det er riktig av oss å mene noe? journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…61444817741883 Johnen, M., Jungblut, M., & Ziegele, M. (2017). The digital outcry: What incites participation behavior in an online firestorm?. New Media & Society. Ønsker vi mennesker egentlig å vite om ting som kommer til å skje i fremtiden? Eller er det slik at vi av og til kunne tenkt oss å være uvitende om enkelte ting? psycnet.apa.org/buy/2017-07341-002 Gigerenzer, G., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2017). Cassandra’s regret: The psychology of not wanting to know. Psychological review.

Today is January 14 and the Navigate the Chaos question to consider is Do you have the courage required to manage fear? Professor Gerd Gigerenzer estimated an additional 1,595 Americans died in car accidents in the year after the 9/11 attacks. He used trends in road and air use to suggest that, for a period of 12 months after 9/11 there was a temporary increase in road use before citizens again became more willing to fly at similar rates before the attacks. Gigerenzer ascribed the extra deaths to people’s poor understanding of danger. Mark Twain noted “Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear—not absence of fear.” Do you have the courage required to manage fear?

Gerd Gigerenzer is Director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin and partner of Simply Rational - The Institute for Decisions. Gigerenzer has trained U.S. federal judges, German physicians, and top managers in decision making and understanding risks and uncertainties.

“Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions” by Gerd Gigerenzer is one of Michael’s favorite books from the last 10 years. Today, Michael reaches into the archives and plays an interview with Gerd Gigerenzer. Gerd is a psychologist who studies the use of bounded rationality and heuristics in decision making and investigates how humans make inferences about their world with limited time and knowledge. He is director of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition (ABC) at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy. In this episode of Trend Following Radio: Daniel Kahneman vs. Gigerenzer’s views Heuristics vs. statistics Medical check-ups Taking risks Instincts vs. expert advice Relative vs. absolute risk Benjamin Franklin’s ledger Heuristics Unconscious intelligence

Hvorfor kaster vi oss på moralske nettstormer i sosiale medier? Hva er motivasjonen bak dette – egoistiske interesser eller fordi vi mener det er riktig av oss å mene noe? http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444817741883 Johnen, M., Jungblut, M., & Ziegele, M. (2017). The digital outcry: What incites participation behavior in an online firestorm?. New Media & Society. Ønsker vi mennesker egentlig å vite om ting som kommer til å skje i fremtiden? Eller er det slik at vi av og til kunne tenkt oss å være uvitende om enkelte ting? http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2017-07341-002 Gigerenzer, G., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2017). Cassandra’s regret: The psychology of not wanting to know. Psychological review.

Join David M Frees, Somnath Sikdar, and Alex Frees to answer the question: What Are Heuristics and Cognitive Bias? And how do you make your Marketing & Life Better & Richer.  Confessions of the Pricing Man by Hermann Simon:  http://amzn.to/2tXkhNz Awesome cognitive bias codex image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases ethics of it:   http://ritholtz.com/2016/09/cognitive-bias-codex/ http://www.tristanharris.com/ Heuristics, which are commonly defined as cognitive shortcuts or rules of thumb that simplify decisions, represent a process of substituting a difficult question with an easier one (Kahneman, 2003). Heuristics can also lead to cognitive biases. There are divisions regarding heuristics’ relation to bias and rationality. In the fast and frugal view, the application of heuristics (e.g. the recognition heuristic) is an “ecologically rational” strategy that makes best use of the limited information available to individuals (Goldstein and Gigerenzer, 2002). Furthermore, while heuristics such as affect, availability, and representativeness have a general purpose character, others developed in social and consumer psychology are more domain-specific, examples of which include brand name, price, and scarcity heuristics (Shah & Oppenheimer, 2008). Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75-90. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475. Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 207-222.  Cognitive bias A cognitive bias (e.g. Ariely, 2008) is a systematic (non-random) error in thinking, in the sense that a judgment deviates from what would be considered desirable from the perspective of accepted norms or correct in terms of formal logic. The application of heuristics is often associated with cognitive biases, some of which, such as those arising from availability or representativeness, are ‘cold’ in the sense that they do not reflect a person’s motivation and are instead the result of errors in information processing. Other cognitive biases, especially those that have a self-serving function (e.g. optimism bias), are more motivated. Finally, some biases, such as confirmation bias, can be motivated or unmotivated (Nickerson, 1998). Confirmation bias Confirmation bias occurs when people seek out or evaluate information in a way that fits with their existing thinking and preconceptions. The domain of science, where theories should advance based on both falsifying and supporting evidence, has not been immune to bias, which is often associated with people trying to bolster existing attitudes and beliefs. For example, a consumer who likes a particular brand and researches a new purchase may be motivated to seek out customer reviews on the internet that favor that brand.  Confirmation bias has also been related to unmotivated processes, including primacy effects and anchoring, evident in a reliance on information that is encountered early in a process (Nickerson, 1998). Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220. List of confirmation Biases Cognitive biases can be organized into four categories: biases that arise from too much information, not enough meaning, the need to act quickly, and the limits of memory[1].  

My guests today are Gerd Gigerenzer and Brian Wansink. Gigerenzer is currently director of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition (ABC) at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy. Wansink is the John Dyson Professor of Marketing and the Director of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab in the Department of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University.  The topics are Gigerenzer's book Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions and Wansink's book Slim by Design: Mindless Eating Solutions for Everyday Life. In this episode of Trend Following Radio we discuss: Covel and Gigerenzer discuss the differences between Daniel Kahneman and Gigerenzer's views; heuristics vs. statistics; the notion of medical check-ups, prostate cancer, and the PSA test; taking risks, and instincts vs. expert advice; relative vs. absolute risk; Benjamin Franklin's ledger, heuristics, and romance; intuition, facts, unconscious intelligence, and gut decisions; being risk savvy and ordering in upscale restaurants, why Risk Savvy is an alternative to many other outlooks; the two tools to being risk savvy; the gaze heuristic and athletics; complex problems and simple heuristics. Covel and Wansink discuss weight and obesity; our genes and environment as an effect on our health; “doing what skinny people do” and studying buffets; modeling the behavior of slim people; the advantages of chopsticks; the power of the grocery shopper of the household; triggers and tips to avoid unhealthy behavior that happens in restaurants; correlations between where you sit in a restaurant and eating choices; the three types of people in the context of nutrition; the influence of the environment on our eating habits; being slim by design vs. being slim by willpower; pursuing happiness vs. pursuing a purpose. Jump in! --- I'm MICHAEL COVEL, the host of TREND FOLLOWING RADIO, and I'm proud to have delivered 10+ million podcast listens since 2012. Investments, economics, psychology, politics, decision-making, human behavior, entrepreneurship and trend following are all passionately explored and debated on my show. To start? I'd like to give you a great piece of advice you can use in your life and trading journey… cut your losses! You will find much more about that philosophy here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/trend/ You can watch a free video here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/video/ Can't get enough of this episode? You can choose from my thousand plus episodes here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/podcast My social media platforms: Twitter: @covel Facebook: @trendfollowing LinkedIn: @covel Instagram: @mikecovel Hope you enjoy my never-ending podcast conversation!

Michael Covel interviews both Gerd Gigerenzer and Brian Wansink on today’s podcast. Gigerenzer joins Covel for his second appearance on the podcast. He is currently director of the Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition (ABC) at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy. Gigerenzer’s new book is Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions. Covel and Gigerenzer discuss the differences between Daniel Kahneman and Gigerenzer’s views; heuristics vs. statistics; the notion of medical check-ups, prostate cancer, and the PSA test; taking risks, and instincts vs. expert advice; relative vs. absolute risk; Benjamin Franklin’s ledger, heuristics, and romance; intuition, facts, unconscious intelligence, and gut decisions; being risk savvy and ordering in upscale restaurants, why Risk Savvy is an alternative to many other outlooks; the two tools to being risk savvy; the gaze heuristic and athletics; complex problems and simple heuristics. Next, Covel speaks with Brian Wansink. Wansink is the John Dyson Professor of Marketing and the Director of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab in the Department of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University. His newest book is Slim By Design. Covel and Wansink discuss weight and obesity; our genes and environment as an effect on our health; “doing what skinny people do” and studying buffets; modeling the behavior of slim people; the advantages of chopsticks; the power of the grocery shopper of the household; triggers and tips to avoid unhealthy behavior that happens in restaurants; correlations between where you sit in a restaurant and eating choices; the three types of people in the context of nutrition; the influence of the environment on our eating habits; being slim by design vs. being slim by willpower; pursuing happiness vs. pursuing a purpose. Want a free trend following DVD? Go to trendfollowing.com/win.

Flugangst ist unangenehm und kann einem die Vorfreude auf den Urlaub nehmen oder wird zur Dauerbelastung, wenn man beruflich fliegen muss. Diese Episode versucht den Ursachen der Flugangst ein wenig auf den Grund zu gehen. Literaturempfehlung: Hermann, Jürgen. (2011). Warum sie oben bleiben: Ein Flugbegleiter für Passagiere. Vom Start bis zur Landung. Insel Verlag. Gigerenzer, Gerd. (2013). Risiko. Wie man die richtigen Entscheidungen trifft. C. Bertelsmann.

My guest today is Gerd Gigerenzer, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, and is a former professor of psychology at the University at Chicago. Gerd is also the director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy (read David Harding the head of trend following firm Winton Capital). The topic is heuristics. In this episode of Trend Following Radio we discuss: Uncertainty Comparing decisions to baseball (gaze heuristic) Complex problems and simple solutions Using price action as a decision making cue Unconscious heuristics The art of knowing what one doesn't have to know The less is more effect The miracle on the Hudson River a few years ago as a case in point illustrating heuristics The idea of an adaptive toolbox The element of surprise in Gigerenzer's work The distinction between risk and uncertainty Intuition vs. rationality Jump in! --- I'm MICHAEL COVEL, the host of TREND FOLLOWING RADIO, and I'm proud to have delivered 10+ million podcast listens since 2012. Investments, economics, psychology, politics, decision-making, human behavior, entrepreneurship and trend following are all passionately explored and debated on my show. To start? I'd like to give you a great piece of advice you can use in your life and trading journey… cut your losses! You will find much more about that philosophy here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/trend/ You can watch a free video here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/video/ Can't get enough of this episode? You can choose from my thousand plus episodes here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/podcast My social media platforms: Twitter: @covel Facebook: @trendfollowing LinkedIn: @covel Instagram: @mikecovel Hope you enjoy my never-ending podcast conversation!

Today, Michael Covel speaks with Gerd Gigerenzer. Gigerenzer is the director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, and is a former professor of psychology at the University at Chicago. Gerd is also the director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy (read David Harding the head of trend following firm Winton Capital). Covel speaks with Gigerenzer about heuristics. For those of you that trade; for those of you that invest; and for those of you that just want to navigate risk and certainty in your life, this conversation is mission critical. His work is the philosophical foundation of trend following success, for starters. Covel and Gigerenzer discuss uncertainty; comparing decisions to baseball (gaze heuristic); complex problems and simple solutions; using price action as a decision making cue; unconscious heuristics; the art of knowing what one doesn’t have to know; the less is more effect; the miracle on the Hudson River a few years ago as a case in point illustrating heuristics; the idea of an adaptive toolbox; the element of surprise in Gigerenzer’s work; the distinction between risk and uncertainty; intuition vs. rationality. This type of understanding is ultimately far more important than any trading system breakdowns. Want a free trend following DVD? Go to trendfollowing.com/win.

The remarkable story of how one family managed to escape 1930s Nazi Germany, on the brink of the Holocaust, and found themselves living in British Raj-era India. Spanning three countries — Germany, India, and finally, America — Herbert Friedmann’s story is about the unexpected twists and turns our lives can take, and what it means […]