BLINK BACK
I went and saw Malcolm Gladwell speak this morning. As I’ve blogged before, I was skeptical about the weight his book put on snap judgments, but willing to keep an open mind. As a disciple of Michael Lewis’ “Moneyball,” which chronicles the Oakland A’s’ ability to field a competitive team year after year despite a payroll that dwarfs that of many big-market teams, I was leery of a line of thought that rewarded initial impressions and discounted careful analysis.
I found his presentation entertaining, informative, and inspiring. And my fear – that “Blink” was saying the opposite of “Moneyball” – was unfounded. In fact, they’re practically saying the same thing. “Blink” does say that snap judgments are often amazingly accurate, but also that they can be horribly wrong.
Gladwell said something quite counterintuitive about how to improve decision-making: reduce the information. We’re trained to think that when we can’t make a decision, we need more information, and that bad decisions happen when we have incomplete information. Gladwell argues, rather, that bad decisions often happen when we have too much information, and that if we take information off the table, we can look at what’s important without distractions and make good decisions. He uses the example of the sudden upswing in female orchestral performers in the 1970’s, once auditions were conducted using screens so that judges could only see and not hear their candidates. Before the 1970’s, hardly any female performers won auditions, to the point that people were making all sorts of crazy arguments about the inferiority of women in musical ability. What was happening is that judging bias caused men to be selected over women over and over again. By taking away the visuals, thus giving judges less information, decision-making improved.
Billy Beane, GM of the Oakland A’s, would agree. Most baseball scouts make bad snap judgments about up-and-comers because they “look like baseball players.” They overvalue certain stats, like RBI’s and batting average and steals. The Oakland A’s make good decisions about drafting and trading for players not by gathering more information but by ignoring most of the information, focusing in on one singular stat that is the key to successful baseball on a budget: the ability to get on base. Gladwell would call that “thin-slicing,” or drilling down to the one thing upon which a good decision can be made.
So “Blink” has won a second look from me. And like his first book, “Tipping Point,” he has given me food for thought in many facets of life, from personal and work to church and school.
I went and saw Malcolm Gladwell speak this morning. As I’ve blogged before, I was skeptical about the weight his book put on snap judgments, but willing to keep an open mind. As a disciple of Michael Lewis’ “Moneyball,” which chronicles the Oakland A’s’ ability to field a competitive team year after year despite a payroll that dwarfs that of many big-market teams, I was leery of a line of thought that rewarded initial impressions and discounted careful analysis.
I found his presentation entertaining, informative, and inspiring. And my fear – that “Blink” was saying the opposite of “Moneyball” – was unfounded. In fact, they’re practically saying the same thing. “Blink” does say that snap judgments are often amazingly accurate, but also that they can be horribly wrong.
Gladwell said something quite counterintuitive about how to improve decision-making: reduce the information. We’re trained to think that when we can’t make a decision, we need more information, and that bad decisions happen when we have incomplete information. Gladwell argues, rather, that bad decisions often happen when we have too much information, and that if we take information off the table, we can look at what’s important without distractions and make good decisions. He uses the example of the sudden upswing in female orchestral performers in the 1970’s, once auditions were conducted using screens so that judges could only see and not hear their candidates. Before the 1970’s, hardly any female performers won auditions, to the point that people were making all sorts of crazy arguments about the inferiority of women in musical ability. What was happening is that judging bias caused men to be selected over women over and over again. By taking away the visuals, thus giving judges less information, decision-making improved.
Billy Beane, GM of the Oakland A’s, would agree. Most baseball scouts make bad snap judgments about up-and-comers because they “look like baseball players.” They overvalue certain stats, like RBI’s and batting average and steals. The Oakland A’s make good decisions about drafting and trading for players not by gathering more information but by ignoring most of the information, focusing in on one singular stat that is the key to successful baseball on a budget: the ability to get on base. Gladwell would call that “thin-slicing,” or drilling down to the one thing upon which a good decision can be made.
So “Blink” has won a second look from me. And like his first book, “Tipping Point,” he has given me food for thought in many facets of life, from personal and work to church and school.
Comments