Solving Problems & Making Decisions

Systems of Problem Solving The most basic system of problem solving humans use is trial and error. We try until we succeed, and make sure to not repeat mistakes. There are two other systems of problem solving that humans use that can be categorized as “slow and steady” and “quick and easy”.

Slow and Steady One way that humans approach problem solving is through the use of algorithms, a slow, methodical approach using rules and procedures that eventually guarantee a correct answer (slow and steady). However this can be a very long and exasperating process. Suppose I give you a scramble of 10 letters: SPLOYOCHYG. You could use the algorithmic approach and assign each letter to each possible position, and eventually get the answer, but it could take 907,200 permutations in total!

Quick and Easy A different, quicker approach would be to use of heuristics, or simpler thinking strategies that allow us to make judgements and solve problems more efficiently. In our SPLOYOCHYG, we can group letters that we know have common pairings (CH, GY), and remove options that are very rare (YY). Combining this with trial and error, you will (probably) hit upon the right answer more quickly that algorithms. However, unlike with algorithms, heuristics are more error-prone, and you might not find the right answer.

Figure out SPLOYOCHYG yet?

Eureka! Another way humans arrive to answers is through insight, or a sudden realization of a problem’s solution. This contrasts with the strategy based problem solving of algorithms and heuristics, as it usually has very little strategy or planning involved. Scientists have revealed a very specific portion of the brain in the temporal lobe that lights up in an insight situation. What word links ball, print, and bare?

Some animals have demonstrated insight as well, such as Sultan, a chimpanzee, who had been attempting to use a stick too short to get a banana out of reach. After setting the stick down and observing the situation, he suddenly used the short stick to grab a longer stick, and then he used the longer stick to grab a banana. “You don’t need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.”

The Downside of Cognition As bright as we are, our cognition can lead us astray. One big example of this is in the previously mentioned confirmation bias, in which we have a tendency to only seek information that supports our preconceptions, and ignore that which goes against it. Thus, some huge ideas that are quickly proven wrong (such as Obama’s location of birth, Vaccines and Autism, etc,) are defended adamantly by those who believed them based on the scant evidence they see.

Once we have bias and incorrectly represent a problem, it’s hard to fix how we approach it. This inability to see a solution from a fresh perspective is called fixedness. Here’s one example where you may experience fixation:

Your fixation on solving problems in two dimensions may have made you unable to think in the three dimensions required to solve this problem.

Stick this candle to the wall in a way that it won’t drip on the table

Functional Fixedness A type of fixation is functional fixedness, where one’s bias, or fixation, prevents them from using an item in a way outside of its intended purpose. If you had a hard time solving the previous puzzle, you may have been experiencing functional fixedness.

Mental sets A prime example of fixation is mental set, which is our tendency to approach a problem with the mindset of what has worked for us previously. Consider this sequence: O-T-T-F-?-?-? What are the final three letters?

That may be hard to get, until I give you the answer: F(ive), S(ix), S(even). Now, with that, given the sequence: J-F-M-A-?-?-?, what are the last three letters? If that was easier for you, it is because of the mental set you created.

Decisions and Judgements Studies have shown that when we face the hundreds of decisions we make everyday (Should I bring a jacket? Can I trust this person? Who should I pass the basketball to?) we rarely take the time to reason out the best answer. Instead, we use our intuition, which is our fast, automatic, and unreasoned feelings or thoughts. While we can make use of our heuristics and judgements to make smart snap decisions, there are also systems in place that cause us to make boneheaded decisions.

Representativeness Heuristic To judge the likelihood of things in terms of how well they represent particular prototypes is to use the representativeness heuristic. Consider this situation: A person I know is short, slim, and likes to read poetry. Are they more likely to be a professor of literature at an Ivy League university, or a truck driver? Which choice is the better guess?

This idea of a prototype, say of a big burly truck driver who don’t have time for no poetry, overrides the fact that mere statistics makes the character in the situation much more likely to be the truck driver. This is the representativeness heuristic at work (working against us, that is).

Also interesting to point out that of the top 14 picture results for each, no truckers were women, and only 2 female professors. wer

Availability Heuristic The availability heuristic: estimating the likelihood of events based on their availability in memory, if instances easily come to mind (perhaps due to their vividness), we presume the events much more common. For instance, if many clips on the news shows African Americans involved in acts of gun violence, we may think them more likely to be violent. Most Americans are much more afraid of dying due to terrorists (1 in 97,927) than they are to car accidents (1 in 6,029) or cancer (1 in 5).

This also works by making certain serious risks less perceived by the Average Joe, such as Global Climate Change. Due to limited impactful images, the concept considered by some scientists to be “Armageddon in slow motion”, there is little concern among many people.

Overconfidence: the silent killer Oftentimes, our judgments and decisions go awry because we are simply more confident than correct. If you ask a question to people, like “is absinthe a liqueur or a precious stone?”, and 60% of people get it right, 75% of people will report that they felt they got it right. This is overconfidence, or the tendency to be more confident than correct, or to overrate the accuracy of our beliefs. History is full of the tragedies of overconfident kings, or students who put projects off until too late because they are overconfident in how long it will take (often wrong by twice the right amount).

I was overconfident in how long it would take me to make this presentation.

As startling as overconfidence and its medley of repercussions can be, equally startling is our tendency to cling to our beliefs in spite of contrary evidence. As mentioned earlier, people find ways to cling to incorrect beliefs. This belief perseverance creates much of the social conflict we have seen and continue to see.

In one classic study of belief perseverance, a pro-death penalty and against death penalty group were both given two documents, one supporting and one opposing death penalty. Each group stated how correct one was and how weak the other, even though they both received the same documents. Asking them to be “unbiased” did nothing to change their views, but surprisingly, asking them to consider the articles from the other side’s viewpoint did reduce their bias.

Framing, or how we present an issue, plays a big effect on our decisions and judgements. For instance in one study, where one group was told that an operation had a 90% survival chance, and another group was told that it had a 10% mortality rate, the 10% group considered it much more dangerous. Another example is how that in countries where you opt-out of organ donation, donation rates are near 100%, while in countries where you opt in, rates are only about 25%.