The question is NOT: Can you trust your intuition? It’s when can you trust it?
Many players trust it too often. Most people – including you and me –overestimate our abilities. For almost every skill more than two-thirds of the people believe we’re above average, a statistical impossibility. If we believe we have good intuition, we rely on it too often.
Because luck has such huge short-term effects, this overestimation is particularly common and destructive in poker. Most of us think we play better than we really do. That’s why so many people keep playing in poker rooms despite the fact that at least 85% of all players lose. The losers rationalize that they are just unlucky.
Because it’s primarily an unconscious process, overconfidence is particularly common for intuition. We don’t know exactly why we have a belief. We just believe it. Countless players believe they have great intuition because they remember the times they were right and forget the times they were wrong.
Dr. Kahneman doesn’t trust intuition. His book, Thinking Fast and Slow, stated, “Much of the discussion in this book is about biases of intuition.” (p.4)
Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction
Kahneman discussed this book by Paul Meehl, a distinguished psychologist. Researchers found that simple equations made better predictions than experts, even when the experts had all the information used to derive the equations, plus subjective data.
For example, clerks were given data such as high school seniors’ class standing, grade point average, and SAT scores. They derived the weights for each score from previous students’ scores and their college freshman grades. An equation with these weights predicted students’ freshman grades better than a psychologist who had read the scores, read their essays (which were not used in the equation) and had interviewed the students. (pp 222f)
The psychologists had much more data, plus their “expertise,” but their predictions were less accurate than the very simple equation.
Naturally, when they read Professor Meehl’s book, many psychologists were outraged. How could an equation predict better than an expert? It’s essentially the same argument that intuitive and math-oriented poker pros have had countless times. Both sides insist they are right, but neither can make a convincing case.
Instead of just arguing, researchers have made about 200 similar comparisons for medical prognosis, credit risks, criminals’ recidivism, football games, new businesses’ probability of success, and other predictions.
“In every case, the accuracy of experts was matched or exceeded by a simple algorithm… There is no controversy in social science which shows such a large body of qualitatively diverse studies coming out so uniformly in the same direction as this one.” (p. 223
Why did these astonishing results occur?
Because the clinicians’ delusions about their intuition caused them to give positive or negative weight to irrelevant factors. They may have liked a student’s looks or extra-curricular activities. Or they disliked a student’s attitude. It’s essentially the same process that occurs when a new player joins a poker game. Some players immediately think they know how he will play. They have no solid evidence, but think they don’t need any. They’re sure they have great feel for people.
Resolving The Conflict
Because Kahneman is a great scientist, he didn’t argue with his critics. He had an “adversarial collaboration” with Gary Klein, “the intellectual leader of an association of scholars and practitioners who do not like the kind of work I do.” (p.234)
“We set out to answer a specific question: When can you trust an experienced professional who claims to have an intuition? … could we agree on principles for answering the general question?” (p. 235)
After years of stressful discussions, they jointly published, “Conditions for Intuitive Expertise: A Failure to Disagree.” (p. 235) It essentially answered my original question. Instead of saying that intuition is better or worse than math-based logic, they described the conditions that increase the probability that an expert’s intuition can be trusted.
The word, “expert,” was italicized because their conclusions apply primarily to experts. If you’re not an expert, they may not apply to you.
Intuition As Recognition
Kahneman quoted the definition of Herbert Simon, another Nobel Laureate: “The situation has provided a cue; this cue has given the expert access to information stored in memory, and the information provides the answer. Intuition is nothing more and nothing less than recognition.” (p. 237)
That definition resembles Brunson’s definition of “feel.” “Whenever I use the word ‘feel’… I recall what happened… Even though I might not consciously do so… I recall that this same play came up (or something close to it) and this is what he did or somebody else did. So I get a feeling that he’s bluffing or that I can make a play here and get the pot. But, actually my subconscious mind is reasoning it all out.” (Super System, p. 430)
Overconfidence Is Your Enemy.
Doyle recommended, “Stick to your first impression. Have the courage of your convictions.” That’s good advice for highly intuitive experts, but terrible advice for most of us. We’re not experts, but we may be sure we’re right because we overestimate our intuition.
Kahneman wrote: “Klein and I eventually agreed on an important principle: the confidence that people have in their intuitions is not a reliable guide to their validity. In other words, do not trust anyone— including yourself— to tell you how much you should trust their judgment.”(p. 240)
If we can’t trust our confidence, how can we evaluate an intuitive judgment?
Kahneman and Klein agreed that you can’t develop much intuitive skill without:
- “an environment that is sufficiently regular to be predictable.
- “an opportunity to learn these regularities through prolonged practice.” (p. 240)
Klein’s people worked in environments that were much more repetitious and predictable than Kahneman’s. They jointly concluded that “intuition cannot be trusted in the absence of stable regularities in the environment.” (p. 241f) In other words, unless you have lots of experience in predictable and similar situations, don’t trust your intuition.
Recommendations
Fortunately, “bridge and poker … provide robust statistical regularities that can support skill.” (p. 240) Your trust in your intuition should depend, not on your confidence, but on how well you utilize these learning opportunities.
Your goal should be to maximize those learning opportunities, but to avoid relying on intuition when it’s inappropriate. To fit these conflicting goals:
- Don’t assume you have great intuition.
- Do work on improving your intuition.
- Don’t rely heavily on intuition in unfamiliar situations.
- Don’t rely on first impressions about people.
- Get good data by constantly studying the players.
- Don’t regard your intuition about people as a substitute for the math. Instead, study and internalize the math so that it becomes part of your intuition.
- Pay attention to your “inner voice” and what it’s telling you. Keep notes on when it’s right and wrong.
- Don’t confuse the intuition of your inner voice with emotional urges.
- Compare betting patterns and body language to the cards you see.
- Keep your mind open and admit your mistakes.
- Don’t make large intuition-dependent commitments without solid evidence that you can trust your intuition.
This blog was published in Card Player magazine, which graciously permitted me to post it here. I must add that Herb Simon and I served on a curriculum revision committee at Carnegie-Mellon’s Graduate School of Industrial Administration. Like most academic committees, we talked a lot and accomplished very little. But is was a huge kick to work with a Nobel Laureate.
Dr. Al Schoonmaker
Ask-Dr-Al.com
Would you like to read more of my blogs? Just click HERE.
Do you have a question or comment about this blog or any psychological subject? Just click HERE.
Your family and friends have psychological problems. Help them by forwarding this blog.
