Better Thinking Under the Circumstances

Given the reality of imperfect information and the brain's tendency to take shortcuts (e.g., cognitive biases), to save time and energy, what can we do to make better decisions? I happened to come across a document originally written for the CIA Directorate of Intelligence--Psychology of Intelligence Analysis¹ by Richards J. Heuer, Jr.

It seems that the intelligence agencies struggle to make sound "judgments based on incomplete and ambiguous information," often with lives dependent on the accuracy of interpretation of that information. Perhaps we, as individuals, are less likely to risk other's lives, but we, also, find it advantageous to make good decisions. We can also learn something from Richards Heuer.

While I recommend this entire book, let's jump to Richards' suggestions for "improving how you think." Most of us are not typically making life or death judgments, and especially not ones critical to national stability. I have re-cast the Richards' advice from working within a government hierarchy in international intelligence gathering to working for your own self-interest in your own context. The circumstances may be less critical, but probably still important to you.

Articulate the Problem

It's tempting to accumulate some information and then decide, based on your current understanding, what is the problem you're facing. In fact, I think it's practically impossible to do otherwise. But once you realize that you're facing a problem that requires a decision from you, even if it's a decision to do nothing or to monitor the situation to see how it evolves, it's worth proceeding as if you hadn't started with a hypothesis or solution in mind.

A good way to do that is to put the problem into words. Explain the problem to your cat, tell it to a rubber ducky, or write it down. These are time-honored techniques for clarifying something you presumed to be clear in your mind until you started putting it into words.

As a modest example, let's say that you found out a friend had an significant need, but didn't call you for help. Given that you've called them for help in the past, you might feel upset that they didn't behave similarly.

Your first thought might be that they didn't trust you to be helpful. Note, though, that this is jumping straight to a hypothesis. Ask your rubber ducky what is the underlying problem for which this is a hypothesis? By externalizing the question, you may come to the conclusion that the problem itself is that you don't feel good about the way things played out.

Generate Hypotheses

What could be going on here that produces this problem?

We already jumped to our first hypothesis--that they mistrust us to be helpful. Write that down as your first hypothesis.

When we're not paying attention to how we're thinking, we're likely to jump to a first explanation and stop there and assume that we've figured it out. Humans are good at creating stories for what they see and then believing those stories are true. That's called satisficing--stopping at the first alternative that seems acceptable. Push yourself to think of others.

Perhaps they didn't mistrust you, but didn't consider you at all in trying to solve their problem. Perhaps they are indifferent toward you. Add that hypothesis to your list. That's two; can you think of another?

Identify at least three hypotheses. In my experience, the third option is often hard, but once I think of that one, then more options come into view in rapid succession. It's like breaking through a wall when you get past a binary point of view. It's OK if you don't yet have data to support an otherwise reasonable hypothesis. That comes next.

Of course, it's really helpful here to have some help. If you've got some other points of view and can avoid groupthink, you can get around the limitations of your own mindset. The first two hypotheses share the mindset that their action is against you. This mindset is reasonable based on the evidence that their action made you feel bad.

Maybe, though, they weren't even aware that they might make you feel bad. What if they didn't call you for help because they didn't want to be a burden to you? That's a third option--write it down. Or maybe there was somebody already close to hand who could help them. Add option number four to your list. You can see how finding that third option can break some assumption in the first two, and allow for options in many other directions.

Collect Information

Collect information to inform ALL of your hypotheses, not just your favorite or most likely one. Don't judge the hypothesis while collecting the data. It's too easy to fixate on a mind-set that colors both the analysis of the data and what data you collect. If you do form an impression about a hypothesis, think of what data would change that impression and try to collect that. For all hypotheses, try to find data that might disprove it.

Evaluate Hypotheses

Try to develop arguments against each hypothesis. Confirmation is too easily colored by preconceptions and strengthens your biases. Note your assumptions as you develop arguments. Consider alternative assumptions and see if those trigger some alternative arguments, or even alternative hypotheses.

Remember that people in different situations, or from different cultures will think differently about things than you do. Imagine the actors in each hypothesis is different from you. You may find an empathy map² helpful for getting outside your own head. Ask yourself these questions: "What do they see and hear?" "What are they thinking or saying?" "How do they feel, and what do they do?"

Try to guard against other cognitive biases as you try to disprove each hypothesis. Sort your hypotheses with the ones with the least evidence against them at the top. Try harder to disprove these, and sort again.

Monitor How Things Evolve

Even after you make a decision, you are rarely done. You may want to revisit that decision. The situation may change. New information may come to light.

Hang onto all the information, assumptions, and hypotheses you've uncovered. Especially hang onto all the questions you've found. Often the questions prove more valuable in the long run than their answers.

This sort of analysis is hard work, especially if you're trying to be thorough about a high-consequence problem. If it's not so important, you may want to be less thorough, but still follow the same process. These steps get easier as you practice them. They become habits of mind, and start suggesting themselves to you.

P.S. Please help me out.

I would very much like to hear what you thought of this issue. It's a bit longer than usual, but I didn't know how to make it shorter without leaving out something important. I would love it if you would reply and let me know what you thought of it. Does it seem like old news to you, or was there something you learned, or at least want to consider, for the future? Or is there something with which you disagree?

And if you'd like to talk further about this topic, you could schedule a Zoom Session with me to talk about it.

Schedule Zoom Session

Or you can also simply reply to this email or send an email to newsletter@idiacomputing.com to continue the conversation. There's a person, not a bot, on this end. I'd really love to hear from you.