Assumptions and heuristics

Here’s a fancy word that seems to be getting traction these days: “heuristics.”

I’ve been spotting it more and more in the wild recently. I’m prone to use it myself on occasion.

Here’s how Nassim Taleb defines the term: “Heuristics are simplified rules of thumb that make things simple and easy to implement.” He notes, “Their main advantage is that the user knows that they are not perfect, just expedient.”

Nature has wired us with an array of heuristics. We assume, for example, that if something tastes sweet it’s good to eat, but if something smells foul we shouldn’t eat it. Are these rules always correct? No. But they’ve been good enough, often enough, to keep us in the gene pool when a snap decision was called for.

For another example, we can contemplate a heuristic for seeing a snake in our path. The snake might be dangerous, or it might not be dangerous, but, unless you’re a snake expert, it’s probably best to assume the worst and avoid the critter.

One heuristic that I observe is that if a restaurant seems a little grimy when I walk in, then I just unobtrusively walk out again. I’ve had friends point out that a grimy first appearance doesn’t necessarily mean that the kitchen is dirty or that the food is unsafe. That’s true. It has also been pointed out that a place that seems spotless to a customer might actually be a hygienic disaster behind the scenes. That’s also true. But none of this shakes me from my heuristic, which makes quick use of the evidence that I can readily observe and which biases me towards a risk-averse path.

Earlier this week I caught the term “heuristic” in a magazine article. The article was about some shady practices in packaging. Apparently, some companies are putting smaller amounts of product into packages that look like they hold a lot more than they actually do. An expert was quoted on the subject, and referred to the consumer heuristic of assuming (often erroneously, as it turns out) that the bigger a package is, the more product it will contain.

Of course, this example isn’t the only one where our mental wiring can fall short. This wiring can fail miserably in this age of sophisticated machinery and complicated financial structures. I didn’t used to give this much thought, but it eventually occurred to me that, despite the complexities of the modern world, we still largely operate on reflexive assumptions. At this point we might be outside the strict confines of heuristics, but the fact remains that life is an invisible spider’s web of mental short cuts.

And on that note, one of the most insidious ambiguities in the English language is how the term “thought” often refers not to a cognitive process, but, instead, to a state of believing or feeling.

This has implications for management, especially in safety-sensitive industries. For example, in the wake of an accident, phrases like “I thought the tire was properly inflated,” or “I thought we had enough fuel on board the aircraft,” are commonly heard. This often means there wasn’t any actual thinking at all, but that somebody just took the assumption that matched the path of least resistance. I’ve seen this approach create fatal results in Saipan and elsewhere.

In management, then, keeping a vigil for potentially reckless “assumptions” is just part of the job. The higher the stakes are, the keener the vigil has to be.

On the positive side of the ledger, ancient sages have suggested heuristics that can make our lives better and more harmonious. For example, one rule of thumb, common to several old traditions, is to refrain from saying things intended to antagonize other people. As sensible as this may sound, it often runs contrary to the more raw texture of human nature. So I’d submit this as an example of a heuristic that has to be deliberately cultivated if it’s to override a contrary, and more primal, impulse.

Overall, I think the term “heuristic” has value because it’s a reminder that conceptual short-cuts are just part of the human design, both in ourselves and in others.