‘BS’ Doesn’t Necessarily Indicate A ‘Bachelor Of Science’
In this study, car buyers who relied on analysis of the available information only were ultimately happy with their purchases about a quarter of the time. Meanwhile, those who made intuitive purchases were happy 60 percent of the time.
Yes, that’ll be because the latter group made an emotional, not a cognitive, decision—so, in the absence of any overwhelmingly obvious defects or problems with the vehicle, they will tend to continue to feel so because neurotransmitters/hormones/confirmation bias.
That’s because relying on smaller samples of data, called thin-slicing, allows our brains to make good decisions even in the absence of lots of information.
I’m going to have to look into this in more detail—it’s not something I‘ve investigated before and I‘m perfectly prepared for there to be an “oh, wow, I‘d never have imagined” moment lying in store for me.
But, at first glance at least ¹, there’s something off about the tone of that Wikipedia article.
For a start “Thin-slicing is a term used in psychology and philosophy to describe the ability to find patterns in events based only on "thin slices", or narrow windows, of experience” immediately makes me think of the phenomenon of Apophenia.
Secondly, the implication in the Better Humans article appears to be that Thin-slicing invariably leads to good decisions, whereas the Wikipedia article merely states that it can do so.
Well, tossing a coin can lead to a good decision.
Okay, so, apparently “Judgments based on thin-slicing can be as accurate, or even more accurate, than judgments based on much more information.”
Really?
Citation?
It further appears that “Many studies have shown that brief observations can be used to assess outcomes at levels higher than expected by chance.”
Perhaps so but then I expect to see reference made to more than one, single Ambady and Rosenthal experiment in 1993.
Then there’s the whole issue of whether, or not, the data was gathered from people who were specifically requested to consciously assess others and report their thinking, or whether they were given some other overt task and then (seemingly as an aside) asked for their first impressions of people … whether there was a cross comparison of the two types of assessment (conscious vs subconscious) … whether there were intra-cohort assessment made (of whether, even though the second type of experiment did not expressly invite it, some were more inclined to consciously assess others because they have an inclination to do so at all times, regardless of the situation) …
… experimental design is everything.
I dunno … it’s not that I‘m antithetical to the whole intuition/gut-feeling thing.
On the contrary … even leaving aside the ‘gut as a second brain’ concept ³ … the general principle that our subconscious mind is perfectly rational doesn’t require us to have more than one brain and I’m more than happy to ascribe it the power to make valid assessments … quicker even than our conscious mind on some occasions … just not under all conditions ⁴.
There’s just something a bit … I don’t know … ‘over-enthusiastic undergraduate’ (or early stages MSc./Ph.D.) about the tone of it—far too much reliance on far too small a pool of research.
And there appears to be some not altogether insignificant cognitive dissonance throughout it …
Take a look at the section on interpersonal relationships, for instance: it transpires that the more time we have in which to assess someone, the greater the accuracy of our assessments … and the later the stage in that process at which our opinion is asked of someone, the more accurate a reflection it is of the person we are assessing.
I mean … it’s almost as if Thin-slicing weren’t really terribly accurate when compared to longer-term deductive analysis, based upon more data, gathered over a longer time-frame, allowing for considered, conscious evaluation rather than subconsciously inducted first impressions, based upon a five-second glance at someone’s sartorial efforts.
Or how about the speed dating stuff?
“Female speed daters noted male negative characteristics rather quickly, and were generally more critical. This could mean that males were more open-minded or at least slower to identify the negative characteristics, meaning that they were less reactive in comparison to females when doing thin slicing.”
Except that, in such contexts, negative/positive characteristics are a matter of opinion rather than of fact as such … so, the inference that Thin-slicing even leads to accurate, let alone ‘good’, decisions is more than a little suspect, I‘d say.
But maybe I’m being a bit too pedantic in insisting that the conclusions drawn follow from the argument put forward rather than being the kind of bolted-on non sequitur that follows someone collating bits of articles without reading them and then suggesting that the barely related sequence of material settles the matter in favour of some conclusion or other.
Or the Social Media Profiles section?
Kristin Stecher and Scott Counts investigated this domain of thin-slicing to determine exactly how much information was needed on the online profiles for viewers to form an accurate impression of the individual and which profile fields contribute most to the ability to form that impression.
Really?
And on what basis was it determined that the assessment … that the profile was indicative of a kitten-drowning serial-rapist with ‘commitment issues’ and an unhealthy relationship with his mother … was in fact accurate?
Precisely that is.
Because, short of a clinical evaluation indicating an identifiable personality disorder of some type that can be attributed to the owners of the specific profiles, it’s all a bit “you right, girl” … “testify, sister!” … “she looks like a stuck up bitch to me.”
Isn’t it?
And the fact that
“while users can use thin slices of information gathered from these online profiles to form an impression of the subject, the impression is severely impacted by the type of attributes that are presented on the profile as well as the different ways they are processed based on user goals”
… well, you know, it’s a bit like a combination of my previous observation that Thin-slicing might not result in terribly accurate assessments after all … and that preconceived ideas aren’t necessarily supported by the ‘evidence’ gathered … with an added dose of the person doing the assessment having an agenda that they will twist the data to fit.
You know … a bit “if the person lies on their profile then my assessment of them may not be terribly accurate … especially not if their lies pander to my own prejudices … oh, and I’m really lonely right now … and horny …. and she looks cute … and she’s clearly a saint in waiting … you can tell from reading her profile” … kinda thing
But maybe I’m, just a cynic and don’t understand the ‘Millennial’ mindset.
The segment on sexual preferences …
Were the ‘queens’ in the photos and videos in full drag or was there some room for doubt? ⁵
And gay men and lesbians were “generally more accurate than heterosexuals in making judgments”, were they?
Do you mean to say that people with expert knowledge gained from lengthy field experience made more accurate assessments than people who’d no experience and no reason to have ever contemplated the issue in any meaningful way before?
But that’s implying that time equates to ability to judge … the complete opposite of the (hypo)thesis suggested at the start of the article.
Are you sure you want to include this section as supporting evidence for your argument?
As for the Explanations regarding thin-slicing accuracy …
Well, they haven’t actually done that so far, have they?
Not unless you didn’t read the whole article and just jumped to the conclusion without analysing the coherence of the argument and the alleged supporting data along the way that is.
The second explanation involves the role that stereotypes play in the initial stages of forming a judgment about someone. Preliminary opinions generated via thin-slicing are often influenced by the stereotypes a person holds, and these stereotypes often hold a certain, small amount of truth.
Says who?
Where’s the evidence?
For example, Berry and McArthur found that adults with baby faces are generally perceived to be more honest, naive and kind.
Yes … but are they in fact more honest, naive and kind?
Because, if they aren’t, then that’s not a supporting argument, is it?
There is also evidence that physical and biological differences are linked with differences in temperament. Shyer and more reserved adult men tend to have more lightly colored eyes and a leaner, more delicate build compared to men who are more social and dominant.
Not only do I doubt that there’s truly even a correlation here but … even if there is … correlation is not causation — assuming there to even be one in the first place, simply for the sake of argument, perhaps the fact that those with darker coloured eyes end up in more dominant positions results in those with lighter coloured eyes becoming shyer and reserved as a result … their lack of dominance being the cause of their subordinate demeanour, not the colour of their eyes.
FFS!
Seriously … the entire page needs some sort of label along the lines of “This page has some issues … specifically that it’s a load of bollox that would fail even a first year undergraduate term paper, never mind anything demanding a more substantial understanding of the scientific method.”
However, stereotypes may not always be as accurate as they seem because they can be propagated by a cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies in which our behavior is dictated by the expectations we hold of someone based on the stereotypes they fit to. This in turn causes the target individual to modify their own behavior to confirm those expectations and gives the illusion that the person's traits accurately fits the stereotype from the beginning. For example, physically attractive individuals may become more socially-skilled and confident simply because they internalize the beliefs held by others that they are more socially desirable and outgoing.
No shit, Sherlock!
The third explanation proposes that thin-slicing provides accurate judgments simply because they are snap judgments.[1] Being exposed to only a thin-slice of behavior eliminates the presence of distracting stimuli such as verbal interaction and doesn't allow the rater time to introspectively reason out why they judge an individual a certain way, which may cause them to overthink and change the judgments formed by their initial instincts. Thin-slicing allows raters to focus on expressive behavior and weeds out extraneous information that can cause judgments to stray away from the truth.
Conjecture … itself based upon the conjecture that Thin-slicing actually results in accurate assessment to begin with — which much of the article, itself, does its best to undermine.
And is it Thin-slicing or thin-slicing? Make your mind up!
None of these explanations are believed to universally encompass the true reason of why thin-slicing is successful. Instead, it is likely that they are not mutually exclusive and each influence thin-slicing accuracy to a certain degree.[1]
…. say Ambady, Nalini; Rosenthal, Robert … in their (March 1992) "Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis" article in Psychological Bulletin ⁶.
Again … <sigh>
How many times is this article going to reference the same study?
Apart from that though, I wonder if the reason why that is the case is that the conclusion that Thin-slicing/thin-slicing/whatever-(I’ve-given-up-caring-now) is accurate with a frequency that is anything like greater than chance is complete and utter bullshit.
Like I said … I’m going to have to investigate this more thoroughly — read the literature, follow up secondary research, examine replication studies and so forth … examine the credentials of the researchers … the usual.
But I smell bullshit.
It could be an unfortunate coincidence but, if these two articles are anything to go by at least, my first, thin-sliced, impression is probably right … it’s mere coincidence that it’s coincidence and it is all just bullshit — after all … that’s the point they make themselves, right?
—
¹ So, I’m probably right ².
² HA!
³ Which, again, is a bit too populist for my taste … a bit too tabloid headline “SCIENTISTS DISCOVER!” … and the truth will probably be something along the lines of it being a ‘sort of’ brain, functionally speaking, in the same way that the Central Nervous System could be seen as a ‘sort of’ brain insofar as it is capable of reaching certain ‘decisions’ (like “ouch, that’s hot, I think I’ll stop touching it now.”)
⁴ I know … I sound disconcertingly reasoned, reasonable, measured, level-headed, etc.—normal service will soon be resumed, however … fret not.
⁵ I only ask in case there was something about the material used that might have influenced people’s decisions and/or their accuracy—it’s useful to know these things, I find.
⁶ 111 (2): 256–274. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.256. … in case you missed it.
