How We Decide (35 page)

Consider the cautionary tale of a crowded Boeing 747 traveling from Miami to London in May 2000. The runway at Heathrow was shrouded in dense fog, so the pilots decided to make an automated landing, or what's known as a category IIIc approach. During the initial descent, all three autopilot systems were turned on. However, when the plane reached an altitude of a thousand feet, the lead autopilot system suddenly shut down for no apparent reason. The pilots decided to continue with the approach, since the 747 is designed to be able to make automated landings with only two autopilot systems. The descent went smoothly until the plane was fifty feet above the runway, or about four seconds from touchdown. At that point, the autopilot abruptly tilted the nose of the plane downward, so that its rate of descent was four times faster than normal. (Investigators would later blame a programming error for the mistake.) The pilot quickly intervened and yanked back on the control column so that the plane wouldn't hit the runway nose first. The landing was still rough—the plane suffered some minor structural damage—but the quick reactions of the flight crew prevented a catastrophe.

Events like this are disturbingly common. Even redundant autopilot systems will make mistakes. They'll disengage or freeze or steer the plane in dangerous ways. Unless a pilot is there to correct the error, to turn off the computer and pull up the nose, the plane will fly itself into the ground.

Of course, pilots aren't perfect either. They sometimes fail to notice when they're getting too close to another plane, or they struggle to monitor all the different gauges in the cockpit. In fact, if pilots had to rely on their own instincts, they wouldn't even be able to fly through clouds. (The inner ear can't detect blind turns, which means that it's very tough to fly straight without proper instruments or visual cues.) Then there are the pilots that micromanage the flight—constantly overruling the autopilot or fiddling with the path of the plane. They dramatically increase the likelihood of human error, acting like people who rely too heavily on their prefrontal cortices.

When the onboard computers and pilot properly interact, it's an ideal model for decision-making. The rational brain (the pilot) and the emotional brain (the cockpit computers) exist in perfect equilibrium, each system focusing on those areas in which it has a comparative advantage. The reason planes are so safe, even though both the pilot and the autopilot are fallible, is that both systems are constantly working to correct each other. Mistakes are fixed before they spiral out of control.

The payoff has been huge. "Aviation is just about the only field that consistently manages to operate at the highest level of performance, which is defined by six sigma," Roberts says, using the managerial buzzword for any process that produces fewer than 3.4 defects per one million opportunities. "Catastrophic error in planes is incredibly, incredibly rare. If it wasn't, nobody would ever get on board. The fact of the matter is that the aviation industry needs to be perfect, and so we found ways to be as close to perfect as humanly possible."

The safety of flight is a testament to the possibility of improvement. The reduction in the pilot-error rate is a powerful reminder that mistakes are not inevitable, that planes don't have to crash. As the modern cockpit demonstrates, a few simple innovations and a little self-awareness can dramatically improve the way people think, so that both brain systems are used in their ideal context. The aviation industry took decision-making seriously—they made a science of pilot error—and the result has been a stunning advance in performance.

The first step to making better decisions is to see ourselves as we really are, to look inside the black box of the human brain. We need to honestly assess our flaws and talents, our strengths and shortcomings. For the first time, such a vision is possible. We finally have tools that can pierce the mystery of the mind, revealing the intricate machinery that shapes our behavior. Now we need to put this knowledge to work.

Acknowledgments

Notes

Bibliography

I decided to write a book about decision-making because I couldn't make a decision about Cheerios. There I was, aimlessly wandering the cereal aisle of the supermarket, trying to choose between the Apple Cinnamon and Honey Nut varieties. It was an embarrassing waste of an afternoon, and yet it happened to me
all the time.
Eventually, I decided that enough was enough: I was going to understand what was happening inside my brain as I contemplated my breakfast options. So thank you, General Mills, for making so many different kinds of Cheerios.

There is, of course, a lot of work that has to be done before the sudden epiphany ("I should write a book about decisions!") actually becomes a book. Once again, Amanda Cook, my editor at Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, was a godsend. She took a messy, convoluted, unstructured manuscript and managed to find the thread that brought it all together. She suggested stories, fixed my prose, and talked me through my confusion. She is the kind of editor—thoughtful, whip-smart, and generous—that every writer dreams about. I am so fortunate to have her on my side.

I also benefited from the extremely helpful comments and suggestions of many friends. Robert Krulwich, as always, taught me how to tell a story; the team at Radio Lab, including Jad Abumrad, Lulu Miller, and Soren Wheeler, helped me figure out which stories were worth telling. Gareth Cook edited bits and pieces of this book for the
Boston Globe
Ideas section, while Laura McNeil and Adam Bly allowed me to explore the field of neuroscience in
Seed
magazine. David Pook taught me about moral philosophy, while Ted Trimmer made sure I got my aviation facts right.

I'm also incredibly grateful to all of the scientists who took the time to talk with a curious writer. I asked them all sorts of naïve questions and mispronounced any number of brain regions, and yet, without exception, they've been understanding, patient, and helpful. The mistakes that remain are my own fault. And then there are the people, like Ann Klinestiver, Al Haynes, Herb Stein, Ralph Jimenez, Felice Belman, Mike Pride, and Michael Binger, who let me share their personal stories in these pages. It's been an honor.

I probably wouldn't be a writer if my wonderful agent, Emma Parry, hadn't spotted an article I wrote years ago for
Seed
and convinced me that it could become an improbable book called
Proust Was a Neuroscientist.
She's a consummate problem-solver and endless source of good ideas. I'm so grateful to her and everyone at Fletcher and Parry, especially Christy Fletcher and Melissa Chinchillo. Nick Davies, my editor at Canongate Books, has been a joy to work with. He also managed to teach me the rules of cricket, for which he deserves some sort of very prestigious award. Tracy Roe, the world's finest copyeditor, has saved me yet again from an embarrassing number of errors and flabby sentences.

And then there is my family: my sister Rachel is not only a fantastic modern dancer, she also gave me great advice on the manuscript; my brother, Eli, helped me think about the real-world implications of these scientific theories (and kept me well supplied with music mixes). I even benefited from the red pen of my grandmother Louise. My father was a patient listener and a fount of relevant factoids and articles, e-mailed to me daily. My mother was an essential reader; I don't know where she finds the time to read my first drafts, but I can't imagine writing without her feedback.

My girlfriend, Sarah Liebowitz, has read this book dozens of times (I'm not exaggerating) in all of its various drafts and guises. This book wouldn't exist without her insightful criticisms, cheerful support, and love. By the time you read this, Sarah will be my wife, which is, without a doubt, the best decision I've ever made.

I
NTRODUCTION

[>]
"
We never want pilots":
Jeff Roberts, telephone interview with the author, July 12, 2007.

1. T
HE
Q
UARTERBACK IN THE
P
OCKET

[>]
 "
It was a ten-second":
Pierce,
Moving the Chains,
11.
"Our vision wasn't":
Ibid., 92.

[>]
 
Vince Young, the star quarterback:
Dougherty and Wyatt, "Will Wonderlic Cause."

[>]
 "
I don't know":
Tom Brady, New England Patriots press conference, September 11, 2006.

[>]
 "
He is of an":
Plato,
Phaedrus,
44.

[>]
 "
If the better":
Ibid.
"I am dragged along":
Ovid,
Metamorphoses,
book VII, 249.

[>]
 "
American experiment would":
Jefferson,
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,
8:124.
"One might compare":
Freud,
New Introductory Lectures,
245.

[>]
 "
The events of":
Freud,
Civilization and Its Discontents,
14.

[>]
 "
Cognitive psychologists subscribed":
Marvin Minsky, telephone interview with the author, April 27, 2007.

14
"Elliot emerged as":
Damasio,
Descartes' Error,
43.
"He was always":
Ibid., 44.

[>]
"I suggested two":
Ibid., 193.

[>]
"Many of these":
Herb Stein, telephone interview with the author, October 15, 2007.

[>]
 
But people can't:
Gordon, ed.,
Your Brain on Cubs,
chapter 3.
For instance, a study:
Muller et al., "World-Class Cricket Batsmen," 2162–86.

[>]
 
"The facts of":
James,
Principles of Psychology,
389.

2. T
HE
P
REDICTIONS OF
D
OPAMUNE

[>]
"It was ours":
Klein,
Sources of Power,
36–38; Finlan,
The Royal Navy,
147–147.

[>]
In 1954:
Olds and Milner, "Positive Reinforcement," 419–419.

[>]
 
The monkey felt:
Schultz et al., "Predictive Reward Signal"; Hollerman and Schultz, "Dopamine Neurons."

[>]
 
This fast cellular:
P. Gaspar et al., "Catecholamine Innervation."

[>]
 
Researchers at Oxford:
Kennerley, "Optimal Decision-Making."
If the monkey:
Hayden and Platt, "Fool Me Once."

[>]
 
Because they have:
Klein et al., "Genetically Determined Differences."

[>]
 
"You're probably":
Zweig,
Your Money and Your Brain,
69.
Instead, human emotions:
Cohen et al., "Reinforcement Learning."

[>]
 
The roots of schizophrenia:
Juckel et al., "Dysfunction of Ventral Striatal"; Dolan et al., "Dopaminergic Modulation."
Most antipsychotic medications:
Adams and Moghaddam, "Corticolimbic Dopamine Neurotransmission."

[>]
 
Tesauro set out:
Montague,
Why Choose This Book?,
93–100.

[>]
 
"Anytime you've got":
Read Montague, interview with the author, May 7, 2007.

[>]
 
They use their:
Ito, "Performance Monitoring."

[>]
 
The subject's feelings figured:
Bechara et al., "Deciding Advantageously."
By playing the:
Oya et al., "Electrophysiological Correlates."

[>]
 
The investments that:
Betsch et al., "Different Principles."

[>]
 
"He wanted the":
Bill Robertie, telephone interview with the author, October 10, 2007.

[>]
 
"a person who":
Mackay,
A Dictionary of Scientific Quotations,
35.

[>]
 
The other students:
Cimpian et al., "Subtle Linguistic Cues"; Bronson, "How Not to Talk"; Mangels et al., "Why Do Beliefs."

3. F
OOLED BY A
F
EELING

[>]
 
"I lost control":
Ann Klinestiver, telephone interview with the author, July 10, 2007.

[>]
 
"You can feel":
Ibid., July 21, 2007.

[>]
 
Since slot machines:
Cooper, "Sit and Spin."

[>]
 
According to Wolfram:
Wolfram Schultz, telephone interview with the author, August 14, 2007.

[>]
There was absolutely:
Gilovich, Vallone, and Tversky, "The Hot Hand."

[>]
 
"We made it":
Mlodinow,
Drunkard's Walk,
175.
"So he makes":
Gilovich,
How We Know,
17.

[>]
 
Fama looked at:
Fama, "Random Walks."
One of Montague's:
Lohrenz et al., "Neural Signature."

[>]
The investor who does:
Zweig,
Your Money and Your Brain,
226.

[>]
Take Nondumiso Sainsbury: Deal or No Deal,
NBC, air date September 18, 2006.

[>]
An exhaustive analysis:
Post et al., "Deal or No Deal?"

[>]
 
This mental defect:
Kahneman and Tversky, "Prospect Theory."

[>]
 
"confused about the":
T. MaCurdy and J. Shoven, "Accumulating Pension Wealth with Stocks and Bonds," working paper, Stanford University, cited in Benartzi and Thaler, "Myopic Loss Aversion."

[>]
 
Markowitz was so:
Zweig,
Your Money and Your Brain,
4.
Loss aversion also:
Odean, "Are Investors Reluctant."

[>]
 
Consider this experiment:
Shiv et al., "Investment Behavior."

[>]
"Every day, I see":
Herman Palmer, telephone interview with the author, October 19, 2007, and personal interview with the author, Bronx, NY, January 11, 2008.