7.2 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision-making | 6/6 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision-making | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T11:04:22.741043+00:00 | kb-cron |
The psychologist Daniel Kahneman, adopting terms originally proposed by the psychologists Keith Stanovich and Richard West, has theorized that a person's decision-making is the result of an interplay between two kinds of cognitive processes: an automatic intuitive system (called "System 1") and an effortful rational system (called "System 2"). System 1 is a bottom-up, fast, and implicit system of decision-making, while system 2 is a top-down, slow, and explicit system of decision-making. System 1 includes simple heuristics in judgment and decision-making such as the affect heuristic, the availability heuristic, the familiarity heuristic, and the representativeness heuristic.
=== Combinatorial vs. positional === Styles and methods of decision-making were elaborated by Aron Katsenelinboigen, the founder of predispositioning theory. In his analysis of styles and methods, Katsenelinboigen referred to the game of chess, saying that "chess does disclose various methods of operation, notably the creation of predisposition methods which may be applicable to other, more complex systems." Katsenelinboigen states that apart from the methods (reactive and selective) and sub-methods randomization, predispositions, programming), there are two major styles: positional and combinational. Both styles are utilized in the game of chess. The two styles reflect two basic approaches to uncertainty: deterministic (combinational style) and indeterministic (positional style). Katsenelinboigen's definition of the two styles is the following. The combinational style is characterized by:
a very narrow, clearly defined, primarily material goal; and a program that links the initial position with the outcome. In defining the combinational style in chess, Katsenelinboigen wrote: "The combinational style features a clearly formulated limited objective, namely the capture of material (the main constituent element of a chess position). The objective is implemented via a well-defined, and in some cases, unique sequence of moves aimed at reaching the set goal. As a rule, this sequence leaves no options for the opponent. Finding a combinational objective allows the player to focus all his energies on efficient execution, that is, the player's analysis may be limited to the pieces directly partaking in the combination. This approach is the crux of the combination and the combinational style of play. The positional style is distinguished by:
a positional goal; and a formation of semi-complete linkages between the initial step and final outcome. "Unlike the combinational player, the positional player is occupied, first and foremost, with the elaboration of the position that will allow him to develop in the unknown future. In playing the positional style, the player must evaluate relational and material parameters as independent variables. ... The positional style gives the player the opportunity to develop a position until it becomes pregnant with a combination. However, the combination is not the final goal of the positional player – it helps him to achieve the desirable, keeping in mind a predisposition for future development. The pyrrhic victory is the best example of one's inability to think positionally." The positional style serves to:
create a predisposition to the future development of the position; induce the environment in a certain way; absorb an unexpected outcome in one's favor; and avoid the negative aspects of unexpected outcomes.
=== Influence of Myers–Briggs type === According to Isabel Briggs Myers, a person's decision-making process depends to a significant degree on their cognitive style. Myers developed a set of four bi-polar dimensions, called the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The terminal points on these dimensions are: thinking and feeling; extroversion and introversion; judgment and perception; and sensing and intuition. She claimed that a person's decision-making style correlates well with how they score on these four dimensions. For example, someone who scored near the thinking, extroversion, sensing, and judgment ends of the dimensions would tend to have a logical, analytical, objective, critical, and empirical decision-making style. However, some psychologists say that the MBTI lacks reliability and validity and is poorly constructed. Other studies suggest that these national or cross-cultural differences in decision-making exist across entire societies. For example, Maris Martinsons has found that American, Japanese and Chinese business leaders each exhibit a distinctive national style of decision-making. The Myers–Briggs typology has been the subject of criticism regarding its poor psychometric properties.
=== General decision-making style (GDMS) === In the general decision-making style (GDMS) test developed by Suzanne Scott and Reginald Bruce, there are five decision-making styles: rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, and spontaneous. These five different decision-making styles change depending on the context and situation, and one style is not necessarily better than any other. In the examples below, the individual is working for a company and is offered a job from a different company.
The rational style is an in-depth search for, and a strong consideration of, other options and/or information prior to making a decision. In this style, the individual would research the new job being offered, review their current job, and look at the pros and cons of taking the new job versus staying with their current company. The intuitive style is confidence in one's initial feelings and gut reactions. In this style, if the individual initially prefers the new job because they have a feeling that the work environment is better suited for them, then they would decide to take the new job. The individual might not make this decision as soon as the job is offered. The dependent style is asking for other people's input and instructions on what decision should be made. In this style, the individual could ask friends, family, coworkers, etc., but the individual might not ask all of these people. The avoidant style is averting the responsibility of making a decision. In this style, the individual would not make a decision. Therefore, the individual would stick with their current job. The spontaneous style is a need to make a decision as soon as possible rather than waiting to make a decision. In this style, the individual would either reject or accept the job as soon as it is offered.
== See also ==
== References ==
== Further reading == Fischhoff, Baruch (2025). Decisions: Studying and Supporting People Facing Hard Choices. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262384421. Kahneman, Daniel; Lovallo, Dan; Sibony, Olivier; Charan, Ram (2013). HBR's 10 Must Reads on Making Smart Decisions. Harvard Business Review Press. ISBN 978-1-4221-8989-4. Partnoy, Frank (2013). Wait: The Art and Science of Delay. PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-61039-247-1. Caranovic, Djuradj (2023). The Book That Changed Me. HBR. ISBN 979-8-3295-0125-4.
== External links ==
Quotations related to Decision-making at Wikiquote