In previous articles we have talked about expertise and decision making, novelty and preferences. What happens when we know longer experience novelty and lose touch with our preferences? What happens when expertise starts to diminish the quality of decision making?
To answer these questions, it is useful to examine two things. Firstly, how experts make decisions, and secondly, the role the left and right hemispheres of the brain play in this process. To examine the first point, we’ll return to the work of Klein et al (1989) and natural decision making.
Klein et al (1989) sought to research how elite firefighters made decisions in natural environments, in other words, how the firefighters made decisions while putting out fires. This contrasted with much of the decision-making research at the time which took place in labs under controlled conditions (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979 for example).
Klein and his colleagues found that firefighters did not know how they made decisions. Investigation revealed that the firefighters drew from their experience intuitively. This was achieved by recognizing the type of situation, mentally customizing a plan of action, considering what could go wrong, adapting and implementing. During the implementation stage the process was continually repeated (Klein, 2015).
Putting this within the context of left and right brain hemisphere research (McGilchrist, 2019), the right brain experiences novelty. When a novice starts out, they experience a lot of novelty. This utilizes a related form of right-side function, alertness, and vigilance. The novice is alert and notices a great deal. As they become more experienced, they know how to attend to what they notice to produce preferred outcomes. At this stage, what once was novel begins to move to the left hemisphere.
To put it very roughly, the left hemisphere of the brain has a concern for manipulation-how things can be used in service to the self. The landscape the novice experienced now becomes more familiar, certain features of this landscape become things which can be used and manipulated. This is the left hemisphere. Noticing things which can be used as tools and manipulated is no bad thing and brings enormous benefits (McGilchrist, 2019). This the ability to attend to a fire, notice what is relevant, and act upon this relevance to put out a fire.
Problems occur when an expert ceases to experience or at least entertain, novelty. Without an active open mind, which would attend to every situation as having or potentially having a degree novelty, there would be a corresponding fall in vigilance and noticing (drawn from McGilchrist, 2018). This would present as believing every situation was familiar and knowable, and contained no potential mystery.
The outcome would be a failure to notice subtle change and result in an unwanted outcome (Klein, 2015, Kahneman and Klein, 2009). In the firefighter example, this would present as believing a fire with unique features was familiar, explaining away contradictions, and forcing through an inappropriate strategy.
From the brain hemisphere perspective, the following (very crudely put) has occurred. The right hemisphere experienced the new situation as novelty, vigilant and noticing. As the situation become more familiar, the situation began to afford relevant features which could be used and manipulated to manage an effective outcome. The left brain now plays a bigger role, as the environment has features which can used in service to the self. However, if this knowledge is not returned to the right hemisphere, then it can quickly become an answer- I know this and I know what to do. Obviously, this can work well, but without an active open mindedness the situation will be attended to with a close mind and the ability to notice subtle differences lost. An unwanted outcome has occurred. The right and left hemisphere must continually work together.
If the knowledge of the left hemisphere is not returned to the right, then manipulation remains dominant. This would lead situations to be experienced as-what can I get out of this situation? as opposed to- what can I learn from this situation, how could I update my knowledge and skills?
It is always wise to attend to situations that have a degree of instability (for example, any situation which involves human beings) with a degree of novelty. This can be achieved by asking yourself questions such as- What else could this mean? How could I be wrong? What is another way I could look at this?
Reading
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrics 47, 263–291. doi: 10.2307/1914185
Klein, G. (2015). A naturalistic decision making perspective on intuitive decision making. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 164-168.
D. Kahneman, G. Klein (2009) Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64, pp. 515-526
McGilchrist, I. (2018). Ways of attending: How our divided brain constructs the world. Oxon, UK: Routledge
McGilchrist, I. (2019) The Master and his Emissary. The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. Yale University Press; Expanded Edition.
