Daniel Kahneman, O. Sibony & C.R. Sunstein
The New York Times
Originally posted 15 May 21
Here is an excerpt:
There is much evidence that irrelevant circumstances can affect judgments. In the case of criminal sentencing, for instance, a judge’s mood, fatigue and even the weather can all have modest but detectable effects on judicial decisions.
Another source of noise is that people can have different general tendencies. Judges often vary in the severity of the sentences they mete out: There are “hanging” judges and lenient ones.
A third source of noise is less intuitive, although it is usually the largest: People can have not only different general tendencies (say, whether they are harsh or lenient) but also different patterns of assessment (say, which types of cases they believe merit being harsh or lenient about).
Underwriters differ in their views of what is risky, and doctors in their views of which ailments require treatment.
We celebrate the uniqueness of individuals, but we tend to forget that, when we expect consistency, uniqueness becomes a liability.
Once you become aware of noise, you can look for ways to reduce it. For instance, independent judgments from a number of people can be averaged (a frequent practice in forecasting).
Guidelines, such as those often used in medicine, can help professionals reach better and more uniform decisions.
As studies of hiring practices have consistently shown, imposing structure and discipline in interviews and other forms of assessment tends to improve judgments of job candidates.
No noise-reduction techniques will be deployed, however, if we do not first recognize the existence of noise.
Noise is too often neglected. But it is a serious issue that results in frequent error and rampant injustice.
Organizations and institutions, public and private, will make better decisions if they take noise seriously.