{"id":12254,"date":"2011-10-05T21:06:09","date_gmt":"2011-10-06T01:06:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/?post_type=voices&p=12254"},"modified":"2011-10-05T21:06:09","modified_gmt":"2011-10-06T01:06:09","slug":"does-intuition-lead-to-bad-medical-decisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/2011\/10\/05\/does-intuition-lead-to-bad-medical-decisions\/","title":{"rendered":"Does Intuition Lead to Bad Medical Decisions?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Discussing how medical practitioners use intuition and cognitive shortcuts (heuristics<\/a>) to make decisions can elicit strong reactions. Some people heartily agree that reflecting on their use is informative and helpful; others believe that to entertain this topic is to condone sloppy thinking and to renounce rationality and hard science. These critics are concerned that heuristic shortcuts are quick and dirty, favoring speed over accuracy. But research in cognitive psychology suggests otherwise.<\/p>\n

Take, for example, a study in which Dawes and Corrigan compared the accuracy of the tallying heuristic (discussed in my previous post<\/a>) with that of statistical linear regression. The investigators\u2019 conclusion: For most practical decisions, a sum of unweighted variables beats models that use regression equations (Psychological Bulletin<\/em> 1974; 81:95<\/a>). Specifically, they found that linear regression can \u201cover-fit\u201d the data, resulting in perfect explanations of the past but imperfect predictions of the future. So, simply tallying in our heads is often better than making complicated calculations. As Dawes and Corrigan wrote, \u201cThe whole trick is to decide what variables to look at and then to know how to add.\u201d<\/p>\n

Herbert Simon coined the term \u201csatisficing<\/a>\u201d to describe how we modify our decision making for speed and simplicity. Rather than performing exhaustive searches for the best answer to a problem, we stop when we reach a sufficiently adequate solution. A medical example of this heuristic is a mental process called early-hypothesis generation. We know from the work of Arthur Elstein<\/a> that expert physicians generate 3 to 5 hypotheses very early in the evaluation of a complicated patient. They learn through experience that early-hypothesis generation improves the speed and accuracy of such an evaluation: It leads to targeted questioning and testing that reduces the random effects of a broader \u201cshotgun\u201d approach.<\/p>\n

Other critics of intuitive reasoning say that we should rely only on deductive reasoning and evidence-based medicine \u2014 that we should simply follow the scientific rules. Unfortunately, that is usually not possible. Tricoci and colleagues recently examined the 16 current ACC\/AHA guidelines and found that only 275 (10%) of the 2711 recommendations have the level of evidence (Ia or IIIa) that would enable the use of deductive logic (JAMA<\/em> 2009; 301:831<\/a>); another 26% are just instructions based on expert opinion (Ic or IIIc); the remaining 64% (the rest of the level designations) require judgment and reasoning. Furthermore, guideline recommendations pertain to only a fraction of medical practitioners\u2019 daily decisions. In general, psychologists estimate that 9 out of 10 decisions are made with intuition \u2014 a figure consistent with the data in Tricoci et al.\u2019s analysis of cardiology guidelines.<\/p>\n

Whether heuristics are helpful or flawed has been a subject of hot debate in the psychology literature for the past several decades. Just like more \u201crational\u201d modes of thinking, heuristics have their advantages and limitations (see my previous post<\/a> for a discussion of the work of Gerd Gigerenzer<\/a> and of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, respectively). The bottom line: Heuristics are here to stay because they help us effectively manage the uncertainty that is inescapable in medical practice.<\/p>\n

I doubt that \u201crational\u201d analytical methods and computers will someday replace our use of intuition and heuristics. After all, there is still no computer program that can reliably pick stocks or predict economic downturns. Computers remember things better than we do and can aid in decision making, but overall they don\u2019t reason any better than the human mind. Practicing medicine involves science and<\/em> common sense. To improve our thinking, we need a common understanding of how we use common sense. We must continue to advance science, but we also need to give greater attention to how we use medical reasoning to apply the science in daily practice.<\/p>\n

Where do you stand on the question of how we do \u2014 and how we should \u2014 make decisions in our daily practice?<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Discussing how medical practitioners use intuition and cognitive shortcuts (heuristics) to make decisions can elicit strong reactions. Some people heartily agree that reflecting on their use is informative and helpful; others believe that to entertain this topic is to condone sloppy thinking and to renounce rationality and hard science. These critics are concerned that heuristic […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":379,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[949,950],"class_list":["post-12254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-decision-making","tag-heuristics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12254","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/379"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12254"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12254\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}