Heuristics are literally an evolutionary mechanism, the same reason we don’t stop and observe every blade of grass. If we did we’d be easy prey, and extinct. As would other species capable of the same contemplation.
They’re also very seldom so weighted. 99.9% confidence in anything is so uncommon that it’s not even a marketable confidence. How many nines? Not this many.
And many of the examples in the article are clearly strawman arguments where the exemplary person would never express the same level of confidence. Or if they would, they’d expose themselves as incompetent or a fraud.
I feel like I’ve spent more time and mental energy on this than it deserves, but to round it out: heuristics are intended to be hypotheses, and intended to be tested. They’re not rules. The only reason anyone would treat them as rules is if they’re 99.9% confident. If anything is that sure, you’re either dealing with business that cares about that probability margin or you’re gambling against yourself.
They’re also very seldom so weighted. 99.9% confidence in anything is so uncommon that it’s not even a marketable confidence. How many nines? Not this many.
And many of the examples in the article are clearly strawman arguments where the exemplary person would never express the same level of confidence. Or if they would, they’d expose themselves as incompetent or a fraud.
I feel like I’ve spent more time and mental energy on this than it deserves, but to round it out: heuristics are intended to be hypotheses, and intended to be tested. They’re not rules. The only reason anyone would treat them as rules is if they’re 99.9% confident. If anything is that sure, you’re either dealing with business that cares about that probability margin or you’re gambling against yourself.