Decision Theory Made Relevant: Between the Software and the Shrink

I. Gilboa, Maria Rouziou, O. Sibony
{"title":"Decision Theory Made Relevant: Between the Software and the Shrink","authors":"I. Gilboa, Maria Rouziou, O. Sibony","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3178715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Decision theory offers a formal approach to decision making, which is often viewed and taught as the rational way to approach managerial decisions. Half a century ago it generated high hopes of capturing and perhaps replacing intuition, and providing the “right” answer in practically all managerial situations. Today it seems fair to say that decision theory has not lived up to these expectations. Behavioral science provides ample evidence that managers fail to follow the dicta of decision theory, even when these are explained to them. As a result, executives often find decision theory frustrating and useless and prefer to rely on their intuition. This paper suggests that this extreme conclusion is unwarranted and calls for a re-appraisal of decision theory. We propose that it should not always be regarded as a mathematical tool that produces the answer; rather, it can be viewed as a framework for a dialog between the decision maker and the decision theorist. In one extreme, the decision theorist studies the problem and provides the “correct’’ answer. But in another, the decision theorist only challenges the decision maker’s intuition and logic. In between, a whole gamut of possible dialogs exists, in which decision theory doesn’t replace intuition, but supports and refines it.","PeriodicalId":234020,"journal":{"name":"HEC Paris: Economics & Decision Sciences (Topic)","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HEC Paris: Economics & Decision Sciences (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3178715","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Decision theory offers a formal approach to decision making, which is often viewed and taught as the rational way to approach managerial decisions. Half a century ago it generated high hopes of capturing and perhaps replacing intuition, and providing the “right” answer in practically all managerial situations. Today it seems fair to say that decision theory has not lived up to these expectations. Behavioral science provides ample evidence that managers fail to follow the dicta of decision theory, even when these are explained to them. As a result, executives often find decision theory frustrating and useless and prefer to rely on their intuition. This paper suggests that this extreme conclusion is unwarranted and calls for a re-appraisal of decision theory. We propose that it should not always be regarded as a mathematical tool that produces the answer; rather, it can be viewed as a framework for a dialog between the decision maker and the decision theorist. In one extreme, the decision theorist studies the problem and provides the “correct’’ answer. But in another, the decision theorist only challenges the decision maker’s intuition and logic. In between, a whole gamut of possible dialogs exists, in which decision theory doesn’t replace intuition, but supports and refines it.
决策理论的相关性:在软件和收缩之间
决策理论为决策提供了一种正式的方法,它通常被视为和教授为接近管理决策的理性方法。半个世纪前,人们对它寄予厚望,希望它能捕捉甚至取代直觉,并在几乎所有管理情况下提供“正确”的答案。今天,可以说决策理论并没有达到这些期望。行为科学提供了充分的证据,证明管理者不能遵循决策理论的指令,即使向他们解释了这些指令。因此,高管们经常发现决策理论令人沮丧,毫无用处,他们更倾向于依靠自己的直觉。本文认为,这种极端的结论是没有根据的,并呼吁重新评估决策理论。我们建议,它不应该总是被视为一种产生答案的数学工具;相反,它可以被视为决策者和决策理论家之间对话的框架。在一个极端,决策理论家研究问题并提供“正确”的答案。但在另一种情况下,决策理论家只是挑战决策者的直觉和逻辑。在这两者之间,存在着一系列可能的对话,在这些对话中,决策理论并没有取代直觉,而是支持和完善直觉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信