Rationality
is a way of solving problems by logics and based on clear reasons. It basically
involves 3 steps: 1. Evaluate things with a single metric. 2. Compare possible
alternatives knowing their values and expectancies. 3. Choose the option with
the highest expected value. The highest expected value is resulted from the
outcome of expectancy timing value, which is called the expectancy-value theory
that pursues the best answer.
Making
a decision based on the best answer – sounds quite reasonable, right? However,
this is not what humans always do. Many of the times, we solve problem in a
non-rational way – we use heuristics. Rationality and logics always applicable
in a well-defined problem, not an ill-defined one with unclear goals or options.
For example, how to figure out whom you are going to marry? Is there a single
metric to evaluate every person around you, compare, and make the “best”
option? When you follow a specified sequence of steps in a rationality, you can
sooner or later reach the solution. But for Heuristics, it is kind of a “short
cut”. It does not guarantee the best answer, but it is quick and easy.
Here are
some of the weakness of Heuristics. One of them is the availability heuristics,
which means people intend to estimate a high likelihood if an event if it is
easily recalled. Another one is framing effects. For example, a packet of ground
beef with a tag of “75% lean” will make you think it is healthy. But the same thing
with a tag of “25% fat” may make you think it is unhealthy. These biases are
some examples illustrating why you cannot always get the correct answer using heuristics.
Architects,
city planners, and other designers treasure the moment when a great idea
suddenly hit the mind. This moment is supported by insight and creative thinking
rather than strict rationalities or logics. Urban planning is an
interdiscipline where many considerations and evaluations are required. There is
no specific sequence that we can follow. Sometimes there is an entry point by
which we start our ideas and concepts before we find out all the possibilities.
What we do is trying our best to make this alternative as good as possible (good
enough), not to choose the best from all the possibilities. Actually there are
unlimited possibilities, which human brain cannot figure out.
Ideas and
philosophies are generated by heuristics, but we can also use rationality as a supportive
tool. In planning process we also do analysis such as demographic analysis in
order to see whether the proposed land use and housing units would accommodate a
certain number of projected populations in the future. So as for rationalities
and heuristics, there is no such thing as which one outweighs which one. They have
their own operating context.
Since rationality
follows a certain evaluating metric and a certain sequence, it can be
programmed into a computer. Heuristics cannot be programmed because there is no
“correct” or “best” answer, and it is quite adaptable. Computers or artificial
intelligence can beat us in terms of speed, and they do better with “directed
attention” and “channel capacity”. But they can hardly achieve heuristics as
good as we do, which is based on human’s “internal representations” and “cognitive
maps” That’s why I think heuristics characterize human beings. It makes us
special and cannot be substituted by artificial intelligence.
References:
Gigerenzer,
G. (2008). Why Heuristics Work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1),
20-29. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00058.x
Kaplan,
S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Humanscape: Environments for people. Ann Arbor,
MI: Ulrich's Books. p. 121-141.
Psychology,
(11th Edition). David Myers and C. Nathan Dewall, and 40 Studies that Changed
Psychology, (7th Edition), Roger Hock.
I think you have posed a very interesting question: how and to what extend do designers rely on heuristics during the process of design? Looking at the works of certain architects, we can always find the similar elements used repeatedly, which are initially personal but become widely accepted symbols (from specific to general). These symbols then become part of a societal culture (from concrete to abstract). To think further, heuristics are also important for researchers in the field of design studies: how can we find out the truth about our subjects based on rationality when they are produced through non-rationality?
ReplyDeleteI agree, heuristics do tell a story about humans. The way that we rationalize when not utilizing logic pis a version of reality that takes into account information beyond what can be known. In my experience, heuristics are important when there is a "boundary constraint" (too much information to process). With regard to the question, "who should I marry?" that question is one that heuristics may not reliably answer for us: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/590/choosing-wrong
ReplyDelete-CS
I think the marriage idea is really interesting (and I loved that episode of This American Life, Chase), because while we may not want to rely on heuristics to aid this decision process, we have to also recognize that we cannot possibly make this decision rationally. For one, we'll never meet, let alone date, all possible partners in the world. So we can't possibly be expected to evaluate based on perfect knowledge. And while I will agree with Chase that, at least in my experience, I think I thoughtfully considered my decision to marry my partner without relying on heuristics, we must also accept that we're all satisficing in making the decision to spend the rest of our lives with one person. Not to burst a fairy tale bubble about finding "the one" person to marry, but ultimately, we find someone with whom we have a lot in common and we decide to commit to working on it for the rest of our lives. We'll talk in a couple of weeks about how we deal with unpreferred situations as information processors. I think the coping mechanism of interpretation is relevant here. Interpretation is creating a frame or story in which to make sense of informational disorder. Is this not exactly what the myth of the "one true love" or finding "the one" is all about? It's emotionally stressful and cognitively challenging to consider that we really have no way of knowing if we're choosing the "right" person when we marry. So choosing to accept the interpretation that there is one right person for every person in the world, and that's the person you choose to marry, serves to resolve this conflict.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering while reading your post why there is many recent studies which focus on developing optimization techniques for sustainable architecture. The optimization follows the rational approach, and I think the reason is the movement towards less energy buildings, and zero carbon emission cities; which is considered a will-defined problem. On the other hand, there are some architects who are against this movement because they think that the best solution physically might not be the best solution psychologically (ill-define problem). Therefore, since buildings are occupied by humans, the heuristic approach might be more appropriate for designing more sustainable architecture which can achieve good physical and physiological solutions in comparison with optimizing a machine performance in a factory. Another way to think about this could be dividing the design process into steps where one of the approaches is more appropriate. An example for this is using heuristics at the first stages of generating ideas of the shape, then using the rational approach for choosing some of the best solutions in terms of their energy performance, and lastly choosing the final solution using the heuristics approach; which means that the final solution does not necessarily have the least but has one of the minimum energy demand and has an aesthetically appealing shape.
ReplyDeleteAlaa, interesting application of rationality and optimization to building technology. I definitely think there has been a shift toward optimization in sustainable building that at times seems to ignore the human component of building systems. But I don't think we can accurately attribute this human component to heuristic decision making. Embracing heuristic thinking in the design process may give us a glimpse into "what feels right" as an occupant. And it's true that we can never fully adopt rational design thinking, because of all the attentional and time limitations we've already discussed. But designing by heuristics could be potentially problematic. Heuristics may result in us anchoring to the familiar, or attempting to apply design solutions across multiple locations, regardless of contextual fit.
Delete