Intuitive Judgments and Heuristics in Everyday Decisions

Dr. Esther Hattingh

Welcome back to Thinking Fast and Slow, I’m Dr. Esther Hattingh. If you’ve been following along, you’ll remember in our last episode we talked about how System 1 loves to jump to conclusions—sometimes with hilarious results, sometimes, well, not so much. Today, we’re diving even deeper into how these snap judgments shape our everyday lives, especially when it comes to those first impressions. So, System 1—Kahneman’s term for our fast, automatic thinking—basically runs the show when we meet someone new. You know that feeling when you instantly decide if a stranger is friendly or, hmm, maybe a bit dodgy? That’s System 1 at work, making broad, intuitive assessments based on things like facial expressions, posture, or even just the way someone walks. It’s efficient, but it’s not always accurate.

Dr. Esther Hattingh

I’ll give you a quick story from my own life. Not too long ago, I was in a faculty meeting—one of those long ones, you know the type—and we had a new collaborator join us. Within seconds, I’d already decided, “Ah, this person’s going to be difficult.” I don’t even know what it was—maybe the way they sat, or the tone of their greeting. But, as the meeting went on, I realized I’d completely missed some important details. Turns out, they were just nervous, and by the end, they’d contributed some brilliant ideas. My System 1 had jumped the gun, and I almost let that first impression colour the whole collaboration.

Dr. Esther Hattingh

So, where do these intuitive first impressions help us, and where do they lead us astray? Well, they’re great for quick decisions—like, is this dog friendly or should I cross the street? But when it comes to more complex judgments, especially about people, System 1 can miss the mark. It’s good at estimating averages, but not so great at handling more complicated, sum-like variables. That’s where we need to slow down and let System 2—our more deliberate, effortful thinking—step in. But, as we’ve discussed before, System 2 is a bit lazy, isn’t it? It doesn’t always want to get involved unless it really has to.

Dr. Esther Hattingh

Now, let’s talk about something called intensity matching. This is one of those sneaky tricks our minds play on us. Basically, it’s when we take two things that aren’t really related—like the seriousness of a crime and the severity of a punishment—and we match their “intensity.” So, if a crime feels really bad, we think the punishment should be really harsh. Or, if a noise is very loud, we might compare it to a very bright colour. It’s a shortcut, and it feels natural, but it can get us into trouble.

Dr. Esther Hattingh

There’s a case study that really brings this home. In the justice system, intensity matching can lead to disproportionate sentencing. Judges and juries, being human, sometimes let their gut feelings about how “bad” something feels guide their decisions, rather than looking at the actual facts or statistics. And, honestly, I think we all do this in our own lives. Have you ever caught yourself making a decision about someone or something by equating unrelated qualities? Like, “That person is really confident, so they must be competent.” Or, “This restaurant looks fancy, so the food must be good.” I know I have. It’s a classic System 1 move—quick, easy, but not always accurate.

Dr. Esther Hattingh

The problem is, intensity matching makes statistical thinking really difficult. Our brains just aren’t wired to handle probabilities and totals very well. We prefer to stick with what feels right, even if it’s not supported by the numbers. And that’s where we can get tripped up, especially in situations that require more nuanced judgment. It’s a bit like what we discussed in the episode about jumping to conclusions—our minds want coherence, even if it means oversimplifying things.

Dr. Esther Hattingh

Let’s shift gears a bit and talk about heuristics—those mental shortcuts we use to answer tough questions. Kahneman explains that when faced with a difficult question, like “How happy am I with my life?” we often substitute it with an easier one: “How do I feel right now?” This is called the mood heuristic. It’s so tempting, isn’t it? Instead of weighing all the pros and cons, we just check in with our current mood and call it a day.

Dr. Esther Hattingh

This shortcut shows up everywhere, especially in politics and marketing. Take the 2004 U.S. presidential election. There was this moment when George W. Bush’s team tried to shape public perception of John Kerry by saying, “He looks French.” Now, I always find this example a bit odd, but it worked because it tapped into people’s gut feelings—linking Kerry’s appearance to a broader mood or sentiment, rather than any real policy difference. And remember “freedom fries”? That was all about stirring up emotion, not logic.

Dr. Esther Hattingh

Marketing is another area where the mood heuristic is everywhere. Think about Coca-Cola’s holiday ads—Santa Claus, Christmas lights, all that cheer. They’re not really telling you about the product, are they? They’re creating positive associations, hoping you’ll feel good about the brand all year round. I’ll admit, I’m a sucker for a cheerful ad. Sometimes I catch myself feeling all warm and fuzzy about a brand, and then I have to remind myself, “Wait, what do I actually know about this product?” It’s the halo effect in action—those good feelings spill over into how we judge everything else about the brand.

Dr. Esther Hattingh

So, as we wrap up today’s episode, just remember—our minds are brilliant at making quick judgments, but those shortcuts can lead us astray, especially when we let our mood or gut feelings do the heavy lifting. Next time you find yourself making a snap decision, maybe pause and ask, “Am I answering the easy question, or the hard one?” Thanks for joining me, and I hope you’ll tune in next time as we keep exploring the fascinating world of thinking, fast and slow.