Intro. [Recording date: December 4, 2025.]
Russ Roberts: Welcome to December 4th, 2025. Today, I am joined by psychologist and author Gerd Gigerenzer from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development. This marks Gerd’s third visit to the program, having last appeared in August 2022 to discuss artificial intelligence. Our focus today is on his latest book, The Intelligence of Intuition. Gerd, it’s great to have you back on EconTalk.
Gerd Gigerenzer: Thank you, Russ. It’s wonderful to be here again.
Russ Roberts: Let’s dive into the concept of intuition. It’s a rather nebulous term, but you seem to have a more specific interpretation in mind.
Gerd Gigerenzer: Absolutely. Intuition is that immediate sense, cultivated through years of experience, which swiftly surfaces in our consciousness—it’s that gut feeling guiding our decisions when we can’t articulate why. Importantly, it’s not a random whim or some mystical sixth sense. Everyone has intuition, regardless of gender, as long as they have experience in a particular field or task.
Russ Roberts: You highlight that intuition has historically been associated with women, contrasting it with rationality and analytical thinking. This framing has not only done a disservice to women but has also skewed our comprehension of rationality and intuition.
Gerd Gigerenzer: Exactly. As we moved into the 20th century, psychology textbooks perpetuated the notion that men and women possess fundamentally different intellectual capacities—men being rational and women being intuitive. This binary created an inaccurate dichotomy between intuitive and rational thinking, associating speed with unreliability. In many societies, if women faltered, responsibility often fell to their husbands.
This dichotomy has now evolved into the concept of System 1 and System 2 thinking. System 1 embodies the traits assigned to women, while System 2 is associated with men. Kahneman and Tversky’s research showed that people often err, yet my findings indicate that they can also be accurate in the same contexts. Kahneman’s reinterpretation framed errors as System 1 failures, while accuracy was attributed to System 2, reinforcing this flawed dichotomy.
Russ Roberts: You’ve long been an advocate for intuition, but I suspect that during some of that time, it felt rather lonely. It seems like intuition is experiencing a renaissance. I recently spoke with David Bessis, who passionately defends intuition in his book, Mathematica. He connects it to System 1 thinking, emphasizing its visual and insightful nature, and introduces System 3 as a way to integrate intuition with analytical thinking. I’ve also interviewed Angus Fletcher, whose book, Primal Intelligence, similarly champions intuition. Do you sense a shift in how your ideas are being received lately, or is it business as usual?
Gerd Gigerenzer: I believe you’re onto something. In my earlier book, Gut Feelings, Malcolm Gladwell popularized some of my ideas in Blink, which opened the door for broader acceptance. More people are now realizing that without intuition, progress stalls—innovation hinges on it. The fight against intuition is fundamentally misguided.
Moreover, intuition and conscious reasoning are not mutually exclusive, which is a major misunderstanding stemming from the System 1 and System 2 framework. For example, a seasoned doctor may sense something is wrong with a patient but struggle to articulate that feeling. This intuition sparks further diagnostics, illustrating how intuition fuels deliberate action rather than undermines it.
Russ Roberts: I appreciate the quote you used to open your book: “We know more than we can tell,” attributed to Michael Polanyi. I also resonate with Pascal’s sentiment that “the heart has its reasons which reason knows not.” Our culture often ridicules such sentiments, asserting that if it can’t be articulated or justified, it lacks validity. This reflects a misunderstanding of rationality.
While it seems the world is inching toward your perspective, it also appears to be veering away, particularly in discussions surrounding artificial intelligence. Many in the field naively believe AI will resolve all our issues due to its superior processing capabilities. I find this to be a fundamental misapprehension of intelligence, especially at the current technological level. Would you agree?
Gerd Gigerenzer: Indeed, there’s a pervasive belief in the infallibility of technology. This is akin to a religious faith—an unrealistic hope that AI will solve all problems. We must step back and critically examine previous technologies that were supposed to revolutionize our lives, like the Human Genome Project. Initial expectations of unlocking cures for diseases were overly simplistic; the reality is far more complex. Similarly, AI may excel in defined tasks, like playing chess, but when faced with uncertainties—especially those involving human behavior—its efficacy diminishes.
Russ Roberts: Many in the AI field are fervent believers in its potential. They often cite past successes, like mastering Go and chess, as proof that AI will eventually tackle more complex societal issues, including poverty and democracy. While I share your skepticism, they often respond that it’s merely a matter of time. I see numerous human challenges that are not merely technical but fundamentally social. What do you think?
Gerd Gigerenzer: That rhetoric is indeed common. The Human Genome Project once fostered similar optimism; many thought knowing our genes would lead to breakthroughs in curing diseases. The truth is that genetic interactions are far more intricate than anticipated. The historical overpromises surrounding AI stem from a desire for funding—scientists often craft narratives that politicians want to hear to secure resources. Yet, true progress comes from fundamental research rather than flashy promises.
Russ Roberts: Shifting gears, I want to explore the idea of the “bias bias.” This term critiques an entire industry that seems to proliferate studies and literature on biases. What exactly is the “bias bias”?
Gerd Gigerenzer: The “bias bias” refers to the inclination to see biases everywhere, even in the absence of evidence. This is often perpetuated by researchers and those leveraging these notions to justify policies such as nudging or political paternalism, suggesting that humans are flawed and machines can do better. However, many biases cited in the literature, like overconfidence or the hot hand fallacy, may only be biases in specific contexts.
For instance, the idea of the hot hand—where players are deemed to be “on fire”—was criticized by researchers claiming there is no hot hand. Contrary to this, recent studies have shown that it’s not the coaches but researchers who misunderstood statistical properties. Overall, biases should be viewed through the lens of ecological rationality, considering context rather than applying blanket judgments.
Russ Roberts: Your skepticism of the overwhelming focus on biases probably doesn’t win you many invitations to elite gatherings. Is that fair to say?
Gerd Gigerenzer: It depends on perspective. Engaging in critical thinking can be a lively topic at any gathering! Take the framing effect, for example. When a doctor presents a 90% survival rate versus a 10% mortality rate, framing literature suggests dismissing the doctor’s advice since they are logically equivalent. Yet, we know from studies that patients can read between the lines, which is often misclassified as a framing bias.
Russ Roberts: The term “nudge” is a fascinating marketing choice; it implies a gentle push rather than a shove. For instance, the well-known example of opting in versus opting out for organ donations illustrates this. It sounds benign—who wouldn’t want to save lives? Yet, you argue the reality is much more complex.
Gerd Gigerenzer: Correct. An opt-out system may increase potential organ donors, but it doesn’t automatically translate to actual donations. Reality requires a robust system for organ collection, which is often overlooked. Studies comparing countries with opt-in and opt-out systems find that while potential donors may increase, actual donations do not rise unless the system is meticulously organized and supported.
Russ Roberts: This serves as a poignant reminder of the difference between perception and reality. People may feel good about increasing the pool of potential donors, but without addressing the logistical challenges, little changes. You’ve also touched upon the issue of medical screenings, which can sometimes do more harm than good. Can you elaborate on this?
Gerd Gigerenzer: Certainly. Take mammography screening, for example. Research indicates that screening does not significantly prolong life for women without symptoms. Yet, many are misled to believe it does due to how information is presented—often framed in relative rather than absolute terms. This leads to unnecessary anxiety and further medical interventions. The focus should shift from screening to prevention, addressing behaviors contributing to cancer, rather than relying on flawed screening processes.
Russ Roberts: As I read your work, I can’t help but appreciate how you challenge prevailing assumptions. Yet, I wonder—do you actively seek to counter your own biases? Given that you have become associated with a particular viewpoint, how do you ensure you remain open to differing perspectives?
Gerd Gigerenzer: This is the essence of scientific inquiry—constantly revising ideas based on new evidence. My research group is intentionally diverse, bringing together individuals from various disciplines to foster learning. One crucial strategy is hiring contrarians—people who respectfully challenge prevailing views. This dynamic helps mitigate biases, ensuring a more nuanced understanding of complex issues. Everyone has preferences, but fostering an environment where dissenting voices can flourish is vital for progress.
Russ Roberts: To conclude, let’s discuss morality. Much of our moral intuition is built on personal experience rather than explicit teaching. What’s your perspective on the role of intuition in moral decision-making?
Gerd Gigerenzer: Children learn morality through implicit rules shaped by their environment. Cultural and parental influences play a significant role in this process, fostering intuitive moral reasoning. Evolutionarily, moral frameworks have served to bond groups together, enhancing survival. In today’s climate, particularly with the challenges facing science, upholding these moral values is essential. Our moral fabric, deeply rooted in intuitive understanding, remains vital for societal cohesion.
Russ Roberts: Thank you, Gerd Gigerenzer, for sharing your insights today. His book, The Intelligence of Intuition, is a profound read. We appreciate your time on EconTalk.
Gerd Gigerenzer: It was a pleasure to engage in this discussion again, Russ.
