It’s an argument I use often when I find it difficult to defend a rapidly made decision based on my experience but with an ever increasing struggle with what I comically call Alzheimer’s to bring up the actual facts that support it.I often know I am right, but can’t gather enough information in short order to support the argument and end up heading off to research the depths of my brain and returning later with a more articulate explanation.He argues and I tend to agree with him that in some cases our “snap” decisions are more reliable than our well-considered ones.In fact he gives examples of cases where process and procedure intended to make sure mistakes were not made, tended to introduce mistakes because they remove the snap decision element.
Should we be looking at their ability to trust in their own Blink? There has been research done around the confidence and quality of candidates based on their speed of answering questions. So much of our lives are decisions based on trust, perhaps we should be evaluating candidates trust in their un-researched answers.They haven't had an event in so long and blink dating's events were really infrequent.I've now resorted to other services for dating and it's not going well either arrgh!In an interview would I miss the opportunity to display my depth of knowledge?
Either way, whether I am simply a male trying to defend my rash decisions or Mr Gladwell is right and that experience that underpins and my hunches are much deeper, the power of knowing that might raise a question in my mind about how reversing the same might help solve some important business choices.
Gladwell includes caveats about leaping to conclusions: marketers can manipulate our first impressions, high arousal moments make us "mind blind," focusing on the wrong cue leaves us vulnerable to "the Warren Harding Effect" (i.e., voting for a handsome but hapless president).