Why You Think You're Right Even if You're Wrong
The fox vs. hedgehog construct can be likened to the "Soldier" vs. "Scout" approach to the world described in the video.
Do you think an analyst should be more like Galef's Soldier or Scout? What about a manager? How can the Scout traits be enhanced to increase analytic agility like the Fox's? Not only do they know many tricks, but they assess when and how to use them for the greatest effect. This is the same way a good analyst uses various analytic techniques to ensure the one or a combination selected is the right approach for each requirement.
Author Malcolm Gladwell popularized the "gut" approach the same year with his
book, "Blink", which suggested that some people's snap decisions may be better than analysis. In combination, the two books were conflated by laypeople to suggest that there is little need for analysis, but that is
an erroneous reading of both books.
Tetlock suggested experts get lazy and start thinking they know everything about their narrow field, and that's when they start making poor forecasts. Dilettantes know they
don't know everything and try to update their understanding. Analysts use tested methods to analyze the situation and constantly allow the introduction of new information, whether or not it confirms or refutes their
initial hypothesis, using lots of clever analytic tricks to maintain objectivity and create the most accurate estimates.
Gladwell said experts can sometimes make snap decisions better than others based on their inherent subject-matter knowledge. He used the example of an ancient Greek art expert who could spot a fake statue based on a feeling when he saw it objectively because "it just didn't look right...it looked fresh" and not 2,000 years old.
The first expert's colleague, also an expert, so wanted such an object in his museum he allowed his expertise and objectivity to be set aside to believe the fake was real, thus allowing any new information to either confirm his belief or he rejected the information out of hand. This is not good analysis. The snap decision of the correct expert is also not analysis; it was a good use of his specialized art history knowledge.
