Heuristics are the desire paths that our brain takes when handling large amounts of information. They’re the easiest and most pleasing routes to get to conclusions or decisions. The priority is speed.
In a catastrophically beautiful sense, it is the brain’s desire for simplicity. This can go very right or very wrong easily in the context of large groups, when making several tough choices daily, or even choosing the best lane on the highway during traffic.
Complete this quiz to see where you land on the field of Bounded Rationality.
Are you a Trailblazer, Mountaineer, or Hitchhiker?
The Brain’s Desire Paths
Answer as quickly as you can. Your intuition reveals your mind’s shortcuts — or “heuristics.”
Core Idea: In the 1970s, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky advanced our understanding of mental shortcuts by introducing the “heuristics and biases” program. This shifted the focus from simply recognizing that people use shortcuts to identifying which shortcuts they use, when they are used, and the systematic errors they cause.
The Context: This work placed heuristics squarely in the context of probability, risk, and intuition. They demonstrated that specific heuristics (like Availability, Representativeness, and Anchoring) are deployed automatically when we try to answer a difficult question (e.g., “What is the probability of X?”) by substituting it with an easier one (e.g., “How easily can I recall an instance of X?”).
| Feature | Heuristics (System 1) | Algorithms (System 2) |
| Speed | Fast (Rule of thumb) | Slow (Step-by-step logic) |
| Cost | Low Cognitive Load | High Cognitive Load |
| Goal | Satisficing (Good enough) | Optimizing (Perfect solution) |
| Risk | High risk of Systematic Bias | Low risk of error |
| Context of Use | High uncertainty, low information, or limited time. | High-stakes decisions where time is available. |
| Correct Answers | Definition & Explanation |
| B. Death by being killed by a pig. | Definition: Judging the probability of an event based on how easily and vividly instances come to mind. |
| Explanation: Airplane crashes and falling parts receive extensive media coverage, making them highly available in memory. Conversely, deaths caused by pigs (or other rare, non-spectacular events) are not widely reported, causing people to overestimate the former and underestimate the latter. | |
| A. Jack is an engineer. | Definition: Judging the probability of an event based on how well it matches a stereotype or prototype, rather than on statistical probability. |
| Explanation: The description “engineer who plays computer games” is more specific and arguably more representative of a modern stereotype. However, a conjunction (A and B) can never be more probable than a single event alone (A). | |
| A. 30% | Definition: The tendency to ignore prior statistical information (base rates) in favor of specific, but irrelevant, descriptive information. |
| Explanation: The description of Tom as “married, well-liked,” is a distractor. The only statistically relevant piece of information is the base rate: 30 out of 100 people are engineers. The probability is 30%regardless of Tom’s personality. | |
| The true population is about 86 million. | Definition: Relying too heavily on the first piece of information (the anchor) offered when making a decision, and failing to adjust sufficiently away from it. |
| Explanation: The number “100 million” acts as a powerful anchor. Even if you believe the true number is less, your final adjusted estimate tends to remain closer to 100 million than it should, pulling your estimate away from the truth. | |
| B. 5 cents | Definition: The ability to override an incorrect System 1 (intuitive/heuristic) answer and engage System 2 (deliberate/analytical) to find the correct, non-obvious solution. |
| Explanation: The intuitive System 1 answer is 10 cents. The correct answer requires the deliberate algebraic check: Bat ($1.05) + Ball ($0.05) = $1.10, and the Bat is ($1.00) more than the Ball. Choosing 10 cents reflects a failure to engage System 2. | |
| B. The option with equal expected value but risk. | Definition: Making different choices depending on how a proposition is presented (framed), even if the outcomes are mathematically identical. |
| Explanation: When the problem is framed positively (lives saved), people are risk-averse and choose the certain outcome (A). When framed negatively (lives lost—the alternate form of this classic question), people become risk-seeking. Both options have the same expected value, but the phrasing dictates the heuristic choice. | |
| B. Looking for a black swan. | Definition: The tendency to seek out, interpret, and favor information that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values. |
| Explanation: Looking for a white swan confirms the hypothesis but doesn’t prove it. The most logically systematic step is to attempt to falsify the hypothesis. Finding just one non-white swan (B) definitively proves the statement “All swans are white” is false. | |
| B. The charity helping 1,000 children. | Definition: The mental shortcut of relying on current emotions or feelings (affect) to make a decision, rather than objective analysis of statistics or risk. |
| Explanation: The single, compelling picture in option A triggers a strong affective response (sympathy) (Identifiable Victim Effect), causing this emotional heuristic to override the rational calculation that option B helps a numerically greater number of people. | |
| B. A number close to 50. | Definition: (Same as Q4). |
| Explanation: The irrelevant ticket number 42 serves as a strong anchor. The statistically correct guess for a random number between 1 and 100 is 50. Choosing a number near 42 demonstrates insufficient adjustment from the arbitrary anchor. | |
| B. No, the $200 is gone regardless. | Definition: The tendency to continue an endeavor (commit more resources) because of previously invested resources (sunk costs) rather than abandoning the project due to poor future prospects. |
| Explanation: The $200 is a sunk cost—it’s gone no matter what you decide now. The rational decision (B) is to maximize future happiness. Choosing A is irrational, as it allows a past, irrecoverable cost to dictate a future negative outcome (being miserable in the rain). |