Talk:Decision analysis

Untitled
we need the definiton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.102.240 (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

POV
The POV here is horrid. Decision analysis is not a "practice necessary to address important decisions in a formal manner." This passage is argumentative and not a fair representation of the science:

"Some authors[2] point out that people don't make decisions this way and that the intuitive style of decision making needs to replace the disaggregated approaches commonly used by most decision analysts. Decision analysts[3] in turn point out that their approach is prescriptive, providing a prescription of what actions to take based on sound logic, rather than a descriptive approach, describing the flaws in the way people do make decisions. Overall a good decision maker should understand both approaches, understanding how people go wrong in making decisions and providing a sound basis for them to make better decisions. Furthermore, several studies conclusively show how even the simplest decision analysis methods are superior to "unaided intuition"."

The links cite are to 50-year-old summaries of decision research.

The reality of this field is that decision analysis has been used to create decision tools -- like clinical risk scores used in medicine -- which have been found to be useful in many contexts. There is no evidence that decision analysis can be used "on the fly" to make decisions regarding questions outside the narrow circumstances addressed by the algorithm. Hence, naturalistic decision making and decision analysis are not really in competition outside of a few narrow circumstances. It is not possible to state, based on the evidence, that "the simplest decision analysis methods are superior to 'unaided intuition.'" As a sweeping statement, it's sweepingly wrong.

I'm hesitant to edit the page because I'm not an expert in this area. The tone of the page right now is similar to that of an undergrad in his first psych course merrily diagnosing his friends: over-enthused and dogmatic. Perhaps somebody with a broad view could lend a hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.230.158 (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)