Use Science to Make Better Decisions
Why decision science?
We might assume that when the importance of a decision increases, so does the sophistication of the tools used to make it. Unfortunately, many of the most important decisions we make fail to take advantage of advances in decision science.
Fields including Behavioral Economics and Game Theory have advanced significantly in recent years, and coupled with computing technology we now have the tools to add a far greater level of sophistication to how important decisions are made.
How it works
People have all sorts of formal and informal methods for making important decisions. We might gather all the relevant information and then go with our gut instinct, make a list of pros and cons, or ask a group to vote.
The problem with these methods is that they ignore critical tools that allow us to map out the preferences of different positions to different people, quantitatively weigh these options, and to use decision science principles to estimate how different individuals or groups will respond to an action over time.
Decision science is incredibly valuable for organizing information and clarifying preferences, but it does far more than this. Using tools like predictive analytics, agent based modeling, and game theoretical models, we are able to map out the landscape in which an important decision will be made. This allows us to see how different actors in a system will respond to various options, and gives us a view into the future that greatly increases the chance that our chosen path will succeed.
Watch our short video on decision science:
Will the UK leave the EU? What is the best option and for whom?
We used decision science principles to estimate the course of action of UK voters, and to lay out a strategy that considers how different issues will move voters toward various outcomes.
Is OPEC likely to restrict supply to combat falling prices? How will various members clash or cooperate?
Our analysis went against much of the popular opinion on this issue and turned out to be correct. See our Chief Political Scientist, Amir Bagerpour, speaking about this on Bloomberg.