Foxes, Hedgehogs, and Problem-Solving

Think Twice

In Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? published in 2005 by Princeton University Press, Philip Tetlock suggests that so-called experts tend to be either foxes (who know a little bit about a great many subjects) or hedgehogs (who know a great deal about only one subject). Tetlock asserts that “foxes” tend to make better decisions because they rely on a variety of sources and consider several different points of view whereas “hedgehogs” tend to view reality through “a single lens” and explain everything wholly in terms of what they already know.

It is worth noting that these two critters were previously discussed by Archilochus (c. 680 and 640 B.C.E.), more recently by Isaiah Berlin in his essay The Hedgehog and the Fox, and then by Jim Collins in Good to Great.

In Think Twice, Michael J. Mauboussin supports Phil Rosenzweig’s criticism in The Halo Effect of Collins and other business thinkers who write bestsellers. According to Mauboussin, “The important question is not ‘were all great hedgehogs’ but rather, ‘were all hedgehogs great?’ If the answer to the latter question is no – and it assuredly is – then dwelling on the survivors creates a bias in the analysis, leading to faulty conclusions.”

My own take on all this is, both foxes and hedgehogs first need to make certain that they are asking the right question, that they are solving the right problem. Only then can they determine what they need to know and where they can obtain the information their decision requires.

In another commentary, I will share Mauboussin’s thoughts about how to avoid or correct errors of judgment such as those associated with the “halo effect” and reversion to the mean.

Advertisement