"Information overload" and it's potential implications (1 Viewer)

Jacoby, Speller, and Kohn, (1974) examined these information overload implications in a consumer context and found linear relationships between amount of product information and subjective feelings of satisfaction, certainty, confusion, and a curvilinear (information overload) relationship between amount of information and the accuracy or the "correctness" of the purchase decision. As amount of information increased, feelings of satisfaction with the decision and certainty that one had made the correct decision also increased, while feelings of confusion decreased. However, the ability to correctly select the "best" brand was demonstratably poorer at both low and high information load levels, compared to intermediate levels. Thus, while the 153 student subjects felt better at higher levels of information load, they actually made poorer purchase decisions.

Click to expand...

KCC said:

If you're a fantasy football information-junkie (as many of us on these boards are) than you should know something: It's entirely possible that being the most researched guy in your league's draft might actually work against you. I was reading some material for an unrelated work project, when I came across an article that said that people who have a lot of information when they are making decisions may make poorer decisions, even though they may be more confident about those poorer choices. There are tons of articles on this (just google "information overload" and "decision making" and you'll see), many come from the world of business and economics and involve various investment strategies, but some are geared so that even non-business types can appreciate them. Here's one example:

Link

Jacoby, Speller, and Kohn, (1974) examined these information overload implications in a consumer context and found linear relationships between amount of product information and subjective feelings of satisfaction, certainty, confusion, and a curvilinear (information overload) relationship between amount of information and the accuracy or the "correctness" of the purchase decision. As amount of information increased, feelings of satisfaction with the decision and certainty that one had made the correct decision also increased, while feelings of confusion decreased. However, the ability to correctly select the "best" brand was demonstratably poorer at both low and high information load levels, compared to intermediate levels. Thus, while the 153 student subjects felt better at higher levels of information load, they actually made poorer purchase decisions.

Click to expand...

The bottom line? People with lots of information tend to feel more confident about the decisions they make (i.e. draft picks), but they also tend to be less accurate in those decisions. There are a number of factors to account for why people with information overload may make poorer choices: They expose themselves to so much data from so many variables that they might end up weighting the pieces of information wrong. So if you're doing RB rankings for your draft and look at 10 different variables (YPC, schedule, injury risk, etc. etc.) you will probably incorrectly overvalue the influence of some of those variable and undervalue the influence of some of the more important ones. Also, people experiencing information overload may selectively filter the information they are exposed to in order to justify their pre-existing biases. So, if you're a huge Indy fan, you might be more influenced by any information that suggests Addai will have a bigger year than ADP and, correspondingly, you might tend to discount any data suggesting ADP will have a better year than Addai. I would love to hear people's thoughts on this (especially anyone familiar with "information overload" effects) and what it might mean in terms of preparing for fantasy football drafts.

Click to expand...

Couch Potato said:

The first thing I try to do is keep an open mind on things and realize that even having perfect knowledge of all available information today doesn't keep something from happening tomorrow that will throw all that out the window. The information is still valuable, though, because most times the surprises don't happen, and because with an open mind you can be ready to adjust if you have a strong frame of reference.

The second thing is to learn to separate the news from the noise. That's hard to do, and hard to explain how to do. It's mostly a matter of experience in reading and then evaluating what you've read, seeing how it turned out later and then re-evaluating. Learning who the writers are, how connected they are, how reliable they've been in the past in their opinions (and believe me, in sports news articles, everything is flavored by the writer's opinion). Just because a writer writes something doesn't make it information. You have to sort that out. And that's tough.

As the Boy Scouts say, be prepared. To me that doesn't mean knowing and relying on a mountain of stats and numbers. It means having all the numbers, the news, your past knowledge and experience, and somehow boiling it down to a gut feeling. You know whether something feels right, or meets your smell test, or however you want to describe it. You make your own decision because you are prepared to do so, not because someone else's list or projections or opinion tells you what you are supposed to do or think. Information overload is not a problem because you've filtered and distilled it all down to a legitimate opinion of your own.

That doesn't mean you won't be wrong a good part of the time. Surprises happen, and we don't have perfect knowledge. That's life. Part of being prepared is being ready with contingencies if this or that happens. You may have made the right decision and it still went wrong. The result doesn't mean the decision was wrong. That's just the way it goes, you live with it and do your best to adjust based on the new circumstances.

Click to expand...

FantasyTrader said:

Couch Potato said:

The first thing I try to do is keep an open mind on things and realize that even having perfect knowledge of all available information today doesn't keep something from happening tomorrow that will throw all that out the window. The information is still valuable, though, because most times the surprises don't happen, and because with an open mind you can be ready to adjust if you have a strong frame of reference.

The second thing is to learn to separate the news from the noise. That's hard to do, and hard to explain how to do. It's mostly a matter of experience in reading and then evaluating what you've read, seeing how it turned out later and then re-evaluating. Learning who the writers are, how connected they are, how reliable they've been in the past in their opinions (and believe me, in sports news articles, everything is flavored by the writer's opinion). Just because a writer writes something doesn't make it information. You have to sort that out. And that's tough.

As the Boy Scouts say, be prepared. To me that doesn't mean knowing and relying on a mountain of stats and numbers. It means having all the numbers, the news, your past knowledge and experience, and somehow boiling it down to a gut feeling. You know whether something feels right, or meets your smell test, or however you want to describe it. You make your own decision because you are prepared to do so, not because someone else's list or projections or opinion tells you what you are supposed to do or think. Information overload is not a problem because you've filtered and distilled it all down to a legitimate opinion of your own.

That doesn't mean you won't be wrong a good part of the time. Surprises happen, and we don't have perfect knowledge. That's life. Part of being prepared is being ready with contingencies if this or that happens. You may have made the right decision and it still went wrong. The result doesn't mean the decision was wrong. That's just the way it goes, you live with it and do your best to adjust based on the new circumstances.

Click to expand...

But really, what is your gut feeling? Well, it's culmination of everything you've read and heard about a subject (with your brain having subconsciously weighted everything you've read and heard). Maybe, just maybe, having an open mind is part of the problem here. The thing I try to remember in regards to everything FF is that I bring my own set of biases to the table. I own MJD in a dynasty league. I love MJD's explosiveness and upside. I DON'T love his inconsistency and downside. I (mostly subconsciously) try to avoid information exposing me to facts about MJD that I don't want to hear. And maybe that's okay. Maybe offering myself up to every whimsical thought and judgement against MJD, only leaves me more "wishy-washy" on the matter.

"You make your own decision because you are prepared to do so, not because someone else's list or projections or opinion tells you what you are supposed to do or think."

I would disagree. I think simply being exposed to that opinion and how that opinion was presented, has now changed your thinking on the subject. Maybe only a click or two one way or the other, but still affected.

Interesting subject.

Click to expand...

Dirty Weasel said:

My name is Dirty Weasel, and I am an overloader. I tend to do my research alone, and sometimes even before noon. Many times I have been late for work trying to read one more thread. I've alienated some friends who do not share my passion for FF. I know I suffer this disorder, but all of you are my enablers.

Click to expand...

KCC said:

Also, people experiencing information overload may selectively filter the information they are exposed to in order to justify their pre-existing biases. So, if you're a huge Indy fan, you might be more influenced by any information that suggests Addai will have a bigger year than ADP and, correspondingly, you might tend to discount any data suggesting ADP will have a better year than Addai.

Click to expand...

Maurile Tremblay said:

KCC said:

Also, people experiencing information overload may selectively filter the information they are exposed to in order to justify their pre-existing biases. So, if you're a huge Indy fan, you might be more influenced by any information that suggests Addai will have a bigger year than ADP and, correspondingly, you might tend to discount any data suggesting ADP will have a better year than Addai.

Click to expand...

I'm unfamiliar with any of the literature on information overload. But I'm a bit familiar with some of the work done on confirmation bias, and I can see how it would cause someone to become less accurate if he had more information.In one experiment, a group of people were asked their positions on a variety of controversial topics (e.g., whether gun control reduces violent crime rates, whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent, and so on). The mere fact that so many smart and well-informed people reach opposite conclusions on these topics suggests that nobody should be more than 55% to 60% sure that his own position is right (and that all the smart, well-informed people on the other side are wrong).

After the subjects stated their positions on the controversial topics, they were given short arguments to read for each opposing viewpoint. The arguments on each side were of similar quality. But confirmation bias causes people to embrace arguments they already agree with while discounting arguments they disagree with. So if a person who is against the death penalty reads one argument containing evidence that it's an effective deterrent and a second argument containing evidence that it's not an effective deterrent, he's likely to take the first argument to heart while largely disregarding the second argument. The effect is similar to showing a neutral person a strong argument favoring the death penalty and then a weak argument against it (since that's how the two equal arguments will be viewed by a biased subject), and the result is to strengthen his pro-death penalty feelings.

So the overall effect is this. If you have two people, and one says he's 55% sure that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, and the other says he's 55% sure that it's not an effective deterrent, and then you show each of them the exact same arguments pro and con, the first will then be 70% sure that the death penalty is an effective deterrent while the other will become 70% sure that it isn't.

The exact same evidence has moved the two people in opposite directions, causing them each to move further from the 50-50 mark. At least one of them is moving away from the right answer as he gets more information, and it's somewhat likely that they both are moving away from a more reasonable probability estimate to a less reasonable one.

The remedy, I would think, is not to avoid getting more information, but to be aware of your own biases, to be aware of how those biases might be affecting your interpretation of any information you come across, and to actively seek to minimize any distorting effects of those biases. The opposite strategy of sticking one's head in the sand to avoid learning new information seems like a bad idea in a great many areas of life, not just FF.

Thanks to KCC for posting the interesting topic.

Click to expand...