Instinct Over Data as Decision Doctrine

“Sometimes the staff would ask, “Is it commercial?” and I would brutalize them, because rather than using their instincts, they were trying to predict the public’s appetite, which I said then and say now, over and over again, simply isn’t possible. Neither is using research to help make decisions. No amount of research on ideas is worth the paper (or computer screen) it’s printed on. Data can tell you what *has happened,* not what *can or will happen*. Data is often harmful to instinct, and I believe this to be true for making not only creative decisions but many business decisions. PowerPoint can be the enemy; structured information often narrows the sieve just when you need to broaden it out in the spaces between information and real understanding. Overtraining our brains on data alone doesn’t confer an advantage, and it can be a deterrent if it’s the only decision-making component. That’s often the problem with MBA students, who come armed with all the business tools and case studies but little simple human instinct. I do not believe that using instinct rather than deep, hard numerical or fact-based data to help with decision-making is the lazier process. Too much information can overload, overcomplicate, and obscure what is at the essence of any proposal: Is it a good idea, and does it make any common sense?”

“Instinct is what I prize. Not research or data. Those who try to apply metrics to these basic decisions waste a huge amount of time and money. And experience doesn’t necessarily give you an advantage. It may even be a hindrance, since experience can easily inculcate a cynical outlook. In the TV and film business, you have no choice but to fly by your instincts alone, and that’s why it was mandatory for me to keep myself as naive and, yes, as undereducated as I could, so I could trust my instinctive ability to recognize a good idea. I force myself to remain naive in this way so many decades later.”