Why are we so often wrong about what other people think, believe and do?Professor Bobby Duffy has spent more than two decades studying the gap between our perceptions of society and reality. In this episode of Polar Insight Conversations, he joins James Tattersfield to explain why our mistakes are not simply caused by a lack of information. They emerge from the interaction between our cognitive biases, our emotional responses and an information environment increasingly designed to attract attention through division and conflict.They explore why we misjudge emotionally charged subjects such as crime and immigration, how confirmation bias and rosy retrospection affect organisational decisions, and why correcting the facts rarely changes minds on its own.The conversation also examines what leaders can do differently: challenge their immediate reactions, look for disconfirming evidence, involve the people affected by decisions, and create the conditions for genuine contact across different identities and perspectives.Bobby is Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Policy Institute at King’s College London. He is the author of The Perils of Perception and Generations.In this conversation00:00 Introduction00:55 Why we are so often wrong about other people03:01 Emotion, identity and misperception06:14 How cognitive biases affect workplace decisions09:01 The interaction between how we think and what we’re told12:13 Challenging bias before making consequential decisions16:48 Deliberation, citizens’ assemblies and pluralistic ignorance20:04 How direct contact can bridge social divides23:57 Why conflict is clickable26:22 Intergenerational contact and the role of the workplace30:21 Values change and the challenge facing global organisationsKey topics- Why perception and reality diverge- Negativity bias, confirmation bias and rosy retrospection- Emotionally driven beliefs about crime and immigration- How organisational information environments reinforce existing views- Why myth-busting and factual corrections have limited effects- Pluralistic ignorance and deliberative decision-making- The value of direct human contact across divides- Intergenerational mentoring, innovation and resilience- Global values change and its implications for organisationsPolar Insight Conversations explores how experienced thinkers and leaders make consequential decisions when certainty is impossible.Learn more about Polar Insight: https://www.polarinsight.comConnect with James Tattersfield: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamestattersfield/Find out more about Bobby Duffy: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/bobby-duffySubscribe for more conversations about decision-making, evidence, uncertainty and the people affected by consequential choices.#DecisionMaking #Leadership #CognitiveBias #Misperceptions #PublicOpinion

Good decisions depend on more than having the right information. They depend on whether the people receiving it actually understand what it means.In this episode of Polar Insight Conversations, James Tattersfield sits down with Mike Ellicock to explore the gap between information, understanding and better decision-making.Mike is Chief Executive of Plain Numbers and the former founding Chief Executive of National Numeracy. His career has also included banking at HSBC, service as an officer in the Parachute Regiment, and a recent solo row around Great Britain.Rather than assuming that clear communication creates understanding, this conversation examines what happens when people believe they understand information but cannot demonstrate that they do. Mike explains why self-reported clarity can be misleading, what Plain Numbers has learned from testing real customer communications, and why organisations need to understand both their own assumptions and the capabilities of the people they are trying to reach.Whether you are communicating risk, designing customer journeys, presenting evidence or making decisions under pressure, this episode offers practical lessons for turning information into genuine understanding.In this conversation:• Why people often think they understand information when they do not• Why half of UK adults struggle with everyday numeracy• What organisations learn when they test comprehension rather than perception• Why some firms may be reluctant to discover how little customers understand• How Consumer Duty is changing expectations around customer understanding• Why knowing yourself and knowing your audience improves decision-making• How System 1 and System 2 thinking shape the way we respond to numbers• Why improving schools alone will not solve the UK’s numeracy problem• How better communication can support better financial decisions• What military experience and rowing around Great Britain taught Mike about preparation, judgement and decision-making under pressurePolar Insight helps leadership teams make decisions they can stand behind by staying close to the people, markets and stakeholders that matter most.🌐 https://polarinsight.comSubscribe for more conversations with leading thinkers exploring judgement, leadership, uncertainty and decision making.00:00 Introduction00:06 What makes a good decision?02:20 Know yourself and know your audience05:37 From HSBC to numeracy and Plain Numbers08:00 Testing whether people really understand10:56 How do you measure genuine comprehension?13:16 Why organisations do not test understanding15:28 Who needs to think about clearer communication?19:19 Risk communication and better outcomes20:55 Financial advice, targeted support and informed choices24:14 Why the UK has a numeracy problem27:17 System 1 thinking, headlines and the £350m bus29:40 Why fixing schools is not enough31:41 Rowing solo around Great Britain34:29 Decision-making under pressure37:01 Closing thoughts#decisionmaking #leadership #mikeellicock #numeracy #plainnumbers #decisionconfidence #financialservices #consumerduty #communication #behaviouralscience #criticalthinking #riskcommunication #judgement #financialliteracy #polarinsight

Good decisions depend on more than the judgement of the person making them.In this episode of Polar Insight Conversations, James Tattersfield sits down with Polly Mackenzie to explore how consequential decisions are really made across government, business, universities and the social sector.Polly is Co-Founder and CEO of Zinc Innovation Partners, a contributor to The Times’ How to Win an Election podcast, and a former Director of Policy to Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Chief Executive of Demos.Rather than treating decision-making as an individual skill, this conversation examines the structures, relationships and unwritten processes surrounding a decision. Polly explains why senior meetings can become organisational theatre, why organisations struggle to identify the problem they are actually solving, and how design can help turn analysis into meaningful action.Whether you’re leading transformation, navigating competing priorities or trying to collaborate across organisational boundaries, this episode offers practical lessons for designing better decisions.In this conversation:• Why consequential decisions are often more chaotic than they appear• How different sectors develop their own decision-making cultures• Why senior meetings can become organisational theatre• How to start with the problem and work backwards• Why trust and constructive disagreement matter• How design turns analysis into action• Why technology must be designed around real human needs• How wider experience exposes an organisation’s “common nonsense”• Why bringing legal, operational and communications teams in earlier improves decisionsPolar Insight helps leadership teams make decisions they can stand behind by staying close to the people, markets and stakeholders that matter most.🌐 https://polarinsight.comSubscribe for more conversations with leading thinkers exploring judgement, leadership, uncertainty and decision making.00:00 Introduction00:58 Meet Polly Mackenzie01:25 How consequential decisions are really made04:35 Choosing the right decision-making structure05:50 Why politics is more chaotic than it appears07:46 Decision-making inside coalition government08:59 When meetings become organisational theatre11:04 Using design to make better decisions13:31 Why individual optimisation undermines organisations16:19 Start with the problem and work backwards21:10 Why technology is often the easy part22:56 Designing financial services around real people26:27 Why useful innovations struggle to find funding29:42 Design versus analysis in policymaking32:13 Policy Lab and outcome-based contracting36:08 Bringing specialists into the decision earlier38:01 Why cross-sector experience improves judgement42:41 Common sense, uncommon sense and common nonsense44:17 Closing thoughts#decisionmaking #leadership #pollymackenzie #designthinking #organisationaldesign #decisionconfidence #strategy #innovation #governance #organisationalculture #publicpolicy #criticalthinking #executiveleadership #collaboration #polarinsight

Why do smart leaders still make poor decisions, even when they have good evidence?

In this conversation, James Tattersfield speaks with Baruch Fischhoff, one of the world’s leading experts on decision science and risk communication, about how people make consequential decisions under uncertainty and where those processes most often go wrong.

They explore why evidence alone is rarely enough, how communication can fail even when the underlying analysis is sound, and why leaders need to understand not just whether information is accurate, but whether it is actually being understood and used well. The conversation also examines overconfidence, disagreement, expert judgement, and the growing role of AI in decision-making.

Topics include:

• Why better information does not automatically lead to better decisions
• The difference between accuracy, comprehension and policy judgement
• How leaders can communicate risk without creating false certainty
• Why organisations need fewer but better conflicts
• The importance of testing whether people actually understand what they are being told
• How experts should work with decision-makers rather than simply hand over analysis
• The risks of overconfident or overly agreeable AI systems
• What good decision-making looks like when uncertainty cannot be removed

Baruch Fischhoff is Howard Heinz University Professor at Carnegie Mellon University and one of the leading figures in the study of decision-making, risk perception and risk communication.

James Tattersfield is the founder and CEO of Polar Insight, helping leadership teams in complex and regulated markets make decisions they can stand behind.

What can political polling teach leaders about evidence, judgement and decision-making?

In this conversation, James Tattersfield speaks with Sir John Curtice, one of Britain’s most respected political scientists and polling experts, about how evidence should inform consequential decisions without being mistaken for certainty.

They explore what polling can and cannot tell us, why leaders often struggle to interpret data well, and how evidence becomes distorted when it is used to justify a preferred answer rather than test an assumption. The conversation also examines the difference between following public opinion and seeking to change it, the limits of prediction, and what good judgement looks like when the evidence remains incomplete.

Topics include:

• Why data rarely provides a decision on its own
• What polling can reveal, and where it can mislead
• The difference between evidence and certainty
• Why leaders need greater fluency in interpreting research
• How assumptions should be challenged before action is taken
• When leaders should respond to opinion and when they should try to shape it
• What makes a decision credible when the future cannot be predicted

Sir John Curtice is Professor of Politics at the University of Strathclyde and one of the UK’s leading authorities on elections, public opinion and political polling.

James Tattersfield is the founder and CEO of Polar Insight, helping leadership teams in complex and regulated markets make decisions they can stand behind.

Why do capable leadership teams still make decisions they later regret?

In this conversation, Polar Insight CEO James Tattersfield speaks with Paul Gordon, founder of Catalyze, about what happens when organisations confuse alignment, activity and confidence with genuinely good decision-making.

They explore why important assumptions often go unchallenged, how group dynamics can suppress useful disagreement, and why apparently rational processes can still produce poor outcomes. The conversation also examines the role of evidence, judgement and constructive conflict in helping teams make better decisions under uncertainty.

Topics include:

• Why intelligent teams can become collectively overconfident
• The difference between consensus and decision quality
• How hidden assumptions shape strategic choices
• Why disagreement is often most valuable before commitment
• How leaders can create the conditions for better judgement
• What makes a decision defensible, even when the outcome remains uncertain

Paul Gordon is the founder of Catalyze, where he helps organisations address complex challenges and improve how groups think, collaborate and make decisions.

James Tattersfield is the founder and CEO of Polar Insight, helping leadership teams in complex and regulated markets make decisions they can stand behind.