▶Emily Haisley consistently advocates for using behavioral science principles and systematic processes to improve investment decision-making. This includes implementing anonymous voting, pre-mortems, and independent deal rating to counteract biases like anchoring and social pressure.Jun 2026

▶A core tenet of her work is the direct link between an investor's physiological state (stress, sleep) and their risk-taking behavior. She champions the use of wearable technology like the Oura Ring to monitor and manage these physiological inputs.Jun 2026

▶She emphasizes that optimizing investment team dynamics is crucial for success. This involves fostering cognitive and political diversity, encouraging constructive disagreement, and structuring meetings so leaders speak last to avoid anchoring the group.

▶Haisley's approach involves leveraging technology, such as proprietary analytics to quantify biases and AI-powered simulation games, to provide objective feedback and safe training environments for portfolio managers.

▶Haisley presents the neoclassical economic view that individual irrational errors cancel out, leading to efficient markets, but her entire body of work is predicated on the idea that these biases are systematic and require active intervention, creating a tension between classical theory and her practical application.

▶She highlights a contrast between the psychological experience of simulated vs. real-world events, noting that BlackRock's AI game elicits a 'fun' response during drawdowns, which is the opposite of the painful emotional experience it is designed to prepare investors for.Jun 2026

▶Haisley discusses stress hormones in contrasting ways. She points to cortisol as a negative influence that can alter risk preferences towards aversion, while also describing oxytocin as a stress hormone that provides heart-protective benefits and encourages positive social connection.Jun 2026

▶She notes that while disagreement within a team leads to objectively better decisions, the group often feels less confident about the outcome, highlighting a conflict between processes that generate superior results and the subjective feelings of the decision-makers.