## Overview In the real world we rarely receive actionable feedback on decisions: feedback is either too rare, too slow, or insufficiently specific to allow appropriate reinforcement of the policies which generated the outcomes. Nevertheless, people do make these kinds of decisions regularly, and invest considerable effort in making the decisions as well as possible, as when they decide where to holiday, for whom to vote, to which school to send their children, etc. The process of making these decisions typically involves consulting external information sources, including taking advice from other people. This project explores the mechanisms behind feedback-free, advice-dependent decision-making. Key questions are how we determine whom to consult, how we evaluate the merit of advice received, and how we alter the policies we pursue as a consequence of advice. ## Advisor evaluation People can evaluate the usefulness of advice, even when they receive no feedback on the decisions they make (Pescetelli, N., Yeung N. *Calibration and accuracy detection in social partners in the absence of objective feedback* (in prep.)). Here we aim to establish the extent of this ability and test a theory of metacognitive evaluation. ## Advice usage People routinely fail to ascribe sufficient weight to advice relative to their own opinion, a phenomenon known as *egocentric discounting*. Various mechanisms have been proposed for egocentric discounting, yet none have survived experimental testing. Here we take an approach similar to [Trouche et al., 2018](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188825) where we consider the ultimate causes of egocentric discounting. We use evolutionary models to explore the effects of various plausible environments on the evolution of egocentric discounting.