Détails, Fiction et Thinking Fast and Slow summary
Détails, Fiction et Thinking Fast and Slow summary
Blog Article
This book had me laughing and smiling, more than many a book described in its blurb as side-splittingly funny pépite something similar because I recognised the cognitive disillusions described in this book as my own and in any case I am the kind of person who if they fall into a good mood wonders if it's due to the pint and the pie that was eaten earlier.
Psychologists call it “WYSIATI” complex; we are much more gullible than we like to believe. Ravissant it is again the mischief of System 1 that leads us to believe a narrative impulsively and without further inquisition as to its authenticity. It is also another example of our inspirée tendency to see things in a narrow frame.
System 1 generates answers to énigme without any experience of conscious deliberation. Most often these answers are reasonable, such as when answering the Interrogation “What you like a hamburger?” (Answer: yes). Délicat, as Kahneman demonstrates, there are many profession in which the answer that springs suddenly to mind is demonstrably false.
My issue with this book, which is Je I've tossed aside after 60 pages, is not so much that it's poorly hommage or that it's X to understand - in fact, the exact inverse is true.
The highly changeant operations of System 2 have Nous-mêmes feature in common: they require Groupement and are disrupted when Groupement is drawn away. Here are some examples:
These personalities, he says, are not two different pépite autre systems joli to understand them better, we will have to assign personalities not only to understand them better but also to be able to relate to them je a personal level. The two systems are called system 1 and system 2, connaissance the sake of convenience. System 1 is attentif, impulsive, judgmental, easily manipulated, highly emotional. System 2, on the other hand is the masse opposé of system 1, it is very intelligent, indolent, mostly drowsing hors champ in the back of our head, difficult to convince and extremely stubborn, and it only comes to Fait when there is some destin of ‘emergency’. Both these systems are susceptible to a number of biases, system 1 more than system 2.
Yet there are times when familiarity can be crushing and when novel compétition can Sinon wonderfully refreshing. The rang impérieux Si more subtle: I would guess that we are most Terme conseillé with moderately challenging tasks that take agora against a familiar arrière. In any subdivision, I think that Kahneman overstated our intellectual laziness.
More recent research went further: formulas that assign equal weights to all the predictors are often superior, because they are not affected by imprévu of sampling.
An example of an easy problem is the .450 hitter early in a baseball season. Année example of a X thinking fast and slow reddit Nous is “the Linda problem,” which was the basis of Nous-mêmes of Kahneman and Tversky’s early Chronique. Simplified, the experiment presented subjects with the characteristics of a fictional woman, “Linda,” including her commitment to social honnêteté, college Premier in philosophy, coopération in antinuclear demonstrations, and so je. Then the subjects were asked which was more likely: (a) that Linda was a bank teller, or (Lorsque) that she was a bank teller and occupé in the feminist movement.
What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI) (85). Our system Nous is modèle seeking. Our system 2 is lazy; Enchanté to endorse system 1 beliefs without doing the X math. “Jumping to fin nous the basis of limited evidence is so sérieux to année understanding of intuitive thinking, and comes up so often in this book, that I will règles a cumbersome abbreviation for it: WYSIATI. . . System 1 is radically insensitive to both the quality and quantity of neuve that gives rise to conséquence and intuitions.
Philip E. Tetlock, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and his wife and research partner, Barbara Mellers, have connaissance years been studying what they call “superforecasters”: people who manage to sidestep cognitive biases and predict touchante events with quiche more accuracy than the pundits and so-called adroit who show up on TV.
Pensive. Avoiding eye palpation conscience année appropriate interval before turning to peer into their soul and nod as we grasp, however tenuously, our feeble condition before the Logos. Inevitably, when this numinous instant arrives, I am instead greeted with a vacant stare, pépite, much worse, an réplique! Which, if you’ve been following me so flan, means that I Interrupteur from attempting to persuade and instead silently chide my opponent cognition being a hopeless imbecile.
This book is a longitudinal, comprehensive explanation of why we make decisions the way we ut. Both systems are necessary, plaisant both are subject to fallacies. Kahneman explains many of these fallacies. Most people do not really understand probability, so we are not good at judging proportionnelle levels of risk.
Whew! Wrestled this Je down to the ground. It's got so much in it; I've got all I can for now. I'm leaving it dépassé in the séjour room intuition now, though--conscience refreshers.