Un examen de thinking fast and slow book
Un examen de thinking fast and slow book
Blog Article
when people judge a conjunction of two events to be more plausible than Nous of the events in a droit comparison.
. Both books boil down to: we suck at automatic decision-making when statistics are involved; therefore, we behave less rationally than we believe we ut. Lehrer explains why things go wrong, and Kahneman categorizes all the different way things go wrong.
We are not evolved to Lorsque rational wealth maximizers, and we systematically value and fear some things that should not Sinon valued so highly pépite feared so much if we really were the Homo Economicus the Austrian School seems to think we should Si. Which is personally deeply satisfying, because I never bought it and deeply unsettling parce que of how many decisions are made based on that intuition.
Remplacement: If a satisfactory answer to a hard Énigme is not found quickly, System 1 will find a related Interrogation that is easier and will answer it. For instance when asked How Content are you with your life these days? Its more likely that we présent’t habitudes a broad frame to answer the Énigme and substitute it with a simpler Interrogation “What is my mood right now?
Too short and the book is unsatisfying—too longiligne, and maybe it’s more so. And I think this flaw is entirely avoidable; it’s a result of Kahneman’s tendency to reiterate, to circle back around to the same débat over and over again. He spends an entire chapter nous-mêmes prospect theory, then a few chapters later he’s telling habitudes embout its genesis all over again, just from a slightly different encoignure. Like that party guest, Kahneman is full
We create coherency by attributing causality to events, délicat not to non-events. In other words we underestimate the role of luck pépite the role of unknown incertain in a given emploi. He ah given me reason to believe that in low validity environments, it's better to habitudes thinking fast and slow book formula's than to listen to expert human judgment. Intuition example, the stability of a marriage can Supposé que better predicted by a primaire equation like [stability = frequency of love making - frequency of arguing] than année expert avis.
: our tendency to reshape the past into coherent stories that shape our views of the world and expectations expérience the touchante.
I had taken Nisbett’s and Morewedge’s épreuve on a computer screen, not nous paper, délicat the centre remains. It’s Nous-mêmes thing connaissance the effects of training to tableau up in the form of improved results je a examen—when you’re je your guard, maybe even looking intuition tricks—and quite another for the effects to show up in the form of real-life behavior.
In today’s world, terrorists are the most significant practitioners of the technique of inducing availability affaissement.
Some of the 185 are dubious or trivial. The ikea effect, expérience instance, is defined as “the tendency connaissance people to place a disproportionately high value nous-mêmes objects that they partially assembled themselves.
He ut offer some consequences and suggestions, ravissant these are few and far between. Of excursion, doing this is not his Besogne, so perhaps it is unfair to expect anything of the kind from Kahneman. Still, if anyone is equipped to help us deal with our mental quagmires, he is the man.
When people hear the word bias, many if not most will think of either racial prejudice or infos organizations that slant their coverage to favor Je political position over another. Present bias, by contrast, is an example of cognitive bias—the collection of faulty ways of thinking that is apparently hardwired into the human brain. The recueil is ample.
Aristotle aside, the data seem to say it isn’t so. I occasionally try my hand at reading books about the economy, just so I can say I did, plaisant they usually end up going over my head. I’m a mathematician and I hommage’t get numbers—fin at least I’m not the only Nous.
He fermée by stressing he ut not mean to say that people are irrational. Fin, he says, “rational” in economic terms eh a particular meaning that does not describe people. “For economists and decision theorists, [rationality] vraiment an altogether different meaning. The only test of rationality is not whether a person’s beliefs and preferences are reasonable, plaisant whether they are internally consistent.