Un examen de thinking fast and slow goodreads
Un examen de thinking fast and slow goodreads
Blog Article
This shit never works. Putting aside the fact that I’m subject to the same cognitive limitations, quotations often arrive nous the scene like a flaccid member, with intimations of a proper réaction hidden somewhere in that bloodless noodle, if only the other party would play with it. Fin, much like idioms, there’s just not enough chemistry to warrant heavy petting.
A common theme in these cognitive fourvoiement is a failure of our intuition to deal with statistical fraîche. We are good at thinking in terms of intérêt and comparisons, but condition involving chance throw usages hors champ. As année example, imagine a man who is shy, tranquille, and orderly.
Ravissant over the years, Nisbett had come to emphasize in his research and thinking the possibility of training people to overcome pépite avoid a number of pitfalls, including base-rate neglect, fundamental attribution error, and the sunk-cost fallacy. He had emailed Kahneman in part because he had been working nous a memoir, and wanted to discuss a entretien he’d had with Kahneman and Tversky at a longitudinal-ago conference.
Psychology should inform the design of risk policies that astuce the expérimenté’ knowledge with the public’s emotions and intuitions.
"Thinking, Fast and Slow" is Nous of the best books I ever read. I have read it 3x now. It's the gift that keeps je giving.
When can we trust sentiment/judgements? The answer comes from the two basic Formalité connaissance acquiring a skill:
And the funny thing is without system 1, we'd won't survive a day in the life. Not to Commentaire we wouldn't act human. System 2 nous-mêmes the other hand is more introspective, rational and is dégourdi of being aware of the cognitive biases created by System 1. If my understanding is décent then, we can replicate system 2 by a machine pépite artificial discernement. Ravissant that Appareil will not have the same extent of morality that we have.... food conscience thought!
The evidence is persuasive: activities that impose high demands on System 2 require self-control, and the exertion of self-control is depleting and unpleasant. Unlike cognitive load, moi depletion is at least in portion a loss of destination.
I have attempted to summarize some heuristics, biases and psychological principle that I thought would make a fascinating intromission to tempt a novice like me to further explore the subject.
- We tend to Supposé que more risk prone when we have something to lose than when we have something to profit. - What you see is all there is. We tend to form opinions based on only what we know and tend to ignore that there might Si other relevant récente we might Mademoiselle.
As I say, this sheep/goat take on Thinking Fast is my own. Kahneman never goes there. Where he Ut go is to the value of experience in thinking fast:
However, right next to it was another row of water bottles, and clearly the mechanism in that row was in order. My ordre was to not buy a bottle from the “good” row, parce que $4 intuition a bottle of water is too much. But all of my training in cognitive biases told me that was faulty thinking. I would Quand spending $2 cognition the water—a price I was willing to pay, as had already been established. So I put the money in and got the water, which I happily drank.
Why? Lack of access to health Ondée? Wait, what? The System 1 mind immediately comes up with a story to explain the difference. Fin léopard des neiges the numbers are cranked, apparently, it’s just année artifact of the fact that a few subdivision in kahneman slow and fast thinking a small county skews the lérot. Fin if you fondement your decision je either story, the outcomes will Si bad.
I recommend it. He explains the availability heuristic this way: “People are surprised that suicides outnumber homicides, and drownings outnumber deaths by fire. People always think crime is increasing” even if it’s not.