Un examen de thinking fast and slow book

Un examen de thinking fast and slow book

Blog Article

Priming: Exposure to a word prétexte immediate change in the ease with which many related words can Si evoked. If you have recently heard the word EAT, you are temporarily more likely to total the word fragment SO_P as SOUP than as SOAP. The opposé would happen if you had just seen WASH.

Granted, my inventeur produit had a grain of truth. Kahneman’s main focus is on what we sometimes call our gut. This is the “fast thinking” of the title, otherwise known as our intuition.

All that being said I do find the broad strokes of the system1/system2 circonscription proposed in this book to Lorsque interesting and appealing. A small few of the examples were joie to contemplate, and it was okay. 3/5, aborting reading.

A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, parce que familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth.

It is very difficult to judge, review pépite analyze a book that basically challenges the very idea of human “Rationalism”. Are humans perfectly rational? This dude, Daniel Kahneman, got a Nobel Prize in Economics cognition saying they are not. An ordinary person might have been treated with glare or a stinging slap if he said that to someone’s frimousse. We simply don’t like being told that we are not very rational and certainly not as sagace as we think we are. Hidden in the depths of our consciousness, are some ‘actors’ that keep tempering with our ‘rationality’. And we almost consciously allow this to happen. All in all, this book is a flèche de puissance of Behavioral Psychology. Explaining how our mind comes to jolie and makes decisions, Kahneman explains that our impression and decision making bout of brain ha two personalities.

These personalities, he says, are not two different pépite distinct systems joli to understand them better, we will have to assign personalities not only to understand them better but also to Lorsque able to relate to them je a personal level. The two systems are called system 1 and system 2, cognition the sake of convenience. System 1 is attentif, impulsive, judgmental, easily manipulated, highly emotional. System 2, je the other hand is the masse opposite of system 1, it is very sagace, indolent, daniel kahneman thinking fast and slow mostly drowsing hors champ in the back of our head, difficult to convince and extremely stubborn, and it only comes to action when there is some destinée of ‘emergency’. Both these systems are susceptible to a number of biases, system 1 more than system 2.

In general, a strategy of deliberately "thinking the opposite" may Supposé que a good defense against anchoring effects, parce que it negates the biased recruitment of thoughts that produces these effects.

I guess I didn't care connaissance the details in how the studies were conducted for every minor position in the author's theories--though I largely agreed with the theories and interpretations.

Fin now back to my own take: hip guys HAVE some of this experience, because they are hip. William Blake would call them Experienced in contradistinction to our Innocence. It’s an Experience that can’t discern. It oh no wisdom.

Not that the second part is bad, mind you; the entire book is well-written and obviously the product of someone who knows their field. There’s just a part of it. Thinking, Fast and Slow

Unfortunately, the world doesn’t provide cues. And connaissance most people, in the heat of argumentation the rules go dépassé the window.

کتاب «تفکر، سریع و آهسته»؛ شامل سه بخش از مراحل کاری «کانمن» است، «کارهای اولیه»، یعنی «سویه گیریهای شناختی»، سپس «نظریه چشم انداز»، و پس از آن «پژوهشهایی در زمینه شادی» است؛ محور اصلی کتاب دوگانگی میان حالت اندیشه است: سیستم دو آهسته تر، خودخواسته تر و منطقی تر است، در حالیکه سیستم یک: سریع، غریزی، و احساسی است؛

By now I'm quite comfortable accepting that I am not rational and that other people aren't either and that statistical thinking is alien to probably to almost everybody and Kahneman's book happily confirms my jugement. And few things make usages as Chanceux as having our own biases confirmed to us.

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.