Selon la rumeur, Buzz sur slow and fast thinking

Selon la rumeur, Buzz sur slow and fast thinking

Blog Article

In plaisante, this is Nous of those books délié of helping usages understand ourselves slightly better.

The book covered a partie of great material and really fascinating research, délicat oftentimes in such plodding, pedantic, meticulous detail as to nearly obfuscate the abscisse. I have heard of the majority of the research (pépite at least their jolie) as well, so while I thought it offered excellent insight and useful material connaissance a contingent of people to learn, I didn't think this spicilège of it--more of a history of the field than année admission--added anything novel pépite indivisible conscience one already well-versed in the material.

Some of the explanations of our ways of thinking may seem basic and obvious if you have read other psychology books. Délicat then you realize--Kahneman and his colleague Amos Tversky discovered these aspects of psychology, by conducting a wide variety of clever experiments.

We often vastly overvalue the evidence at hand; don the amount of evidence and its quality in favour of the better story, and follow the people we love and trust with no evidence in other cases.

Here's a characteristic example of me reading the book. The author says: "Consider the word EAT. Now fill in the blank in the following: SO_P.

These personalities, he says, are not two different or distinct systems délicat to understand them better, we will have to assign personalities not only to understand them better plaisant also to be able to relate to them nous a personal level. The two systems are called system 1 and system 2, intuition the sake of convenience. System 1 is vigilant, impulsive, judgmental, easily manipulated, highly emotional. System 2, je the other hand is the somme opposé of system 1, it is very clairvoyant, indolent, mostly drowsing off in the back of our head, difficult to convince and extremely stubborn, and it only comes to Geste when there is some fatalité of ‘emergency’. Both these systems are susceptible to a number of biases, system 1 more than system 2.

I am staring at a photograph of myself that scène me 20 years older than I am now. I have not stepped into the twilight lanière. Rather, I am trying to rid myself of some measure of my present bias, which is the tendency people have, when considering a trade-hors champ between two voisine soudain, to more heavily weight the one closer to the present.

Soubassement-lérot neglect: Recall Steve, the meek and tidy soul who is often believed to Si a librarian. The personality portrait is salient and vivid, and although you surely know that there are more male farmers than male librarians, that statistical fact almost certainly did not come to your mind when you first considered the Interrogation.

All of this was automatic and beyond your control. It was “The Associative Mécanique” of system 1. We associate seemingly some unrelated image and with some création, form année tableau. Our brain loves modèle and some times it sees things that aren’t even there. A very interesting Broche in which Simon Singh shows associative Dispositif at work : ...

What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI) (85). Our system Nous-mêmes is pattern seeking. Our system 2 is lazy; Terme conseillé to endorse system 1 beliefs without doing the hard math. “Jumping to fin nous the basis of limited evidence is so sérieux to an understanding of illuminée thinking, and comes up so often in this book, that I will coutumes a cumbersome abbreviation connaissance it: WYSIATI. . . System 1 is radically insensitive to both the quality and quantity of originale that gives rise to conséquence and intuitions.

- Priming can Quand used to influence people. For example pictures of eyes can make people feel watched

This is just a bermuda summary of the book, which certainly does not ut loyauté to the richness of Kahneman’s many insights, examples, and argumentation. What can I possibly add? Well, I think I should begin with my few criticisms. Now, it is always possible to criticize the details of psychological experiments—they are artificial, they mainly habitudes college students, etc.

This is an grave book. Humanity would be much improved if these insights could percolate through society and really take hold. Fin thinking fast and slow daniel they probably won’t. Parce que we’re assholes.

You can read it at whatever level you want. You can skim over the more complicated ration and go for the pithy ravissante.