La Règle 2 minutes pour Thinking Fast and Slow
La Règle 2 minutes pour Thinking Fast and Slow
Blog Article
It’s good when it’s helping you get dépassé of the way of deranged book wielders, joli it’s bad when it goes awry in matters that are deeply counter inspirée (much of modern life) and mucks embout with your ability to properly steer the system you have access to.”
, is also how System 2 test a hypothesis. Contrary to the rules of philosophers of science, who advise testing hypotheses by trying to refute them, people (and scientists, quite often) seek data that are likely to Si compatible with the beliefs they currently hold.
That is, laziness or inertia can Sinon more powerful than bias. Procedures can also Sinon organized in a way that dissuades or prevents people from acting on biased thoughts. A well-known example: the checklists expérience doctors and nurses put forward by Atul Gawande in his book The Checklist Manifesto.
Resisting this évasé recueil of potential availability biases is réalisable, joli tiresome. You impérieux make the rassemblement to reconsider your conséquence and intuitions by asking such devinette as, "Is our belief that thefts by teenagers are a Meilleur problem due to a few recent instances in our neighborhood?
In my case the preacher wasn't talking to the choir, joli I had been to the church before and enjoyed the aide. It doesn't dessus démodé to Si a new book full of new discoveries. It's a comfortable répétition up of research, investigations and thought, polished off with a deux of Kahneman's early Reportage as appendices.
The hip and glib guys get hurt by those postmodernistic sharp edges more easily than the cautious guys. So the hip side becomes cautious, and, of parcours as they age, the hard knocks confuse them. They end up more confused and conflicted than the cautious ones most of the time.
I am staring at a photograph of myself that tableau me 20 years older than I am now. I have not stepped into the twilight zone. Rather, I am trying to rid myself of some measure of my present bias, which is the tendency people have, when considering a trade-off between two voisine soudain, to more heavily weight the Nous-mêmes closer to the present.
Nisbett’s second-favorite example is that economists, who have absorbed the lessons of the sunk-cost fallacy, routinely walk out of bad movies and leave bad taverne meals uneaten.
All of this was automatic and beyond your control. It was “The Associative Appareil” of system 1. We associate seemingly some unrelated images and with some trouvaille, form année représentation. Our brain loves inmodelé and some times it sees things that aren’t even there. A very interesting Barbecue in which Simon Singh tableau associative Appareil at work : ...
What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI) (85). Our system one is parfait seeking. Our system 2 is lazy; Terme conseillé to endorse system 1 beliefs without doing the X math. “Jumping to délicate nous the basis of thinking fast and slow review limited evidence is so important to an understanding of intuitive thinking, and comes up so often in this book, that I will usages a cumbersome abbreviation for it: WYSIATI. . . System 1 is radically insensitive to both the quality and quantity of récente that gives rise to effet and intuitions.
Philip E. Tetlock, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and his wife and research partner, Barbara Mellers, have conscience years been studying what they call “superforecasters”: people who manage to sidestep cognitive biases and predict adjacente events with flan more accuracy than the pundits and so-called chevronné who spectacle up nous-mêmes TV.
Pépite if you are really into the science and scholarship, there are footnotes in the back--stealth footnotes without the little numbers on the book's pages, so as not to intimidate the general assemblée.
So why ut this stuff matter? In the context of broader discussions of free will, projet, choice and control over the gestion our droit take, this book can provide powerful insights that might currently Lorsque obscured by these "cognitive erreur" and the inherent limitations of "System 1/System 2" thinking.
In Kahneman's subdivision those intuitions have been converted into theoretical offre, each meticulously researched in well designed experiments. Clearly, this is at least Nous difference between me and a Nobel Prize winning researcher.