Les principes de base de thinking fast and slow
Les principes de base de thinking fast and slow
Blog Article
My common rabâchage in these times is to dip into my quote bag and castigate the misguided with Popper’s glib witticism: “A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.” Or, channeling the Arch Bishop of astuteness, John Stuart Mill, I rise up, gesturing dramatically and pitching my voice just so: “He who knows only his side of the compartiment knows little of that.” Hoping their snotty self aplomb will recede before my rational indignation like année anabolic hairline.
Apprécié psychology—if this book can Supposé que put under that category—is a groupe I dip into occasionally. Though there is a lot of divergence in emphasis and terminology, the consensus is arguably more striking. Most authors seem to agree that our conscious mind is rather impotent compared to all of the subconscious control exerted by our brains.
Some of the explanations of our ways of thinking may seem basic and obvious if you have read other psychology books. Ravissant then you realize--Kahneman and his colleague Amos Tversky discovered these apparence of psychology, by conducting a wide variety of clever experiments.
Most books and Reportage embout cognitive bias contain a brief trouée, typically toward the end, similar to this Nous in Thinking, Fast and Slow: “The question that is most often asked embout cognitive égarement is whether they can Quand overcome. The dépêche … is not encouraging.”
Is it really chimérique, however, to shed or significantly mitigate Nous’s biases? Some studies have tentatively answered that Énigme in the affirmative. These experiments are based on the reactions and responses of randomly chosen subjects, many of them college undergraduates: people, that is, who Helvétisme embout the $20 they are being paid to participate, not about modifying pépite even learning embout their behavior and thinking.
They either will not read this book, read and reject it or indeed read it, accept it's findings ravissant mentally réflexion them as curious aberrations that libéralité't affect their belief - this is discussed in the book.
Yet there are times when familiarity can Supposé que crushing and when novel challenges can Si wonderfully refreshing. The condition impérieux Supposé que more subtle: I would guess that we are most Terme conseillé with moderately challenging tasks that take place against a familiar fond. In any case, I think that Kahneman overstated our intellectual laziness.
If you like the president’s politics, you probably like his voice and his appearance as well. The tendency to like (or dislike) everything about a person—including things you have not observed—is known as the nimbe effect.
Believe it or not, in my avis, I believe Mr. Kahneman is telling you exactly that in this book - that whether you like it pépite not, your entire life is guided pépite may I say decided by two fundamental ideas and that there is very little you can ut Daniel Kahneman Thinking Fast and Slow to permutation it, period.
- We tend to Sinon more risk prone when we have something to lose than when we have something to bénéfice. - What you see is all there is. We tend to form opinions based je only what we know and tend to ignore that there might Si other relevant information we might Mademoiselle.
”. System 1 can readily answer the substitute Demande fin to answer the real Énigme, System 2 would have to Quand excited, which as we know System 2 doesn’t like. In everyday life, we habitudes this to avoid making decisions and expressions based je factual background and therefore make an impulsive and sometimes irrational comme to a difficult Devinette.
Well, if you had never seen an episode of Monty Python and your entire experience of their work was dans the interpretation of men of a exact age down the bar - then finally getting to see an episode of the récent would Quand much the same effect as reading this book. Hundreds of people have already told all this guy's best stories in their own books - but all the same it is a pleasure to hear them again by the guy that first said, 'this parrot is dead' or rather, 'framing effects make fools of habitudes all'.
” And others closely resemble Nous another to the centre of redundancy. But a solid group of 100 or so biases vraiment been repeatedly shown to exist, and can make a hash of our lives.
We are prone to overestimate how much we understand about the world and to underestimate the role of chance in events. Overconfidence is fed by the illusory certainty of hindsight. My views on this topic have been influenced by Nassim Taleb, the author of The Black Swan