by mrjaeger on 3/27/24, 3:09 PM with 309 comments
by _aleph2c_ on 3/27/24, 4:03 PM
by zug_zug on 3/27/24, 3:34 PM
(Though at some point, maybe the 2nd half of the book, drags on and you can skip most of those chapters. If you don't have time for that, I'm sure chat GPT can give you a taste of the main premises and you can probe deeper from there.)
by coyotespike on 3/27/24, 5:14 PM
Which surely is one of the best things you can say about a scientist.
by toomuchtodo on 3/27/24, 3:30 PM
https://kahneman.scholar.princeton.edu/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2024/03/27/daniel-... | https://archive.today/tZY2w ("The Washington Post: Daniel Kahneman, Nobel-winning economist, dies at 90")
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-27/daniel-ka... | https://archive.today/MpDes ("Bloomberg: Daniel Kahneman, Psychologist Who Upended Economics, Dies at 90")
by micah94 on 3/27/24, 3:45 PM
by suriyaG on 3/27/24, 4:03 PM
Some interesting talks with Daniel Kahneman
- https://www.edge.org/adversarial-collaboration-daniel-kahnem...
- https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-... Kahneman himself reponds in the comment sections to a very critical piece about his work.
by fastandslow on 3/27/24, 3:48 PM
Two things bothered me about it though - firstly, it landed shortly before the reproducibility issues of such research became more widely known.
Secondly - towards the end of the book, it espouses the idea that using some methods of psychlogical and behavoural manipulation is at worst a net neutral, especially if there was nothing to see of the manipluation in question. After all, who can argue against organ donation being opt-out by default, or similar?
To me, this is like a magician claiming that there was no sleight of hand, as we were free to look wherever we liked during their performance. Denying the presence and capabailities of tools of manipulation is, in my opinion, incredibly dangerous, and the worst of its outcomes has been very publicly played out in recent years.
by OliverJones on 3/27/24, 3:30 PM
by Shrezzing on 3/27/24, 4:29 PM
To a large extent, it's still dogmatic and prescriptivist, but unorthodox opinions (not just limited to behavioral economics) are more accepted & considered following Kahneman's input.
by zebomon on 3/27/24, 3:38 PM
by dinp on 3/27/24, 3:50 PM
by Swizec on 3/27/24, 3:52 PM
And if I recall correctly he addresses the replication issues from Thinking Fast And Slow and discusses more recent research that disproves or adds nuance on the older studies. I think it’s also more practically useful and applicable to everyday life. Where TFS gives you a “these are interesting facts about life” vibe, Noise is more “here’s the problem and this is what you can do about it” style.
by mgfist on 3/27/24, 4:25 PM
by cynicalpeace on 3/27/24, 5:27 PM
"It must have been late 1941 or early 1942. Jews were required to wear the Star of David and to obey a 6 p.m. curfew. I had gone to play with a Christian friend and had stayed too late. I turned my brown sweater inside out to walk the few blocks home. As I was walking down an empty street, I saw a German soldier approaching. He was wearing the black uniform that I had been told to fear more than others – the one worn by specially recruited SS soldiers. As I came closer to him, trying to walk fast, I noticed that he was looking at me intently. Then he beckoned me over, picked me up, and hugged me. I was terrified that he would notice the star inside my sweater. He was speaking to me with great emotion, in German. When he put me down, he opened his wallet, showed me a picture of a boy, and gave me some money. I went home more certain than ever that my mother was right: people were endlessly complicated and interesting."
by roughly on 3/27/24, 10:41 PM
One of the few other books that's changed my thinking about my thinking in similar ways is Annie Murphy Paul's "The Extended Mind" - https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-extended-mind-the-power-of-... . It's hard to put anything at the level of Thinking Fast and Slow, but it felt like reading a sequel to that book.
by mehdix on 3/28/24, 4:26 AM
RIP Daniel Kahneman.
by fastandslow on 3/27/24, 3:47 PM
Two things bothered me about it though - firstly, it landed shortly before the reproducibility issues of such research became more widely known.
Secondly - towards the end of the book, it espouses the idea that using some methods of psychlogical and behavoural manipulation is at worst a net neutral, especially if there was nothing to see of the manipluation in question. After all, who can argue against organ donation being opt-out by default, or similar?
To me, this is like a magician claiming that there was no sleight of hand, as we were free to look wherever we liked during their performance. Denying the presence and capabailities of tools of manipulation is, in my opinion, incredibly dangerous, and the worst of its outcomes has been very publicly played out in recent years.
by sonorous_sub on 3/27/24, 4:37 PM
by paulpauper on 3/27/24, 3:13 PM
by FergusArgyll on 3/27/24, 4:10 PM
https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/daniel-kahneman/
by tonymet on 3/27/24, 11:25 PM
Now that "soft paternalism" has been so successful, the same policymakers are pivoting into hard paternalism .
I learned a lot from Thinking Fast and Slow, but it's also a cynical book. In the same vein as Skinner's behavioralist view of people.
Principles must always come first.
by emeril on 3/27/24, 5:16 PM
Isn't that a bad question to ask, it suggests there are only two possible outcomes, wouldn't a better question include a third option of "not a bank teller and may or may not be a active feminist"?
by profsummergig on 3/28/24, 1:11 AM
If anyone has figured out how to do it using one's phone, please share. There used to be an App on Google Play store but it doesn't work on more recent versions of Android. I created a Spreadsheet based random 4-digit number prompter, which isn't bad, but I'd like better ideas if anyone has any.
by kqr on 3/27/24, 4:25 PM
Kahneman was one of those people where I was just waiting to have a problem tough enough that I'd have a good reason to email him with a question, whether or not I'd get a response. I guess no longer.
by 1_over_n on 3/28/24, 5:30 AM
by TedHerman on 3/29/24, 4:52 PM
by amai on 3/27/24, 8:35 PM
by rasse on 3/27/24, 4:24 PM
by passion__desire on 3/27/24, 4:26 PM
Sam Harris jokes, "I have met these people". Daniel replies, "We have met them and we see them in mirror" [0]
[0] 17:25 @ https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/150...
by 7thaccount on 3/27/24, 11:53 PM
I understand that sometimes you need assumptions to make the math work, but the fact that it took so long for behavioral economics and bounded rationality to be recognized is crazy. Just because the math is convenient doesn't mean people work that way at all.
I say this as someone who has taken a lot of econ classes, so I understand its value, but it is still very much a set of principles and ways of thinking about problems involving people, rather than something as exact as it's made out to be.
I got slightly off topic here, but seeing as how Daniel got the nobel prize in 2011 (pretty recent) and the work occurred in the 70s, it made me think again about how young the field is.
by topologie on 3/29/24, 7:43 PM
Really sad news...
by kwar13 on 3/28/24, 7:39 AM
by yodon on 3/27/24, 3:40 PM
by orsenthil on 3/27/24, 6:02 PM
by jonnycosgrove on 4/1/24, 3:10 AM
by John23832 on 3/27/24, 3:34 PM
by paulpauper on 3/27/24, 3:25 PM
by randombetch on 3/27/24, 5:06 PM
by ashton314 on 3/27/24, 6:36 PM
My dream is to one day have the caliber of insights this man had, along with his ability to express them so clearly and persuasively.
dang, does this deserve a black bar?
by jcutrell on 3/28/24, 12:27 AM
Kahneman is unequivocally the person I would call my hero, today I am sad to see him leave us. I hope to honor his memory by... I guess, recognizing just how wrong I am, on a regular basis.
by eimrine on 3/28/24, 6:22 AM
by jarcoal on 3/27/24, 3:36 PM
by deadbabe on 3/27/24, 9:44 PM
by arduanika on 3/28/24, 2:00 AM
by jonesn11 on 3/28/24, 10:06 PM
by aj_nikhil on 3/27/24, 6:02 PM
by dougSF70 on 3/27/24, 4:35 PM
by UIUC_06 on 3/27/24, 6:19 PM
by vik0 on 3/27/24, 6:56 PM
by dorianmariefr on 3/28/24, 2:38 AM
by nonrandomstring on 3/27/24, 3:39 PM
by mugivarra69 on 3/27/24, 5:32 PM
by kabigon on 3/27/24, 5:23 PM
by jonesn11 on 3/28/24, 5:53 AM
by mattpavelle on 3/27/24, 4:52 PM
Professor Kahneman, who was long associated with Princeton University and lived in Manhattan, employed his training as a psychologist to advance what came to be called behavioral economics. The work, done largely in the 1970s, led to a rethinking of issues as far-flung as medical malpractice, international political negotiations and the evaluation of baseball talent, all of which he analyzed, mostly in collaboration with Amos Tversky, a Stanford cognitive psychologist who did groundbreaking work on human judgment and decision-making.
by COGlory on 3/27/24, 4:09 PM
* I had read Eugene Koonin's "The Logic of Chance" and was then recommended Taleb's books for a more thorough perspective on probability, to apply to Koonin's work.
by wolverine876 on 3/27/24, 4:35 PM