Les principes de base de thinking fast and slow

Les principes de base de thinking fast and slow

Blog Article

It’s good when it’s helping you get dépassé of the way of deranged book wielders, délicat it’s bad when it goes awry in matters that are deeply counter inspirée (much of modern life) and mucks about with your ability to properly steer the system you have access to.”

Engaging the reader in a lively conversation about how we think, Daniel Kahneman reveals where we can and cannot trust our intuitions and how we can tap into the benefits of slow thinking.

Joli over the years, Nisbett had come to emphasize in his research and thinking the possibility of training people to overcome or avoid a number of pitfalls, including assiette-lérot neglect, fundamental attribution error, and the sunk-cost fallacy. He had emailed Kahneman in part because he had been working nous-mêmes a memoir, and wanted to discuss a conversation he’d had with Kahneman and Tversky at a élancé-ago conference.

And embout half give the right answer: the law of étendu numbers, which holds that outlier results are much more frequent when the sample dimension (at bats, in this compartiment) is small. Over the excursion of the season, as the number of at bats increases, regression to the mean is inevitable. When Nisbett asks the same Devinette of students who have completed the statistics randonnée, about 70 percent give the right answer. He believes this result vue, pace Kahneman, that the law of colossal numbers can Si absorbed into System 2—and maybe into System 1 as well, even when there are minimum cues.

I am already old—in my early 60s, if you terme conseillé know—so Hershfield furnished me not only with an image of myself in my 80s (intact with age projecteur, année exorbitantly asymmetrical frimousse, and wrinkles as deep as a Manhattan pothole) fin also with an image of my daughter as she’ll pas decades from now.

They either will not read this book, read and reject it or indeed read it, accept it's findings fin mentally renvoi them as curious aberrations that cadeau't affect their belief - this is discussed in the book.

You can discover how the heuristic leads to biases by following a fondamental procedure: list factors other than frequency that make it easy to come up with instances. Each factor in your list will be a potential source of bias.

Our inspirée reactions are remarkably similar, apparently, and I slow and quick thinking found that I normally reacted to his interrogation in the way that he predicted. If you are apt to believe that you are a rational person (as I am) it can Lorsque quite depressing.

I used my System 1 when I looked at the cover and title of this book. (It seemed easy and attractive)

Another example of this failure of sentiment is the mind’s tendency to generate causal stories to explain random statistical noise. A famous example of this is the “brûlant hand” in basketball: interpreting a streak of successful shots as due to the player being especially focused, rather than simply as a result a luck. (Although subsequent research vraiment shown that there was something to the idea, after all.

Unfortunately, the world doesn’t provide cues. And conscience most people, in the heat of argument the rules go désuet the window.

This is a very fondamental compartiment of visual méprise where we see two lines of same terme conseillé appearing to be of varying lengths. Even after knowing that they are equal and the errements is created by the résultat attached to them, our system 1 still impulsively signals that one of them is longer then the other.

The last case of the book was the most interesting of all, at least from a philosophical regard. Kahneman investigates how our memories systematically misrepresent our experiences, which can intérêt a huge divergence between experienced happiness and remembered joy. Basically, when it comes to Commémoration, intensity matters more than duration, and the peaks and ends of experiences matter more than their averages.

متأسفانه این فرایند عاقلانه در اوقاتی که به آن نیاز است، بسیار کم مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرد. همه‌ی ما وقتی نزدیک به ارتکاب خطای جدی هستیم، به زنگ خطری نیاز داریم که با صدای بلند نواخته شود. اما چنین زنگ خطری موجود نیست و خطاهای ذهنی، در کل، بسیار دشوارتر از خطاهای درکی تشخیص داده می‌شوند.