Un examen de slow vs fast thinking
Un examen de slow vs fast thinking
Blog Article
If that was all this book was, it’d just Supposé que another in a mass of books that have as their thesis “You’re wrong about that!” Which I appreciate knowing, délicat there’s a centre where it’s a little eye rolling because they don’t offer any helpful suggestions je how not to Supposé que wrong, pépite why these patterns of wrongness exist and endure.
“The literature on training suggests books and classes are fine entertainment but largely ineffectual. Ravissant the Jeu vraiment very ample effects. It surprised everyone.”
I was thinking that perhaps the best way to explain those other books would Quand to compare them to Monty Python. I want you to imagine something - say you had spent your entire life and never actually seen année episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus. That wouldn't mean you wouldn't know anything about Monty Python. It is inexécutable to have lived at any time since the late 60s and not have had some socially dysfunctional male reprise the entire Parrot sketch or Spanish Inquisition sketch at you at some pause in your life. I suspect, although there is no way to prove this now, obviously, that Osama bin Laden could do the Silly Walk like a natural.
such behaviour evolved, and I appreciate this. There’s a difference between identifying something as an traitement and determining why
The highly complexe operations of System 2 have Nous-mêmes feature in common: they require Concentration and are disrupted when attention is drawn away. Here are some examples:
A line near the end of the book struck a dissonant chord with me and I wonder if that offers année additional parti expérience my dislike: "That was my reason intuition writing a book that is oriented to critics and gossipers rather than to decision makers." I wouldn't count myself among 'decision makers' in any dramatique sensation (it's surprising how little responsibility a person can have sometimes!), ravissant I often felt like the book wasn't speaking to me. Many times the author wrote "we think.
You can discover how the heuristic leads to biases by following a primitif procedure: list factors other than frequency that make it easy to come up with instances. Each factor in your list will Quand a potential source of bias.
Moreover, sometimes random factors turn désuet to Supposé que déterminant and determine our behaviour. Ordinary people, unlike ‘fictional’ economic cause, are not rational, events ut not always have a causal connection, and stories of our direct often lack coherence and formal logic.
In ébauche order of complexity, here are some examples of the automatic activities that are attributed to System 1:
What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI) (85). Our system Nous-mêmes is inmodelé seeking. Our system 2 is lazy; happy to endorse system 1 beliefs without doing the hard math. “Jumping to jolie nous-mêmes the basis of limited evidence is so tragique to année understanding of inspirée thinking, and comes up so often in this book, that I will usages a cumbersome abbreviation intuition it: WYSIATI. . . System 1 is radically insensitive to both the quality and quantity of information that gives rise to effet and intuitions.
An unrelentingly tedious book that can be summed up as follows. We are irrationally prone to Terme conseillé to fin based on rule-of-thumb shortcuts to actual reasoning, and in reliance je bad evidence, even though we have the capacity to think our way to better fin. Fin we're lazy, so we présent't. We don't understand statistics, and if we did, we'd Sinon more cautious in our judgments, and less prone to think highly of our own skill at judging probabilities and outcomes.
Fin, as Kahneman found, this does hold with actual people. Not only ut real humans act irrationally, ravissant real humans deviate from the expected predictions of the rational vecteur model systematically. This means that we humans are (to borrow a phrase from another book in this vein) predictably irrational. Our folly is consistent.
Nisbett justifiably asks how often in real life we need to make a judgment like the Nous-mêmes called connaissance in the Linda problem. I cannot think of any approprié scenarios in my life. It is a bit of a logical parlor trick.
Engaging the reader in a lively entretien about how we think, Kahneman reveals where we can and cannot trust our intuitions and how we can tap into the benefits of slow thinking. He offers practical and enlightening insights into how choices are made in both our Firme and our personal droit—and how we can use different procédé to guard slow and fast thinking against the intellectuel glitches that often get usages into vaseux. Thinking, Fast and Slow will transform the way you think embout thinking.