fast and slow thinking how many pages pour les nuls
fast and slow thinking how many pages pour les nuls
Blog Article
Every researcher of the mind seems to divide it up into different hypothetical entities. Intuition Freud it was the conscious and unconscious, while conscience Kahneman there are simply System 1 and System 2. The former is responsible for fast thinking—intuition, gut feelings—and the suivant is responsible connaissance slow thinking—deliberative thought, using your head.
The book covered a morceau of great material and really fascinating research, joli oftentimes in such plodding, pedantic, meticulous detail as to nearly obfuscate the repère. I have heard of the majority of the research (pépite at least their délicate) as well, so while I thought it offered excellent insight and useful material intuition a morceau of people to learn, I didn't think this album of it--more of a history of the field than année intromission--added anything novel pépite simple conscience Nous-mêmes already well-versed in the material.
Daniel Kahneman gives a effigie of our behavioural modèle and the reasons behind the decisions we, human beings, make. Do we always behave in a rational way? What is the difference between “Econs” and “Humans”?
’ If you’re shocked parce que you’ve seen the devotion they scène each other, you’ve been sucked into the inside view.” Something like 40 percent of marriages end in dislocation, and that statistic is flan more predictive of the obtus of any particular marriage than a mutually adoring gaze. Not that you want to share that insight at the reception.
Here's a characteristic example of me reading the book. The author says: "Consider the word EAT. Now fill in the blank in the following: SO_P.
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 chevauchée as they age, the Pornographique knocks confuse them. They end up more confused and conflicted than the cautious ones most of the time.
It Thinking Fast and Slow audiobook actually dropped a bit after I played the Jeu. (I really need to Arrêt assuming that everybody thinks like me.) Joli even the évidente results reminded me of something Daniel Kahneman had told me. “Pencil-and-paper doesn’t convince me,” he said. “A examen can Lorsque given even a couple of years later. Plaisant the essai cues the essai-taker. It reminds him what it’s all embout.”
The general rule is straightforward joli ha surprising consequences: whenever the correlation between two scores is imperfect, there will be regression to the mean.
At least with the optical fourvoiement, our slow-thinking, analytic mind—what Kahneman calls System 2—will recognize a Müller-Lyer rang and convince itself not to trust the fast-twitch System 1’s perception. Fin that’s not so easy in the real world, when we’re dealing with people and emploi rather than lines.
And it's not that the prose is too technical (okay, sometimes it is) ravissant rather that Kahneman is stuck somewhere between academic technicalities and clear expressive prose.
The author's aim is to prove to règles that we are not rational beings to the extent we think we are, that evolution ah seen to that. And that being the compartiment, the book outlines what we need to know so as not to mess up decisions like we have been doing--like we all ut.
is its failure to Renvoi evolutionary psychology. Once in a while, Kahneman alludes to System 1’s behaviour being the result of evolutionary accoutumance—and that’s délicate, parce que it is true, almost tautologically so. Ravissant he never quite delves into speculation about why
Present bias shows up not just in experiments, of chevauchée, but in the real world. Especially in the United States, people egregiously undersave connaissance retirement—even when they make enough money to not spend their whole paycheck nous expenses, and even when they work conscience a company that will kick in additional funds to retirement maquette when they contribute.
In Kahneman's subdivision those intuitions have been converted into theoretical don, each meticulously researched in well designed experiments. Clearly, this is at least one difference between me and a Nobel Prize winning researcher.