Le guide ultime pour thinking fast and slow goodreads

Le guide ultime pour thinking fast and slow goodreads

Blog Article

This book had me laughing and smiling, more than many a book described in its blurb as side-splittingly funny pépite something similar parce que I recognised the cognitive disillusions described in this book as my own and in any compartiment I am the kind of person who if they fall into a good mood wonders if it's due to the pint and the Agace that was eaten earlier.

A random event, by definition, ut not lend itself to explanation, plaisant recueil of random events ut behave in a highly regular fashion.

But one of the most interesting hypothesis he builds up is the destinée of two systems in the mind. System 1 is prone to cognitive biases described above, fin it's also where morality comes from. Not to Note intuitive judgment and hueristic answers to life's everyday demande. Would you believe it? Morality is more of an intuitive thing than a logical and reasonable framework!

Adroit/pundits are rarely better (and often worse) than random chance, yet often believe at a much higher confidence level in their predictions.

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.

These personalities, he says, are not two different or dissemblable systems délicat to understand them better, we will have to assign personalities not only to understand them better délicat also to Sinon able to relate to them nous-mêmes a personal level. The two systems are called system 1 and system 2, expérience the sake of convenience. System 1 is attentif, impulsive, judgmental, easily manipulated, highly emotional. System 2, nous-mêmes the other hand is the somme opposé of system 1, it is very intelligent, indolent, mostly drowsing hors champ in the back of our head, difficult to convince and extremely stubborn, and it only comes to Opération when there is some destinée of ‘emergency’. Both these systems are susceptible to a number of biases, system 1 more than system 2.

I am staring at a photograph of myself that shows me 20 years older than I am now. I have not stepped into the twilight zone. Rather, I am trying to rid myself of some measure of my present bias, which is the tendency people have, when considering a trade-off between two touchante moments, to more heavily weight the Nous closer to the present.

I came across Thinking, Fast and Slow when I was reading embout Richard Thaler’s work and his apport to behavioural economics. When I had just started this book, nothing suggested that I would find myself engaged.

Believe it or not, in my jugement, I believe Mr. Kahneman is telling you exactly that in this book - that whether you like it or not, your entire life is guided or may I say decided by two fundamental ideas and that there is very little you can ut to change it, period.

In other words, another affirmation of exactly the same thesis can lead to inverse results. This is how our brain works whether we like it or not.

Philip E. Tetlock, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and his wife and research partner, Barbara Mellers, have intuition years been studying what they thinking slow and fast book review call “superforecasters”: people who manage to sidestep cognitive biases and predict contigu events with dariole more accuracy than the pundits and so-called expérimenté who vue up nous-mêmes TV.

Priming is not limited to concepts and words; your actions and emotions can be primed by events of which you are not even aware, including fondamental gestures.

Loss Répulsion: Call it a gift of evolution or survival instinct, joli we are naturally loss averse in most of our decisions. We are more likely to abandon a huge plus if there is some probability of année equally huge loss.

He fermée by stressing he does not mean to say that people are irrational. Ravissant, he says, “rational” in economic terms oh a particular meaning that does not describe people. “Cognition economists and decision theorists, [rationality] oh année altogether different meaning. The only expérience of rationality is not whether a person’s beliefs and preferences are reasonable, joli whether they are internally consistent.