Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who You Are

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: Who You Are

#11

Post by pak »

karolist wrote: post #9
pak wrote: post #7

Yet another entry in the long list of pop psychology books. It seems like they all gear up on one or two navel-gazing insights that just about anybody can intuitively identify with (You have a slow, rational side and a fast, emotional side! Doesn't that explain everything?) and then, they try to run as far as they can with the implications of this overly dumbed-down hypothesis. Carefully cherry-picked statistics from…

I agree with you but wonder if the article was like that from Daniel Kahneman himself or the journalist. Having dealt with the later I really understand how good at bending what you said they are. Also, if Daniel was a pop scientist, would he be given nobel prize in his field? Yes, Obama comes to mind, but still.

I wouldn't try to make any comment on the overall value of his research, and I am sure his academic writing is much more rigorous. But I really think these "universal secrets of the mind" books, written for a general audience, go too far in clouding original and critical thought by presenting such a slick, skewed narrative. They're sold as guides to better thinking but wind up inducing the opposite. It feels dishonest.

Re: Who You Are

#12

Post by benrpeters »

This article reminded me of my undergrad econ classes. I understand that it was just undergrad and we were learning a basic tool set. But it seriously scares me when I remember how my classmates and I (some of whom are on Wall St) took class after class that drilled supply/demand graphs premised on rational, utility maximizing populations into our heads. Whether the theories in this article are oversimplified or not, they do provide an important counterweight against anyone who thinks that they can reliably predict people's decisionmaking. I hope econ textbooks are evolving to reflect the growing marriage between econ and neuropsych.

Re: Who You Are

#13

Post by jQueryIsAwesome »

Pynkrabbit wrote: post #5

It definitely makes a lot of sense. Just try speaking with someone about politics or religion. Even if you conclusively prove that the other persons views are not based in fact or reason they will refuse to acknowledge you are right and then usually get mad and stop talking to you. Humans are most certainly not 'rational beings'. Our thinking is constantly biased by our formative experiences and our environment.

>Our thinking is constantly biased by our formative experiences and our environment.

And current mood. I have no numbers on this but i am pretty sure that people with chronic pain tend to have more negative thoughts than the average person.

edit: space

Re: Who You Are

#15

Post by billswift »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #4

Kahneman and Tversky are legends in psychology, but they didn't change the fundamental way we view ourselves. The notion of humans as super rational utility maximisers was entirely an economic model, and it was that they attacked. It was well known (for over twenty years before their seminal 1974 science paper) that humans were poor at probability and utility judgments. What they did do, was force the economic profes…

>humans as super rational utility maximisers

Is not an economic model, it is a straw-man of the economic "model" which states that en masse and over time humans behave rationally where their interests are involved. (I put model above in quotes because even that is really only an aspect of how economics models human behavior.)

As many "critics" of economics have pointed out, and as Surowiecki reported in The Wisdom of Crowds, the mass often make better decisions than an individual because, among other reasons, their errors tend to cancel out.

Re: Who You Are

#17

Post by jasonshen »

klbarry wrote: post #10
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #4

Kahneman and Tversky are legends in psychology, but they didn't change the fundamental way we view ourselves. The notion of humans as super rational utility maximisers was entirely an economic model, and it was that they attacked. It was well known (for over twenty years before their seminal 1974 science paper) that humans were poor at probability and utility judgments. What they did do, was force the economic profes…

What are the best books available on the subject of predicting human behavior, if you don't mind me asking? Advanced or technical are fine, scientific journals would be over my comprehension, I'm afraid.

One great book on behavioral economics that's based on a lot of research and experimental data is http://www.amazon.com/Judgment-Managerial-Decision-Making-Ba...

Came highly recommended from a Stanford professor and is one of the most "meaty" books on the topic.

Re: Who You Are

#18

Post by guimarin »

I agree with the basic tenants of this article. Yes it was true, that k&t were moving the model into the 'economic sphere'. But I think you cannot overstate the importance of this. Behavioral finance/economics coming back into cog. psych. and cog. neuro. is absolutely earth-shattering. the money dictated the research and now that research is FINALLY being applied back into where it belongs. I can't wait for these ideas, and those of choice designers/specialists/researchers to make it into 'machine learning' and 'weak ai'. If ever there was a subject that was full of shit from the beginning with regards to how people actually think, and needs to be re-architected from the ground up. Also, someone needs to start listening to other Princeton Researchers like Eldar Shafir on these topics as well.

Re: Who You Are

#20

Post by saraid216 »

pak wrote: post #7

Yet another entry in the long list of pop psychology books. It seems like they all gear up on one or two navel-gazing insights that just about anybody can intuitively identify with (You have a slow, rational side and a fast, emotional side! Doesn't that explain everything?) and then, they try to run as far as they can with the implications of this overly dumbed-down hypothesis. Carefully cherry-picked statistics from…

This, and what karolist said, is terribly unfair if you haven't actually read Kahneman and Tversky's Prospect Theory, which is not a book but a paper. It's not very long; you should read it.
Post reply on HN