Daniel Kahneman has died
11–20 of 324 posts
Re: Daniel Kahneman has died
#12Thinking Fast and Slow made a tremendous impact on me when I read it (multiple times) in the 2010s. What curiosity and what clarity of thought this man had. His influence will continue to be felt!
Me too, I think a bunch of it was found to be reproducible though.
https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/30/a-meta-scientific-pe...
Same thing is happening w/ a lot of the work of Dan Ariely, but I think his situation is much worse.
Re: Daniel Kahneman has died
#13I'm not one to give an exaggerated eulogy nor rhapsodize about all those "Books with a white cover and a weird picture" -- but I will say I read thinking fast and slow for the first time last year, after decades of resisting, and felt it covered some generally profound ideas that still are relevant as ever and not widely understood. (Though at some point, maybe the 2nd half of the book, drags on and you can skip most…
It’s worth noting that many of the results in Thinking, Fast and Slow didn’t hold up to replication.
It’s still very much worth reading in its own right, but now implicitly comes bundled with a game I like to call “calibrate yourself on the replication crisis”. Playing is simple: every time the book mentions a surprising result, try to guess whether it replicated. Then search online to see if you got it right.
Re: Daniel Kahneman has died
#14I remember years ago Penn Jillette talking about his book "Thinking Fast and Slow". And I was like why is a magician talking about a book written by an economist?? Well, read it and you'll understand why it fits so well with their brand of magic. Dr. Kahneman expresses in words what's going on in your brain while watching someone like them perform.
Re: Daniel Kahneman has died
#15I'm not one to give an exaggerated eulogy nor rhapsodize about all those "Books with a white cover and a weird picture" -- but I will say I read thinking fast and slow for the first time last year, after decades of resisting, and felt it covered some generally profound ideas that still are relevant as ever and not widely understood. (Though at some point, maybe the 2nd half of the book, drags on and you can skip most…
It’s worth noting that many of the results in Thinking, Fast and Slow didn’t hold up to replication. It’s still very much worth reading in its own right, but now implicitly comes bundled with a game I like to call “calibrate yourself on the replication crisis”. Playing is simple: every time the book mentions a surprising result, try to guess whether it replicated. Then search online to see if you got it right.
Yeah I wouldn't read too much into any single study. But what I would defend vigorously is System1 / System2 distinction as something so clear/fundamental that you can see it constantly once you understand it.
Re: Daniel Kahneman has died
#16Fantastic book - I certainly had to read it slowly, not fast.
Two things bothered me about it though - firstly, it landed shortly before the reproducibility issues of such research became more widely known.
Secondly - towards the end of the book, it espouses the idea that using some methods of psychlogical and behavoural manipulation is at worst a net neutral, especially if there was nothing to see of the manipluation in question. After all, who can argue against organ donation being opt-out by default, or similar?
To me, this is like a magician claiming that there was no sleight of hand, as we were free to look wherever we liked during their performance. Denying the presence and capabailities of tools of manipulation is, in my opinion, incredibly dangerous, and the worst of its outcomes has been very publicly played out in recent years.
Re: Daniel Kahneman has died
#17Fantastic book - I certainly had to read it slowly, not fast.
Two things bothered me about it though - firstly, it landed shortly before the reproducibility issues of such research became more widely known.
Secondly - towards the end of the book, it espouses the idea that using some methods of psychlogical and behavoural manipulation is at worst a net neutral, especially if there was nothing to see of the manipluation in question. After all, who can argue against organ donation being opt-out by default, or similar?
To me, this is like a magician claiming that there was no sleight of hand, as we were free to look wherever we liked during their performance. Denying the presence and capabailities of tools of manipulation is, in my opinion, incredibly dangerous, and the worst of its outcomes has been very publicly played out in recent years.
Re: Daniel Kahneman has died
#18The idea of system 1 and system 2 had a profound impact on me. While specific conclusions in the book were reported to be based on low quality data, it doesn't take away from the fact that it gave me a new mental lens to look at things and understand people's behaviour.
Re: Daniel Kahneman has died
#19If you’ve only read Thinking Fast And Slow, try grabbing a copy of his 2021 book Noise. It’s a little drier but I found it to be a much deeper and more insightful read. Less pop sci, more hard research results.
And if I recall correctly he addresses the replication issues from Thinking Fast And Slow and discusses more recent research that disproves or adds nuance on the older studies. I think it’s also more practically useful and applicable to everyday life. Where TFS gives you a “these are interesting facts about life” vibe, Noise is more “here’s the problem and this is what you can do about it” style.
Re: Daniel Kahneman has died
#20Fantastic book - I certainly had to read it slowly, not fast. Two things bothered me about it though - firstly, it landed shortly before the reproducibility issues of such research became more widely known. Secondly - towards the end of the book, it espouses the idea that using some methods of psychlogical and behavoural manipulation is at worst a net neutral, especially if there was nothing to see of the manipluatio…
What the eye doesn't see the heart doesn't grieve, as they used to say
in the pie factory where I worked. But the belly knows. Yes, it's a
dangerous, cavalier idea. But from an endlessly complicated and
interesting thinker.