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

Daniel Kahneman has died

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 324 posts

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#141

Post by dredmorbius »

foobiekr wrote: post #127
dredmorbius wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a school of thought which holds that economics is a subset of psychology. I'd thought that this was reflected in some university departmental organisation, with M.I.T. being the one that came to mind. Despite there being a behavioural economics section there, though, so far as I'm aware Economics remains its own department. Kahneman's training and primary focus were both in psychology, but he was awarded the…

Psychology could legitimately be considered a subset of economics.

Is all human behaviour mercantile?

The counterargument to the proposition in my earlier post would be to show that there is economic activity which relies on nonhuman behaviours. Automated financial trading or AI-based management systems (financial, corporate, industrial, governmental, etc.) might be possible exceptions, which raises further interesting questions.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#142

Post by bumby »

dredmorbius wrote: post #69
bumby wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I believe Kahneman resisted being categorized as an economist and preferred to think of himself as a psychologist.

There's a school of thought which holds that economics is a subset of psychology. I'd thought that this was reflected in some university departmental organisation, with M.I.T. being the one that came to mind. Despite there being a behavioural economics section there, though, so far as I'm aware Economics remains its own department. Kahneman's training and primary focus were both in psychology, but he was awarded the…

I may be misremembering here (or perhaps projecting), but I vaguely remember the issue being that economics tried to portray itself as too much of a "hard science" for Khaneman's liking.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#143

Post by dr_kiszonka »

malshe wrote: post #123
COGlory wrote: post #30

I'm not an economist nor that interested in them, but I did read Nassim Taleb's books* and Kahneman stuck out as one of very few economists Taleb doesn't totally trash. * I had read Eugene Koonin's "The Logic of Chance" and was then recommended Taleb's books for a more thorough perspective on probability, to apply to Koonin's work.

I know I am nitpicking but Kahneman was not an economist. He was a cognitive psychologist. In fact he is the only psychologist ever to win a Nobel prize in economics.

Just to add some context, there is no Noble Prize in psychology.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#144

Post by vik0 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #136
mgfist wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nassim Taleb's opinion of others shouldn't hold much sway - the man is a prick.

Taleb really has a high opinion only of himself. A very smart man, but also very self-absorbed.

>Taleb really has a high opinion only of himself

That's not true though. I can name at least two other people on whom he has a high opinion (a.k.a he's praised them in his books): Karl Popper and George Soros. There are others as well, but most people here will recognize these people (I assume) so that's why I mentioned them, and admittedly they were the first to pop into my head lol

It's true that he's an asshole on X and in his books, while in real life he seems very nice and non-confrontational. He's talked about this in an interview he did with the Guardian I think a few years ago (maybe a decade ago), and if my memory serves me right, he said something to the tune of it being easier to get lost when you're not speaking directly to someone's face and become more rude than usual

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#145

Post by chefandy »

mistermann wrote: post #54
btilly wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The density of non-replicable results varies by chapter. You can ignore anything said in chapter 4 about priming for example. See https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/30/a-meta-scientific-pe... for more.

A fun question especially considering the topic of the thread : are propositions that lack proof necessarily false?

Of course not, but the more important and difficult questions address how we should reason about, evaluate, and present ideas that lack proof.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#147

Post by resource_waste »

coyotespike wrote: post #83

Although many of the results in Fast and Slow didn't hold up, Kahneman was always refreshingly open and honest about that, and keen to identify the limits of knowledge. Which surely is one of the best things you can say about a scientist.

>was always refreshingly open and honest about that,

His work got torn to shreds with science, what did you expect him to do?

It really should be embarrassing rather than acceptable. It doesnt matter how honest you are AFTER you are caught.

Between the replication crisis and his name on some bad papers, the guy seriously didn't care about correctness as much as interesting-faux-science.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#148

Post by dredmorbius »

bumby wrote: post #142
dredmorbius wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a school of thought which holds that economics is a subset of psychology. I'd thought that this was reflected in some university departmental organisation, with M.I.T. being the one that came to mind. Despite there being a behavioural economics section there, though, so far as I'm aware Economics remains its own department. Kahneman's training and primary focus were both in psychology, but he was awarded the…

I may be misremembering here (or perhaps projecting), but I vaguely remember the issue being that economics tried to portray itself as too much of a "hard science" for Khaneman's liking.

As someone trained in the study, I'd tend to agree with him.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#149

Post by AtlasBarfed »

localhost wrote: post #61
btilly wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The density of non-replicable results varies by chapter. You can ignore anything said in chapter 4 about priming for example. See https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/30/a-meta-scientific-pe... for more.

This is exactly the kind of task that I want to deploy a long context window model on: "rewrite Thinking Fast and Slow taking into account the current state of research. Oh, and do it in the voice, style and structure of Tim Urban complete with crappy stick figure drawings."

"please finish game of thrones treating the impending zombie invasion as an allegory for global warming"

Also please omit "who has a better story than bran"

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#150

Post by airstrike »

cranium wrote: post #24
mistercow wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For what it's worth, Kahnman answered a post that scrutinized the effect of priming: https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-...

It looks like it's a bit more nuanced than that. What I saw from the link was some debate about what holds and what doesn't for various forms of "priming"
Post reply on HN