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

161–170 of 324 posts

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#161

Post by 1letterunixname »

cvwright wrote: post #36
zug_zug wrote: post #6

I'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…

I find that most nonfiction books follow a common structure: * 1st third of the book: Lays out the basic ideas, gives several examples * 2nd third of the book: More examples that repeat the themes from the 1st part * 3rd third of the book: ??? I usually give up at this point I sometimes wish that more books were like "The Mom Test" - just long enough to say what they need, even if that makes for a short book.

Perhaps nonfiction works could be ordered neatly such that the thesis and support material isn't buried, but arranged in a tiered detailed manner conducive to a "Choose Your Own Adventure"-like skipping of material. Short-form and long-form must find a way to coexist and be useful without critical compromise. It's not like everyone has or should need Cliff Notes or getAbstract.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#162

Post by resource_waste »

elbear wrote: post #158
resource_waste wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Embarrassed because science worked as expected?

Doesn't science require replication? He wrote books based on un-replicated studies.

Further, the confidence he extolled about his now debunked ideas make him a charlatan. This person was a bad scientist. If we esteem people who don't check their data and influence millions of people with falsities, we are going to create a society with low trust.

Just look at this thread, the man lost respect among the people in the know. There are a few people clinging onto 'well just because its not true, doesnt mean I didn't find it interesting". I'm not sure what we get out of promoting anti-science scientists.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#163

Post by 1letterunixname »

ratg13 wrote: post #60
voisin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most nonfiction books are one, relatively small set of ideas (profound or not, novel or not) that could be concisely written as a few blog posts or a single long form article, but in order to monetize and build the author’s brand, get exaggerated into a full book. It is really painful and something I hope GPT will help the rest of us cut through in the future (“summarize the points. Dig into that point. What…

Most people don’t absorb concepts immediately with only a simple explanation. Unless you are reading a topic you are already familiar with, reinforcement of an idea helps you to examine a concept from different angles and to solidify what is being discussed. If everyone fully absorbed and understood everything they read, schooling could be completed years in advance.

Apart from CYOA, I think a hypertext "book" would be the most effective way to dynamically scale detail preferences without resorting to skimming or skipping.

Some people want more or less evidence based on their level of skepticism or critical thinking, while others want more evidence to reinforce the soundness of their inferred position on a topic, especially if it's a topic unfamiliar to them. Other people are under time constraints and just want the key points and a brief presentation.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#164

Post by 1letterunixname »

arrowsmith wrote: post #72
paulpauper wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes wish that more books were like "The Mom Test" - just long enough to say what they need, even if that makes for a short book. most non fiction could be well-summarized as a lengthy blog post

I'd go further: many non-fiction books could be losslessly compressed into a tweet. (Looking at you, The Checklist Manifesto )

HAHAHA. :@D Challenge accepted.

The right checklist organizes uniformity, success, and safety in almost every human endeavor. - @SomeGuyOnTheInterwebs

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#165

Post by flawn »

olvy0 wrote: post #73
voisin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most nonfiction books are one, relatively small set of ideas (profound or not, novel or not) that could be concisely written as a few blog posts or a single long form article, but in order to monetize and build the author’s brand, get exaggerated into a full book. It is really painful and something I hope GPT will help the rest of us cut through in the future (“summarize the points. Dig into that point. What…

That's exacerbating the original environmental problem, in addition to thick paper books, filled with filler material just to promote the author's brand, you now want to waste electricity on running an LLM that will give you a the short version? That's.... short sighted. This should be dealt with by pressuring the publishing industry not to inflate books and fill them with fluff. This could be done by not buying thes…

The latter will happen already by more and more people doing ways to summarize books

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#166

Post by dionidium »

cvwright wrote: post #36
zug_zug wrote: post #6

I'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…

I find that most nonfiction books follow a common structure: * 1st third of the book: Lays out the basic ideas, gives several examples * 2nd third of the book: More examples that repeat the themes from the 1st part * 3rd third of the book: ??? I usually give up at this point I sometimes wish that more books were like "The Mom Test" - just long enough to say what they need, even if that makes for a short book.

I always think of this from Aaron Swartz:

> But let’s say you can narrow it down to one good one, and you can find the time to read it. You plunk down an absurd $30 (of which, I’m told, less than $3 goes to the author) for a bulky hardcover and you quickly discover that the author doesn’t have all that much to say. But a book is a big thing, and they had to fill it all up, so the author padded it. There are several common techniques.

> One is to repeat your point over and over, each time slightly differently. This is surprisingly popular. Writing a book on how code is law, an idea so simple it can fit in the book’s title? Just give example after example after example.

> Another is to just fill the book with unnecessary detail. Arguing that the Bush administration is incompetent? Fill your book up with citation after citation. (Readers must love being hit over the head with evidence for a claim they’re already willing to believe.)

> I have nothing against completeness, accuracy, or preciseness, but if you really want a broad audience to hear what you have to say, you’ve got to be short. Put the details, for the ten people who care about them, on your website. Then take the three pages you have left, and put them on your website too.

Source: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001229

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#167

Post by derbOac »

cjblomqvist wrote: post #152
derbOac wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... except the distinction was being made in various forms long before Kahneman, and does get questioned. When you start to poke at it, what's intuitive starts to seem less so. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17456916124606... (that's a link to a defense of dual process theories, but it makes clear there's increasing criticism of them)

Does anyone have a link to a publicly accessible version of this paper?

I think this should work:

https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/dua...

There's review paper coming from a more critical perspective in Psych Bulletin or Psych Review I was looking for, but I couldn't find it atm.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#168

Post by mattmaroon »

olvy0 wrote: post #73
voisin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because most nonfiction books are one, relatively small set of ideas (profound or not, novel or not) that could be concisely written as a few blog posts or a single long form article, but in order to monetize and build the author’s brand, get exaggerated into a full book. It is really painful and something I hope GPT will help the rest of us cut through in the future (“summarize the points. Dig into that point. What…

That's exacerbating the original environmental problem, in addition to thick paper books, filled with filler material just to promote the author's brand, you now want to waste electricity on running an LLM that will give you a the short version? That's.... short sighted. This should be dealt with by pressuring the publishing industry not to inflate books and fill them with fluff. This could be done by not buying thes…

They do it because a short book looks like a pamphelet and nobody will buy it. Most Gladwell books could easily be 30 pages, but nobody will pay $14.99 for that.

You can't shame them into buying books they can't sell.

How much electricity does it take an LLM to summarize a book? I'm sure the carbon emissions involved are trivial, and if they aren't, I've always been of the belief that (like eating meat) people are going to do what they want to do regardless of the environmental cost, so it's better to focus your ire on reducing the environmental cost. The problem here isn't using an LLM to summarize a book, it's that we've got a power grid fueled mainly by fossil fuels. (That is a problem that will fix itself in no time anyway now that renewables are cheaper and the gap is widening.)

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#170

Post by importantbrian »

mistercow wrote: post #13
zug_zug wrote: post #6

I'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.

This game is doubly valuable when the surprising result confirms one of your existing beliefs. I'm pretty good about doing this for surprising results that contradict a belief I hold, but I have to be extra disciplined about doing it when it confirms one of my beliefs.
Post reply on HN