Live data from Hacker News

Daniel Kahneman has died

washingtonpost.com

21–30 of 324 posts

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#21
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.

I wonder if it's better to have a lot of small hits or a few big hits and many misses in regard to replication. If the studies which have the greatest implications replicate, then maybe many misses is not that bad.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#22
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.

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.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#23

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.

I wonder if it's better to have a lot of small hits or a few big hits and many misses in regard to replication. If the studies which have the greatest implications replicate, then maybe many misses is not that bad.

That's an interesting theoretical question.

Unfortunately the reality is that the more interesting and quotable the result is, the less likely it is to replicate. So replication problems most strongly hit things that seem like they should have the greatest implications.

Kind of a "worst of all worlds" scenario.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#24
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.

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

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#25

It's hard to think of any public intellectual whose career was on the peak of its trajectory as his was, and at such and advanced age. Usually someone has a few ideas and they fade with time, but not him. The neoclassical assumptions had crashed after 2008 and this guy comes along with his books and upends the whole economics establishment.

The Chicago School was criticised not only by behavioural economists and psychologists, though, but also by other (fairly orthodox, eg New Keynesian) economists [0]. This is not to distract from Kahneman's monumental contributions (many together with Tversky, as narrated in the book The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis).

[0] see e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.htm...

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#26
post #14

I 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.

There's a lot of "magic" in that book where your pre-conceptions are completely subverted.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#28
kahneman was such a fascinating personality. Other than "Thinking fast and slow", I highly recommend "The Undoing Project" by Michael Lewis about Kahneman and Tversky's incredible journey changing the standard economic theory.

Some interesting talks with Daniel Kahneman

- https://www.edge.org/adversarial-collaboration-daniel-kahnem...

- https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-... Kahneman himself reponds in the comment sections to a very critical piece about his work.

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#29

It's hard to think of any public intellectual whose career was on the peak of its trajectory as his was, and at such and advanced age. Usually someone has a few ideas and they fade with time, but not him. The neoclassical assumptions had crashed after 2008 and this guy comes along with his books and upends the whole economics establishment.

Perhaps Stiglitz, who similarly undermined faith in core neoclassical assumptions?

Re: Daniel Kahneman has died

#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.

Post reply on HN