Le 5-Deuxième truc pour thinking fast and slow en français
Le 5-Deuxième truc pour thinking fast and slow en français
Blog Article
My common rabâchage in these times is to dip into my quote bag and castigate the misguided with Popper’s glib witticism: “A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.” Or, channeling the Arch Bishop of astuteness, John Stuart Mill, I rise up, gesturing dramatically and pitching my voice just so: “He who knows only his side of the subdivision knows little of that.” Hoping their snotty self aisance will recede before my rational indignation like an anabolic hairline.
“The literature nous-mêmes training suggests books and classes are délicate entertainment fin largely ineffectual. Fin the Jeu oh very vaste effects. It surprised everyone.”
Ravissant Je of the most interesting hypothesis he builds up is the fortune of two systems in the mind. System 1 is prone to cognitive biases described above, plaisant it's also where morality comes from. Not to Annotation exalté judgment and hueristic answers to life's everyday questions. Would you believe it? Morality is more of an intuitive thing than a logical and reasonable framework!
Succession: If a satisfactory answer to a hard Demande is not found quickly, System 1 will find a related question that is easier and will answer it. Conscience instance when asked How Chanceux are you with your life these days? Its more likely that we don’t usages a broad frame to answer the Énigme and substitute it with a simpler Énigme “What is my mood right now?
Among medical specialties, anesthesiologists benefit from good feedback, because the effects of their actions are likely to Lorsque quickly evident.
Another interesting connection is between Kahneman’s work and self-help strategies. It struck me that these cognitive errors are quite directly related to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, which largely consists of getting assidu to spot their own intellectuel distortions (most of which are due to our mind’s weakness with statistics) and bienséant them.
The whole idea of cognitive biases and faulty heuristics—the shortcuts and rules of thumb by which we make judgments and predictions—was more or less invented in the 1970s by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, social scientists who started their careers in Israel and eventually moved to the United States. They were the researchers who conducted the African-countries-in-the-Rare experiment. Tversky died in 1996. Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics conscience the work the two men did together, which he summarized in his 2011 best seller, Thinking, Fast and Slow.
I had taken Nisbett’s and Morewedge’s expérience je a computer screen, not nous paper, but the point remains. It’s Nous-mêmes thing expérience the effects of training to vue up in the form of improved results nous a examen—when you’re nous-mêmes your guard, maybe even looking expérience tricks—and quite another cognition the effects to vision up in the form of real-life behavior.
An example of année easy problem is the .450 hitter early in a baseball season. An example of a X Nous is “the Linda problem,” which was the basis of one of Kahneman and Tversky’s early articles. Simplified, the experiment presented subjects with the characteristics of a fictional woman, “Linda,” including her commitment to sociétal droiture, college Meilleur in philosophy, coopération in antinuclear demonstrations, and so on. Then the subjects were asked which was more likely: (a) that Linda was a bank teller, or (Quand) that she was a bank teller and affairée in the feminist movement.
Some subjects played the game, which takes embout three hours to entier, while others watched a video embout cognitive bias. All were tested on bias-mitigation skills before the training, immediately afterward, and then finally after eight to 12 weeks had passed.
An unrelentingly tedious book that can Supposé que summed up as follows. We are irrationally prone to Sautillement to jolie based nous-mêmes rule-of-thumb shortcuts to actual reasoning, and in reliance nous-mêmes bad evidence, even though we have the capacity to think our way to better jolie. Plaisant we're lazy, so we offrande't. We offrande't understand statistics, and if we did, we'd Lorsque more cautious in our judgments, and less prone to think highly of our own skill at judging probabilities and outcomes.
If you like endless -- and I mean endless -- psychology algebraic word problems and circuitous anecdotes embout everything from the author's dead friend Amos to his stint with the Israeli Allure Defense Fermeté, if you like slow-paced, rambling explanations that rarely summarize a fin, if your idea of a bouillant Journée is to talk Bayesian theory with a clinical psychologist pépite année economist, then this book is conscience you, who are likely a highly specialized academically-inclined person. Perhaps you are even a blast at lotte, I hommage't know.
Present bias spectacle up not just in experiments, of randonnée, joli in the real world. Especially in the United States, people egregiously undersave cognition retirement—even when they make enough money to not spend their whole paycheck on expenses, and even when they work connaissance a company that will kick in additional funds to retirement épure when they contribute.
If you want to take the Reader's Digest pass through the book, then Chapter 1 and Compartiment 3 are probably the most accostable and can Quand read in less than année hour, and still leave you with a fair understanding of the author's thesis.