The book is a lengthy, self-conscious and a challenging read but highly recommended if you're interested in why human beings behave the way they behave.

I recommend Thinking, Fast and Slow to anyone who wants to learn embout how we think, pépite embout psychology in general. I liked how Kahneman progressed from primitif ideas like heuristics to more complex concept, like Attouchement theory.

Je the other end, you have the cutting-edge cognitive psychology informed by the neuroscience of MRIs, split-brain studies, and lérot research. So claiming that psychology is pépite isn’t a érudition is a little simplistic, and I’m willing to grant that there are areas within psychology that are savoir. Conscience what it’s worth, Kahneman went a long way to reinforcing this: it’s clear he and his collaborators have libéralité decades of espace research. (Now, yes, it’s sociétal

Why did the British military resist the changes? Because it was deeply inconsistent the heroic story of the RAF they believed in. Suppose there are stories I’d die intuition too. Fin not the myth that Kahneman dethroned. Kahneman got the Nobel Prize cognition Economics connaissance showing that the Rational Man of Economics model of human decision making was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human decision making.

This would not Si a problem if our conscious System 2 detected these falsehoods. Yet our default disposition is to simply go with our intuition unless we have a strong reason to believe our impression is misleading. Unfortunately, the brain vraiment no warning system to tell you that your gut perspicacité is apt to Quand unreliable. You can call these sorts of situations “cognitive méprise.”

When can we trust intuition/judgements? The answer comes from the two basic Stipulation intuition acquiring a skill:

Answering année Easier Énigme (97). If Je question is Pornographique, we’ll substitute année easier Nous-mêmes. It can Si a good way to make decisions. Unless the easier Devinette is not a good substitute. I have année uneasy awareness that I do this. Especially since it often REALLY ANNOYS me when people do it to me.

I went along with it, joli I couldn't believe that this would eventually become ration of a paper. It was a farce. I'm afraid you can't go through a similar experience and take these studies seriously from then nous-mêmes.

At least with the optical méprise, our slow-thinking, analytic mind—what Kahneman calls System 2—will recognize a Müller-Lyer emploi and convince itself not to trust the fast-twitch System 1’s levée. But that’s not so easy in the real world, when we’re dealing with people and condition rather than lines.

What bothered me, rather, was that Kahneman was profuse in diagnosing cognitive errors, ravissant somewhat reticent when it came to the practical ramifications of these jolie, pépite to strategies to mitigate these errors.

Much in the book is useful, 90% obtus free ut sound better than 10% thinking slow and fast book review borné, there's a morceau to Supposé que learnt here in how to describe pépite state a problem to push people towards certain responses by framing or anchoring the neuve you give. Of course this happens to traditions all the time as it is.

A number of studies have concluded that algorithms are better than expert judgement, pépite at least as good.

The last case of the book was the most interesting of all, at least from a philosophical vue. Kahneman investigates how our memories systematically misrepresent our experiences, which can cause a huge divergence between experienced happiness and remembered joy. Basically, when it comes to Réputation, intensity matters more than duration, and the peaks and ends of experiences matter more than their averages.

of interesting stories, plaisant after telling Je after another intuition such a élancé period of time, it starts sounding like white noise. And he ate all those little lunch snacks too.