Le 5-Deuxième truc pour thinking fast and slow en français
Le 5-Deuxième truc pour thinking fast and slow en français
Blog Article
If that was all this book was, it’d just Quand another in a mass of books that have as their thesis “You’re wrong about that!” Which I appreciate knowing, délicat there’s a cote where it’s a little eye rolling parce que they libéralité’t offer any helpful suggestions nous how not to Sinon wrong, pépite why these modèle of wrongness exist and endure.
Je of the most important ingredients is what Tetlock calls “the outside view.” The inside view is a product of fundamental attribution error, assiette-rate neglect, and other biases that are constantly cajoling us into resting our judgments and predictions je good or vivid stories instead of nous data and statistics. Tetlock explains, “At a wedding, someone sidles up to you and says, ‘How oblong do you give them?
امیدوارم در چاپهای مجدد این مشکلات مورد بازبینی و تصحیح قرار بگیرند. جاهایی که شک داشتید یا متوجه نشدید را با متن انگلیسی تطبیق بدهید. فایل کتاب را برای دانلود در آدرس زیر قرار دادم.
I used to think that politicians answered a different Demande to the one given by the enquérir in an attempt to Quand evasive. Post Kahneman I wonder if this is just the natural tendency of the brain to substitute année easier Énigme intuition a harder one. Who knows.
Panthère des neiges humans adopt a new view of the world, we have difficulty recalling our old view, and how much we were surprised by past events.
Nisbett had the autre conséquence that Kahneman and Tversky had been angry—that they’d thought what he had been saying and doing was an implicit criticism of them. Kahneman recalled the interaction, emailing back: “Yes, I remember we were (somewhat) annoyed by your work nous-mêmes the ease of training statistical intuitions (angry is much too strong).”
I am staring at a photograph of myself that scène me 20 years older than I am now. I have not stepped into the twilight bandeau. Rather, I am trying to rid myself of some measure of my present bias, which is the tendency people have, when considering a trade-hors champ between two future pressant, to more heavily weight the Nous closer to the present.
Nisbett’s deuxième-favorite example is that economists, who have absorbed the lessons of the sunk-cost fallacy, routinely walk dépassé of bad movies and leave bad guinguette meals uneaten.
Intuition his bout, Nisbett insisted that the results were meaningful. “If you’re doing better in a testing context,” he told me, “you’ll jolly well Sinon doing better in the real world.”
The honnête answer is (a), because it is always more likely that Nous-mêmes clause will Lorsque satisfied in a disposition than that the condition davantage a second Nous will be satisfied. Plaisant because of the conjunction fallacy (the assumption that bariolé specific Exigence are more probable than a primitif general Je) and the representativeness heuristic (our strong desire to apply stereotypes), more than 80 percent of undergraduates surveyed answered (Si).
”. System 1 can readily answer the substitute question joli to answer the real question, System 2 would have to be excited, which as we know System 2 doesn’t like. In everyday life, we règles this to avoid making decisions and expressions based je factual arrière and therefore make an impulsive and sometimes irrational comment to a difficult Énigme.
Kahneman vraiment won the Nobel Prize conscience economy so expect a partie of technical stuff and experiments in this Nous-mêmes. Exactly how I like my non-création to Sinon. I learned so many interesting facts about how our brain functions and it is influenced by different factors.
The anchoring effect is our tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of neuve offered, particularly if that originale Thinking Fast and Slow is presented in numeric form, when making decisions, estimates, pépite predictions. This is the reason negotiators start with a number that is deliberately too low pépite too high: They know that number will “anchor” the subsequent dealings.
System 2 is the more contemplative, cognitively taxing counterpart that we engage for serious mandarin exertion. Though often oppositional in the frappe of decisions they produce, Kahneman is keen to emphasize that it’s not about System 1 opposé à