82,891
edits
Thinking, Fast and Slow: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{fullanat|br|Thinking, Fast and Slow|Daniel Kahneman}}This is a monster book packed with fascinating insights about how our cognitive systems process and render information....") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
This talk of snap judgments calls to mind {{author|Malcolm Gladwell}}'s popular but disappointing "{{br|Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking}}". Kahneman's account, rooted in decades of controlled experiment, is a far more rigorous explanation of what is going on, and is able to explain why some snap judgments are good, and others are bad. This conundrum, unanswered in Gladwell's book, is Daniel Kahneman's main focus of enquiry. | This talk of snap judgments calls to mind {{author|Malcolm Gladwell}}'s popular but disappointing "{{br|Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking}}". Kahneman's account, rooted in decades of controlled experiment, is a far more rigorous explanation of what is going on, and is able to explain why some snap judgments are good, and others are bad. This conundrum, unanswered in Gladwell's book, is Daniel Kahneman's main focus of enquiry. | ||
It also invokes another popular science classic: {{author|Julian Jaynes}}' idea of the | It also invokes another popular science classic: {{author|Julian Jaynes}}' idea of the “[[bicameral mind]]” <ref>{{br|The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind}}</ref>- wherein there are large aspects of our daily existence, which we consider them conscious, really are not - driving by rote to the office, playing a musical instrument - these are also mental processes, I imagine Kahneman would say, undertaken by System 1. Jaynes was widely viewed as a bit eccentric: Kahneman's work suggests he may have been right on the money. | ||
It gets interesting for Kahneman where the division of labour between the systems isn't clear cut. System 1 can and does make quick evaluations even where system 2's systematic analysis would provide a better result (these are broadly the "bad" snap judgments of ''Blink''). But System 2 requires dedicated mental resource (in Kahneman ugly expression, it is "effortful"), and our lazy tendency is to substitute (or, at any rate, stick with) those "cheaper" preliminary judgments where it is not obviously erroneous to do so (and by and large, it won't be, as System 1 will have done its work). Kahneman's shorthand for this effect is WYSIATI: What You See Is All There Is. | It gets interesting for Kahneman where the division of labour between the systems isn't clear cut. System 1 can and does make quick evaluations even where system 2's systematic analysis would provide a better result (these are broadly the "bad" snap judgments of ''Blink''). But System 2 requires dedicated mental resource (in Kahneman ugly expression, it is "effortful"), and our lazy tendency is to substitute (or, at any rate, stick with) those "cheaper" preliminary judgments where it is not obviously erroneous to do so (and by and large, it won't be, as System 1 will have done its work). Kahneman's shorthand for this effect is WYSIATI: What You See Is All There Is. | ||