Daniel Kahneman Fathoms The Human Mind

Nobel prize winner and author of "Thinking, Fast and Slow" recounts his narrow escape from Hitler's SS, contemplates the illusion of skill and the psychology of investing in an interview with Steve Forbes.

[@waggishsagacity7947]

Prof. Daniel Kahneman is not only very smart, but mainly, very personable and genuinely humble. He lowers all of humanity's Hubris one peg down, but makes sure that we all know that this advice includes him, and that with all his formidable knowledge of "the ways of the world" we -- and he -- are just trying hard to beat the odds,. However we are better off accepting failures rather than bragging about our occasional successes. Brilliantly refreshing! Thanks so much.

[@chameleontoo]

The beauty of what he and Amos Tversky found is that it's applicable to every area in life. He was instrumental in looking more deeply into the reality of people and their expectations/frailties of their view of their lives and therefore their actions towards others as well as their conclusions about their experiences.

[@DevlinsAudioWorkshop]

No. He founded behavioural economics, which has placed the final nail in the coffin of classical economics.

[@wonggentle]

Wonderful interview, thank you so much!

[@mr.g4999]

I adore this man!

[@Iniestoteles]

LMAO 8:22
Daniel : ...information you should not have.
interviewer: *Jim face*

[@DharmendraRaiMindMap]

Thinking, Fast and Slow is a book every intelligent person should read. I expound on Daniel Kahneman's work in my seminars on Mind Mapping & Invisible Selling - Dharmendra Rai , Mind Map Trainer

[@kaleyhall1177]

Kahneman is deludede

[@mr.g4999]

Daniel is a master! Fantastic❤️

[@b3rkut]

True fact, the whole interview is about it? He spoke about it for the first 3 minutes which influenced his work.

[@mini1gerbel]

Does he subscribe to the efficient market hypothesis? What a nub if he does

[@taiwanSmart]

The Great Leap Forward is not a Chinese phrase, it's a Communism's phrase, don't mix Chinese and Chinese communists together...

[@denisdaly1708]

The lack of knowledge and understanding of Kahneman's points are cring worthy.

[@crypto986]

not sure why I get annoyed looking at this guys face. wonderful ideas though

[@kaleyhall1177]

The problem is not with confidence but Kahneman's arrogance and, generally, the rationalist arrogance, and society's complete neglect of factors non-analytical. Kahneman certainly forgot to cite his asshole with the claim the 'society rewards confidence', because as far as I can tell, the SAT/CAT/MCAT/PKAT is not testing my 'confidence'. In fact, confidence is usually, corruptly, conflated with arrogance, over-privilege, and mental bias, as Khaneman and his rationalistic analytical cronies have dedicated their lives to fabricating evidence towards. The problem is that when society doubts the powers of intuition and anything involved in it's natural course of development. Gerd Gigerenzer destroys Kahneman's partial selection and straw man critique of intuition, with work and examples showing the power intuition in complex problem solving. The problem is that society worships IQ/standardized tests, a function of pure reason/rationality, and the extremely limited working memory capacity, whose evolutionary purpose is only to allow us to solve elementary problems (which IQ correlates nicely with) - interpreting sentences, making small system decisions with known variables and limited complexity. Solving truly complex problems requires bodies of specific knowledge, inter and intra-connectivity (forming subconsciously) within these bodies of knowledge, which ultimately allows for intuitions of our primary level associations (eg: Tree/Broccoli association). Association is the most essential form of true 'generative thinking', which Kahneman and his crew attempt to reject is a function of associative thought - and fallaciously argue is exclusive to that which is component to working memory capacity and reflected by scores on IQ and other glorified short term memory tests. But unfortunately in society, CONeman has a lot of fan's. And they are usually achievement < IQ types and graying anglophiles who indulge in a delusional sense of intellectual worth.

[@Kostas1989]

in my understanding , system 1 works amazingly good if you have done the work.
Meaning if you have done thousands of SAT's tests then even though the problems that you are going to encounter are different system 1 works extremely fast to intuitively find the correct answer.
If you haven't done the work in a specific field or topic , system 1 is most times wrong and you should better go with system 2.
Kahneman goes with system 2 because he has accepted his system 1 sucks pretty much ,and he's much better off with system 2.
Obviously some great mathematicians or philosophers trusted tremendously system 1 to get great ideas but that happened after they had devoted thousands of hours in the topic.

[@Kostas1989]

its the same with the stock market.
You can't have intuition on the market unless you have devoted your life in it.
Theres a great book by Curtis faith "trading from your gut".
There are both system 1 and system 2 approaches .
But unless you have spent countless hours you are much better of going with system 2

[@just4visit]

why are you so angry at him?

[@denisdaly1708]

I am laughing at your vitriol. How is it that the wall street advisers cannot beat the average, even over the medium term. Warren Buffet won a large bet against the wall street companies, who bet that they could beat the average. Buffet had read Kahneman. Basically Buffet was saying that wall street had no function and were not worth one cent. Check out that famous bet.
Obama bailed out Wall Street after 2008. He should have let the lot go bankrupt.

[@kaleyhall1177]

@@Kostas1989 I agree, System 1 is about pattern matching ....subconsciously sensing structural/conceptual correlations between objects across time, and making associations. In effect, these associations are inventions (inventions of 'sets"). Furthermore, with respect to 'abstract' thought, because System 1 allows for invention of models - it is by all means part of 'abstract thinking'. John Von Neumann wrote a great piece entitled, the Matematician, where he describes the work of mathematician as a form of art, highlighting free selection, followed by a sudden surprise (when "System 2" kicks in). There are 2 parts to it. www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Von_Neumann_Part_1.html