Agreed. The TIME interviewer should not interrupt intervene or bombard with multiple questions or questionnaire list. Allow Kahneman to continue his thoughts. Let the exchange flow naturally. She should just LISTEN.
She’s disgustingly off-putting. She needs to find a new career field. Couldn’t bear to finish the video, exclusively because of her pigeon-face annoyance.
Very insightful. Being aware of the strengths and weaknesses of our more 'instinctive' System 1 should translate into better decision-making. What else can we do to improve our decision-making and problem-solving skills? Could video games help in areas such as impulse control, mental flexibility, and planning?
I loved the interview except for the part about "not being a fan" of intuition. I don't think the Dr is not a fan of intuition. I think there's a difference between just "going with our gut" and using knowledgeable intuition. For example, I would trust a doctor to stitch up my hand if I needed a few stitches because I trust his intuition in medicine. When we practice something for long periods of time, we effectively train our intuition in a particular field. That could have been expressed.
What he's proposing, that people should not be so confident about their positions, and that they over-rely on their own intuition is Very counter cultural today. Everyone preaches confidence and our own flawed EGO's like to think we are right. Well, he's just saying consider data and broad perspectives and measures info most, and then your "gut" second and after that. The EGO people will attack that notion - but in fact he's being very reasonable here - which in fact most people are not, they like to service their own Egos. This is a great, revolutionary book, read it.
Hank MoHank Conman is the sort of cowardly proponent of the analytic, always glorifying the value of linear thought, and the function of short-term memory - receiving praises only from a public with an already inflated sense of intellectual worth (IQ theory). It remains so, the greatest philosophers of mind have always supported intuition and the freedom in selecting elements of thought (Von Neumann called it art), while the laymen will always cower behind analysis, as if it somehow makes up for their lack of worldly achievements. Very few minds in Western societies today, given the presence of the biases against intuition, heuristic, and creative thought, can flourish, but still the evidence of the powers of intuition prevails, thought most often, in the one in a million types, who come to change the world. Confidence isn't something that gives us the right answer - that's the structure of our brain. Confidence arises when someone is used to being right.
The description is wrong, it says that "our gut instincts are usually wrong" whereas the book argues that our gut instincts are usually right but there are systematic deviations, also called biases
Ajamm si pero no es intuición sino experiencia que han ganado expertos por la repetición continúa de ciertos actos como explica en el ejemplo del ajedrez el jugador experimentado (el experto) ya tiene miles des jugadas en su memoria es por eso que recurre a alguna con mayor facilidad.
Conman is the sort of cowardly proponent of the analytic, always glorifying the value of linear thought, and the function of short-term memory - receiving praises only from a public with an already inflated sense of intellectual worth (IQ theory). It remains so, the greatest philosophers of mind have always supported intuition and the freedom in selecting elements of thought (Von Neumann called it art), while the laymen will always cower behind analysis, as if it somehow makes up for their lack of worldly achievements. Very few minds in Western societies today, given the presence of the biases against intuition, heuristic, and creative thought, can flourish, but still the evidence of the powers of intuition prevails, thought most often, in the one in a million types, who come to change the world.
And you came to your conclusion by watching a 6 minute video?? Now wonder he was given the Nobel prize! You would understand what I mean if you genuinely study his work.
What a personality. The combo of Daniel Kahneman's charisma and humility is enviable.
409.. aww that made her humble. Attitude dropped down like a big avalanche.
I mean she should realize she's speaking with THE Daniel Kahneman.
Hahahaha LMAO and she even says "soooo close" So glad that helped her tune down her attitude.
4:48 "We use the word 'know' in peculiar ways and that strengthen the illusion that we understand the world when we really don't"
that.
Agreed. The TIME interviewer should not interrupt intervene or bombard with multiple questions or questionnaire list. Allow Kahneman to continue his thoughts. Let the exchange flow naturally. She should just LISTEN.
She’s disgustingly off-putting. She needs to find a new career field. Couldn’t bear to finish the video, exclusively because of her pigeon-face annoyance.
Very insightful. Being aware of the strengths and weaknesses of our more 'instinctive' System 1 should translate into better decision-making. What else can we do to improve our decision-making and problem-solving skills? Could video games help in areas such as impulse control, mental flexibility, and planning?
I loved the interview except for the part about "not being a fan" of intuition. I don't think the Dr is not a fan of intuition. I think there's a difference between just "going with our gut" and using knowledgeable intuition. For example, I would trust a doctor to stitch up my hand if I needed a few stitches because I trust his intuition in medicine. When we practice something for long periods of time, we effectively train our intuition in a particular field. That could have been expressed.
What he's proposing, that people should not be so confident about their positions, and that they over-rely on their own intuition is Very counter cultural today. Everyone preaches confidence and our own flawed EGO's like to think we are right. Well, he's just saying consider data and broad perspectives and measures info most, and then your "gut" second and after that. The EGO people will attack that notion - but in fact he's being very reasonable here - which in fact most people are not, they like to service their own Egos. This is a great, revolutionary book, read it.
Hank MoHank Conman is the sort of cowardly proponent of the analytic, always glorifying the value of linear thought, and the function of short-term memory - receiving praises only from a public with an already inflated sense of intellectual worth (IQ theory). It remains so, the greatest philosophers of mind have always supported intuition and the freedom in selecting elements of thought (Von Neumann called it art), while the laymen will always cower behind analysis, as if it somehow makes up for their lack of worldly achievements. Very few minds in Western societies today, given the presence of the biases against intuition, heuristic, and creative thought, can flourish, but still the evidence of the powers of intuition prevails, thought most often, in the one in a million types, who come to change the world. Confidence isn't something that gives us the right answer - that's the structure of our brain. Confidence arises when someone is used to being right.
The description is wrong, it says that "our gut instincts are usually wrong" whereas the book argues that our gut instincts are usually right but there are systematic deviations, also called biases
Ajamm si pero no es intuición sino experiencia que han ganado expertos por la repetición continúa de ciertos actos como explica en el ejemplo del ajedrez el jugador experimentado (el experto) ya tiene miles des jugadas en su memoria es por eso que recurre a alguna con mayor facilidad.
Perdón corrijo instinto.
David Salces Кво? Не
Q 11 - The famed Hakkanson paradox is as follows: if markets are complete and options are redudant, why would someone need them?
His humility is disarming.
what for example?
Very impressive interview
My system 1 says the interviewer didn't read the book.
Hahahaha 😂😂😂😂
Nice voice
am so reading that book
did you read it by now?
I cant stand that woman. The interrviews are ok, but she's really annoying (a perception made over several clips, not at first sight)
Edituh At Laaaahhhj
Great Scholar
This interview...was...
?
terrible.
Curb your Nobel Prize
@mstrephoenix1 Trade in some of that rage for proper grammar and cogency before denigrating someone.
5:10 - I’m not: Buck$ 💵💰
terrible interviewer! come on he's a Nobel Prize winner, not any of your nosy neighbor Joe!
Exactly the opposite of Ken Robinson, who's very talented at speaking in public but whose writing is just 'bland'.
@mstrephoenix1 The only question is how long it is going to take to get enough spam markers and/or thumbs down on your asinine posts.
am a psychologist and not an economist that hit hard.
@mstrephoenix1 haha so what?
Rest in peace, Professor Kahneman. The interviewer in this video is not qualified
The questions are grossly incompetent, ineffective, infantile
Conman is the sort of cowardly proponent of the analytic, always glorifying the value of linear thought, and the function of short-term memory - receiving praises only from a public with an already inflated sense of intellectual worth (IQ theory). It remains so, the greatest philosophers of mind have always supported intuition and the freedom in selecting elements of thought (Von Neumann called it art), while the laymen will always cower behind analysis, as if it somehow makes up for their lack of worldly achievements. Very few minds in Western societies today, given the presence of the biases against intuition, heuristic, and creative thought, can flourish, but still the evidence of the powers of intuition prevails, thought most often, in the one in a million types, who come to change the world.
absolute rubbish. if you have read the book then you haven't understood it and should try again.
Another Jew saying Bush is an idiot.
Only a liberal Pres can think 😂
We can‘t stand with this woman.
His book is full of errors and studies that can't be replicated...
Trump is the best thinker
WOW. they must be giving nobel prizes away. seriousely, this guy?!
And you came to your conclusion by watching a 6 minute video?? Now wonder he was given the Nobel prize! You would understand what I mean if you genuinely study his work.
His 700 page book influenced lots of economists but not 12 years old boys yet.