Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman - A 30-minute Summary (Anglais) Broché – 4 avril 2014
|Neuf à partir de||Occasion à partir de|
Produits fréquemment achetés ensemble
Les clients ayant acheté cet article ont également acheté
Descriptions du produit
Présentation de l'éditeur
PLEASE NOTE: This is a summary of the book and NOT the original book.
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman - A 30-minute Summary
Inside this Instaread Summary:
• Overview of the entire book
• Introduction to the important people in the book
• Summary and analysis of all the chapters in the book
• Key Takeaways of the book
• A Reader's Perspective
Preview of this summary:
In this book Daniel Kahneman hopes to identify and understand errors of judgment and choice. He wants to provide a richer and more accurate vocabulary to discuss these errors. He worked with his colleague, Amos Tversky, doing research on intuitive statistics. The two of them had already concluded in an earlier seminar that their own intuitions were lacking. Their subjective judgments were biased, they were too willing to believe research findings based on inadequate evidence, and they collected too few observations in their own research. The goal of their study was to find out whether other researchers had this problem as well.
Kahneman and Tversky found that participants in their studies ignored the relevant statistical facts and relied exclusively on resemblance. They used resemblance as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to simplify things when making a difficult judgment. Relying on this heuristic caused predictable biases (systematic errors) in their predictions. The research partners learned that people tend to determine the importance of issues by how easy they are retrieved from their memory. This is brought about in large part by the extent of coverage of the issues in the media.
Kahneman presents a view of how the mind works, drawing on recent developments in cognitive and social psychology. He explains the differences between fast (intuitive) thinking and slow (deliberate) thinking. People have a limitation in their minds: an excessive confidence in what they think they know...
Biographie de l'auteur
Aucun appareil Kindle n'est requis. Téléchargez l'une des applis Kindle gratuites et commencez à lire les livres Kindle sur votre smartphone, tablette ou ordinateur.
Pour obtenir l'appli gratuite, saisissez votre adresse e-mail ou numéro de téléphone mobile.
Détails sur le produit
Dans ce livre(En savoir plus)
Quels sont les autres articles que les clients achètent après avoir regardé cet article?
Commentaires en ligne
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)
I've always believed that to be true. I still do, for the most part, but reading the summary of Thinking, Fast and Slow caused me to dig a little deeper into the WHY we make mistakes. Especially when that little voice in our head chimed in during the decision-making process and said, "I think this is a stupid idea", and we did it anyway.
The reason, according to author Daniel Kahneman, is basically because we're lazy when it comes to deliberate thinking. For simplicity, he divides the brain into two parts and calls them "System 1" and "System 2". System 1 is intuitive and fast. System 2 is measured and slow. Can you guess which side gets us into the most trouble? You got it, System 1.
He gives a simple comparison. Looking at a photo is System 1; it's fast because we see what we want based on our experiences. Looking at a math problem is System 2; it's slow because it involves effort. System 1 and 2 are interactive, but System 1 is usually a greater influence.
Do not despair. As much trouble as Fast thinking causes, it is also responsible for the Fight or Flight instinct. So, it's been keeping us from extinction all these years. This, depending on who you ask, is a great thing.
I realize his explanation is all subjective and you can either call it nonsense or genius, but I will say I had many a Eureka moment when I was reading. It gave me a lot to think about (slowly) and I truly enjoyed it. I recommend for anyone wanting to learn more about how we process thoughts and ideas.
And two things that made me crazy/annoyed and lowered my opinion of the Instaread Summaries experience--
1. The words "causal" and "casual" are very different words, and the narrator seems not to recognize this, which really skews the meaning in some parts. I'd expect more narration precision in such a concise book, especially when misreading significantly impacts the concept being discussed.
2. There's a random negative review of the full-length book at the end of the summary, which seems out of place and ethically questionable.
1. The narrator appears not to know the word "causal" as in, cause and effect. Over and over again, he says "casual," as in, not very serious. "Causal thinking" and "casual thinking" mean very very different things. The author is talking about how it's a human tendency to think in terms of cause-and-effect even when the occurrence of certain events happens just by random chance. The narrator is making it sound like people are not taking events seriously. In such a condensed format where every word counts, and where I don't have the words in front of me to double-check, reading the correct word aloud seems important!
2. The critique at the end of the book seemed really out of place. In the summary, it says in print somewhere that it's an "unofficial summary and we encourage you to purchase the full-length book." Yet at the end of the summary, there is this weird rant, introduced as a "Customer perspective" about how no one should like the book. Why is that necessary or sensical? If it were adding corrections/updates/counter-evidence to the science or something, I might understand that, but it's just some guy's largely negative opinion. If the goal is to help the reader decide whether or not to buy the full book, why not include various reviews? Or is it just a weird ploy to try to convince people that reading a full-length book is a waste of time, so they'll buy another summary of a different book instead? Like I said, weird.