Dr. Daniel Kahneman, winner of the 2002 Nobel Prize in economics, joins us to discuss his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, and how different systems of thought can affect our judgment when making decisions.

 

Hat tip Morgan

 

Category: Cognitive Foibles, Psychology, Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

2 Responses to “Sitting Down with Dr. Daniel Kahneman”

  1. MayorQuimby says:

    “We believe the arguments that are compatible with our beliefs”

    So true. This is why debating most people is fraught with futility. In most debates, your average person is out to:

    1: Pad their ego/prove their superiority over you.
    2: Defend their “team”.
    3: Defend their prior belief system against attack (to be proven incorrect would mean one was incorrect for a length of time).
    4: Test their opponent’s weaknesses (instinctive, not overt) or get them to slip up.
    5: To win the argument even if this means bending, twisting, misrepresenting, obscuring, backpedaling etc.

    etc etc etc

    The one objective missing however is the search for truth, answers, enlightenment etc. That is most certainly NOT what people are after. That takes work, mental calories must be burned etc.

    There must be a Darwinian explanation (one would hope) for it all!

    Excellent post. Thanks Barry.

  2. lrh says:

    I think you are onto something really fundamentally important Quimby not just about average debaters but regarding above average debaters too.

    “Truth, answers, enlightenment etc” don’t come out of the practice of traditional debate tactics. I don’t know if Darwin has explained the roots of this failure but when advocates bend, twist, misrepresent, obscure, backpedal, and I would add “deceive” observers and opponents in order to win, enlightenment is the loser.

    There are alternate processes and systems being tested now. Not in politics or on cable talk shows but certainly in some businesses and other organizations.