There is a kind of book, we call it Chicken Soup Essay, in which big principles are made into chicken soup. 2 Two ounces of chicken soup is so satisfying and filling, your life may be different from now on. However, we found that 95 grams of water, 1 gram of protein, 3.2 grams of fat, and 24 mg of cholesterol will most likely not change anything in our lives.
There is also a kind of book that reads like a bone stick, with no meat but marrow. You have to push your mind into a desperate situation, develop strong muscles and use your intelligence to break the bones and get to the marrow. Bone marrow (saturated fat, a small amount of amino acids, and a small amount of phosphorus - not as complete in nutrition as an egg) is not much better than chicken soup. It doesn't matter whether you eat it or not, you will find that your thinking is much stronger.
He, Daniel Kahneman, was born in 1934 in Tel Aviv, now Israel. The family went bankrupt and fled to Vichy France in 1940. His father died in 1944 from improperly treated diabetes, and just six weeks before the D-Day he had so desperately awaited, he was allowed to join his family in Palestine. The only mode of recreation in a foreign country is to write to yourself - to yourself. "I Write What I Thought," which approvingly quotes Pascal's famous quote "Faith is what God makes perceptible," then goes on to point out that such true spiritual experiences can be rare and unreliable. This child is How much I want a normal life.
At the age of seventeen, he applied for military service and while in the army determined to become a psychologist. Because the questions that interested him were philosophical—the meaning of life, the existence of God, and the reasons not to misbehave. But he found that he was more interested in what made people believe in God than in whether God existed, and in the origins of people's particular beliefs about right and wrong than in ethics. Since the age of seventeen, he has devoted himself to memorizing the conscious and unconscious behaviors of groups, and recording the behaviors and psychology of people in life, work, and military service. Two years later, I received my first degree from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, majoring in psychology and minoring in mathematics. I was enthusiastic about the work of social psychologist Kurt Lewin and was deeply influenced by his life space diagram. Motivation is represented as a force field acting on the individual from the outside, pushing and pulling in various directions.
Graduated from the Hebrew University of Israel in 1954 with a bachelor's degree in psychology and mathematics. In 2002, Daniel Kahneman, an Israeli professor at Princeton University in the United States, won the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics.
Thinking, Fast and Slow - one of the New York Times' top ten best books in 2011. It is the masterpiece of Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman and is known as a study of "judgment under uncertainty" Field Bible. This book contains 35 classic papers, divided into 10 parts, which brings together classic works on judgment and reasoning research. It basically covers all the most authoritative literature on judgment research at present, and has great theoretical and application value.
How can a person with such a tortuous life write a boring and hard-core psychological experiment into a book and let us experience the ultimate journey of thinking.
He believes that our brains have two ways of making decisions, fast and slow. The commonly used unconscious "System I" relies on emotion, memory and experience to make quick judgments, allowing us to react quickly to the situation at hand. But System 1 is also easy to be fooled. It adheres to the principle of "seeing is fact" and allows illusions such as loss aversion and optimistic bias to guide us to make wrong choices. The conscious "System 2" analyzes and solves problems and makes decisions by mobilizing attention. It is slower and less error-prone, but it is lazy and often takes shortcuts and directly adopts the intuitive judgment results of System 1.
He used an angry face and a 17-23 algorithm question to reveal the different working styles of System 1 and System 2. You can tell whether a person is angry without thinking. However, if you are asked to calculate 17 23, you need to mobilize System 2. The book gives many interesting examples, such as the priming effect, where a person's behavior can affect his or her mood. Put a pencil on your mouth, and you will smile, and then you will truly think that you are in a good mood. The environment will also affect your behavior. A pair of eyes on the wall instead of a flower will make you consciously abide by the rules of the game.
System 1 is not good at questioning. When faced with probability issues that require dialectics and thinking, it often focuses on the surface rather than scientifically judging the size of the sample. The risk of error in a small sample is much higher than 50% in a large sample. That is to say, the probability of being correct based on a small sample is about the same as the probability of getting heads in a coin toss. Causal explanations for random events must also be wrong. At the same time, he also listed many anchoring effects, suggestion effects, etc. that can be seen everywhere in life. He proposed that the availability heuristic should be used scientifically: Affected by emergencies and prone to overestimating efforts and underestimating gains, people remember their own contributions and efforts more clearly than others.
Confidence includes confidence in oneself and confidence in tools, so confidence does not mean 100% belief. The future is unpredictable. When can we trust the intuition of experts? It means that experts have professional knowledge background in this field and the environment has rules to follow, so that the intuition of experts can be reliable. The planning fallacy is just a manifestation of the ubiquitous optimism bias. Most of us think the world is a good place, but the world is not as good as we imagined. We feel that our contributions are great, but in fact they are not that great. , we think that the goals we set are easy to achieve, but in fact the possibility of achieving them is not that great. We also tend to exaggerate our ability to predict the future, which leads to optimistic overconfidence, which may affect our decision-making. We feel that our status in the minds of others is very important, but in fact it is not that important; we think that in the minds of others, we are always paying attention to ourselves, but in fact everyone is very busy, and no one cares about ourselves more than others. But don't look down on yourself and underestimate yourself. It's all about subjective judgment. It will be more scientific if you set correction parameters with caution.
The relationship between our utility/feelings/happiness and the amount of wealth emphasizes the "diminishing marginal value of wealth." Ordinary people do not calculate expected value based on the amount of wealth, but based on the utility/feeling corresponding to wealth. In other words, in the face of risks and probabilities, there is no fixed certainty in how to choose, but it varies based on personal financial resources and preferences. Based on Bernoulli's wealth utility, the concept of "loss aversion" is further emphasized. The "utility/feeling" emphasized by Bernoulli does not only depend on the state we are in, but also related to the process of reaching this state. Loss brings us greater negative utility than gain.
When playing a symphony on a record, the scratched disc creates a disgusting sound near the end, and a bad ending often "ruins the entire experience." But it’s not the experience that’s actually ruined, just the memory of it. The experiencing self has almost had a perfect experience, and a bad ending cannot erase it because the experience has already happened. This listener defined the entire experience as a failure because it ended badly, but ignored the joy that the 40 minutes of music brought him. Is actual experience really worthless? No, the experience and decision-making are different
Reading this book is very difficult. I can only read a few chapters or 3-5 theories at a time. Although I finished reading it in 2019, today I wrote This article also read the outline table of contents and key thought chapters again as quickly as possible. Today’s question is about the story of a celebrity’s growth in writing. There are many celebrities that I can remember in retrospect, but the celebrity that has had the greatest influence on my thinking is Daniel Kahneman. He made my thinking logical and allowed me to avoid a lot of judgments. Obvious biases and misunderstandings, decision-making is more scientific. This is my first time to write about a celebrity, so I would like to pay tribute to you - Daniel Kahneman.
The reason why great ideas are great is that they look at problems, phenomena and essences from different heights. If we can not When we struggle to understand his book, the height we stand should be close to the height of a giant