#4 in Business & money books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of Thinking, Fast and Slow

Sentiment score: 74
Reddit mentions: 184

We found 184 Reddit mentions of Thinking, Fast and Slow. Here are the top ones.

Thinking, Fast and Slow
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
  • A good option for a Book Lover
  • It comes with proper packaging
  • Ideal for Gifting
Height8.22833 Inches
Length5.5118 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateApril 2013
Weight1.24 Pounds
Width1.45669 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 184 comments on Thinking, Fast and Slow:

u/Maytree · 13287 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

You might be interested in this book:

Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Kahneman has done Nobel-award winning research into the way human beings make irrational decisions and why. The TL;DR is that the brain has two distinct systems for thinking -- a strong, fast, emotional and relatively dumb one, and a weaker, slower, rational, much smarter one. When you "think with your gut" you're using the first system, and when you ponder something carefully and make a rational choice you're using the second system.

So what you had here was a good example of the two systems being in conflict. The dumber but stronger emotional system probably said something like "Ugh, I don't want to walk up those stairs! I can do this with a butter knife." The smarter but weaker rational system then pointed out that this was pretty dumb, but it wasn't strong enough to override the "fast" system, which is all about short-term tactics, not long-term strategies. The slow system then sent you off to Reddit to complain about how your fast system is an idiot.

Edit: I wasn't aware the the ebook links were unauthorized so I've removed them per request of the moderators.

u/adante111 · 1463 pointsr/news

That and the entire list of cognitive biases on Wikipedia.

edit: as this seems to be so popular, here is a good book about cognitive bias

u/miroe · 161 pointsr/AskReddit

"Going with your instincts" and "thinking things through" are obviously different things. But why are we so inclined to prefer former over latter? What are the strengths and limitations of both systems? What are the easy mistakes, convenient half-truths and sneaky traps we fall for every day while staying completely oblivious to flaws in our thinking processes? Well, here it is: [Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman] (http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555)

u/J42S · 79 pointsr/IWantToLearn

Check out harry potter and the methods of rationality.

u/hitsujiTMO · 65 pointsr/askscience

There isn't really such thing as fast thinkers, just people that rely more frequently on the fast thinking process that the slow thinking process. The fast thinking process happens by training information into your mind. the more often you are exposed to something, the more likely you will retain it in a fast thinking process.

This is how we learn things some basic things (alphabet, numbers). For an example, as children we repeatedly get exposed to the times tables in school. We are asked to read and recite the 1 times table,s then 2 times tables, frequently up to the 15 times table. This constant and frequent exposure is to train it to be written to the fast thinking process.

The fast thinking process is also highly unreliable and easily fooled. Take this for example (System 1 refers to fast thinking process, System 2 refers to slow thinking process):

A bat and ball costs £1.10 in total.
The bat costs one pound more than the ball.
How much does the ball cost?

System 1 provides the almost instant answer of 10p, which is, of course, wrong. The correct solution (5p) requires the conscious slow thinking of the cerebral cortex referred to as System 2.

Edit: The reason why this fails is because we look at the problem and attempt to apply a best fit known fast process that we have in our mind (X - Y model). However, the correct model is (X - Y)/2. the X - Y model is something we are exposed to extremely frequently and so retains in System 1 very well. But the (X-Y)/2 model, for most people, is rarely needed, and since we aren't exposed to it at any stage in our lives on a regular basis, it doesn't get stored in System 1. The problem with "fast thinkers" is that if they overly rely on System 1, then there's a danger of applying the wrong model to a given situation giving the wrong answer.

If you are interested in reading up on the 2 systems, I highly recommend the book "Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman". The author is a Nobel Memorial Prize winning psychologist who has studied extensibly in this area.

u/KarnickelEater · 57 pointsr/starcraft

Here is a scientific explanation of the Artosis curse: Regression toward the mean.

Basically, Artosis makes his predictions based on observations of high above (their own usual) average achievements of players. The problem is that there is actually quite a bit of randomness involved. At the high level SC II is being played at no single player is skilled enough to dominate everyone else (consistently, but likely not even at any one point in time if everyone would play against everybody else instead of just a random(ha!) selection). Randomness means, that when you observe someone being above average the chance that next time you observe them they will be WORSE, closer to the mean (back to normal!), is much higher compared to observing them doing something outstanding again.

I would like to point out that this is ONE of the forces at work. It does explain the Artosis curse. It does not (need to!) explain everything that goes on in the world or even just in the world of SC II. And it doesn't claim that this happens every single time, only on average.

Here is what Kahneman used as an example:

> The psychologist Daniel Kahneman, winner of the 2002 Nobel prize in economics, pointed out that regression to the mean might explain why rebukes can seem to improve performance, while praise seems to backfire.[8]

> “I had the most satisfying Eureka experience of my career while attempting to teach flight instructors that praise is more effective than punishment for promoting skill-learning. When I had finished my enthusiastic speech, one of the most seasoned instructors in the audience raised his hand and made his own short speech, which began by conceding that positive reinforcement might be good for the birds, but went on to deny that it was optimal for flight cadets. He said, “On many occasions I have praised flight cadets for clean execution of some aerobatic maneuver, and in general when they try it again, they do worse. On the other hand, I have often screamed at cadets for bad execution, and in general they do better the next time. So please don’t tell us that reinforcement works and punishment does not, because the opposite is the case.” This was a joyous moment, in which I understood an important truth about the world: because we tend to reward others when they do well and punish them when they do badly, and because there is regression to the mean, it is part of the human condition that we are statistically punished for rewarding others and rewarded for punishing them. I immediately arranged a demonstration in which each participant tossed two coins at a target behind his back, without any feedback. We measured the distances from the target and could see that those who had done best the first time had mostly deteriorated on their second try, and vice versa. But I knew that this demonstration would not undo the effects of lifelong exposure to a perverse contingency.

If you only read one book this year, let it be Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow.

u/kinderdemon · 40 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

It totally is: it applies through various principles, like priming or conditioning, that psychologists study.

For instance, an experiment was done in England. An office kitchen served as the site: the kitchen had a small donation box for leaving money if you used the kitchen supplies: milk, sugar, etc. Near the donation box there was a poster that changed weekly.

Sometimes it was images of nature and sometimes it was an image of a human face, only showing the eyes.

On weeks with the eye posters the donations jumped by a huge margin, nature days had level donations. The eye posters primed people into thinking they were being watched.

Another study tested altruism, both the experimental and control groups were lead into a classroom and had to take a multiple choice test. At some point during the test, the "teaching assistant" running the test would drop a big packet of pencils, scattering them across the classroom. The altruism test measured altruism by comparing how many pencils the test subjects would pick up to help the "teaching assistant", the multiple choice test itself was a red herring.

The only difference between the control and the experimental groups, was a screen saver on a computer sitting in the back of the classroom. The control screen saver was abstract patterns, while the experimental screen saver was floating dollar bills.

Surprisingly, even that small factor significantly decreased altruism: people were less likely to pick up pencils to help someone else when primed to think about money.

or another totally crazy one: this one was done on college students, and again asked them to take a test. The control test was very generic, while the experimental was all about old age, growing old and aging. Before and after the students took the test, their walking speed was measured and the students who took the aging exam dramatically slowed down walking afterwards: they were primed to act as thought they were old (!).

All of the above examples come from a very accessible book I highly recommend: Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

u/stonerbobo · 27 pointsr/politics

oh man.. just read /r/AskTrumpSupporters.. its depressing.

It really doesn't matter what arguments you make at all. Their intuitions come first, arguments come second. Intuition says Hillary is snobby/rich/evil and Trump is not, end of story.

There are people justifying Trump Jrs collusion with Russians! Anything can be justified with enough mental contortion and denial.

Really, the sooner you realize critical thinking means nothing to a huge group of people the better. Arguments don't form opinions, they are formed after the fact to justify them. Social pressures (what do my friends think?) & intuitions inform opinions.

EDIT: If this is interesting, checkout The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Its where i stole most of this from. Theres also other related stuf in behavioral econ & psychology - Thinking Fast & Slow by Daniel Kahneman, Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. Its the tip of an iceberg

u/veRGe1421 · 23 pointsr/GlobalOffensive

> I have a theory that your brain tries to "automate" processes and to do them subconsciously when it feels confident enough about it.

You should read the book Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman - excellent read that I would highly recommend. I think you'd find the book interesting, and it discusses this topic in depth.

u/nezumipi · 23 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

People are incredibly good at justifying their beliefs and actions.

People are masters of saying, I'm not X, I'm just X-1. "I'm not an alcoholic; I'm just a guy who likes a fifth of scotch with breakfast." "I'm not a wife beater; that bitch just needs to learn some respect." "I'm not a sexist, I just think neuroscience proves men are better."

The reasoning starts something like this: A "racist" is a monster, and I'm not a monster, so I'm not racist. And if I'm not a racist, then there must be some other reason why I believe these things. Maybe I'll claim to hate everyone equally. Maybe I'll rely on religion. Maybe I'll say I truly believe in separate but equal.

There's a reason racist forums spend so much time posting about "evidence" that supports their beliefs. They feel that if they can "prove" it, then they're just realists, not racists. (Conversely, you'll notice that /r/biology doesn't spend an inordinate amount of time posting evidence that genes are the main mode of inheritance. They believe it, but they're don't need to be defensive about it.)

So, yeah, there might be some people on there who think of themselves as "racist", but I'm guessing most of them would say they are not.

If you want to learn more about how we trick ourselves about our beliefs, I would recommend The Unpersuadables and Thinking, Fast and Slow.

u/zarathustra1900 · 18 pointsr/TrueReddit

If you want to learn more about this I suggest reading Thinking fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman.

u/omaolligain · 16 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Nudge by Thaler (Nobel Prize in Economics) & Sunstein
A book which is unquestionably about Economics and Public Policy


I haven't read it yet but it's on my list:
Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics also by Thaler


Thinking Fast & Slow by Kahneman (Nobel Prize in Economics)
Not strictly about economics but Kahneman essentially created the field of "Behavioral Economics" and the implications for his theories about decision making bias are extensive in Economics. In many ways Kahneman and Tverski's work is the foundation of Thaler's in Nudge.


Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely
If you can't tell I like the Behavioral Econmics books...

u/nyct0phile · 14 pointsr/statistics

Humans are not intuitively good at probability and statistics, because of numerous cognitive biases. -Thinking: Fast & Slow

u/Bilbo_Fraggins · 12 pointsr/raleigh

Problem gambling has nothing to do with being stupid. Human decision making just doesn't work like that: I'll point you to one of the better cognitive science/behavioral economics books to come out recently if you're really interested in understanding more how people actually make decisions, or if that's too long, perhaps a short TED talk to whet your appetite?

The gambling industry employes cognitive science findings to entrap people. You can't really understand the problem with gambling until you understand our biases and how limited our decision making ability really is.

Problem gambling affects all socio-economic classes, but those of us with more money:

  1. Have more opportunities for hedonic pleasure. Things with bad long term effects like smoking and gambling affect the lower classes more because they are accessible to them, while many other forms of hedonism usually aren't.

  2. Can absorb the impact better. If I lost a thousand or two over a year, I'd have to cut back on a few other things but I'd still be ok. If I was much closer to the poverty line, that same amount would be devastating.

  3. Do not tend to suffer from ego depletion as much. The poor tend to live more stressful lives, and those burn them out from being able to make as good decisions. citation

    Once you understand behavioral economics and the place of gambling in the world, it's much harder to just leave it alone. That's why we have the laws we do.

    On the other hand, all of that is somewhat unimportant to the discussion at hand. ;-) The point is we're attempting to enforce laws created for the sole reason that rich people don't like having to deal with poor people hanging around in public places, while not enforcing rules that demonstrably positively affect the economic situation of poor people.

    (edit: Added ego depletion w/ citation)
u/ludwigvonmises · 11 pointsr/naturalbodybuilding

If you want to learn about the other 99 cognitive biases people are unwittingly carrying around (perhaps you, too), check out Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow.

u/Ponderay · 11 pointsr/badeconomics

Thinking Fast and Slow

Shiller and Akerloft have a book on behavioral macro that I haven't read but have heard mentioned.

u/gfody · 11 pointsr/programming

The best advice I've found about interviewing and hiring was in Thinking fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman and it's not specific to engineering/programming at all. Basically decide on what aspects you will measure up front and calibrate your interviewers on what good/bad/great looks like. Then have your interviewers meet and grade each candidate on each aspect independently without sharing notes until it's all over. Tally up the scores and hire the winner.

If you do that then you'll have more successful hires than if you don't. Virtually everything else programmers tend to do while interviewing is either a waste of time or hurting your success rate.

The other big problem with technical interviews is the emphasis on making perfect hires or screening bad engineers. It's simply way too complicated to do reliably and you end up wasting a lot of time interviewing and going without the help you desperately need. It's better to put more emphasis on actually making the hires you need, and if they struggle with the engineering work then give them feedback and help them improve, if they can't improve then fire them and hire someone else.

u/TerminalGrog · 11 pointsr/serialpodcast

Here are my observations.

I started coming to this subreddit because I had a lot of questions after listening to Serial. I thought between this sub and the others I had found SPO and Undisclosed, I would get some satisfactory answers, some keen insights. I posted some questions on all three subs. On SPO, most my posts seem to disappear into oblivion. On Undisclosed, my questions were seen as hostile or stirring the pot or something. On this one, it's 50-50.

After listening to Serial, I leaned toward Adnan being innocent but had some grave doubts, some questions that I needed clarified, so I would guess I am in the 2b category.

In the course of my discussions here and reading through the trial transcripts, the MPIA file, and lots of other documents (not all by any means), many of my original questions have been answered and I no longer consider Adnan a principle suspect in the death of Hae Lee. However, I am open to the possibility that he's guilty and have no reason to be committed to his innocence. If he's guilty, then he is where he ought to be.

I think a major difference between the two groups that I see is that the guilt side depends far more on innuendo, cherry picked details from contradictory witness statements and testimony, and seem overly committed to details that don't that much. Usually, what I see is little attempt to reconcile contradictory and mutually falsifying beliefs.

I am not saying that those who believe Adnan is innocent don't sometimes do the same thing. I would say overall, though, they handle the evidence more carefully, consistently, and methodologically soundly.

Principally, I think the main difference is between fast and slow thinkers. Fast thinkers make quick judgments and often rely on a "What I See Is All There Is" way of thinking. So, for example, we have quite a lot of information about Adnan and his day and we can pick through all that information to find inconsistencies, lies, whatever. We have a lot less information on other potential suspects, for example, Don. So the focus is on Adnan because there is a lot more there to cherry pick and confirm our initial biases.

I think the innocent crowd is more likely to withhold judgment both on Adnan and individual pieces of evidence until their questions and doubts are more satisfied. The are less likely to rely on an initial rush to judgment.

Here are some examples:

  1. Jay's Spine. Guilters are much more likely to accept Jay's "top spots" as being true in a sea of changing details that they view are important. For some reason, the fact that Jay could stay consistent on 3 main points (Come get me call, Trunk pop, burial in Leakin Park) is verification of the truth of history even though the circumstances and details are often wrong. They are likely to forgive Jay's observation that there was snow on the ground in Leakin Park, while dismissing Asia's alibi testimony based on her recollection 15 years later that an ice storm was snow storm.

    I am thinking of writing a spine post because I keep hearing this as some kind of evidence that Adnan is guilty. If you have ever heard of the Cental Park 5 and watched or read their statements, you will see that all five confessed to the rape of the jogger, separately included similar corroborating details, and yet it was all made up through suggestive leading questioning by detectives. The true rapist was a serial rapist who was caught for another case soon after the fact. It didn't stop the wheels of justice against the 5 teens who were convicted though. Here you had a "spine" corroborated by not just one sketchy witness, but 5 separate young people.

    I'm going to stop there. These are my observations. It is entirely possible that despite their weak reasoning and amateur use of evidence, that the guilters are right and Adnan is guilty. I am not at this point at all convinced.
u/distantocean · 10 pointsr/exchristian

That's one of my favorite popular science books, so it's wonderful to hear you're getting so much out of it. It really is a fascinating topic, and it's sad that so many Christians close themselves off to it solely to protect their religious beliefs (though as you discovered, it's good for those religious beliefs that they do).

As a companion to the book you might enjoy the Stated Clearly series of videos, which break down evolution very simply (and they're made by an ex-Christian whose education about evolution was part of his reason for leaving the religion). You might also like Coyne's blog, though these days it's more about his personal views than it is about evolution (but some searching on the site will bring up interesting things he's written on a whole host of religious topics from Adam and Eve to "ground of being" theology). He does also have another book you might like (Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible), though I only read part of it since I was familiar with much of it from his blog.

> If you guys have any other book recommendations along these lines, I'm all ears!

You should definitely read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, if only because it's a classic (and widely misrepresented/misunderstood). A little farther afield, one of my favorite popular science books of all time is The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker, which looks at human language as an evolved ability. Pinker's primary area of academic expertise is child language acquisition, so he's the most in his element in that book.

If you're interested in neuroscience and the brain you could read How the Mind Works (also by Pinker) or The Tell-Tale Brain by V. S. Ramachandran, both of which are wide-ranging and accessibly written. I'd also recommend Thinking, Fast and Slow by psychologist Daniel Kahneman. Evolution gets a lot of attention in ex-Christian circles, but books like these are highly underrated as antidotes to Christian indoctrination -- nothing cures magical thinking about the "soul", consciousness and so on as much as learning how the brain and the mind actually work.

If you're interested in more general/philosophical works that touch on similar themes, Douglas R. Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach made a huge impression on me (years ago). You might also like The Mind's I by Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett, which is a collection of philosophical essays along with commentaries. Books like these will get you thinking about the true mysteries of life, the universe and everything -- the kind of mysteries that have such sterile and unsatisfying "answers" within Christianity and other mythologies.

Don't worry about the past -- just be happy you're learning about all of this now. You've got plenty of life ahead of you to make up for any lost time. Have fun!

u/WastedP0tential · 10 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

Sure, that's what psychologists (and skeptics, and atheists) have always argued. Irrationality, superstition, gullibility, biased and fallacious thinking are deeply ingrained in human nature. Humans are cognitive misers, because thinking rationally is hard and costly. We're evolved in an environment where, in order to maximize chances of survival and reproduction, we had to act, react, think and form beliefs quickly, rather than thinking things through thoroughly. Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow is a must-read on this.

But, no reason to lose heart. Humans have a remarkable ability that distinguishes us from other animals: we're capable of metacognition. We're able to think about and analyze our own thinking. We can identify flaws and compensate for them, recognize biases and correct for them. Methods that have proven effective in this endeavor have even been institutionalized: they're called science and skepticism. Other human endeavors have gone the opposite route, fostering and exploiting human irrationality. Those are called superstitions, pseudosciences, charlatanry, religion.

u/SuperCow1127 · 10 pointsr/SubredditDrama

> Being color blind doesn't mean pretending color doesn't exist. It means not taking it into consideration when it's not relevant.

You're mistaken, and the second sentence emphasizes it. The fact is, color is more relevant than you realize, especially when you haven't gone through most of your life being judged negatively because of it. "Color blindness," is a happy way to pretend that race matters much less than it really does.

> If I'm getting someone foundation, I'm going to check it against their skin tone. But I'm not going to look at skin color to decide whether to sell a house to someone or anything like that.

I assume what you're implying here is that race only matters when specifically relevant to physical characteristics. Unfortunately, our society isn't built like that, and never has been. To your example, people do consider race when selling a house, and have (and continue to) actively and deliberately hinder the ability of people of the "wrong" race (particularly African Americans) from home ownership or rentals. "Color blindness" says it's wrong to focus anti-discrimination efforts on African American victims, since it says it's wrong to involve race in decision making.

> And if you act like I described, then there are no "innate biases". Not sure where you're getting that.

So, even if you deep in your heart believe that racism is wrong, even if you try your hardest every day to treat everyone fairly, and even if you are a member of an underprivileged race, you likely carry a racial bias (e.g., even if you're black, you subconsciously associate negative assumptions with black people). This has been scientifically proven again and again, but there's a fantastic demonstration here if you want to see first hand instead of reading lots of dry papers. Try it out and you'll likely be very surprised by the results.

> As for the wheelchair thing, again, if it is directly related to the wheelchair, I take it into consideration, but I'm not going to make assumptions about, for example, intelligence or voting rights.

There's two problems here.

First, if you grew up in the western world, and especially if you grew up white in America, you are very unlikely to be able to judge exactly what is related to race. If you are a human who is not specifically educated on these matters, chances are very high you'll be wrong. This is what people are talking about when they deride "privilege." Think about the likely-fictional account of Mary Antoinette saying "let them eat cake." She wasn't saying that to dismiss the starving population, she just heard there were riots because there was no bread, and therefore concluded that in the absence of bread, cake should be available and suffice. It was absolutely unfathomable to her what the life of a French peasant was really like. The same is true in a large part for anyone growing up with any kind of privilege. It's so hard to think about experiences you have nothing in common with, and as a result, you color (no pun intended) your every decision in your own ignorance. (Read this, and maybe the article it's about).

Second, whether you like it or not, you probably do make assumptions about things like intelligence, unless you are constantly vigilant against it. By purely following your intuition (which is based very rapid subconscious decisions), you will almost certainly be wrong, and you will almost certainly convince yourself that you came to any conclusion rationally. By assuming you have no bias, you actually allow your bias to take control. I highly recommend Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow for some eye opening information on human cognition.

> Color blind=not grouping people together based on skin color, not completely erasing individual experiences.

The fact is, again, that this is just wrong. When you purposefully disregard race, you are erasing individual experiences. You are encouraging the creation of implicit groupings by ignoring them. There's more to racism than Jim Crow and the KKK.

u/waffleeee · 9 pointsr/Infographics

If you think this is interesting, you should read [Thinking Fast and Slow] (https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555).

u/narakhan · 9 pointsr/rational

Don't know specifics of what you're after, so I'll shotgun you with links:

u/The_Biggest_Monkey · 8 pointsr/AskReddit

Hi! Psych major + bookworm over here. Some well written and accessible books that I've enjoyed reading are:

Thinking Fast and Slow from Kahneman http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375192703&sr=8-1&keywords=kahneman+thinking+fast+and+slow

Willpower: discovering the greatest human strength by Baumeister http://www.amazon.com/Willpower-Rediscovering-Greatest-Human-Strength/dp/0143122231/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375192853&sr=1-1&keywords=willpower

And Outliers by Gladwell http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017930/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375192928&sr=1-2&keywords=10000+hours

Baumeister and Kahneman are the leading figures on the research done within their particalur fields and these books show a glimpse inside of the kitchen, so to speak. (Iḿ not 100% sure about Gladwell, Iḿ on my phone atm). The books are well written, accessible, entertaining and fascinating.

u/Winham · 8 pointsr/WayOfTheBern

I really do need to read that. I recently read Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow which is largely based on Epstein's work on dual processing.

I just checked out Tom Stafford's For Argument's Sake: Evidence That Reason Can Change Minds

>Are we irrational creatures, swayed by emotion and entrenched biases? Modern psychology and neuroscience are often reported as showing that we can't overcome our prejudices and selfish motivations. Challenging this view, cognitive scientist Tom Stafford looks at the actual evidence. Re-analysing classic experiments on persuasion, as well as summarising more recent research into how arguments change minds, he shows why persuasion by reason alone can be a powerful force.This is a collection of previously published essays, revised and expanded by the author, and accompanied by a previously unpublished introduction and annotated bibliography to guide further reading on the topic.Tom Stafford is Lecturer in Psychology and Cognitive Science at the University of Sheffield.

I have my doubts, but we shall see.

u/jambarama · 8 pointsr/Economics

As are we all. But I don't have the same stressors to impair my ability to make good decisions. And when I make a stupid decision, I attend a slightly worse college, or skip a nicety for a few months. Easy recoveries are not a luxury those in poverty can afford.

u/CJP_UX · 8 pointsr/AcademicPsychology

Have you read Thinking Fast and Slow?

Cognitive psychology is where lots of decision-making stuff is housed, but if you start with cognition as a broad topic, it will take a while to get to decision-making.

u/TubePanic · 7 pointsr/italy

> Come da titolo, se siete esperti di economia ditemi un po' dove posso trovare una trattazione divulgativa della materia o un qualche corso online.

Dunque: IEA e' abbastanza tecnico e te lo sconsiglio, ma Undercover Economist e' divertente, e puo' valer la pena di leggerlo anche solo per intrattenimento; sulla stessa riga c'e' anche Freakonomics che pero' a me e' piaciuto molto meno.

Se poi ti viene la voglia, io inizierei con un po' di microeconomia, ci sono ottimi testi universitari che pero' costano un botto; pero' in genere si trovano usati a poco. Quello di Krugmann e' molto 'easy/pop' e con poca matematica (l'ho solo sbirciato, pero'); io ne avevo uno di Perloff e non mi sembrava male (ma parlo di un bel po' di anni fa; probabilmente c'e' qualcosa di piu' aggiornato).

Per i corsi online: una mia conoscenza ha seguito un corso su Coursera di un tipo indiano (non mi ricordo), ma era orripilante: un mio amico lo seguiva, mi ha chiesto di dargli una mano, ho provato a guardare uno dei video e non ho mai visto spiegazioni cosi' vaghe e confuse. Evitalo come la peste..

Credo che qualcosa di migliore sia su Khan Academy; vale la pena di guardare. (EDIT: ho guardato ed e' un po' stringato, ti servira' un supplemento. Krugmann, Perloff o qualunque altra cosa sia disponibile usata a prezzo ragionevole; evita le traduzioni italiane, pero').

Dopo aver guardato un po' di microeconomia, potrai decidere su cosa buttarti.

Se ti interessa la finanza e ti piacciono i romanzi, leggi Liar's poker, che mi e' sembrato spettacolare. E se a questo punto ti prende l'idea di capire cosa sono mai questi misteriosi bond e derivati, c'e' un ottimo e chiarissimo (ma un po' pesante) libro di finanza di Ivo Welch disponibile online; richiede un po' di matematica ma e' chiarissimo.

Ah, visto che ora va di moda la 'behavioral economy', puoi anche leggere qualunque cosa di Dan Ariely (tipo Predictably Irrational), ed e' sempre divertentissimo (e ha fatto pure lui un corso su Coursera con cui mi sono diverito un sacco). Ma se ti interessano poi gli aspetti seri, leggi lo spettacolare Thinking fast and slow di Kahneman (premio nobel, a ragione).

u/BrusqueWillis · 7 pointsr/IncelTears

>no one tried to tell my that my thinking is wrong

It's a difficult task, because the way our brains work makes personal experience supersede external information that contradict it, even when scientifically, objectively, our experience is... not "wrong" per se, but so incomplete that it veers into "wrong" teritory. I teach people how to get along with people, which is mainly applied psichology and neurology (specifically social neurology), so I come against this feature (it's not a bug, it's a feature) every time. For reference: Daniel Kahnemann's work. For reference: Chris Niebauer's book.

Your brain dupes you (it meakes you wrong, giving you the impression you're right) in several key areas relevant to our discussion here:

  1. What You See Is All There Is: our brains operate on the assupmtion they have all the info needed to make good decisions and reach true conclusions, neglecting that there are swathes of information that might be / are relevant and that finally change the outlook completely.
  2. Our Left-Brain Intepreter has the task to keep the story in our heads logically consistent, not correct. As such, it will gladly add to reality, or substract from it, only to keep the story. Please see this and this.
  3. To accomplish this task, the LBI resorts to cognitive biases like overgeneralization, personalization, confirmation bias etc.
  4. Its work is so powerful and so well hidden from conscience that most people, when confronted with science, will readily deny science ("well, that might be true but not for me") than accepting our thinking might be flawed.

    In your case, in order to examine what biases are in play and what is their result, I'd start questioning the hidden meaning of your use of notions like "chad", "betabux" and such. It speaks to overgeneralization (with a heavy serving of dehumanization) and confirmation bias.

    Humans are unique. There are, of course, trends (sociology doesn't exist for nothing) but so far no human being looks and act exactly like another human being always and in all aspects; more, humans change over time: experience, opinions, world views and behavior shift as time passes. That would be the first step I'd take if I were you: stop working with archetypes and start looking for tiny differences. The world will get extremely rich if you do that.

    TL;DR: you're wrong, but your brains won't let you see that and you have to voluntarily challenge it to improve your life quality.

    Edited to add: and I didn't even touch the issue of cultural and social norms and conditioning, learned helplesness and many other phenomena that interfere and change all the stuff above.
u/listenerreaderwriter · 7 pointsr/ColinsLastStand

Information which threatens your core beliefs is perceived by the brain very similar to a physical threat. A visual introduction to confirmation bias and the backfire effect (5-10 min to read):

A big reason for the current situation is the media landscape. People often are not even in the position to ignore expert opinion because it does not penetrate their media bubble.

We even ignore expertise of ideological allies when inconvenient. Like how Republicans portray an overly simplistic picture of how markets work. How often do you hear "negative externalities", "information asymmetry", "market failure", "monopoly" or "oligopoly"? Markets are great, but not magical.
Healthcare as an example (30 min to read, a little technical): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210041/

A great book about how our reasoning skills are more limited than we might think: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

u/drMorkson · 7 pointsr/booksuggestions

Thinking, Fast and Slow by nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman.

It is an amazing book and I have recommended it to almost everyone I know. It is really thoroughly researched.

from wikipedia:
>Thinking, Fast and Slow is a 2011 book by Nobel Memorial Prize winner in Economics Daniel Kahneman which summarizes research that he conducted over decades, often in collaboration with Amos Tversky. It covers all three phases of his career: his early days working on cognitive bias, his work on prospect theory, and his later work on happiness.

>The book's central thesis is a dichotomy between two modes of thought: "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. The book delineates cognitive biases associated with each type of thinking, starting with Kahneman's own research on loss aversion. From framing choices to substitution, the book highlights several decades of academic research to suggest that people place too much confidence in human judgment.

u/drwicked · 6 pointsr/hsp

You are not alone in feeling this way. The way I think of it is I feel like I have the wrong kind of interpersonal Velcro for most people, so they just don’t stick like I perceive most other people stick to each other. It’s understandable for this to make one feel defective, and very alone.

I try to twist it and think of it as an advantage, I think the upside to this means that you can be capable of tremendous self-sufficiency. Invest in you. Take care of yourself even when you want more than anything for someone else to take care of you.

I’m also prone to beating myself over the head with painful facts like “everyone always leaves me”, “nobody loves me like I love people”, etc. these feel so true because you might not have instances to contradict these “facts”. But in truth this is a fallacy summed up as “what you see is all there is” by Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow link. Just because everyone has left doesn’t mean everyone will always leave. There are billions of humans and we happen to be a tiny percentage who have this sensitivity, there are still millions of us and millions more who have the empathy and imagination to understand us to some extent. Don’t give up. Good luck.

u/McKoijion · 6 pointsr/changemyview

I once hosted a talent show. I had to announce a winner. I was handed three index cards with the names of the winners. I didn't screw it up, but I felt like I was about to. Here is a quick recap of some of the stuff I thought about in that moment:

I was onstage in front of hundreds of people. I had to come up with witty things to say off the cuff. I had to remember to stand in the light. I had to remember to hold the microphone at the right distance (too close causes interference, too far means no one can hear me.) I had to look out at an audience of people judge everything I did. I had to worry about whether a joke was going to land or not. I had to think about my delivery. I had to make sure I didn't say the names in the wrong order. I had to make sure I didn't drop the cards on the floor. I had to come up with something to do when the winners were walking up to the stage to collect the prize I was about to hand them. I had to make sure I didn't spend too much time staring at the cards (have you ever had shared an awkward silence with someone? Every second feels like an hour. This experience is like that on steroids.) I had to make sure I pronounced the names correctly.

All of this stuff flashed in my brain in the five seconds when I got the card and read the first name. I'm the kind of person who has to read and reread my emails three times before I send them to make sure I don't have any mistakes. Heck, I read and reread my Reddit posts multiple times before I post them. On stage in front of a large crowd, you don't have time to do any of that. You just get something in your head, and go with it.

If I had to read that card the same way that Steve Harvey did, I would likely have made the same mistake too. That card is a nightmare. It is the opposite of good design. It seems slightly confusing, but still clear when you are sitting at home without anyone judging or waiting for you, but under those lights everything moves at light speed. In a high stress situation, people use different reasoning. They rely on simple heuristics instead of clear logic. Fire exits are red and glow for a reason. Pilots have extensive training and labeled emergency buttons for a reason. When people are under pressure to make quick decisions, they think differently. Check out the book Thinking, Fast and Slow. It's written by a Nobel prize winner, and it really captures exactly why a pilot, surgeon, or live tv host could make such a seemingly stupid mistake. Unfortunately for that event, they didn't have anyone as competent as a pilot or surgeon. They had Steve Harvey, arguably the stupidest person I can think of.

Overall, having been in a similar situation, I think it's completely understandable that Steve Harvey screwed it up. Any jackass can be a Monday morning quarterback. But unless you've felt that kind of pressure before, I don't think it's a fair criticism.

u/mhornberger · 6 pointsr/DebateReligion

>If you're programmed to accept an idea, you don't have any objective way of telling whether it's true

I don't think it's that black and white. Consider System 1 vs System 2 thinking, in the book Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Our intuition can predispose us to certain types of thinking, and we can still be capable to rationally examining these beliefs. Education on our susceptibility to cognitive biases, and education on statistical thinking, can improve our ability to compensate for the weaknesses in our intuition and force our minds to shift to more rigorous decision making.

On a broader level, evolution predisposes us to racism and tribalism. But our capacity for abstract thought and language enables us to improve, to present and entertain arguments and shift beyond a merely instinct-driven existence. Which is why humans are capable of moral improvement, yet chimps and dolphins remain the same. We have culture and philosophy and the capacity for moral progress.

>once you accept that one or more ideas were implanted in you, it's not clear to me how you would tell which subsequent ideas you arrived at based on evidence and which ideas you are programmed to accept

Critical thinking, examine your beliefs and the arguments by which you can support your beliefs. That's the entire purpose of Socratic dialectic, making people explicate arguments so they are forced to more closely examine what they believe and why. We aren't "programmed" in a fatalistic, deterministic sense, rather we have propensities and biases. We still have the capacity for improvement, the capacity to change our minds. As you must recognize at some level, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to persuade anyone of anything.

u/Darsint · 6 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

To quote Thinking, Fast and Slow:

"success = talent + luck. great success = a little more talent + a lot of luck"

I have no doubts that you worked hard for your degree and that you have quite a bit of talent. But don't knock the fact that quite a bit of luck was involved in you getting the job you wanted straight out of college and that it was high paying enough to let you pay off your loans right away. My girlfriend has been a teacher for several years and she's been working with the school system since she got out of college. She finished her Master's degree in 2010. She still has at least a decade of payments left before she pays it off.

While you are right that the degree you choose can influence whether you can successfully pay them off in a reasonable time frame, it is by no means the only factor. Painting all of them as stupid crybabies is a disservice to them.

u/noahpocalypse · 5 pointsr/HPMOR

Also more complex than just telling people to read Thinking: Fast and Slow.

u/Kakuz · 5 pointsr/books

I would go with Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow". It can be rather tedious at times, but it's such a great summary of recent work in social and cognitive psychology that it's worth it.

Oliver Sacks, as mentioned before, is another great author. Very approachable, very interesting, yet quite informative.

I have heard that Dan Ariely is a great author. Predictably Irrational might be a great read.

Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works is also great, but I would recommend Kahneman over him.

Finally, I would recommend a classic: William James - The Principles of Psychology. It's old, and some stuff is dated, but the guy had amazing insight nonetheless. It'd be a great intro reading just to see where psychology came from.

I would stay away from Jonah Lehrer, since he was accused of academic dishonesty. His book "How we Decide" was an extremely easy read, and a bit watered down. On that tangent, I would also avoid Malcolm Gladwell. Sacks does a better job at explaining psychology and neuroscience to a general audience.

Hope that helps!

u/UMich22 · 5 pointsr/investing

Check out Thinking, Fast and Slow by the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman. It may not be what you're looking for since the investing/markets aspect is not the entire focus of the book. However, I think it would definitely be worth your time.

u/l0gr1thm1k · 5 pointsr/options

Surprised no one has mentioned Tversky & Kahneman yet. Kahneman was awarded the Nobel prize in economics for his pioneering work in behavioral economics .

Their most famous/accessible work is probably Thinking, Fast and Slow

u/[deleted] · 5 pointsr/CadenMoranDairy

how are u? you probs dont reply as you usually dont but tyip recommended this book if you wanna read it, i find it very interesting so far

if you dont wanna buy it though you could just look up a pdf version

u/CuriousGrugg · 5 pointsr/psychology

>A lot of modern psychology and neuroscience appears to be neglecting the concept of the unconscious mind.... Psychology is so determined to get religion out of science that it cannot allow for the concept of the unconscious

I honestly cannot imagine how you came to this conclusion. There is no question at all among psychologists that unconscious processes play an important role in cognition. Every single popular cognitive psychology book I can think of (e.g. 1 2 3 4) discusses the importance of unconscious processes.

u/andrewff · 5 pointsr/boardgames

I do for two reasons. First, for the competition and challenge of it. I love developing a strategy and seeing how well I can execute it.

Second, its to improve my ways of thinking about problems. Board games are very fixed problems with strong rules. In particular, board games are helpful in identifying cognitive biases in ways I think about problems.

One direct application of this is what is known as the Gambler's Fallacy. I think this obviously shows up in social deduction games. For instance, he can't be a werewolf three games in a row.

A second application of this way of thought is Anchoring. In Anchoring we get fixed on the first line of thinking we see. This comes up in games all the time, but I think its most obvious in word games. We find one word we like and we build off of that, we rarely consider other words. If you've ever played Paperback, you have probably seen your group do this as you open up the table for assistance.

Selective perception is another example. In this case we see a strategy that worked for us in the past and we fixate on moves related to that strategy. We don't think outside the box.

I'm going to write up a full article on this, but if anyone is interested, Thinking Fast and Slow is a fantastic book on this topic.

u/Gazzellebeats · 5 pointsr/LetsGetLaid

>I don’t regret having one, just extremely ashamed of being sexual and communicating it to girls and also showing it to the world. Attracting girls’ attention and whatnot isn’t very hard but progressing things to dating, holding hands and eventually sex is impossible. I can’t even call them or message them on Facebook or Whatsapp because I just feel like an idiot for doing so. Making a move in clubs and bars is also difficult although I once got close to leaving with a girl but she didn't want to. I got made fun of a lot growing up for not having a girlfriend and this made me feel like i do not deserve one. It doesn't matter if I've got the green light to go ahead I just feel really ashamed do it. Even something like looking at a fit girl wearing a short skirt makes me feel bad for checking her out and that I shouldn’t be doing it.

I know what you mean. I've been there myself, but even when I was there I was entirely self-aware of my shame and I was skeptical of the validity of my emotional reactions; I realized they were ingrained. Being aware of your emotional reactions allows you to be emotionally proactive. Your sex-negative problem is mostly an emotional issue, and not much else, right? I've been there. I wouldn't doubt that you are also decent looking and have both latent and actualized social skills. Most intelligent introverts have a lot of potential to be who they want to be because they know themselves more deeply than others. You must use your introverted nature to your advantage and recognize the differences in others and yourself. In all honesty, there are an infinite number of unwritten rules; everyone's abstract/emotional logic is different. Many of them are foundational and predictable, however; including yours and mine. Like anything else, being emotionally predictable is not a black/white issue. It is a grey area, and you have to balance your reliability with creativity.

Being made fun of for not having a girlfriend is just as sexist as being made fun of for not having a boyfriend; gender equal too. Were you ever shamed for not having a boyfriend? It's clearly a matter of groupthink and extroverted style; not for everyone. Dating relationships, for extroverts especially, are often attention-getting and showy. They wear their relationships like trophies won. Usually introverts prefer a more private relationship because they have less social desire and are often shamed because of it. Introverts are “themselves” more often in private. Extroverts are “themselves” more often in public. There is no shame deserved either way, regardless of popular opinion. Both styles have their strengths and weaknesses, and you should try to introject some of the traits that you enjoy in others; regardless of type. That is how you become balanced.

>I’m receiving counselling from a pastor who advocates the whole “no sex before marriage” thing and believes that people should only date to get married and sex is only for making kids which is stupid IMO because I do not plan on getting married anytime soon.

Counseling from a Catholic pastor? Watch out, that is one of the most notorious sex-negative societies out there. They own the abstinence-only charade while they parade horribles. Marriage is not the answer to anything; it is an institution of the state. Anything else attached is sentimental.

If you haven't already, I recommend doing an in-depth study of animal sexual behaviors; especially the most intelligent animals. All animals have sex for pleasure, but some animals are only driven to have sex at certain times of the year; humans are on a 24/7 system.

>I’ve tried the no fap route and gotten very high days counts but that hasn’t really helped me at all.

Sexual frustration doesn't help anyone. If you are mindful, then you can use your libido to further your goals, but it is not an all-cure.

>Got any sources to help overcome sex-negative perspectives? I’m interested in recreational sex not baby making sex.

Absolutely. I recommend starting with actual sex science and learning about male and female psychology and neurology. Then work your way into reading about sex culture. You should also study developmental psychology as you will probably need the clinical context in order to objectively self-evaluate your childhood influences; it is necessary for self-therapy. The best therapy will always be self-therapy; no one will ever know you better than yourself.

Evolutionary Science and Morals Philosophy:

The Selfish Gene

The Moral Landscape

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?

Sex Psychology, Science, and Neurology:

Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex

The Female Brain

The Male Brain

Why Men Want Sex and Women Need Love

What Do Women Want

Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)

Sex: The world's favorite pastime fully revealed

Behavioral Psychology and Abstract Economics:

How Pleasure Works


Quiet: The Power of Introverts In A World That Can't Stop Talking

Thinking Fast And Slow

We Are All Weird

Developmental Psychology:

Nurture Shock

Hauntings: Dispelling The Ghosts That Run Our Lives

Empathy Building:

Half The Sky

The House On Mango Street

Me Before You

The Fault In Our Stars

Also check out James Hollis' Understanding The Psychology of Men lecture if you can find it.

Movies: XXY, Tom Boy, Dogtooth, Shame, Secretary, Nymphomaniac, Juno, Beautiful Creatures, and The Man From Earth.

All of these things are related, but it is up to you to make the connections; pick and choose which material suits your interests best. These are the things that came to mind first, and they have all influenced my perspectives.

u/RockyMcNuts · 5 pointsr/Economics

These are not finance books, but popular books on behavioral economics by leading academics

Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast And Slow (a classic, I think)

Richard Thaler, Cass Sunstein - Nudge

Dan Ariely - Predictably Irrational

u/scornucopia · 5 pointsr/CAguns

If you haven't already, have a look at Thinking, Fast and Slow. The basic problem (AFAICT) is that, in practice, people judge risk based on how easy it is to recall an example, rather than statistical likelihood. With the media constantly harping on about a "mass shooting epidemic", this leads people to massively overestimate the risk of being a victim of a mass shooting, and because it's (what Kahneman calls) a "System 1" process (basically his term for "intuitive"), and because "System 2" processes (basically his term for "analytical") are very strongly predisposed toward concurrence with System 1 conclusions, it is almost impossible for data and reason to displace the intuitive presumption that mass shootings are a significant threat.

u/daniu · 5 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

The advice to "sleep on it" is not to be able to think about it at night, but to give yourself time to calm down from short term emotions that might be connected with a decision.

There is a book about decision making called ["Thinking Fast and Slow"] (http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555) with an explanation of how decisions can be made in those two ways, fast - intuitively, pretty much - and slow - using rational thought.

Both those approaches have their advantages and drawbacks, so you often can make a correct "fast" decision, but doing so will prevent you from checking back with the other thought process. So allowing you to do that is pretty much the value of "sleep on it".

u/Reddit4Play · 4 pointsr/truegaming

> I've noticed the dotalikes(let's call the genre that for the sake of neutrality) get a lot of hate outside this sub.

I have three theories.

The first theory is that the opinion of the majority is not the same as the opinion of the overly visible gaming literati. I know that this is a fact based on smaller gaming genres, like tabletop roleplaying games, where recently a relatively popular thread indicated that too many people were talking about games like Fate and Dungeon World. Many people agreed.

However, looking at large community surveys and statistics released by the most popular online place to play tabletop roleplaying games we see that Fate only represents 1.65% of games and only 4.30% of all players are in those games, while Dungeon World only represents 1.84% of games with 4.55% of all players in Dungeon World games in the latter source (more comprehensive) and 4% of respondents playing Dungeon World and 5% of non-fantasy setting players and 4% of fantasy setting players playing Fate in the former source.

In other words, a lot of people really thought everyone was devoting way too much time to two games whose market shares are each less than 5%. Meanwhile, the two largest games - D&D and Pathfinder - combined are well over 50% market share.

This leads us to a probable analogous conclusion: the MOBA-haters are much louder online than simple demographics would suggest. This gels with most of what we know about online product reviews generally: only those who really hate or really love a product are likely to take the time out of their day to write up how much they love/hate the product, which leads to a polarization of online viewpoints.

Theory two is an extension, in some respects, of theory one: because MOBAs are so incredibly popular, while their proportion of haters remains about the same as most games (except for the addition of some hipsters who always hate popular things), their absolute number of haters is astronomically high.

Let's imagine for a minute that 1% of all people who play or hear about a game are driven to hate it online. A game with few players, like /r/totalwar of the Total War series, has persistent but relatively isolated griping as a result. If 1% of their subs complain about the game regularly, that would make for ~350 people: a significant portion in the Total War subreddit, where you would notice complaining on account of our earlier-established "haters are loud" theory above, but not a significant enough number to seriously bleed across to other more general subreddits.

In contrast, if 1% of /r/leagueoflegends, the League of Legends subreddit, complained about League, then that makes for 6,500 people. If "the 1% of League subscribers that complain about League" was a subreddit, it would be in the top 3200.

Other extremely popular games, like Call of Duty, seem to act in evidence of this theory: they receive a huge absolute degree of hate.

Theory three is that there is something about MOBAs that leads to direct competition and animosity. MOBAs are notoriously hardcore competitive games, being not just the most popular video games on earth, but also the ones with the largest tournaments. The two largest ones are also notoriously nearly identical.

We know that the brain tends to cook facts to retrospectively justify its choices, focusing on the benefits of your choice while downplaying the detriments, especially when that choice is largely irreversible and largely important (for more about how people react to making choices see Daniel Gilbert Stumbling on Happiness and Barry Schwartz The Paradox of Choice). MOBAs, by being so competitive, are naturally time intensive, especially among the gaming literati who tend to discuss games online and be part of the core gamer demographic. This makes the decision to play, say, League of Legends rather than DotA 2 subject to a host of natural heuristics that lead us to become "stuck" with our choice: the sunken cost heuristic, for instance. (For more about decision making heuristics see Daniel Kahneman Thinking, Fast and Slow).

When you combine these effects, you get a set of people who are:

  • More likely than others to talk about their experiences, good or bad, online.

  • While perhaps not disproportionate compared to the haters in other games, so large in absolute number that they bleed into more general discussions easily.

  • "Stuck" with their choice of MOBA, which leads to them biasing to facts in favor of their decision and against facts detrimental to their decision.

  • Often playing one of two nearly identical games, which leads to vaguer, more overly-specific reasoning for why one is better than the other (which makes the reasoning particularly difficult to refute, as it is more opinion than factually driven). This reasoning is nonetheless biased, per the previous point, which leads to disagreements that are difficult to resolve.

    Combined, I believe these three theories lead to this demographic, described above, displaying what appears to be a larger-than-normal degree of hate online.
u/Timwi · 4 pointsr/WDP

I'm by no means a neuroscientist, but Veritasium made an interesting video based on the popular science book Thinking fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman.

u/tiddlywinksnfinks · 4 pointsr/askpsychology

This isn't exactly what you are asking, but a good psychology-related book that is written for the layman would be Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow

It is an interesting read that provides a lot of information about thinking.

u/divsky · 4 pointsr/cringepics

It's an interesting question and I think for a lot of people they can just take a glance at it and "know". As unscientific as it sounds, it can be more accurate than you think. There's a book called Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman that explains this phenomenon quite well.

u/bserum · 4 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

My political opposition isn't along a left/right axis but people who are dogmatic in their thinking. Left, right, middle; I don't care so long as you can recognize and temper your own biases. (I'm such a "neutron.")

Therefore, I like You Are Not So Smart by David McRaney. It's written (appropriately) for the general audience and is affably conversational in tone.

If they're hungry for more, the next book would be Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman for the way it breaks down fast and slow systems of thinking.

Either book should be part of a Neutral Politics recommended reading.

u/brikis98 · 4 pointsr/programming

Supply and demand works if we are perfectly rational actors. But there is considerable evidence that we're not: see Predictably Irrational and Thinking, Fast and Slow. Salary in particular is known for irrational behavior. See the discussion of motivation in Drive or the short version in Daniel Pink's TED talk. Programmers are already fairly well paid and while I would certainly love to be paid more, I'm not convinced that alone would significantly increase the supply of developers.

The evidence for the talent gap is both anecdotal--every company I've worked at and many others I've interacted with complained extensively about lack of good developers--and some limited data (example 1, example 2), though it's not clear how to properly measure something like this.

Finally, I'm not sure that merely having 10x skill is enough to guarantee 10x pay. Perhaps in a perfect market with perfect knowledge and perfectly rational actors, it might be, but that's not how the real world works. You need not only 10x skill at your job, but also at turning that into money, which may be a completely different set of talents. For example, a 10x writer might make less money than an average writer if that average writer had their book turned into a popular teen movie. Similarly, the way for a programmer to make 10x the money is usually not to focus on salary (although there were some stories of Google and FB offering millions to retain some developers), but equity. And there, an exec-level programmer can get 10x the equity of a normal dev, though there is obviously a lot of luck as to whether the equity ends up paying off.

u/BigglesB · 4 pointsr/LibDem

I think:

  1. Different messages appeal to different people.
  2. Cool-headed arguments will appeal to some voters, but emotionally engaging & snappy communication will appeal to others more strongly.
  3. You're right that we need to be careful to ensure that any messages we make can't backfire now or in the future.

    In particular, I'd encourage you to read a book called "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Nobel-prize-winning-psychologist Daniel Kahneman. In it he goes into great depth about the way that our brains often substitute difficult decisions (like "who should I vote for") subconsciously with easier ones (like "who do I have a better general impression of") and I feel that's the playground we should be operating in.
u/1see2eat · 4 pointsr/weightroom

There is a great book called Thinking, Fast and Slow by Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman that lays out a description of the brain as having two systems.

Sytem one is fast and automatic, operating below the level of what we think of as 'consciousness.' This is what sets your walking pace, or interprets the facial expressions of others, or plays out a movement from muscle-memory. The type of information it deals in is things like 'really hard effort.'

System Two is slow, deliberate, and reflective. It's what you use to do complicated math problems, or cue a part of a lift you aren't automatic at yet. (Spread the floor!) It's also how your brain reflects on what it's doing. (I shouldn't be rude to my Mom.)

You have a finite amount of bandwidth and these systems are trading it back and forth all the time. What's likely happening when you 'blank out' during a tough set of DL is that your system one is so over-taxed that it's recruiting all the power from your system 2. When you 'came to' your System 2 turned back on.

The same thing happens when you're hiking on a trail, see a bear, run away, and only then 'feel scared' and have a chance to reflect and realize what happened. System 1 became the boss for a while during a period of extreme stress. Same as with deadlifting.

tl;dr - You are going full instinct.

u/owenshen24 · 4 pointsr/rational

Good and Real by Gary Drescher. Covers a similar philosophical stance to that of Yudkowsky in the Sequences, but with more academic rigor. A fun read that goes over computation, decision theory, morality, and Newcomb's Problem (among other things.)

Thinking Fast and Slow Daniel Kahneman's lifetime of research in heuristics and cognitive biases condensed into one epic volume. Highly engaging and 100% recommended if you aren't well-versed in this area.

A Mind for Numbers by Barbara Oakley. A scientific approach to studying, looking at good memory tricks, ways to learn better, and some interesting ideas on procrastination (including characterizing it as a malign reward loop).

u/Sams_Big_Balls_Dance · 4 pointsr/bodybuilding

Some ideas from self-help books might resonate with certain people, so in that sense, they're not a scam. Personally, I've gotten more from books that aren't specifically "self-help," but focus more on a certain topic and help shine a light on why we think the way we do and some potential ways to change that way of thinking. A few examples:

The Power of Habit

Thinking Fast and Slow

The Like Switch

I also read The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck and got nothing out of it, but I see lots of glowing reviews for it, so some people must have enjoyed it.

u/MattDotZeb · 4 pointsr/smashbros

It's very difficult to get around it.

You have to stay very focused on a goal. For me, since ROM7, it's been to finish every match I play. Has that happened? No, but I understand the situations it has not and I'm very pleased with how things have been going.

It also helps if you read autobiographies or books on sports psychology (or psychology in general) to get ideas & techniques on how to better your mentality.

Here are some that have helped me immensely.

  • Golf Is Not A Game Of Perfect

    • Currently reading this. It's obviously about golf, but it's about the mental game of golf. It's applicable to Smash, or basketball, or most competitive subjects. One of my favorite take-aways thus far is to look at an error such as an SD or a missed tech and think of it like "Well, there was a percentage chance that this would happen. Odds are it wont happen again. Just gotta trust my tech skill and stay sharp."

  • Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength
    • This goes into exactly what the title states. It gives a history of research into willpower, or ego, and describes how people can behave different based off their current situation. Sleep deprivation, poor diet, getting a burst of motivation and deciding to change everything (think January 1st) can all be detrimental to your mental state. It also discusses methods of improving your willpower which can be related to habitual actions.

  • The Power of Habit
    • This is a book that goes into habitual responses and how one can better understand them/change them. Useful information across all parts of life.

  • Thinking, Fast and Slow
    • This is one I've revisited multiple times. It's quite a long read, but there's much to learn. Specifically it goes into two systems of thought. Your system 1 is your implicit (unconscious) system. It's what tells you the answer to 2+2 as you read it even though I didn't ask you to solve it. System 2 is the system that takes over when I tell you to give me the answer to 72 x 103. (Mathematical examples are great for conveying the ideas of these systems) It later goes into more economic psychology and decision making.

      PS. I'm not telling you where, but if you don't want to create a book collection PDFs of each of these may or may not be online.
u/BenDSover · 4 pointsr/politics

Well said. I would just like to take your point about how poorly informed people are a bit further to one about psychology and decision making: One of the best books I know for understanding the thinking of Republican conservatives and Trump supporters is the book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman (who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his research).

Namely, they have only developed their "fast" thinking abilities: i.e. prejudices, and emotional, 2-valued (Yes/No, Good/Evil) gut-reaction decision making. And they are terribly poor at "slow" thinking: i.e. complex, abstract, critical and lengthy calculations in a multi-valued space of uncertainty (e.g. probabilities and statistics, etc.).

And this has created a nasty game of Hawks vs Doves (i.e. Assholes vs Cooperators) that the political left needs to develop a better, broad political strategy in playing.

u/Dypa4ek · 4 pointsr/UXResearch

Not a course, though I heard this is a good one https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555 (the book is about cognitive biases). The author is an economist and psychologist at the same time, even got Nobel Prize in economics.

Don't really know if this is type of thing you are looking for.

u/michaelmacmanus · 4 pointsr/economy

> Common sense tells us that if you're so poor that you can't afford $0.80 condoms, you probably shouldn't be having sex at all and risking getting some woman pregnant.

Common sense tells us that if you're in the econ sub you should have at least an econ101 understanding of how the world works.

Start with this and work your way forward. It might be challenging for you because its an actual book written by an educator and scientist. Not an angry conspiratorial youtube video, Brietbart article, or Twitch stream. But I believe in you!

u/darthrevan · 3 pointsr/ABCDesis

Unfortunately, research shows that giving your child a name more easily recognizable/pronounceable does give them an advantage in life. This book went into it, it has to do with a concept called "cognitive load" as I recall. Basically the harder it is to pronounce someone's name, the more discomfort or work the brain feels and so people automatically start having negative associations with it. Whereas a familiar name is easier on the brain, and so more positive association. Again, as I recall, they saw that resumes with names more familiar to American minds fared far better and got more calls for interviews.

So the unfortunate reality here is: do you want to give your child a name that will put them at a disadvantage throughout their life? If job recruiters have negative associations, what about your child's teachers/professors? Remember, Indian Americans are still at this time only 1% or less of the U.S. population (last time I checked Census stuff, you can verify on Wikipedia I think)...so even in your child's lifetime, it will probably still be likely that they will be evaluated by non-Indians.

Then again, maybe you want to name your child what you want on principle to be a trailblazer and show pride. And that's admirable too, I really sympathize with that. But there are practical concerns that I can somewhat understand where the other parents are coming from.

u/malthrin · 3 pointsr/spikes

If you enjoy these sorts of things, check out this book. Kahneman is the father of behavioral economics, which is basically the study of how our brains cleverly avoid doing any actual work.

u/Major_Major_Major · 3 pointsr/HPMOR

Amazon Link

I bought this a few months ago, and I recommend it.

u/Dawn_Coyote · 3 pointsr/bestofthefray

The Stuff of Thought is the first and only book I've read of his, and I thought it was terrible. Really grindingly awful. It goes over old ground, told me nothing I didn't already know, and did it in the meandering, banal style of someone used to having people genuflect at his every proclamation.

I want to read Better Angels, but I'm having a hard time getting past Stuff. I did enjoy his AMA, though.

I just added this to my kindle library. It looks promising.

Edit: The lack of editorial reviews for Stuff (can we count Saletan?) should have made me hesitate before buying, but the subject interests me so much that I let my enthusiasm get ahead of my usual vetting process.

u/MVNTE · 3 pointsr/INTP

If you're interested in this subject, I cannot recommend reading "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Israeli psychologist Daniel Kahneman enough. It is a very informative yet not overly technical summary of his over 30-year-long research on cognitive biases and the mechanisms of our decision-making processes.

u/TheMaskBeckons · 3 pointsr/BehavioralEconomics

If you're just starting to dive into it, I think it'd be best to read a book that walks you through the main themes and concepts, or listen to podcasts such as EconTalk (you'd have to look for the interviews of behavioral economists). I think it's always good to have an introduction before going into the weeds. I agree with SbShula, Thinking Fast & Slow and Misbehaving are great for starting off.

In any case, here are some of the key papers. I used behavioralEconomics.com's "Introduction to Behavioral Economics" as an outline, and found links to the main papers (and books) that are freely available so you can download them. Of course, I recommend reading the website before starting to read the hundreds (thousands?) of pages in papers.

Prospect Theory

Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk - Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky

Bounded Rationality

A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice - Herbert A. Simon (On the bounds of rationality)

Maps of Bounded Rationality - Daniel Kahneman

Mental Accounting Matters - Richard H. Thaler

Nudge - Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (Technically not a paper, but papers tend to focus on specific examples intead of the general idea that people's decisions are affected by "nudges")

Dual System Theory

Thinking, Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman (Again, not a paper, but sums up a body of research in the same vein)

Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases - Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman

The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits - Finucane, Alhakami, Slovic, and Johnson

The Psychology of Preference - Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman

Status Quo Bias in Decision Making - William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser

Temporal Dimensions

Diversification bias: Explaining the discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separated choices - Daniel Read and George Loewenstein

Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision-making - George Loewenstein

Exploring the causes of comparative optimism - James A. Shepperd, Patrick Carroll, Jodi Grace and Meredith Terry

Social Dimensions

Dishonesty in Everyday Life and Its Policy Implications - Nina Mazar and Dan Ariely

A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation - Ernst Fehr And Klaus Schmidt

Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity - Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter

MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy - Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, and Vlaev

Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. - James March

Thanks for the opportunity to look into all this. I just added a bunch of these to my bucket list.

u/doedskalle · 3 pointsr/coolguides

For anyone who is interested in learning more about this, I recommend the book Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman, who won the Swedish national banks prize in economics in memory of Alfred Nobel.

u/Caplooey · 3 pointsr/ADHD

for learning/cognitive related i recommend checking out:
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman,

Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise by Anders Ericsson

and the various Cal Newport books (he also has a blog),

Thomas Frank from College Info Geek is also cool.

i personally prefer actionable coaching over talk therapy as it helps me get shit done rather than sit around and introspect which i already do enough of.

there is a /r/Stoicism

The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of Decluttering and Organizing by Marie Kondo, check it out

Brene Brown for self compassion, talks on Youtube, you could check out.

The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life by Mark Manson is another good one.

u/rebelrob0t · 3 pointsr/REDDITORSINRECOVERY

I went to one AA meeting when I first got clean and never went back. I understand people have found support and success in it but to me, personally, I felt it only increased the stigma of drug addicts as these broken hopeless people barely hanging on by a thread. It's an outdated system that relies on little science or attempting to progress the participants and relies more on holding people in place and focusing on the past. Instead I just worked towards becoming a normal person. Here are some of the resources I used:

r/Fitness - Getting Started: Exercise is probably the #1 thing that will aid you in recovering. It can help your brain learn to produce normal quantities of dopamine again as well as improve your heath, mood, well being and confidence.

Meetup: You can use this site to find people in your area with similar interests. I found a hiking group and a D&D group on here which I still regularly join.

Craigslist: Same as above - look for groups, activities, volunteer work, whatever.


This will be the other major player in your recovery. Understanding your diet will allow you to improve your health,mood, energy, and help recover whatever damage the drugs may have done to your body.

How Not To Die Cookbook

Life Changing Foods

The Plant Paradox

Power Foods For The Brain

Mental Health

Understand whats going on inside your head and how to deal with it is also an important step to not only recovery but enjoying life as a whole.

Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy

The Emotional Life Of Your Brain

Furiously Happy

The Science of Enlightenment: How Meditation Works


If you are like me you probably felt like a dumbass when you first got clean. I think retraining your brain on learning, relearning things you may have forgot after long term drug use, and just learning new things in general will all help you in recovery. Knowledge is power and the more you learn the more confident in yourself and future learning tasks you become.

Illegal Drugs: A Complete Guide to their History, Chemistry, Use, and Abuse

Why Nations Fails

Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud

The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 20th Century

Thinking, Fast and Slow

The Financial Peace Planner: A Step-by-Step Guide to Restoring Your Family's Financial Health

Continued Education / Skills Development

EdX: Take tons of free college courses.

Udemy: Tons of onine courses ranging from writing to marketing to design, all kinds of stuff.

Cybrary: Teach yourself everything from IT to Network Security skills

Khan Academy: Refresh on pretty much anything from highschool/early college.

There are many more resources available these are just ones I myself have used over the past couple years of fixing my life. Remember you don't have to let your past be a monkey on your back throughout the future. There are plenty of resources available now-a-days to take matters into your own hands.

*Disclaimer: I am not here to argue about anyone's personal feelings on AA**

u/null000 · 3 pointsr/urbanplanning

> Peoples lives are made best by being allowed to make their own decisions and decide what they want themselves

Holy shit no they aren't. Example: If the "donate my organs on death" checkbox is an opt-out affair, most people will opt out. If it's an opt-in affair, many many more people will opt-in. In this case, a relatively minor barrier to "making their own decisions" results in a huge quality of life improvement for anyone on a wait list for organs.

Read this for citation

For other examples of where the government desperately needs to intervene in markets, see forced arbitration clauses between companies and citizens, non-compete clauses in fast food workers' employment agreements, the fiduciary rule for financial advisers, the hole in the ozone, literally every false advertisement law, multi-level marketing schemes, copyright/trademark/patent law (although maybe not as much as is currently exhibited in the US), Dumping laws (e.g. don't throw sofas on the side of the highway), public intoxication laws, anti-trespassing laws, (the lack of) vaccination laws, literally all of public education, FDA drug safety regulations, global warming (and, honestly, most environmental causes), and the list goes on.

I'd argue that the government should be in charge of making sure that consumer expectations actually reflect reality and normally externalized costs are felt by the individual[s] inflicting them, as well as ensuring that life is mostly pleasant for most people and at least tolerable for the lowest rungs of society. People expect that traffic won't be shit, but suburbia inflicts traffic on city centers, thus increasing commute times and lowering standard of living for those who live furthest from city centers, so maybe suburbia should be discouraged.

> Are you actually comparing workplace safety regulations to you deciding that no one actually really likes suburbia and thus you should run their lives.


  1. Not being able to live in suburbia does not ruin lives. That's just silly. You're not entitled as a human to being able to live in a 1 acre lot with a 4bed, 3 bath home and a 10 minute drive to the nearest grocery store. Be realistic - disincentivizing a decision != running your life, especially in a democratic society.

  2. Sure, there's a difference of scale, but it's still the same basic idea. The employee is "choosing" to be employed by the corporation that may end their life early, usually due to lack of other realistic employment opportunities (e.g. coal-based company town in this situation) or a lack of education limiting employment opportunities. The government manipulates the decisions available to the worker and the company to make the world a better place. If you don't agree with me, where's the line? Social security? Workplace safety? Minimum wage? Anti-discrimination laws? I acknowledge that there is a line, but saying that people should be disbarred from public office for putting that line somewhere you disagree with is pretty extreme.

    If you don't want to have such arguments levied against you, don't make such absolutist statements like "If you think that the government should be setting the objective of reducing suburbia you should not be involved in government"
u/TurboTex · 3 pointsr/IWantToLearn

I personally think the most important step is learning what prevents you from critically analyzing events, situations and people. In order to objectively analyze something, we must learn what biases to avoid. In learning these biases, you'll learn how to develop a framework for approaching new information in a manner that will mitigate our innate biases.

I'm inherently biased with this recommendation, as I only recently finished the book, but I really enjoyed Thinking Fast & Slow by Daniel Kahneman. It's all based on academic studies, but I thought that it was written at an accessible level.

u/skafi · 3 pointsr/books

I second /u/mbocchini's recommendation. Thinking, Fast and Slow is a fantastic overview of the growing (both in size and influence) field of behavioral economics from one of the most prominent psychologists of the past half century. It's written in a very accessible manner with little technical discussion, although the footnotes will source you to the academic papers and articles should you decide to dig deeper.

u/confusedneuron · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

As far as the book recommendations go, it would be good if you could qualify what kind of books you're interested in (e.g. philosophy, psychology, history, science, etc.).

Books I recommend:

Psychology (or: On Human Nature)

The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime

Thinking, Fast and Slow (my personal favorite)

The Undiscovered Self

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature


Strategy: A History

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism


Economics in One Lesson

Basic Economics


Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

As always, the list of books to read is too long, so I'll stop here.

u/jdkj · 3 pointsr/boardgames

It's been long time since anybody asked me that. I love this kind of question!

Here are some key books that somehow represent how I think:

Something everybody should read (not about game theory, but about thinking and decision making):

u/SanityInAnarchy · 3 pointsr/answers

The way I think of it is, it has to do with any one event, versus taking a sequence of events as a whole... but I'm not sure that helps.

I'm going to use numbers, but I'm going to use the simplest possible numbers. If you can count to four, this should be fine. All probability problems are, at their heart, just counting problems.

Let's say you flip a coin. Let's say it's a "fair" coin, and the odds are always 50% that you get heads -- but even percentages are a bit much. Let's just say the odds of heads (or tails) is 1/2, because there's an equal probability of heads or tails, so you can just count them:

Heads is 1 outcome, out of 2 possible outcomes. So the probability you got heads is 1/2. That's the only equation I'm going to make you understand.

This doesn't change if you've flipped the coin before. Using H for Heads and T for Tails, here are all the possible outcomes:

  1. HH
  2. HT
  3. TH
  4. TT

    So if you flipped the coin once already, and it came up heads, then the probability that the first flip is heads is 1/1, because it already came up heads, and it's not possible that you'll go back in time and make it come up tails now. (The probability that it would come up heads is 1/2, but the probability that it already has come up heads is 1/1, because it can't now come up anything else.)

    So you have two possible outcomes -- HH and HT. So the probability that you'll get heads again (HH) is 1 outcome out of 2 possible -- 1/2 again. Doesn't matter how many times the coin has been flipped already, it's still 1/2. Those other two possibilities don't matter, because TH and TT didn't happen.

    But, if you're about to flip the coin twice, the probability that you'll get heads twice in a row is clearly 1/4. Since you haven't flipped it yet, the first coin flip could come up tails, so you could have any of those outcomes -- HH, HT, TH, or TT.

    I'm going to skip your question about cards, and instead address this:

    > I guess I'm just too simple.

    If you can do high school maths -- just multiplication and division, and maybe a tiny bit of algebra -- then you can work your way through all of this.

    It's not hard because of the math. It's hard because human brains are not wired to understand probability. (And it's not just you.)

    Just look up the Monty Hall problem. Plenty of people, including professional scientists, get tripped up by this one all the time, even though it doesn't involve any numbers larger than 3. Or look up regression to the mean. That's even worse -- I could explain it in detail, with the airplanes and everything, and you would think you understand. But then, without even realizing it, you'd fall for very similar, real-life examples.

    I've been reading through this book lately, and that's been the most depressing thing I've learned -- there are some things that we know to be true because we've worked out the statistics, but we also know that people just don't learn them, not really. Here's one depressing thought: If I showed you a video of a person who seems nice, who tells you a little about who they are and their hobbies and such, and then ask if they'd be likely to call 911 in an emergency, you'd probably say "yes". And whether or not you think they'd call 911 has absolutely no relationship to whether I teach you about the bystander effect first. (Or, in fact, whether or not those very people froze in an emergency.) Which means you probably don't, in your heart of hearts, believe that you'd freeze in an emergency and not even be able to dial 911, just because you were in a crowd of other people who could make that call -- even if you believe the Bystander Effect, you probably at least subconsciously believe it doesn't apply to you.

    So it's depressing enough that there's a Bystander Effect, but what's more depressing is that people have such a hard time actually understanding it and applying that understanding to the way they see the world, instead of just filing it away in the part of their brains reserved for "depressing statistical facts."

    So... you're not really more simple than the rest of us. People are stupid about statistics. And when I say that, I mean myself, too.
u/liatris · 3 pointsr/news

People are not rational as a general rule. They believe things that support their bias and disbelieve things that don't. Thinking, Fast and Slow is a good book on the topic of how irrational humans are.

u/Private_Mandella · 3 pointsr/exchristian

Thinking Fast and Slow. Starting reading it and I love it. Written by a Nobel Prize winner, he actually includes the papers in the back that much of the book is based on. He goes over the cognitive biases of humans. Definitely worth a look.

u/LeyonLecoq · 3 pointsr/samharris

>Why does it matter - in daily life that is - whether people are the way they are because of nature or nurture?

It informs how you should go about achieving your goals. If a property is intrinsic and cannot be changed then you need to construct your systems of behaviour around accommodating that property.

For example, hobbes' leviathan. We know that when left to our own devices, humans aren't very fair to each other. Not even necessarily because of maliciousness, but because of a bunch of intrinsic cognitive biases, that among other things predisposes everyone to perceiveing losses they experience as far worse than gains they (and others) receive, which means that any time two parties take from each other they will both perceive the other party as horribly injust and themselves as perfectly reasonable, leading to ever-increasing escalations of reciprocation that rarely lead anywhere good. But you can mitigate all that by taking the enforcement of justice out of the people directly involved's hands and giving it to an (ideally unbiased) third-party.

Of course this is a lot more complicated than my simple explanation here, but hopefully you get the point I was making. When we know what parts of human nature can't be changed (at least not yet, eh), we have a much better chance of building an environment that leads us to the results we want to have. The same goes for interacting with others in daily life. You are much better equipped to interacting with people when you really understand why they do the things they do (and why you do the things you do!) than when you're not.

Incidentally, if you want to read a good book about a lot of these intrinsic cognitive biases then I recommend Thinking, Fast and Slow. It summarizes a lot of often surprising intrinsic cognitive biases - and outright cognitive illusions - that our brains fall prey to, which we have to be aware of when we design our systems in order to get those systems to do what we want them to do.

u/TychoCelchuuu · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

I think it's important to acquire the skills to evaluate various positions before worrying about what random yahoos on the Internet think about those positions. The impulse to run an opinion poll before you fully understand the issues you're polling people about is pretty much just an impulse to acquire a dataset that you can feed into the sorts of heuristics that (for instance) Kahneman has made a career out of evaluating, and as Kahneman has pointed out, some of these heuristics are not particularly good at getting the right answer. Rather than relying on these heuristics, I think it's better to make up one's own mind on the basis of careful consideration untainted by what others have to say, apart from what they have to say by way of giving you more information about what the various positions are committed to.

u/peterprograms · 3 pointsr/webdev

"Thinking fast and slow" by Daniel kahneman is a good book for metacognition and how to start thinking properly to solve problems.

Thinking, Fast and Slow https://www.amazon.com/dp/0374533555/ref=cm_sw_r_wa_apa_i_5EeEDb5B8GYXM

u/Redrot · 3 pointsr/math

Read How Not to be Wrong a bit ago and am currently reading Thinking Fast and Slow. Both lighter reads, Thinking Fast and Slow is a bit thicker, but both cover ways of using basic logic, quantitative reasoning, and probability.

Thinking Fast and Slow does an incredible job of explaining how the mind can work both for and against you without getting too technical, definitely recommend that. How Not to be Wrong is a bit lighter.

edit: lol both of the recommendations have already showed up in the thread

u/AthertonWing · 3 pointsr/summonerschool

Never let another player dictate your play to you. If they're pinging for something, take a moment and think for yourself about whether or not it's a good play - Don't automatically go for it because they're pinging, but also don't automatically dismiss it because they're being annoying about it. Deep breath, make a call.

After the game, take time to re-watch that moment in the replay, and try to see it from their perspective - what are they losing for you not being there, and what are you gaining for being where you decided to go? Did you make the right call? If you think so after looking at it for a few minutes, don't worry about it. Tons of people make emotional pings because they don't know what to do and they feel trapped and pressured. But, you can't change the likelihood of the play to succeed just because one of your teammates wants it to work.

Making the right play - the one that you know you can make, the one that feels right - is going to net you a better result over time, because the frequency of people actually afking when you don't camp for them is actually quite low - negativity bias will have you having an easier time remembering the ones that do because it's such a stand-out moment, and availability heuristic will have you overestimating the frequency of them because you can remember them happening more recently, but if you actually collect some data about how often it happens, over a large sample size, like say a month or two, you'll see that it's not that big of a deal. (For more information on the biases mentioned, check out "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman)

In short, make your own decisions, but consider other people's opinions while making them. Don't sweat the small stuff, because focusing on your own play (which you have control over) is much more effective than focusing on external factors like teammates (which you can't). The difference between you and a pro-player isn't your teammates. Learn, grow, win, climb.

u/wildBlueWanderer · 3 pointsr/AskALiberal

Enforcing the law is a start. I'm not being flippant, that genuinely seems like a reasonable and broadly agreeable place to start. The CFPB alone has already returned $11 billion to consumers from fraudulent and illegal action by existing bad actors breaking existing laws.

Conversations with people we don't generally identify with (for whatever reason) is a good technique to reduce polarization.


Cognitive and critical thinking skills should probably be taught in schools, in my opinion. For example, we're all aware of what stereotypes are, but we aren't every really told how they work, why they exist, and in what ways internalizing them frequently fails us in daily life. They backfire when we misunderstand or misapply the statistics that even a valid stereotype represents.

This is an excellent book by a winner of the nobel prize for economics. It isn't at all about stereotypes or racism, but I see how a lot of the cognitive heuristics and biases he discovered and explored are key to how racism works (or, doesn't work).


u/Ojisan1 · 3 pointsr/RedPillWomen

>Our fighting hasn't stopped because I haven't stopped fighting for control.

>I don't trust my fiance. There, I said it. I want to. I'm working on it. But I don't, right now.

I am not sure that I believe this, actually. I think you do trust him. The issue is, I think, the difference between an unconscious response (what you've trained yourself to do your whole life) and your conscious response (what you desire your reaction to be).

The unconscious responses are created in a part of the brain that is more instinctual - some people call it the "lizard brain". This response, to fight your fiance, or to act in a way that is mistrustful, happens in milliseconds. It is not under conscious control, it is by force of habit.

The conscious response, which happens in the parts of the brain that evolved later, takes longer to happen. The key is you have to re-train yourself, and it takes time and effort. You only have milliseconds to intercept the unconscious mind's response (mistrust) and replace it with your conscious mind's desire (trust).

So the first step is to recognize the unconscious response, be more aware of it, and at least try to stop yourself from reacting that way outwardly, or realize when it's happening and stop as soon as you realize that's what you're doing (which is sort of what happened with the airport story - you realized it, but after a few minutes, not in milliseconds.) Then you replace the instinctual response with your desired conscious response - instead of not trusting him you act as though you do trust him.

After you do this enough, your instinctual, unconscious reaction will change, and trust will become your new default.

An excellent book on this subject, if you're interested, is "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Kahneman.

edit: typo

u/vendorsi · 3 pointsr/AskMarketing
  • Start with pretty much anything Seth Godin has written. Especially Purple Cow.

  • I'm a big fan of understanding cognitive issues, so Thinking Fast and Slow can help you understand how minds work.

  • to understand what CRM was really intended to be, read The One to One Future

  • Given your interest in digital check out these books on lean methodology: The Lean Startup and Ash Maurya's brilliant compliment, Running Lean

    In general, when it comes to things like SEO, SEM, etc you are better off sticking with blogs and content sites like SEOMoz, Marketing Sherpa, and Danny Sullivan/Search Engine World. By the time a book is written it's usually out of date in these fields.
u/Kavec · 3 pointsr/worldnews

I read your comment. Then I look at the username of the comment above you. My head explodes.

Seriously though: you are 100% right in what you are saying, but I hope people is not thinking "yeah exactly people are dumb... they just need to be told off, they will wake up, and everything will be fixed". This is as efficient as "fixing" mass shootings by giving weapons to the teacher.

It is all about how the human brain rewards our actions, and how that influences how we act and think. We are designed to prioritize an easy chuckle (low effort, high reward) over a "computationally expensive" thought (source: Thinking Fast And Slow).

You want to convince someone? Be short, be precise, know how the human brain works and don't fight against it.

u/hillsonghoods · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

From a psychological perspective, there are a whole set of systematic biases in how we think (e.g., those catalogued in Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow). And the existence of visual illusions and so forth (e.g., The Dress) tends to suggest that our perceptual faculties are designed for efficiency rather than accuracy - they wouldn't fool us if we saw the world entirely accurately. It's clearly accurate to say that our minds are not entirely reliable, and you don't need to be an evolutionist or a philosophical naturalist to believe this (there are traditions in Christianity that would argue R is low, too). Thus believing that the probability that R is low is not contingent on believing N&E.

However, there is a big stretch between saying that our minds are not reliable and saying that our scientific theories about evolution are not reliable. Plantinga here effectively paints scientific beliefs as being the same as any beliefs, yes? But there's reason to believe that scientific beliefs are more likely to be true than other beliefs.

Much of science tries to use quantitative measurement instruments (e.g., rulers) to reduce human bias, and technology (microscopes, for example) to go beyond human perceptual limits; similarly, scientists replicate studies in order to reduce the likelihood of the original findings being in error. The general aim of science is to increase the likelihood that our theories about the world are correct. And in general, observed experience suggests that science has utility in terms of our ability to base functional technology on scientific theories - a whole swathe of scientific principles underlie the ability for you to read this text on the computer screen you're looking at, for example. This suggests that while our current scientific beliefs might still be inaccurate, they're still more likely to be accurate than other beliefs.

And so if you are trying to argue about the probability of a scientific theory from a Bayesian perspective, as Plantinga is doing in the EAAN, you therefore need to take into account a markedly increased probability of scientific theories being correct compared to other beliefs.

If a Plantingan then asserts that P(R|N&E) is still very low, even with science's error correction processes, then someone who believes N&E could argue that P(R|AG) - where AG stands for the idea that the Abrahamic God created us - is even more improbable.

u/frobnic8 · 2 pointsr/SRSGaming

I have good news. They aren't. Well, that implies there are worse people which isn't awesome but that's not the real point, wait here...let me try again:

I've been reading Thinking Fast and Slow which talks about a theory of how our brains are structured in terms of their thinking processes.

In particular, it focuses on how that affects the way we decided how probably things are.

The good news is that while it works pretty darn well, this is probably partly a spot where (among other stuff) it's more a question of what's easy to recall or What You See Is All There Is and other ideas it presents.

Basically, because it's EASY to remember gamers being assholes we sort of automatically default to thinking it's also really common. This works pretty well, except when you get things like global news and unpleasant things being more memorable.

So it's probably SOMEWHAT that we just more easily remember all the jerks than the no-impact-non-jerks and then we default to seeing them everywhere. (Like when you get a new car and then see that model EVERYWHERE a bit.)

C. G. P. Gray has a nice bit on how pissy things spread faster, as well, which makes it worse.

TL;DR: I don't understand rhetorical or purely emotive questions which weren't expecting an actual response.

Also, I don't know but they really are and I'm sick of all the assholes, too. It wears me out. :/

u/inawordno · 2 pointsr/ukpolitics

100% the starting point should be Kahneman's book. Here. Thinking Fast and Slow. Amazingly insightful guy.

u/BronaldMcDonald · 2 pointsr/gaybros

Just started reading "Thinking Fast and Slow" - Kahneman - My brain is beginning to realize exactly how much of a mind-f*** this is about to be. :) No I'm not reading this because it's a Winner of anything or on any list, but because I love these kind of sociological trips, or books that just speak to you on the shelf about "the human condition" , otherwise I won't read it.


u/therealdrag0 · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

"Thinking: Fast and Slow". It's not about religion at all. But when you see how full of pitfalls (cognitive biases) human thought is, you will, be more inclined to seek more robust metrics to what you determine as "truth".

u/garblz · 2 pointsr/IWantToLearn

Very Special Relativity a simple explanation of a complex phenomena

Thinking, Fast and Slow explains why we actually do live in a Matrix, and how, focusing on statistics instead what your guts tell you, to be able to break the veil of lies sometimes.

Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid how music is connected with art and mathematics? Exploration of symmetries, where none are expected to be found.

Watch everything Richard P. Feynman related on YouTube, start with interviews and the rest will probably follow.

I seriously think you should start with science. Getting a glimpse of how world works at the quantum levels can surprisingly enlighten someone on topics one thought were philosophical. E.g. recent Reddit post asked whether true randomness exists, and the answer to read almost pointless kilograms of philosophy made me cringe. Quantum physics has tonnes more to say, and it's actually verifiable by experiment. So I guess my advice is, before going the way of philosophical banter about the existence of coffee shop around the corner, you can just walk the few steps and take a look yourself. Hence, science as a first suggestion.

u/DancingEngie · 2 pointsr/books

Thinking Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman



A beautiful, sightful summery of Kahneman's research about the way we think, which led to him and his partner, Amos, to win a Nobel Prize in economics in 2002.


u/HappyAssassin · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

The mind loves cognitive ease. Thinking requires energy from the body -- your heart rate increases, pupils dilate, etc.

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman covers this in depth in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow


u/heethin · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

\> I'm open to suggestion about how to "demonstrate" to your satisfaction that I'm acting rationally,

I hardly have an idea what you claim. How could I know what would demonstrate proof of it?

\> Given the available evidence, I've concluded that Christianity best fits what we know about the world.

Ok, what evidence?

\> the most persuasive part is the ethical system laid out in the Gospels, which best expresses a super-human morality.

This expresses why you like it, not why it's Right.

\> I have some personal experience of God as well, and a strong sense of the numinous in general

More detail on that would be helpful.

\> when I first started having these discussions online it was hard to believe that not everyone has that same feeling.

There's a good chance that with training in meditation, most people can. Certainly, what little you've offered so far is similar to the description offered across many religions around the world... and that gets us back to the question of how you know that yours is the Right one.

\> I won't ask you to demonstrate that you come by your conclusions rationally, because I assume that anyone going onto a debate subreddit has done their homework until proven otherwise.

Which of my conclusions? Evidence suggests that people don't come to their conclusions rationally. See Daniel Kahneman's work.

u/Rmanolescu · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

A good book on the matter http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555. The same is true if you ommit letters or words. A lot of road signs actually this to allow you to read at fast speeds.

u/TYIP · 2 pointsr/CadenMoranDairy

15 and College? What country? Do you have a note from your mom?

Read this book and learn how your mind operates.

Thinking, Fast and Slow

u/flabcannon · 2 pointsr/ForeverAlone

Have you tried reading non-fiction books? They usually stay pretty focused on the title topic. That's what I do, anyway.

Here's one if you need a recommendation -

u/SomeGuy58439 · 2 pointsr/FeMRADebates

> I think I've come to the realization that there's a severe disconnect within me between my emotional self ... and my intellectual self

Welcome to dual process theory - I'd totally recommend reading Thinking, Fast and Slow.

> And then the doubt starts. What if I'm wrong? What if I'm basically full of shit and I'm hurting a whole lot of people with my views? But if I change them, what if I'm THEN wrong?

Been there; done that. I'd say that I've just gotten reasonably comfortable with the idea that I'm probably often wrong, but then again I'd probably be lying to myself.

> And then put on top of that the feeling that maybe I should just go with the tribe so I don't even have to worry about this sort of thing.

I personally found reading The Righteous Mind pretty therapeutic - helpful in reducing your hostility to those in other groups as well as I think helping be less self-critical of the idea that you might later opt to switch groups.

u/probably_apocryphal · 2 pointsr/premed

There are a lot of pop psychology books that cover at least the social psychological parts of what I learned:

The Person and Situation by Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

What Makes Love Last by John Gottman

Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein

(Caveat: I've only read Thinking, Fast and Slow and Nudge, but the others are from well-respected authors/leaders in their fields.)

u/savemejebus0 · 2 pointsr/politics

There is nothing shocking in this what so ever. People are not behaving ignorantly, they are acting quite reasonably to the norms of human psychology. On the social media front, it is a fraction of a hair or a fraction of a hair in the timeline of our communication with one another. We need to adapt to it. I use it as a tool. If we are more aware of our tendencies, then we an adapt to the pressures that our outside environment has. I only use Twitter for politics and make sure half of the people I follow I disagree with.

So you value your opinion? Do you think you think things through and don't let nonsense influence your opinion? Read "Thinking Fast and Slow". You wont trust yourself for shit anymore. You will be more cautious on quick opinions and try very hard to reserve judgement and rely on the "thinking slow" part of your brain". Sad part is, even when you know about your brains tendencies, you are still victim to them 80% of the time.

u/MoreAccurate · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

I mostly have a lot of books that helped me, but here are the most influential ones that I've read recently:

u/drinkallthecoffee · 2 pointsr/gifs

Like I said in another comment, most of my work was on reading comprehension and assessment. My work on automatic behavior was actually much more low-level than stuff like leaving a child in the car. My automatic behaviors would be changing how people perceive distances, and then in turn whether this could change how quickly people walk when they don't know they are being observed.

That being said, Thinking Fast and Slow is a pop psychology book written by a leading psychologist on these topics. It's more broad than what we're talking about here and is more focused on thinking than doing, but it's a great read.

The article I linked above, The Unbearable Automaticity of Being is a great summary of how automatic behaviors affect our daily lives. My unpublished research on automatic behaviors was largely inspired by this article. I read it as an undergrad and designed an experiment with my professor, and then started running it and replicating the experiments in grad school.

u/CogSciProfessor · 2 pointsr/IAmA

Perhaps this book by Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow might be a good start in answering your question: http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

u/IRodeAnR-2000 · 2 pointsr/AskEngineers

All decisions have an emotional component, and research has shown that people who claim to care exclusively about 'the facts' are often more driven by emotion than the people they see as 'emotional.'

Daniel Kahneman actually won a Nobel Prize in Economics for the research and application of what he discusses (at lenght) in the book below.

It's an absolutely awesome read, and I recommend every engineer and especially project managers read it at least every couple of years.


u/Hart_Attack · 2 pointsr/TagProIRL

I'm really bad at reading through just one book at a time, so I'm in the middle of a few at the moment.

-A Walk in the Woods by Bill Bryson

-Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman (admittedly, it's been a while since I've picked this one up)

-Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov

I just finished a great book called The Other Wes Moore, also. It was super interesting.

I'm a big fan of non-fiction books, in case that wasn't immediately apparent by the list.

u/username10983 · 2 pointsr/PersonalFinanceCanada

William Bernstein Four Pillars of Investing

Burton Malkiel Random Walk down wall street

I've thought some of the books by Rick Ferri (power of passive investing), Larry Swedroe, and John Bogle (common sense on investing) were good. I also recommend a book The Big Investment Lie by Michael Edesess.

I also enjoyed some books on money/behaviour:




u/ShaktiAmarantha · 2 pointsr/sexover30

I'm 52 & I've been on hormonal BC since I was a teen because of severe dysmenorrhea. So I've had the same conversations with my GYN. Copper IUD is out, because it would make the dysmenorrhea worse. There are no cancer risks in my medical history or my family history and the hormone work suggests that menopause is still at least 2-3 years away. So we considered a variety of alternatives, including rhythm/FA, condoms, vasectomy, and more, and decided on the implant for the next three years, and then re-evaluate at 55.

What it came down is that the medical danger to my health from getting pregnant is so high compared to the other risks that it makes the very small increases in the risk of stroke, blood clots, and cancer seem trivial.

There is no choice that is 100% safe for both of us except abstinence, and we're not willing to do that. So the safest answer is the most effective method of BC, namely the implant. It's safer than IUDs, vasectomies, pills, condoms, or anything else.

Often people talk about the risk of X and the risk of Y in terms that are really misleading. You'll see a stat that says that something increases the risk of a particular type of cancer by 75%, and your immediate reaction is that that's unacceptable. But often we're talking about the difference between 4 cases per 100,000 and 7 cases per 100,000, a microscopic real risk. You take a far, far bigger risk by choosing to drive instead of taking public transit.

In my case, the danger to my life and health from pregnancy was a large multiple of the increased morbidity and mortality from having an implant, so the decision was easy.

Humans are geared by evolution to use intuition and emotion to do risk analysis, because in the wild a fast approximation beats a slow but mathematically perfect answer almost every time. But that means we're often really bad at doing these sorts of subtle calculations with tiny risks. Read Thinking Fast and Slow by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman for a brilliant discussion of how our brains trick us and make us bad at it, routinely accepting large risks and panicking about tiny ones.

Most doctors have neither the time, nor the training, nor the resources needed to do real risk analysis, so they make the same mistakes that normal people do. In addition, they know that juries are likely to rule against them for failing to advise you of a risk, no matter how small it is, but no one is going to attack them for giving you a recommendation that is foolishly cautious. So they have good reason to err on the side of not getting sued, whether it's good advice for you or not.

u/IAMABIASEDSCIENTIST · 2 pointsr/DanLeBatardShow

Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow is a really important book that discusses many of heuristics and phenomena from the interview.


u/PantherHeel93 · 2 pointsr/Android

No, I'm saying they're ignorant in the word's truest sense. As in, if they knew better, they would know that replaceable batteries are a huge pro (battery will never be an issue) with a miniscule con (phone is not as rigid).

Unfortunately, people make decisions primarily based on emotion, so what looks slightly better and feels slightly more solid wins when it's competing with something that looks less good but functions significantly better.

u/brain_overclocked · 2 pointsr/politics

No prob. The article seems to suggest the quality of question is important during meditating/reflecting. Also, meditation can sometimes feel silly when doing alone; perhaps you could meditate along with your mom.

If you're interested in additional reading material might I suggest: Thinking Fast and Slow, and Skeptical Inquirer.

u/JollyGreenJesus · 2 pointsr/politics

Someone changed that person's mind to begin with, to get them to vote the way they did.

I don't think that it's as hard as people suggest. I think that there are many, many people that are bad at persuasion. They never practice that skill. They assume that their beliefs are superior, and get irritated when people are hesitant to change their mindset. And I can guarantee you, the second you start to get irritated when trying to persuade someone of something, that person shuts down. (Your body language and minor changes in tone will make you give yourself away.) Once you go on the offense, people go on the defense. That's human nature.

Most people do not have it in them to remove emotion and snap judgments from decision making. It's seriously part of human biology. It takes a shit load of education to get over that, to really change our lizard brains from the defaults of running on fear and short-sightedness, to what you might imagine the ideal to be.

This is a great book, that goes into great length about how people think: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

Edit: It's not super technical either, it's written for the layman.

It's a fantastic read, and you will learn a lot from it. I really believe that this is the kind of stuff we need to make mandatory teaching in schools. Psychology and Sociology should be mandatory. Then again, high school kids are just high school kids, so who knows how much that would help.

Sorry, this went a bit off topic.

u/-t-o-n-y- · 2 pointsr/userexperience

If she's interacting with a lot of users I would suggest reading Practical Empathy. Observing the User Experience is another great resource for learning about user research. User experience is all about people so it's always a good idea to read up on human behavior, psychology, cognition, perception, learning and memory etc. e.g. books like Hooked, Bottlenecks, Design for the mind, Designing with the mind in mind, 100 things every designer needs to know about people, 100 more things every designer needs to know about people, Thinking fast and slow, Predictably Irrational and I would also recommend Articulating design decisions and Friction.

u/Mablun · 2 pointsr/exmormon

This is a great point--and I think most of us miss at first, or at least I did. See, I had a little taste of "anti-Mormon" material a few years before I finally understood it.

What got me though was understanding how and why so many people believe wrong things. I studied a lot about biases and probability theory and how to actually change your mind and got a firm desire to believe something if and only if it is true. But also, I looked into about a dozen different things from astrology to homeopathy and saw how committed people can get to false ideas and how elaborately they can perceive 'evidence' that supports their view.

And then I looked at the church stuff again. From that perspective, it's easy. If you're willing to change your mind about the church, you will because the evidence is so overwhelming.

But then I rushed to show family members this overwhelming evidence against the church. Predictably, it doesn't work. Because they didn't go through those priors steps that I hadn't realized were so important.

So anyways TLDR: Get people to understand biases and that people can be very very wrong and yet still think they have truth on their side before exposing them to the evidences against the church.

u/thedarkerside · 2 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Interesting. I may look into it. Though I am not American, so for me American politics is more something I follow casually and from far away.

I have another book you may enjoy, and it may also rob you of a lot of your hope about human beings.

u/RedVinca · 2 pointsr/books

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.

u/redct · 2 pointsr/RedditDayOf

Hey, cool, this is what I study (shoutout to the social and decision sciences at Carnegie Mellon). Kahneman and Tversky were insanely prolific researchers (and Kahneman still is to an extent) and their findings practically invented the fields of behavioral economics and decision science. Crazy cool people.

For a good read and an "outsider's" introduction, I'd recommend Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahneman. If you're more comfortable reading academic texts, their papers are pretty widely available too.

u/EnderWiggin1984 · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

I imagine it's something like the book, "Thinking Fast and Slow."

Or "Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind."

Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind: How Intelligence Increases When You Think Less

u/vonGlick · 2 pointsr/Polska

Już nie chciałem wnikać w szczegóły bo kolega padlina by mnie zlinczował , ale ja tak naprawdę to głównie słucham książek. Do tego słucham sporo tzw pop science , ale z ostatnich ciekawych pozycji to mogę polecić :

Trust me, I'm Lying - Ryan Holiday

Never Split the Difference - Chris Voss

Influence - Robert Cialdini

Thinking fast and slow - Daniel Kahneman

Daj znać jeśli coś z tego Cię zainteresuje.

u/JohnKog · 2 pointsr/Meditation

I've just started reading the preceding article. For people who are interested in this kind of stuff, I highly recommend Thinking Fast and Slow. It talks about largely the same stuff but in different terms, and also goes into much more detail about the ways in which "mindless thinking", or what it refers to as System 1, biases us and affects our lives, citing an abundance of related psychological studies.

u/hunnensturm · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Sure. If I can view your brain with fMRI, I can predict with complete confidence when you will consciously "choose" to do something, in advance of you being aware you've made a choice.

The "choice" is made subconsciously. Subsequently, your conscious self invents a comforting illusion of "choice" or "free will" to justify the decision.

This is an older article, but it'll get you started: https://www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/

Also, read Thinking, Fast and Slow.

u/ike_the_strangetamer · 2 pointsr/theydidthemath

I'm right now in the middle of this book Thinking, Fast and Slow that breaks down exactly what is going on in our minds here.

Basically, there's two different systems at work, the fast one and the slow one, and we're the arbiter between. The fast one is lazy. It reads that the store owner gave up $100 and then gave back $30 and lazily reports the loss of $130 (or maybe some other number).

The brain is very accepting of the fast answer. The slow system needs to not only blow a whistle and let us know something is off but then has the job of isolating the numbers, doing the math and figuring out not only where the problem is, but what the right answer is. Making things worse, the slow part is very fragile. If we are tired, sick, or in a bad mood, we're even less likely to bother with the slow thinking.

So it is a riddle because it's trying to get you to trust your fast system over anything else.

u/oblique63 · 1 pointr/INTP

That reminds me, there's a similar video summary of the Brain Rules book over here: http://vimeo.com/10954540

(and more info here)

Totally forgot about that one. It's cool, but you can pretty much get the whole gist of it just from those links.

And if anybody's craving more psych-y books, Subliminal is also pretty cool (it's like the diet version of Thinking Fast and Slow, which is good but long), though, the Willpower Instinct one already kinda touches on a bit of material from both those anyway.

u/random_guy_11235 · 1 pointr/worldnews

Everyone thinks this. Everyone. That they are above being influenced by something as minor as free things. The problem is that everyone IS influenced by it, in subtle and hard-to-detect ways.

Thinking: Fast and Slow has a great section on this, particularly on why lobbying works so well even though individual politicians tend to think it has no effect on their decisions.

u/ctolsen · 1 pointr/ZenHabits

While I may agree with her conclusion – taking time with things is definitely healthy – her premise is flawed.

> One flight was around 65$ at that time. I simply felt the urge to procrastinate with that task, so I chose to wait. [...] Some weeks later, I remembered I should buy those tickets after all. So I went online and found that the prices were close to 30$ per flight. I felt a very strong urge to buy them and I did.

Confirmation bias all the way. If you do this over and over, statistically, you will lose money. No way around it. I'm betting she's lost money herself this way, but that's not what she subjectively remembers.

> Because if the timing is wrong, then all efforts are in vain. He gives the example with agriculture: if you plant the seeds in winter, then you will get absolutely no crop, even though you may do the most amazing job at planting them.

This is not intuition. This is logic. You're quite stupid if you plant seeds in the winter, because it doesn't work. However, taking time with decisions, "sleeping on it", lets your intuition get a stab at things. That doesn't necessarily mean that now is never the right time, that you should always feel motivation when you work, or that just waiting will improve your results – as opposed to gaining more knowledge, for instance. Your intuition, or whatever we should call it, can work while you browse reddit, but only with what you already know. It definitely does not magically find cheap plane tickets or know when to plant seeds without looking outside.

Procrastinate all you want, and let your subconscious do the job for you. There's no reason to be voodoo about it, it actually works and it's well proven scientifically. But proper literature like Thinking Fast and Slow gives you a much better understanding of it.

u/Cherubaal · 1 pointr/books

No More Mr Nice Guy by Robert Glover. Also: Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

u/Hau-oli · 1 pointr/infj

Gut feeling, intuition, rationality, biases, decision making and the mental processes behind them is a fascinating study and has served me well in my professional career and my private life. If interested in learning more , then look at this chapter "A Model of Heuristic Judgement" (PDF) ^((1)) by Daniel Kahnerman. He also wrote a very accessible, New York Times bestseller book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" ^((2)) (Amazon link)

Kahneman expands on "dual process theories" - namely, that we rely on both intuition and reason, where one process, intuition, is quick and the other, reason, is slow. There can be troubles at the speed of processing or when one system is wrong. When I was in the military my commander chastised my speed of decision making during a critical situation saying "Major, I need you to function, not compute!". Slow vs fast thinking.

Another interesting look at this topic is this article (PDF) ^((3)) who suggests that "people at least implicitly detect that their heuristic response conflicts with traditional normative considerations. I propose that this conflict sensitivity calls for the postulation of logical and probabilistic knowledge that is intuitive and that is activated automatically when people engage in a reasoning task."

^((1) Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge University Press.)

^((2) Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.)

^((3) De Neys, W. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 28-38)

u/hebermagalhaes · 1 pointr/exmormon

I've not read it yet, but I've heard that "Thinking, Fast and Slow" is a good one on that.


u/xbhaskarx · 1 pointr/MLS

Seems like a lot of effort to show something that should be completely obvious to anyone with half a brain...

>Wikipedia cites this famous logical illusion as the best illustration of what cognitive scientists call "The Conjunction Fallacy."

> Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.

> Which is more probable?

> Linda is a bank teller.
> Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

This is from Thinking, Fast and Slow

u/mythealias · 1 pointr/Frugal

Knowing the trick is definitely a big step forward but I wonder if it is all that easy.

Our mind is much easier to fool than we imagine.
I recommend reading Thinking Fast and Slow (wiki). It is a slow read but highlights how easily our judgements can lead us astray.

u/JamesNoff · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

I say we must choose because that's what our brain is going to do anyways. Our brain, with it's fast, automatic, gut reactions always takes a stance. We can intellectually say that we don't have a high enough certainty of knowledge to form a belief, but on a lower level we've already taken a stance.^1

Now that doesn't mean we need to be closed minded to the alternative or pretend that we have knowledge we don't. A belief is what we think is true based on the knowledge we have, so our beliefs can change just as quickly as we get new knowledge or perspectives.

^1 This is taken from reading Thinking Fast and Slow, a fantastic book on how our brain works and how the shortcuts our brain takes can lead to things like optical illusions, biases, and cognitive illusions. Highly recommend.


Consider this: Would you be surprised to find out that God exists? We are surprised when reality doesn't match our expectations. If we expect to never find out that God exists, that indicates that we already believe that He doesn't.

u/groundshop · 1 pointr/TwoXChromosomes

I completely agree. There are two topics the whole:
>The most important part is not a conviction but staying alive.

thing reminds me of.

1 - Daniel Khaneman in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow discusses the differences between the experiencing self and the remembering self. Briefly, the way we experience an event is very (very) disconnected from the way we remember and event.

Prioritizing survival of rape suggests that the memory of rape is less painful than the experience of rape itself. Arguments to the contrary get into territory of suicide, which is just as hard to discuss as the topic of rape.

2 - Atul Gawande in his book Being Mortal talks a lot about people diagnosed with terminal illness. For some, the focus of their lives becomes less about survival and more about controlling the narrative of their story, and how they're remembered.

At the point of diagnosis, many people will opt for painful chemo/radiation even for an extremely slim chance of a few extra years/months. Others disregard treatment and focus on controlling the parts of their lives they value the most - friends, family, unfinished projects. The latter group understands they're possibly shortening their lives, but choose to do so in order to retain control of their life story.

>We can say -I'd do this or I'd do that, but we don't know.

You're 100% right. I have no real idea what I'd actually do in the situations this thread talks about. I know what I hope I'd do.

>Let's hope none of us ever find out!!

I concur!

u/Salmagundi77 · 1 pointr/psychology

The opposite of black and white thinking (I guess you mean reflexive decision-making) isn't indecision, it's informed and reflective decision.

This resource might help you: http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

u/ziddina · 1 pointr/exjw

This link allows one to preview a bit of that book:


I did notice that his Nobel prize was in economics, not psychology...

[edit to add] I've just skimmed the first few pages of the book. The exercise of looking at the photo on the first page of the first chapter is interesting, but the conclusions which the author then tells the reader that they "knew" and "sensed", are both closed assumptions rather than open questions, & are more a reflection of his responses to the photo, than any receptive mindset to the many conclusions that various readers might draw.

u/MASerra · 1 pointr/technology

That is what I'm thinking. The minute the board learns that an AI can run the company for $100,000 a year rather than a CEO at $21 million, the CEO will be irrelevant.

As it is, CEO are irrelevant in most cases. There is a whole chapter here about how useless they are: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

Kahneam basically says that flipping a coin yields as good of results as a CEO's choices.

u/Broskidoski · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

> For me, RP is like economics. It's a model of human behavior that is built on predictions and patterns.
> TRPers are like economists. There are many "schools" that are built around RP, some of which are more closely aligned with the model (from my perspective) and some of which are not. And just because someone says they are an economist does make them an expert in economics.
> Trying to understand RP just from reading what various TRPers write is as ridiculous as trying to understand economics from what various self-proclaimed economists write.

Actually, I'm mostly referring to the sidebar when I discuss TRP concepts. And comparing TRP to economics is a great example.

Remember why the financial crisis happened in 2008? That's right - flawed ideas of economics. There's tons of literature on how applied neoclassical economics quickly can become a self-fulfilling prophecy which apparently produces results in the short term, but in the long term spells doom.

Same thing applies to TRP. Compare the average TRPer to an investor during the pre-crisis area. The investor buys MBS-funds which seem to pay off infinitely. So he puts more and more money into it, after a while he has invested everything he owns. Sometimes people warn him that his assets are based on mortages that will immediately default, and thus are worthless in the long run. But he points at his current net worth: Can't people see that this is working? Suddenly the entire market crashes do to the innate rotten nature of his MBS funds, and he is left with no assets and a whole lot of debt.

Same thing for the TRP guy. Spends years acting in line with TRP philosophy. It ostensibly works at first, but people are telling him that his behavior will not allow him to reach his goals in the long term. He ignores them and continues his TRP lifestyle. 5 years down the line the woman of his dreams leaves him. She's tired of him dissmissing her and walking away at the slightest hint of anger from her ("Holding frame"), she's tired of him not taking her seriously ("Amused mastery") and she has grown aware of how fragile and insecure his ego is as he seems to interpret anything she says as an insult ("Passing shit tests"). Now the man is fucked.

> Ugh. I hate the direct comparison to PUA. I know little about PUA as a whole (though some of their actions do seem to line up with what I would recommend), but I know I'm not the only RPer who bemoans RP turning into something like "PUA 2.0". RP, to my mind, is not just a new form of PUA. It goes way beyond what I understand of PUA, which really seems to only focus on short-term hookups.

Every single TRP idea existed in the PUA community. The most famous part of the community (popularly seen in "The Game" By Neil Strauss) involved tips and tricks for short-term hookups. The "Inner game" part of the community is pretty much identical to TRP. Just look at videos from RSD (Real Social Dynamics) and you'll find pretty much every TRP concept there.

> Again, you are focusing on the doing and not on the being (which isn't surprising, given that many TRPers make the same mistake). It's back to the old "fake it until you make it" idea. If you know who you need to be (like, say, confident), it can be useful to emulate that quality until you actually express it naturally, but to assume that the faking it is the making it is completely off-base.

I disagree. This is a flawed way of thinking. You cannot emulate confidence until it appears. Confidence is a feeling that makes you act and feel a certain way. We know from psychology that confidence is the result of your experiences within a given field and your interpretation of that. The only thing you accomplish by acting confident is that you get better at... acting like a confident person. Most people see through that easily.

> The end goal of RP is not to "do alpha", it's to "be alpha." If you are being alpha, all the rest of the shit will fall into place.

I understand the differences her between being and doing. But if you are actively (as is promoted in the sidebar) doing "Alpha male stuff" like "Holding frame" or "Amused mastery", then you are actually just teaching yourself a set behavior. You are not actually being authentic and acting in line with your own values - which would be what the idealized "Alpha male" would do.

> I can always tell that someone just attended a class or training by the fact that their actions are so out of alignment with their being.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about! Would that leader "Be" a leader by faking it until he made it?

> My understanding of the "hypergamy" dynamic and how men and women express and feel love differently comes from years of both reading various experts and studies on the subject of human sexuality and from my countless conversations (and relationships) with other people from all walks of life, so it's hard for me to reference something off-hand. I would say that the work of David Buss goes a long way towards validating the idea of hypergamy/polygyny as base sexual drives in humans, so I would check him out for that. Not included in this discussion, but I found that Esther Parel advocates a view of sexuality that confirms the idea of AF/BB, so that's another non-RP source.

I'm familiar with David Buss and evolutionary psychology. And yes, it describes why the impulses men and women have when it comes to sex have evolved. Women have evolved to be more selective because they risk pregnancy, while for men no such mechanism has been adaptive. However, men are also strongly attracted to visual cues of genetic fitness, just like women. There is nothing gender specific about the idea of "Hypergamy" if it is merely defined as the desire for an attractive partner.

> Why is that so hard to believe?

There are plenty of reasons for this in an evo psych perspective. The most important one being that the high SMV man has other opportunities. Unless the woman is equally high in SMV, there's no way for her to know that he won't just pump and dump her, then leave her for a prettier woman. Then she's stuck with a baby and no man to protect her. Bad idea.

But in terms of real life applications, I was referring to the "Branch jumping" idea. Let's say you have a girlfriend. She meets a guy who has a better job than you, is more confident, looks better than you - he is a higher SMV male.

Does she immediately leave you if he hits on her? According to the idea of branch jumping : Yes.

> What people ideally want and what people can realistically get are two totally different animals.

Of course. I mean, If everyone got what they wanted, I'd be a space cowboy. But I'm not, and I'm still quite happy with my career. And just like I'm happy with my career, a woman can be happy with her man even though he's not the perfect man. And a man can be the same.

> Most of life requires trade-offs that result from a cost benefit analysis.

Are you applying classical economical assumptions to human behavior? Because it seems you're talking of humans as rational actors. I recommend this book by Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize winner in economics, which describes why humans do not fall in line with the assumption of the classical "Economic man".

> And it's interesting that you perceive polygamy as the result of patriarchal societies. I would maybe conjecture that you think that, conversely, monogamy is not a result of patriarchal societies? If so, there are many anthropologists who would disagree with you. They see enforced monogamy as something instituted by men for men and not for the benefit of women.

The old-fashioned form of monogamy is patriarchal because women had to marry. They couldn't work or go to school. Modern monogamy is not a patriarchal construct. And since we've already covered evolutionary psychology, it's worth mentioning that humans have an evolved pair-bonding mechanism which includes emotions aimed at keeping the relationship exclusive (Jealousy).

> The assertion that "women wouldn't want to share" presumes a modern setting for mating, which would be a mistake. I guarantee you that, at a time when resources were scarce and survival was a daily question, the concern over "sharing" becomes far less important than the concern over "how do I ensure the survival of my child and myself? How will I ensure that sufficient resources are available for accomplishing that?"

We agree here. If nuclear war ravaged the world tomorrow this would definately be the case.

> Additionally, it must be noted that the whole notion of humans being naturally monogamous, especially for life, doesn't really hold up in either an academic or a real world sense. Clearly, monogamy, especially life-long monogamy, is not the natural order of things for humans (otherwise, we wouldn't have all the conversations about n-counts and cheating and divorce and...). Humans have found that lifetime monogamy can work well for both parties in certain settings, but that does not mean that's what we are wired to do.

We have a drive for pair bonding, that's about it. It doesn't really make sense to talk about a "Natural order of things" with humans, the entire success of our species is contingent on us being adaptive. For a lot of people. life long monogamy will work. For a lot of people, it won't. The reasons why and why not are unique to each case and infinitely complex.

> I could write a book on this. Many authors already have. I don't have time now, but maybe we can get into it at some point. In the meantime, this is probably one of the most explored topics in human sexuality.

Sure, I'm interested.

u/piet-piet · 1 pointr/propaganda
  • No, because active thinking requires a lot of energy on the brain part (fast thinking in Daniel Kahneman's terminology or "sobering" as Bible puts), so most of the time we think on autopilot; and propaganda memes are essentially prefabricated / "fast food" thoughts which without critical analysis can easily become our own; our own autopilot. Few people care to train themselves through daily meditation to slow down their train of thought to release enough energy to be able to think more soberly and concentrated.

  • No, because in societies which are, as you vaguely put it, "healthy", people tend to be more conceited and self-congratulatory about their politics, hence less critical.

  • The term "healthy society" is too abstract and imprecise that it can be easily defeated, and at the same time self-glorified enough that for this reason can be justly labeled as propaganda. So, you're already affected.
u/timrosenblatt · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Check out a book called “Thinking fast and slow” by Daniel Kahneman. It goes into this type of stuff, and how we have two types of systems in our brain that do what you’re describing.


Summary: https://fourminutebooks.com/thinking-fast-and-slow-summary/

u/tacoman359 · 1 pointr/philosophy

Where are the premises of your arguments?

>If we are not rational actors, what sense does it make to allow some of them to rule others?

Where is this coming from? Who are you talking about ruling who?

Personally, I don't think that anyone should be ruling over anyone else. I think all people should be involved in their own governance, but it's obviously tricky to implement in practice.

Please stop saying "if we are not rational actors". This is not an unanswered question. We are not rational actors (not by any definition of rational worth using, at least). For my favorite book on the subject, check out Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow. There's a lot more research out there though.

u/elgosu · 1 pointr/EDH

Yup, the framing effect as described by Daniel Kahneman in http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

u/slutwalkr · 1 pointr/india

The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference - Malcolm Gladwell

The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business - Charles Duhigg

Thinking, Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman

------------ On my list -----------------

Think Like a Freak - Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner

u/BearlyBreathing · 1 pointr/worldnews

Like I said, weird psychology. I know it sounds crazy, but it happens, and, actually, people are capable of even more counterintuitive behavior than that.

If you're interested, I highly recommend this book. The human brain is not really wired to be all that rational or consistent. As long as things are coherent at a given moment in time, the brain is just fine with that.

This is why stuff like the big lie work.

u/Marmun-King · 1 pointr/videos

I initially followed the principles of Stoicism, which is a philosophy that's very close to the principles of CBT. So my first resource was /r/Stoicism, where you can find things like this and this that have direct correlation with CBT principles. Greek and Roman literature might be hard to get into, but there are very readable translations and the principles are applicable.

Of course, not everyone is interested in philosophy, so my recommendation would be to find something along the lines of Judith Beck's Cognitive Therapy, or other similar resources that are based on research. I can't really recommend else because I haven't read much from other authors.

But in general I would recommend reading about cognitive biases in general, along the lines of this, this, this, or this. Being conscious of how everybody thinks might help you see some negative spirals in your life, and can help you change the environment that might lead you to that negativity.

But again, professional help can be very useful, so definitely consult a professional who is maybe better for you. Good luck!

u/Gordon_ramaswamy · 1 pointr/CGPGrey

I think the explanation Grey is looking for is something that a lot of people are grappling with today. One of the best explanations I have found for the same is in the book Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. I am sure Grey has probably already read this book before though it is beneficial to look at it in the context of social media and our brains today. For example, the book talks about Systems 1 and 2 of thinking. While system 1 primarily involves our instinctive reaction, system 2 tries to invoke our brain to try to think. The social media today, including reddit etc are all examples of systems trying exploit our system 1 just to get a visceral reaction without us really using our critical thinking. The fact that there are so many podcasts out there can mean that sometimes even long podcasts can be analysed by our system 1s. I most definitely have been guilty of the same in the past.

One of the reasons Facebook is being blamed for elections today can also come out to this. Its not like people haven't had access to information in the past. Nonetheless, the fact that news today is much more instant and dependent on getting us to click or grab our attention means we really don't critically analyse it as much as we should, leading to the rise of fake news and headlines. Another helpful albeit short book about the same which I can recommend is The People VS Tech which is much more recent and gives a much better context to the ideas of system 1 and 2. This is probably one of the context that can help people think about what Grey is doing in a better manner.


Clearly, using more of System 1 can deeply affect the way we think, as that is most definitely more comfortable and doesn't easily challenge our brains.

u/brinnswf · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

out of 2,827 amazon reviews over 2,500 are 4 star+. I am very intrigued.

"Modern wheat, in particular, is responsible for destroying more brains in this country than all the strokes, car accidents, and head trauma combined. Dr. Perlmutter makes a persuasive case for this wheat-free approach to preserve brain health and functioning, or to begin the process of reversal." --William Davis, MD

My response to this, is literally, wtf.

I am currently reading another book, Thinking fast and slow, I'm only 30 pages in and love it. It's more of a http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555 less diet focus, more psychology. This book is legit.

But if I finish it I might pick this up, though I'm not going to lie. I am a very discerning reader. Whole grains destroying your brain..? Wtf are they getting at... Let's all just eat a bunch of salami + cream cheese while avoiding oatmeal and bam! healthy diet! yeah, right...

But I am open minded. Forward motion! At the same time, give me your best shot! Bet I could run a 24 mile marathon faster then almost everyone who reviewed that book... >:)

u/AmaDaden · 1 pointr/todayilearned

We do. It's a human thing, not an internet thing. Us humans are amazingly more irrational then we think we are. Check out Thinking fast and slow and Predictably Irrational

I would argue that the internet is far more of a help for this problem rather then making it worse. It gives us access to information that can actually be used to confirm or deny claims. Comments let people inject objections and evidence in to stories that would not have been possible in the age of news papers and the 7-o-clock news. The only negative is that it gives bad ideas a platform to live forever, however that same platform lets them be criticized forever as well.

u/cazique · 1 pointr/Conservative

Sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about. I think you romanticize the physical sciences. Medical research is messy... is that pseudoscience based on feelings? Political scientists apply statistical tools to support their positions. Read literally any journal of political science. I would suggest looking into articles discussing the effect of media bias on voting patterns, which would alarm you (if you believed in stats and political science).

Since you brought up psychology just to disparage it, I would recommend reading Thinking, Fast and Slow.


u/christianonce · 1 pointr/StreetEpistemology

I think we may agree then. I agree that there is a ton of unrecognized bias and it's important to help people understand their own biases and how they affect their decisions.

Have you read the book Thinking Fast and Slow? I enjoyed it a lot.

u/adelaide091 · 1 pointr/Feminism

> but you're sexist and need to learn about your bias.

There are tons of books on business/decision-making out there which focus on the idea of how unconscious biases can lead to worse outcomes/poor management/lost money. I feel like getting someone to buy into the idea that biases lead to worse outcomes can be a good path to helping them identify biases which may be more uncomfortable to confront initially.


u/ejpusa · 1 pointr/politics

We're talking "Framing." If it does not fit into ones own "Frame" it is rejected. No matter what the logic.

People are NOT logical. You can see that happening dozens of times a day. We all create our own reality, for survival. You see a blue sky, I see a lion charging at us.

You see Trump going bonkers, his base sees him as being attacked by Fake News. Their brains are permanently wired, not sure what it would take to convince them.

This is why everyone goes for the independent voters, they are "swayable", the other two sides, impossible to convince one way or the other.

Actually, let me repeat this, it's pretty important to understand. Based on the latest in understanding the brain, the how that all works.

"You see a blue sky, I see a lion charging at us."



u/a_filthy_casul · 1 pointr/anime

Thinking, fast and slow is a must-read if you haven't read it.

u/Astamir · 1 pointr/writing

Alright, I'll expand. Hope you bear with me, this might be long and slightly tangential.

Basically, most of our strong beliefs are not something that we inspect regularly in our conscious mind. They are rather part of a general worldview that seems natural to us and are not given much thought ever. These beliefs more or less fit the worldview of our surrounding social environment, and that makes them relatively invisible to us. Not only that, but they often get boxed with what we perceive to be an objective perspective on reality. It's not a belief if it's reality, right? The beliefs that we do notice tend to be marginal beliefs that are more centered around our own experience of reality versus that of those surrounding us.

So for example, an American (typing with broad strokes here) middle manager may have a very different view of how one should build a career in a productive manner than an American retail worker playing music with his band on the weekends. This perspective on careers will appear to be a strong belief they both have because it may clash when they interact with each other, and the intense interactions may end up crystallizing these beliefs into what you'd call "strong beliefs", which then become an important part of a person's ideas when evaluating potential social relationships. But these beliefs about professional undertakings are actually very marginal compared to topics such as whether or not everyone can or should be happy, or whether or not people are generally trustworthy due to their nature. Human nature is perceived (wrongly) as something static by many, many people (especially in the US) and it affects policy-making, charity-giving, business practices, etc. The idea that human nature is static will change how we see redemption, how we see economic policies, how we even see intimate relationships. The belief that people hold free will will affect how we judge criminals, how we judge people who wronged us (I won't start on the topic of betrayal but god that word irks me), etc.

Now how we build our personal worldview and beliefs (strong or otherwise) is complex, so might as well take the time to suggest further reading on the matter:

Conrad Phillip Kottak's introductory book on Anthropology is well-respected, and I would recommend it to have a better overview of how different societies view the world quite differently, and how the local culture's worldview easily becomes one's own without actually realizing that it's happening. It's called enculturation - the learning of one's culture by living through it and interacting with others in it - and tends to be invisible to most people, despite its impact on a large amount of our beliefs.

As a small example of this but one I find rather valuable, there is a documentary on India's Ladakh region, called Ancient Futures - Learning from Ladakh, in which you can see the anthropologist interacting with women from the local communiy, and talking about how she can't really sew. And the women are just surprised because to them, you learn by practice, simply. There's no acceptance that someone can't learn to use the techniques they're using because they literally don't know anyone who can't sew. As long as you practice and sit with someone who knows how, you'll learn. And it's fascinating because in our culture, there is a prevalent belief that some people just can't learn functional understanding of certain things. Seems obvious, right? Not everyone can be an astrophysicist, not everyone can be a competent engineer. But what if that was wrong? And there's actually ridiculously interesting research on how this worldview can affect women in math classes, as well as young blacks in academic grading. People take all of this for granted but it is a massive component in how we view social policies.

Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett's researches in social epidemiology have done wonders in exploring the impacts of socioeconomic inequality on a massive amount of social factors, such as criminality, self-esteem, academic performance, etc. And this is only for one (albeit an important) factor in societies; how unequal the distribution of income is. 400 scientific articles later, one finds a clear trend; socioeconomic inequality has massive impact on things that you would never think of. They affect how people trust each other within a given society, because larger differences in socioeconomic circumstances lead to more conflict and different subcultures having trouble interacting with each other because their reality is so different. This seems beside the point but it really isn't; it strongly affects how the average person thinks others around him/her are worthy of trust. It has consequences on how we relate to each other and how we see the average stranger. This is not something we can inspect easily without knowing about it firsthand, so it's a "hidden" belief that is crazy in its impact on our lives.

And these factors all relate to general beliefs about others and the world, in an external manner. We also have trouble understanding a lot of what goes on inside our own decision-making process, which most people think does belong to them. Some researches have shown that you can impact someone's perspective on a stranger they just met by priming them with negative words or unpleasant experiences prior to the meeting, or by making them suffer through prolonged mental problem-solving. A paper studying the chances of getting paroled by parole judges observed that you had the most chance right after they had eaten, and the least before noon because they became more impatient towards inmates when their blood sugar was low. Other studies have shown that if you test cognitive reflexes for racism, most people who do not think that they are indeed racist will find that they have a ton more prejudice than they originally thought. This doesn't register as much when thinking about how you consciously view the world but it shows when writing or interacting with others without being focused on your own thoughts. This is probably one of the biggest reasons why you see minorities struggling so much to be represented in mainstream culture, except for the token black guy or the "faire-valoir" woman.

I'm written too much already but I strongly recommend Daniel Kahnemann's book Thinking, Fast and Slow to better understand what cognitive sciences have taught us about how our thoughts are affected by our brain's physiology and our prior experiences. I am serious in saying this; there is no way this book will not be useful to you in some way, no matter what kind of life you lead. If you have limited time or money, he gives this lecture which is kind of alright to summarize his book. I stress this man particularly because he is a legend. The man is reasonable, intelligent, and has more than three decades of solid research to back what he says.

I wanted to mention questions of free will more because they kinda relate to this whole thing but I'm gonna stop here and just recommend you check out Sam Harris' lecture on Free Will on youtube. I don't agree with much of what the guy says on other topics but he summarizes things well in that specific lecture.

Sorry again for writing such a wall of text. I hope that was worth the time to read it.

u/toadgoader · 1 pointr/INTP

Thinking, Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman

Major New York Times bestseller
Winner of the National Academy of Sciences Best Book Award in 2012
Selected by the New York Times Book Review as one of the ten best books of 2011
A Globe and Mail Best Books of the Year 2011 Title
One of The Economist's 2011 Books of the Year
One of The Wall Street Journal's Best Nonfiction Books of the Year 2011
2013 Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient
Kahneman's work with Amos Tversky is the subject of Michael Lewis's The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds

In the international bestseller, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, the renowned psychologist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, takes us on a groundbreaking tour of the mind and explains the two systems that drive the way we think. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and emotional; System 2 is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. The impact of overconfidence on corporate strategies, the difficulties of predicting what will make us happy in the future, the profound effect of cognitive biases on everything from playing the stock market to planning our next vacation―each of these can be understood only by knowing how the two systems shape our judgments and decisions.

Engaging the reader in a lively conversation about how we think, Kahneman reveals where we can and cannot trust our intuitions and how we can tap into the benefits of slow thinking. He offers practical and enlightening insights into how choices are made in both our business and our personal lives―and how we can use different techniques to guard against the mental glitches that often get us into trouble. Winner of the National Academy of Sciences Best Book Award and the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and selected by The New York Times Book Review as one of the ten best books of 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow is destined to be a classic.


u/rms_is_god · 1 pointr/tifu
  1. The "scars are like criminal records" argument is Cart Before Horse logic, you get a scar from having an accident, you don't get drunk from having an accident. I believe there are laws that prevent people with a history of violence with dangerous weapons from getting those weapons.

  2. The police should not be following known drunks around, and it is not a paltry fine/mandated rehab, the first offense is calculated to be $24,265 before your attorney, loss of vehicle, and other ripple effects on your life.

  3. The courts have very strict limits in applying this law, and would not be able to use it to ban other products from being sold to individuals. They may institute a similar requirement for the new marijuana regulations, but that will have to be a separate matter.

  4. Comparing US Courts to Nazi's is bad, but not as bad as comparing people with a criminal record to Jewish people. If you have evidence other than "the people made a law, the courts enforced it, and now we're in Nazi Germany" please present it.

  5. If your BAC is over the limit you shouldn't be driving. Period. It doesn't matter if it was from last night, if your BAC is 0.08 the next morning after a night of drinking, you should not be driving. It's the same as any other chemical affect on your body, if you are "tipsy" or "buzzed" or "drunkover" you should not be driving. Seriously dude, don't get on the road, people get in accidents completely sober, why even introduce the possibility for injuring/killing yourself/others.

  6. It does not affect the relatives of the person with the red-stripe, outside of maybe needing to bum a ride. This argument is getting stretched. Those arguments sound like bullshit, because they are, and have no bearing on the reality and limits of this law. I'll take your line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion: we shouldn't have laws against crime because the people who commit those crimes might get offended.

  7. You are paranoid, they also didn't regulate airbags, seatbelts, or any of the thousands of safety devices we have put in place since the 60's that have saved countless lives.

  8. It requires 2 DUI's and if you're driving with alcohol on your breath and they find you have a BAC above 0.08 you SHOULD NOT BE ON THE ROAD. It doesn't matter if "you're driving totally safe" because it's about more than just all the times you didn't get into a fatal accident.

  9. You should really read Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. He does a great job of showing how our ability to intuitively predict statistics is completely flawed. This is highlighted by your lack of understanding that driving drunk/buzzed means you are unlikely to be in an accident, or that if you've been in an accident while drunk driving, that you're unlikely to be in another while drunk driving.
u/joejance · 1 pointr/snowboarding

I recently read The Rise of Superman: Decoding the Science of Ultimate Human Performance, which covers a lot of the neuroscience around this type of flow state. It also has a number of awesome stories about 'extreme' athletes including a number of names you will probably recognize.

Edit: Also you might finding Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow interesting. It talks about how flow state happens in what is often referred to as System 1, which is your intuitive, 'non-thinking' state.

I highly recommend both books.

Edit 2: Here is the Wikipedia article about Dual process theory. The idea is that flow mostly happens in process or system 1, which is stuff you are good at. In snowboarding speak, if you already have a ton of experience making turns and handling steep terrain then you may head into flow state when you head down a chute, when you 'quit thinking and start doing'.

u/WalksOnLego · 1 pointr/Bitcoin

Short answer:

> "People want an authority to tell them how to value things, but they choose this authority not based on facts or results, they choose it because it seems authoritative and familiar." - Michael Burry; The Big Short.

> Why don't any of the people around us understand bitcoin? Why do they ignore it? Why do they refuse to look below the surface?

Because critical thinking consumes energy, and is not pleasant. Whenever we learn new things we have to fire up parts of the brain that we don't use as often.

For example: Learning to drive a car is a stressful and unpleasant time because your brain is fired up learning all the new skills, at once. After a few years you can drive without even thinking.

It's called Fast Thinking and Slow Thinking, slow thinking being when you are learning new skills, material, ideas etc., and fast thinking when you can do things automatically.

In short: People, all of us, don't like to think slow.

Long answer:

There's a book on the subject Thinking, Fast and Slow by Deniel Kahneman

> Major New York Times bestseller
> Winner of the National Academy of Sciences Best Book Award in 2012
> Selected by the New York Times Book Review as one of the ten best books of 2011
> A Globe and Mail Best Books of the Year 2011 Title
> One of The Economist's 2011 Books of the Year
> One of The Wall Street Journal's Best Nonfiction Books of the Year 2011
> 2013 Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient
> Kahneman's work with Amos Tversky is the subject of Michael Lewis's The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds

> In the international bestseller, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, the renowned psychologist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, takes us on a groundbreaking tour of the mind and explains the two systems that drive the way we think. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and emotional; System 2 is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. The impact of overconfidence on corporate strategies, the difficulties of predicting what will make us happy in the future, the profound effect of cognitive biases on everything from playing the stock market to planning our next vacation―each of these can be understood only by knowing how the two systems shape our judgments and decisions.

> Engaging the reader in a lively conversation about how we think, Kahneman reveals where we can and cannot trust our intuitions and how we can tap into the benefits of slow thinking. He offers practical and enlightening insights into how choices are made in both our business and our personal lives―and how we can use different techniques to guard against the mental glitches that often get us into trouble. Winner of the National Academy of Sciences Best Book Award and the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and selected by The New York Times Book Review as one of the ten best books of 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow is destined to be a classic.

u/mbrezu · 1 pointr/socialskills

I can relate to your problem, I have it too.

Let me describe what I'm trying these days: remind yourself that you don't really perceive reality, you live in a story that's partly based on what you experience and partly based on what you imagine or infer (and it's not always obvious which is which, and everything is seasoned with a lot of bias). This is true for everyone, actually. So any conversation is actually an intersection of the stories we live in. Everyone thinks their story is 'real', and if people with diverging 'stories' meet they have to work a little in order to avoid a fight. Remembering that your story is just a story, not the ultimate reality and the other person also lives in a story that's different helps. Trying to understand the other person's story and how absolute their belief in it is also helps.

Sorry if this little rant is unclear/obvious/generic/useless.

Take a look at http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555 to get a feel of how biased we are if you don't believe me :-)

u/doodhmaester · 1 pointr/Futurology

Sports + tracking could be a big one. Companies like Opta employ huge amounts of labor to track and monitor soccer games, where trackers manually inspect games to curate a set of statistics (touches, passes etc.) Of course, this would need a complimentary device (not a phone) to establish the relationship between a player and a ball (sensor would be inside), but that somewhat depends on how this device is implemented; does it use Bluetooth, NFC or RFID?

Another use could be to detect absence/presence for events, offices and classrooms. And then if you can sync it up with Apple/Android pay, and if these sensors become really cheap, then people could buy things by simply picking them up and tapping a button on the sensor. And once the sensor on the item syncs with the device to confirm payment, you could detach the sensor and put it in a discard box to make these sensors reusable!

Personally, just having a log of things/objects you use each day would be incredible -- similar to Google's timeline feature, it can allow us to relive memories in a richer way as our memory fetching models are very context-heavy (Thinking, Fast and Slow). This log could also potentially be incorporated in an AI model (like Siri's or Google's), so that your home could be more intelligently automated, as you'll probably have patterns to things you do everyday.

u/anthonynagid · 1 pointr/piano

People will adjust their expectations for your level which they will intuitively sense right away. What ever extreme judgements exist among the audience the majority statistcally will be of the moderate range with the base line being derived from that immediate intuition of your level.

This is my opinion after reading Thinking Fast and Slow.

u/hydrox24 · 1 pointr/YouShouldKnow

A Link to the Amazon page for the book.

u/honeybadger-IAN · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Daniel Kahneman wrote an excellent book called Thinking, Fast and Slow, which deals with this very issue.

Kahneman purports that the human mind operates according to two distinct systems. One is fast: instinctive, automatic, habitual, subconscious. The other is slow: deliberate, takes effort, concentrated. Some things we do instinctively or subconsciously because that is what it means to be a living human: breathing, for example. Some things we do instinctively because we have done them so many times that concentrated effort, though possible, is deemed unnecessary by our minds. When our minds determines that concentrated effort is not required, we begin to operate without thinking. This is the difference between driving home, which you've done many times, and driving to an unfamiliar destination.

These are the basics of what Kahneman explains far more brilliantly in his book, which I highly recommend.

Please correct any contextual errors :)

u/Ethereum_dapps · 1 pointr/Bitcoin

I'll add it to my list. Might have to read it after https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

which seems pretty similar as well.

u/pastanomics · 1 pointr/books

Free your tastes from the cage of other people's opinions and pretensions. Try young adult fiction like Harry Potter and trashy romance novels. Try anything by E.L. Doctorow. Or try some nonfiction. Anything by Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker...


u/Beanyurza · 1 pointr/ZenHabits

Not sure if I agree with everything this article is saying or even if it is possible to "know" your subconscious. Biases "bubble up" from your subconscious that your conscious hardly ever notices. Unless your spending a gigantic amount of time rooting out and finding biases, your subconscious runs you and your conscious doesn't even notice. Source: Thinking Fast and Slow.

u/Mosetsfire84 · 1 pointr/AdviceAnimals

I recommend reading http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555 to all of you.

"The Nobel economist points out that “in a predictable world, the stronger CEO would be found to lead the more successful firm 100% of the time.” In a world in which random external factors determine success, the more successful firms would be led by stronger CEOs only 50% of the time. In other words, the effect of top talent might be said to be random. In reality, stronger CEOs lead stronger companies only 60% of the time."

u/RippinNTearin · 1 pointr/videos

Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman is a fantastic book about the two systems of thinking if you are interested in learning more.

u/Redegar · 1 pointr/italy

A chi è interessato consiglio questo libro, se non sbaglio contiene anche il quesito proposto nell'articolo!

u/bokabo · 1 pointr/Economics


Decades of research psychology. Most fameously Taversky and Kahneman.

Also, if we were roughly rational we wouldn't need behavioral economics. And advertising wouldn't be effective.

u/xxtoejamfootballxx · 1 pointr/politics

No problem man, if you like stuff like this I'd recommend these books:

Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely

Thinking Fast And Slow by Daniel Kahneman

The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg

The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz

Behavior Economics is one of my favorite subject and these books are all enjoyable, informative on the subject and relatable. Def worth a read.

u/tkms · 0 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

> (very logical intuitive) conclusions

FTFY. This is not to discount the rest of your post (I'm not addressing it), but just because something feels correct intuitively doesn't mean it is, and in this case I seriously doubt the people who came to this conclusion applied any strenuous mental arithmetic (logic/reason) to arrive at it. Rather, they applied some general heuristic and drew a conclusion from associations they'd previously made. This is why pieces of legislation are cleverly named with hard-to-oppose or hard-to-discuss names -- because such names cause people to make intuitive conclusions about it before applying any reason, and make opposition to it sound awful.

The Patriot Act, Affordable Care Act, No Child Left Behind -- opposition to any of these things, whatever the basis, triggers an intuitive conclusion in others based on the name and stated purpose of the piece of legislation. Someone opposing The Patriot Act for whatever reasons would just be seen as "wanting the terrorists to win". Someone opposing No Child Left Behind, for whatever issues they have with it, would be seen as "hating child education".

Someone opposing Affirmative Action would be seen as "being racist", but that's an intuitive conclusion which comes before you apply reasoning and investigate whether racial motivations have anything to do with it. And that's very much not logical.

I have to give thanks to Daniel Kahneman's research on human decision making for making me aware of these distinctions, and apologize to him for butchering it as I relay some of the concepts. He would call this intuitive, heuristic style of thinking "system 1 thinking", and slow mental arithmetic & reason "system 2 thinking".

u/ucstruct · 0 pointsr/science

A really great book describing essentially these two systems is Thinking fast and slow by the psychologist Daniel Kahneman.

u/allz · 0 pointsr/Suomi

> Totesin vain että uskova ei ole täysin rationaalinen ihminen, joten hänen rationaalisuutensa kokonaisuutena on hyvä kyseenalaistaa.

On varmaan ihan hyvä kyseenalaistaa ihan kenen tahansa rationaalisuus, jos haetaan tyyppiä jonka ajatukset perustuvat ainoastaan kovaan päättelyyn ja faktoihin, sillä aikamoisilla arvailuilla tämä meidän pääkoppa toimii. Kirjallisuudeksi aiheesta suosittelen Daniel Kahnemanin kirjaa Thinkin, Fast and Slow, se on rahan ja ajan arvoinen teos.

> En tosin ymmärrä miten epärationaalisuus auttaa ymmärtämään muita ja itseään.

Ei usko näitä kahta poiskaan sulje. Toisten ymmärtämiseen riittää mullaisille ajatuksille altistuminen, mikä Suomessa kyllä tapahtuu luonnostaan kunhan ei eristäydy muusta maailmasta (mitä kyllä esiintyy, mutta ei ole yleistettävissä valtaosaan uskovista).

Toisaalta itsensä ymmärtämiseen ja yhtenäiseen maailmankuvaan juuri oman maailmankatsomuksen työstäminen ja opiskelu on hyödyllistä. Jos esimerkiksi tuon jutun nainen olisi ollut johdonmukainen ja oppinut kristitty, ei ennustajaeukko olisi voinut likaisuudella ihan kauheana pelotella saati myydä puhdistusta korkeaan hintaan. Tässä eräs tutkimus aiheen tiimoilta.

u/contrarianism · -1 pointsr/Conservative

> the reason for this is that only idiots respond to emotional stimulus

Wow you are ill-informed my friend. Trying reading this to upgrade your thinking.