Maybe that is a generalization. At least I should probably do that. Not sure about every individual who reads that.
I refer to Nobel prinz winner in Economics Daniel Kahneman. Many scientists talk about him and his work. At least at my college. I am unable to summarize it adequatly. I search for some links online.
Here is a good summary. I am not sure how good the reputation of that website is though.
fourminutebooks.com
"Lesson 1: Your behavior is determined by 2 systems in your mind – one conscious and the other automatic."
"System 1 is automatic and impulsive.
It's the system you use when someone sketchy enters the train and you instinctively turn towards the door and what makes you eat the entire bag of chips in front of the TV when you just wanted to have a small bowl.
System 1 is a remnant from our past, and it's crucial to our survival. Not having to think before jumping away from a car when it honks at you is quite useful, don't you think?"
"System 2 is very conscious, aware and considerate.
It helps you exert self-control and deliberately focus your attention. This system is at work when you're meeting a friend and trying to spot them in a huge crowd of people, as it helps you recall how they look and filter out all these other people.
System 2 is one of the most 'recent' additions to our brain and only a few thousand years old. It's what helps us succeed in today's world, where our priorities have shifted from getting food and shelter to earning money, supporting a family and making many complex decisions.
However, these 2 systems don't just perfectly alternate or work together. They often fight over who's in charge and this conflict determines how you act and behave."
"Lesson 2: Your brain is lazy and causes you to make intellectual errors."
But sometimes your brain perceives problems as simpler as they actually are. System 1 thinks it can handle it, even though it actually can't, and you end up making a mistake.
Why does your brain do this? Just as with habits, it wants to save energy. The law of least effort states that your brain uses the minimum amount of energy for each task it can get away with.
"Lesson 3: When you're making decisions about money, leave your emotions at home."
my remark: Humans are often less rational than they think. We are often not aware about biases. For example the loss aversion bias.
"The reason has to do with loss aversion. We're a lot more afraid to lose what we already have, as we are keen on getting more."
My personal remarks:
I am always anxious as fuck. Now for example because I quoted so much without adding any value. Though I doubt anyone will sue me. I am not in a good mood currently I am extremely anxious but that is not the topic. Why do I think about that? I read about Kahneman and heard professors talk about him. In the past many believed in the homo economicus. Individuals would act fully rationally for example when they buy a car. He could fully debunk that. It is seldom a psychologist wins the noble prize for economy though it was like a revolution a completely new paradigm that he could prove. I am curious about biases and I often try to be aware about my own pathologies. Many people consider me self-aware, intelligent and reflective. Though this one physics professors considered me ignorant, biased and arrogant (in overestimating my abilities.) I am thinking way too much about him which is probably a pathology of mine. Though he was extremely annoyed by my behavior wanting to predict things and making bold assumptions on things I don't have much knowledge about. I think he alluded the way I think would be similar to system of 1 described by Kahneman. I am interested how much I really think with system 1. I think I have a bias or pathology of predicting my future. I think that is survival mechanism of mine because I am an extreme control freak who experiened nightmarish shit in the past.
Off-topic:
I know I think way too much about him but I had the feeling he is one of the few people who really saw through my charade and considered me an impostor. Though even that is another bold claim due to the fact I am just analyzing his mind without having had access to it nor do I have studied a subject close to psychoanalytics. So he considered me very annoying. He got really angry but did not try to show it. When we had group therapy I opened up about my mental pain. He realized that I am going through hell and that I expect to kill myself. The next day he worried about me. When we had breakfast he told me he slept pretty bad and wanted an honest answer from me how I am feeling. I just gave the answer I am doing fine prior to that. Here comes the irony. He made the claim that the expectation of my suicide was solely based on inter-subjectivity. He really used that word when he described my situation. The truth is to that time point two therapists already had given up on me. They considered me an hopeless case who kills himself. But I did not reply that because I don't want that any innocent people sleep bad because of me. I liked him (for some reasons) though he disliked me. The statement about inter-subjectivity was clearly influenced by the desire to feel less bad about my fate. But I did not answer that. Moreover I noticed a thinking fallacy of him once and he looked very angry at me after I pointed it out. When he left the clinic I complimented him and he more or less insulted me. Lol. Yeah I should conclude from that that intelligence is not always equal to friendliness.
I know I did not contribute that much to the topic. Rather my annoying pathology to think about this guy. I could add some remarks on Kahneman but I am incompetent as fuck anyway. And this thread is insanely long anyway. But I hope the summary is at least good for educational purposes.
I refer to Nobel prinz winner in Economics Daniel Kahneman. Many scientists talk about him and his work. At least at my college. I am unable to summarize it adequatly. I search for some links online.
Here is a good summary. I am not sure how good the reputation of that website is though.
Thinking Fast and Slow Summary (Daniel Kahneman) | 4 Minutes
Read our summary of Thinking Fast and Slow by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman to master the 2 systems in your mind and think better.
fourminutebooks.com
"Lesson 1: Your behavior is determined by 2 systems in your mind – one conscious and the other automatic."
"System 1 is automatic and impulsive.
It's the system you use when someone sketchy enters the train and you instinctively turn towards the door and what makes you eat the entire bag of chips in front of the TV when you just wanted to have a small bowl.
System 1 is a remnant from our past, and it's crucial to our survival. Not having to think before jumping away from a car when it honks at you is quite useful, don't you think?"
"System 2 is very conscious, aware and considerate.
It helps you exert self-control and deliberately focus your attention. This system is at work when you're meeting a friend and trying to spot them in a huge crowd of people, as it helps you recall how they look and filter out all these other people.
System 2 is one of the most 'recent' additions to our brain and only a few thousand years old. It's what helps us succeed in today's world, where our priorities have shifted from getting food and shelter to earning money, supporting a family and making many complex decisions.
However, these 2 systems don't just perfectly alternate or work together. They often fight over who's in charge and this conflict determines how you act and behave."
"Lesson 2: Your brain is lazy and causes you to make intellectual errors."
But sometimes your brain perceives problems as simpler as they actually are. System 1 thinks it can handle it, even though it actually can't, and you end up making a mistake.
Why does your brain do this? Just as with habits, it wants to save energy. The law of least effort states that your brain uses the minimum amount of energy for each task it can get away with.
"Lesson 3: When you're making decisions about money, leave your emotions at home."
my remark: Humans are often less rational than they think. We are often not aware about biases. For example the loss aversion bias.
"The reason has to do with loss aversion. We're a lot more afraid to lose what we already have, as we are keen on getting more."
My personal remarks:
I am always anxious as fuck. Now for example because I quoted so much without adding any value. Though I doubt anyone will sue me. I am not in a good mood currently I am extremely anxious but that is not the topic. Why do I think about that? I read about Kahneman and heard professors talk about him. In the past many believed in the homo economicus. Individuals would act fully rationally for example when they buy a car. He could fully debunk that. It is seldom a psychologist wins the noble prize for economy though it was like a revolution a completely new paradigm that he could prove. I am curious about biases and I often try to be aware about my own pathologies. Many people consider me self-aware, intelligent and reflective. Though this one physics professors considered me ignorant, biased and arrogant (in overestimating my abilities.) I am thinking way too much about him which is probably a pathology of mine. Though he was extremely annoyed by my behavior wanting to predict things and making bold assumptions on things I don't have much knowledge about. I think he alluded the way I think would be similar to system of 1 described by Kahneman. I am interested how much I really think with system 1. I think I have a bias or pathology of predicting my future. I think that is survival mechanism of mine because I am an extreme control freak who experiened nightmarish shit in the past.
Off-topic:
I know I think way too much about him but I had the feeling he is one of the few people who really saw through my charade and considered me an impostor. Though even that is another bold claim due to the fact I am just analyzing his mind without having had access to it nor do I have studied a subject close to psychoanalytics. So he considered me very annoying. He got really angry but did not try to show it. When we had group therapy I opened up about my mental pain. He realized that I am going through hell and that I expect to kill myself. The next day he worried about me. When we had breakfast he told me he slept pretty bad and wanted an honest answer from me how I am feeling. I just gave the answer I am doing fine prior to that. Here comes the irony. He made the claim that the expectation of my suicide was solely based on inter-subjectivity. He really used that word when he described my situation. The truth is to that time point two therapists already had given up on me. They considered me an hopeless case who kills himself. But I did not reply that because I don't want that any innocent people sleep bad because of me. I liked him (for some reasons) though he disliked me. The statement about inter-subjectivity was clearly influenced by the desire to feel less bad about my fate. But I did not answer that. Moreover I noticed a thinking fallacy of him once and he looked very angry at me after I pointed it out. When he left the clinic I complimented him and he more or less insulted me. Lol. Yeah I should conclude from that that intelligence is not always equal to friendliness.
I know I did not contribute that much to the topic. Rather my annoying pathology to think about this guy. I could add some remarks on Kahneman but I am incompetent as fuck anyway. And this thread is insanely long anyway. But I hope the summary is at least good for educational purposes.
Last edited:
