You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

gjm comments on Link: Re-reading Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow - Less Wrong Discussion

11 Post author: toomanymetas 04 July 2016 06:32AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (9)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Elo 04 July 2016 06:41:48AM -2 points [-]

All the above points are minor in themselves. But together the shaky science, overconfidence and lazy storytelling add up to something substantial.

I disagree. I admit that Ariely and Kahneman may exaggerate or bend reality when they talk about the final results they found. So did the famous "robbers cave experiment" so did Mendel and his Pea counting.

The important part is that when you strip back the over-the-top rhetoric you still have a truthful valid point. Mendelian genetics and his punnet square tools are still used today. Even if he had to lie for the scientists at the time to take him seriously and accept the Submissions of his theory.

Comment author: toomanymetas 04 July 2016 11:34:46AM 1 point [-]

What truthful valid point? System 1 / 2 distinction?

Comment author: Elo 05 July 2016 01:51:50AM -2 points [-]

Ariely's work on encouraging/discouraging cheating. Generally "it can be done" and "you should be careful to understand the system in which cheating occurs". (most of: analyse the incentives to do the right/wrong thing)

Kahnemann on s1/s2 on which many following concepts are built.