6 ms·

A Bitter Ending

142 points by Hooke 10y ago

chrisherd 10y ago
The article reads better than the book, which is unfortunate because all of Michael Lewis' work has been fascinating.
- stablemap 10y ago
  It's focused on the resulting economics but I've heard great things about the book Misbehaving by Thaler. The remarks under "Outtakes" here give some context: http://www.misbehavingbook.org http://www.misbehavingbook.org
  - ccmonnett 10y ago
    I'm reading this now and enjoy it very much, it's a very fast read by economics book standards. That is, though, because it's not dense with theory for better and for worse. If your expectations are "reasonably entertaining book that's reasonably informative" and you're remotely interested in econ or behavior, it really hits the spot.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Agreed. I found it particularly interesting because I had Thaler as a professor at Cornell just as the field was developing. I took a course with him and another professor called Behavioral Decision Theory that was an early attempt to teach some of the irrational approaches that people actually use to make decisions.
- criddell 10y ago
  That's a bummer. I've enjoyed Lewis' books and was planning on reading this one as well.
jhoechtl 10y ago
It leaves a bit the impression of Amos being a rather unpleasant power-hungry person, letting no one beside him come up. Was he known for being supporive to his students even when they challenged him?
- mcguire 10y ago
  I don't know about that, or about the conflict between Amos and Danny, but "Amos wrote an article, addressed directly to economists, to repair technical flaws in prospect theory. "Advances in Prospect Theory," it was called, and though Amos did much of the work on it with his graduate student Rich Gonzalez, it ran as a journal article by Danny and Amos. "Amos said that it had always been Kahneman and Tversky, and that this had to be Kahneman and Tversky, and that it would be really strange to add a third person to it," said Gonzalez." ...would piss the crap out of me, if I were the student. Edit: Reading more about them,my perception is that Amos was like the "rock star" programmer who can do great things, but who is impossible to work with.
  - joericky233223 10y ago
    The rockstar programmers I am aware of are the nicest people for collaboration (Guido van rossum, Jeff dean, John carmack. Propably computer scientists are the one you are thinking of.
  - zevets 10y ago
    Academia brings out the worst in people. It is a culture where the primary reward is ego, and this article is a testament to its noxious power. Amos not crediting his student is unforgivable.
    - abrax3141 10y ago
      Um. Can you say "Self refuting flame?!"
      - zasz 10y ago
        No, because he's rebuking Tversky and not talking himself up at all.
mcguire 10y ago
"At a conference back in the early 1970s, Danny was introduced to a prominent philosopher named Max Black and tried to explain to the great man his work with Amos. "I’m not interested in the psychology of stupid people," said Black, and walked away."
- justicezyx 10y ago
  In that response, Mr. Black proved their research. In this case, I think it's the auto-system in charge (cannot remember it's I or II).
tsunamifury 10y ago
I had a chance to talk to Danny about two years ago in Berkeley. I had randomly run into him at an event a friend hosted. We chatted briefly and I asked him one question: "Your research deconstructed the way I think, both instinctually and logically, leaving me with very little basis to make judgements. How would you propose we make decisions." He responded after sighing a bit empathetically, "I'm not sure, but I think you should just constantly ask your friends and keep talking with people about your decisions." I thought this was a great bit of wisdom that I keep at heart. I've noticed that people who isolate their decision making, esp in critical scenarios, more often than not make bad choices. He highlighted that diversity of friends, constant networked thinking, and the humility to take feedback are the real keys to overcoming the pitfalls his work highlights. He didn't say you had to take their feedback exactly, or always change your mind -- just keep talking about it though.
- dharmon 10y ago
  This is a useful insight, but with caveats. As an investor, my livelihood depends on my ability to consistently make sound decisions. And fortunately, decisions are not set in stone, so I have opportunities to negate poor ones. I have thought a lot about how to improve my decision-making. One is what you are talking about, sharing my decisions and thought processes with others. An obvious conclusion (to me) is that doing so on the internet is horrible, as there is no real ability to filter opinions on my part, with no background knowledge of those giving feedback. Yet they can still sow seeds of self-doubt. But even talking with friends can be tricky, as you have to account for their backgrounds and biases. Sometimes it's easy. For example, if I'm looking at real estate, something I know little about, I would heavily count the thoughts of my friend who is a REIT analyst. Other times it is not clear how much to weight their opinion. A Bayesian approach seems to work here. Another idea which I find as effective, if not more, is constantly turning the decision over in my own mind. I am not the same person I was yesterday. My thought processes in the morning, after a cup of coffee, are different than Friday evening, after a few beers. It is definitely different after a period where the market is up ("I'm an invincible genius!") vs. down ("I'm a moron! Maybe I should go back to writing code...") By revisiting over a span of time, you can gather new insights solely based on where your head is at any given time. And at the end of the day, you have to honestly evaluate the results of your decisions. If I discount the opinions of others and follow my own intuition, but consistently lose money, then well, I should revisit some part of the process. Surprisingly many are unable (unwilling?) to do this.
joericky233223 10y ago
Moral of the story: Nicer person lives longer and bullish people get cancer.
- dang 10y ago
  Please don't post snarky, reductive dismissals to Hacker News. We're hoping for a higher standard of discussion here.
- HillaryBriss 10y ago
  i've also heard the opposite: cancer is nearly an occupational hazard of (people who've historically been named) saints. i have zero research to back that up though.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    The ability of the human mind to find patterns where there are none is exactly the thing Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky wrote about...
joericky233223 10y ago
There is no mention of the conflict in "Thinking fast and thinking slow". This is really shocking.
mherrmann 10y ago
Kahneman summarises his and Amos's findings in the book "Thinking fast and slow" [1]. It's a fascinating tour of their discoveries. I'm not normally interested in psychology. But this book is awesome. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374533555/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0374533555&linkCode=as2&tag=mherrmann-20&linkId=b7b110d61223b9f9720708ac77ff3c77 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374533555/ref=as_li_tl?ie...
participant71 10y ago
Well, what happened between Amos and Danny in the months before Amos's death?
i336_ 10y ago
That was an awesome article to read, but it's missing one thing: examples of their work! Is there anywhere online that presents an overview of their arguments and theories?
- s_p_lee 10y ago
  Mentioned elsewhere in these comments is Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking, Fast and Slow." It's a great read and full of concrete examples.
  - i336_ 10y ago
    Okay, thanks!
karmakaze 10y ago
"Amos was perplexed by their inability to admit defeat... He wanted to find something to shut people up. Which of course you can never do." Not central to the story but a very good thing to always keep in mind.

A Bitter Ending

142 points by Hooke 10y ago

chrisherd 10y ago

The article reads better than the book, which is unfortunate because all of Michael Lewis' work has been fascinating.

stablemap 10y ago
It's focused on the resulting economics but I've heard great things about the book Misbehaving by Thaler. The remarks under "Outtakes" here give some context: http://www.misbehavingbook.org http://www.misbehavingbook.org
- ccmonnett 10y ago
  I'm reading this now and enjoy it very much, it's a very fast read by economics book standards. That is, though, because it's not dense with theory for better and for worse. If your expectations are "reasonably entertaining book that's reasonably informative" and you're remotely interested in econ or behavior, it really hits the spot.
- ghaff 10y ago
  Agreed. I found it particularly interesting because I had Thaler as a professor at Cornell just as the field was developing. I took a course with him and another professor called Behavioral Decision Theory that was an early attempt to teach some of the irrational approaches that people actually use to make decisions.
criddell 10y ago
That's a bummer. I've enjoyed Lewis' books and was planning on reading this one as well.

jhoechtl 10y ago

It leaves a bit the impression of Amos being a rather unpleasant power-hungry person, letting no one beside him come up. Was he known for being supporive to his students even when they challenged him?

mcguire 10y ago
I don't know about that, or about the conflict between Amos and Danny, but "Amos wrote an article, addressed directly to economists, to repair technical flaws in prospect theory. "Advances in Prospect Theory," it was called, and though Amos did much of the work on it with his graduate student Rich Gonzalez, it ran as a journal article by Danny and Amos. "Amos said that it had always been Kahneman and Tversky, and that this had to be Kahneman and Tversky, and that it would be really strange to add a third person to it," said Gonzalez." ...would piss the crap out of me, if I were the student. Edit: Reading more about them,my perception is that Amos was like the "rock star" programmer who can do great things, but who is impossible to work with.
- joericky233223 10y ago
  The rockstar programmers I am aware of are the nicest people for collaboration (Guido van rossum, Jeff dean, John carmack. Propably computer scientists are the one you are thinking of.
- zevets 10y ago
  Academia brings out the worst in people. It is a culture where the primary reward is ego, and this article is a testament to its noxious power. Amos not crediting his student is unforgivable.
  - abrax3141 10y ago
    Um. Can you say "Self refuting flame?!"
    - zasz 10y ago
      No, because he's rebuking Tversky and not talking himself up at all.

mcguire 10y ago

"At a conference back in the early 1970s, Danny was introduced to a prominent philosopher named Max Black and tried to explain to the great man his work with Amos. "I’m not interested in the psychology of stupid people," said Black, and walked away."

justicezyx 10y ago
In that response, Mr. Black proved their research. In this case, I think it's the auto-system in charge (cannot remember it's I or II).

tsunamifury 10y ago

I had a chance to talk to Danny about two years ago in Berkeley. I had randomly run into him at an event a friend hosted. We chatted briefly and I asked him one question: "Your research deconstructed the way I think, both instinctually and logically, leaving me with very little basis to make judgements. How would you propose we make decisions." He responded after sighing a bit empathetically, "I'm not sure, but I think you should just constantly ask your friends and keep talking with people about your decisions." I thought this was a great bit of wisdom that I keep at heart. I've noticed that people who isolate their decision making, esp in critical scenarios, more often than not make bad choices. He highlighted that diversity of friends, constant networked thinking, and the humility to take feedback are the real keys to overcoming the pitfalls his work highlights. He didn't say you had to take their feedback exactly, or always change your mind -- just keep talking about it though.

dharmon 10y ago
This is a useful insight, but with caveats. As an investor, my livelihood depends on my ability to consistently make sound decisions. And fortunately, decisions are not set in stone, so I have opportunities to negate poor ones. I have thought a lot about how to improve my decision-making. One is what you are talking about, sharing my decisions and thought processes with others. An obvious conclusion (to me) is that doing so on the internet is horrible, as there is no real ability to filter opinions on my part, with no background knowledge of those giving feedback. Yet they can still sow seeds of self-doubt. But even talking with friends can be tricky, as you have to account for their backgrounds and biases. Sometimes it's easy. For example, if I'm looking at real estate, something I know little about, I would heavily count the thoughts of my friend who is a REIT analyst. Other times it is not clear how much to weight their opinion. A Bayesian approach seems to work here. Another idea which I find as effective, if not more, is constantly turning the decision over in my own mind. I am not the same person I was yesterday. My thought processes in the morning, after a cup of coffee, are different than Friday evening, after a few beers. It is definitely different after a period where the market is up ("I'm an invincible genius!") vs. down ("I'm a moron! Maybe I should go back to writing code...") By revisiting over a span of time, you can gather new insights solely based on where your head is at any given time. And at the end of the day, you have to honestly evaluate the results of your decisions. If I discount the opinions of others and follow my own intuition, but consistently lose money, then well, I should revisit some part of the process. Surprisingly many are unable (unwilling?) to do this.

joericky233223 10y ago

Moral of the story: Nicer person lives longer and bullish people get cancer.

dang 10y ago
Please don't post snarky, reductive dismissals to Hacker News. We're hoping for a higher standard of discussion here.
HillaryBriss 10y ago
i've also heard the opposite: cancer is nearly an occupational hazard of (people who've historically been named) saints. i have zero research to back that up though.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  The ability of the human mind to find patterns where there are none is exactly the thing Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky wrote about...

joericky233223 10y ago

There is no mention of the conflict in "Thinking fast and thinking slow". This is really shocking.

mherrmann 10y ago

Kahneman summarises his and Amos's findings in the book "Thinking fast and slow" [1]. It's a fascinating tour of their discoveries. I'm not normally interested in psychology. But this book is awesome. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374533555/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0374533555&linkCode=as2&tag=mherrmann-20&linkId=b7b110d61223b9f9720708ac77ff3c77 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374533555/ref=as_li_tl?ie...

participant71 10y ago

Well, what happened between Amos and Danny in the months before Amos's death?

i336_ 10y ago

That was an awesome article to read, but it's missing one thing: examples of their work! Is there anywhere online that presents an overview of their arguments and theories?

s_p_lee 10y ago
Mentioned elsewhere in these comments is Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking, Fast and Slow." It's a great read and full of concrete examples.
- i336_ 10y ago
  Okay, thanks!

karmakaze 10y ago

"Amos was perplexed by their inability to admit defeat... He wanted to find something to shut people up. Which of course you can never do." Not central to the story but a very good thing to always keep in mind.