5 ms·
Daniel wrote one of my favorite books, Thinking: Fast and Slow (https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637/ https://www.amazon.com/
by SeanAnderson 1y ago
Daniel wrote one of my favorite books, Thinking: Fast and Slow (https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637/ https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp...). If you haven't read it, and you're into economics, behavioral psychology, and thinking about thinking then I'd highly recommend it. The first half of the book is especially compelling.
You will be missed! Sad to hear he passed, but glad he was able to go out on his own terms.
- kqr 1y agoHis next big book, Noise, is possibly even better.
- xpe 1y ago[flagged]
- xpe 1y ago[flagged]
- bogeholm 1y ago[flagged]
- xpe 1y ago[flagged]
- mkagenius 1y agoI literally thought some unpublished book. But you shouldn't have doubled down on 'next'. Your first para was enough.
- xpe 1y ago[flagged]
- lazyasciiart 1y ago> this all-too-common tendency for people to think "the way I see things is obvious and/or definitive“ You are an excellent poster child for this tendency in this thread.
- croes 1y agoDoes it matter if it’s existing or upcoming? People who interested will search gor it and see if it’s already available. So beside pedantic it’s unnecessary.
- xpe 1y agoI'll answer in various frames: - product development: why make someone "do one extra click" when you can make the extra click unnecessary? - writing: respect your audience's time. - humility: take one minute of your time to save other's time. - databases: optimize for reading not writing
- croes 1y agoWould the extra click really be unnecessary? The ones who don’t care about the book don‘t click anyway. The ones who are interested click no matter if it’s an upcoming or already existing book.
- xpe 1y agoTwo things, in the spirit of answering your question and explaining myself. 1. The argument above is sound, but it overstretches my metaphor and sidesteps my point which is: "if there is negligible cost in helping a customer, do it." Stated another way: "if reducing ambiguity helps a customer and has negligible cost, do it." (If a one word change reduces some ambiguity for some people, that's an easy win. Copy-editors do this frequently.) 2. Another angle: broadly speaking, I'm asking the question "What is better?" not just "What is necessary?". The first motivates improvement, no matter where you are. While the latter can sometimes be pragmatic, too often aiming only for 'necessity' justifies the status quo.
- bajancherry 1y agoPinker calls it "curse of knowledge".
- jeffwass 1y agoThe sheer irony of your unwarranted pedantic critique of the usage of “next” is that all HN threaded comments, including yours, have a “next” link in their headers which clearly does NOT refer to unwritten future comments. Not sure why I bothered responding to a troll.
- xpe 1y ago[flagged]
- wizzwizz4 1y agoI'm reasonably sure this is not what happened, judging by my own recollection of when I have been tempted to write similar things, and my discussions with people who have written similar things. However, your story is both simple and coherent. It's much easier to point out others' alleged irrational thinking, but the main purpose of books like this is to help you better understand your own thinking.
- xpe 1y ago> It's much easier to point out others' alleged irrational thinking, but the main purpose of books like this is to help you better understand your own thinking. That sounds right. I only can make probabilistic guesses as to what is happening in someone else's brain. By posing a question to someone else, there is some chance that person may ask it of themselves. If not today, then perhaps in future.
- xpe 1y ago[flagged]
- dang 1y agoWould you please stop perpetuating flamewars and taking HN threads on generic tangents? You've been doing this a ton lately, it's not what this site is for, and the effects your posts have been having on the threads is regrettable. Also, please stop crossing into name-calling and personal attack, as you did here. jeffwass shouldn't have referred to you as "a troll" but there's no question that your posts have been having trollish effects in the threads, and this is actually what matters (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=troll%20effects%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). Here are another couple of recent examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45522090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45522090, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45522043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45522043. We need you to stop posting like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mcdonje 1y agoI disagree about "next". I wasn't confused by the original usage. "Next" is more associated with "subsequent" than "upcoming". The "future" component is contextually inferred. Probably nobody at all got confused by that word choice.
- xpe 1y ago> Probably nobody at all got confused by that word choice. This is overconfidence; e.g. it "it is clear to me, so it must have been clear to everyone else." Indeed, there is a person in this overall thread [1] saying the use of "next" was ambiguous: > I literally thought some unpublished book. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45548294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45548294
- mcdonje 1y agoOk, fine, probably someone will get confused about anything. It was made clear to everyone because of the word choice in context. If someone didn't get it then they didn't put two and two together. I looked up the word in a few different dictionaries and the top entry aligns more with "subsequent" in every one. You are wrong on this.
- xpe 1y agoYou seem quite interested in right versus wrong. I wonder if you will be intellectually honest if/when I reveal errors, mistakes, oversimplifications, and so on? > I looked up the word in a few different dictionaries and the top entry aligns more with "subsequent" in every one. Even if you had looked at every dictionary, would you claim such a process resolves ambiguity in general? I hope not. As you know, there are other entries other than the first in a dictionary. Multiple entries means there are multiple usages: there can be ambiguity. Sometimes usage diminishes or eliminates ambiguity, but not always. > I looked up the word in a few different dictionaries... You only took a small sample. How can you offer this as definitive evidence? You can't. In case you didn't check it or overlooked it, here is the first entry from the Apple Dictionary: > 1 (of a time or season) coming immediately after the time of writing or speaking: we'll go next year | next week's parade. Anyhow, my argument does not rely on pointing to a dictionary and saying "I'm right" and "you are wrong". I am saying: 1. Reasonable people see ambiguity (in this specific case and in general) 2. No one person is the arbiter of what is ambiguous for others. 3. Claiming there is a definitive process to resolve ambiguity for everyone is naive.
- dang 1y agoI'm sorry to pile on, since I just replied to you at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45560985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45560985, but this is such a bad case that I think two replies are warranted. You started and perpetuated a completely unnecessary flamewar here, and of all the offtopic things to do that about, someone's use of the word "next" is particularly superfluous. An isolated comment of that sort is forgivable, but perpetuating the flamewar and crossing into personal attack, as you did below, is not. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- iamacyborg 1y agoI really didn't get on with that one. Felt very much like a book that could have easily been shortened down to an essay and suffered for the additional length.
- randcraw 1y agoThe coauthors of Noise simply don't write as well as Kahneman did. The lack his focus and tight narrative thread.
- reddalo 1y agoI didn't even know he had died. I agree, Thinking: Fast and Slow is a great book.
- croes 1y agoSome of the things in the book have a reproducibility problem so it definitely would need an update
- xtracto 1y agoI had read so many raves about that book, and heard the author got a Nobel prize for his ideas, so I started reading it. I just could not digest it. I understood the words but I couldn't make whatever message he was trying to convey... it felt too "dense" for me. Maybe im just stupid, but I could not get past I think the first two chapters.
- guerrilla 1y agoThat's weird. I had the opposite reaction. The ideas were so obvious to me that I couldn't understand what all the hype was about.
- joomla199 1y agoIt’s largely a popsci book for poseurs. To wit: most of these people “into economics” haven’t read a word of Smith or Keynes. It’s best use is to be announced your favorite book among undistinguished company. Some people need such books. Such as those from Smith and Keynes.
- taejavu 1y agoSince you’re giving an edgy take in a thread discussing the death of a respected author, I’ll be pedantic: you’re wrong about those people not reading a word of Smith or Keynes, since it’s impossible to avoid reading at least one of their common quotations if you have even a passing interest in the field.
- 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- piskov 1y agoPart of the book has been swept up in the replication crisis facing psychology and the social sciences. It was discovered many prominent research findings were difficult or impossible for others to replicate, and thus the original findings were called into question. An analysis[51] of the studies cited in chapter 4, "The Associative Machine", found that their replicability index (R-index)[52] is 14, indicating essentially low to no reliability. Kahneman himself responded to the study in blog comments and acknowledged the chapter's shortcomings: "I placed too much faith in underpowered studies."[53] Others have noted the irony in the fact that Kahneman made a mistake in judgment similar to the ones he studied.[54] A later analysis[55] made a bolder claim that, despite Kahneman's previous contributions to the field of decision making, most of the book's ideas are based on 'scientific literature with shaky foundations'. A general lack of replication in the empirical studies cited in the book was given as a justification.