Daniel Kahneman (1934–2024)

Riddle me this:

"If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets"—100 minutes or 5 minutes (65)?

If you answered "100 minutes," you're not alone ... and you're dead wrong. Think about it. In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman explains why.

We have two types of thinking systems (thus, the title of the book). System one is intuitive and answers quickly. System two requires more thought and answers slowly. Both systems are valuable and show more necessary. Kahneman's spent his lifetime studying these systems and has developed and published many experiments over the years (including the one above) which exploit the flaws in our systems.

In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman helps us to recognize when our minds let us down (i.e. narrative fallacies, planning fallacies, WYSIATI, etc.) and gives us the tools to recognize our own errors.

This book is detailed, thorough, and absolutely fascinating. Kahneman walks the reader through many of the test scenarios he developed over the years. Even if you prepare yourself for the "trick" and try to answer correctly, human nature wins out. It's certainly a good dose of humility!

Many of these experiments were carried out with his friend and colleague, Amos Tversky, to whom the book is dedicated. The friendship between them and their mutual fascination with how the mind works makes this book on sociology border on memoir at times.

Read and be fascinated at your incredibly powerful and deeply flawed mind! show less

I was prompted to read this for the sole reason that it gets referenced in so many other books. It lived up to the expectation. Kahneman was a pioneer in the space where human psychology confounds traditional economic theory. Now he's a venerable storyteller about that same space. The main point of the book is that the human mind uses two systems of thinking. One is fast, instinctual, and automatic. The other is slow, logical, and conceptual. Much of our behavior and later evaluation of it show more can be described by how those two systems are used under varying amounts of time pressure. The book is comprised of thirty-eight short chapters covering key concepts like regression to the mean, illusions of validity, and the importance of framing when evaluating options. I found his coverage of prospect theory especially complete and understandable compared to other descriptions I've encountered. show less

The qualities of human nature described in Thinking, Fast and Slow are already known to all of us at some level. We are all taught in society to believe in the rational, thinking human being as distinct from his animal peers, yet as this book excellently details, there are plenty of ways in which our seemingly rational decisions can be bent and perverted by various forms of bias. Daniel Kahneman details these two seemingly incongruous facets of our nature as two 'distinct' halves: System 1 show more represents our autonomous, unthinking, reflex and subconscious reactions, whereas System 2 is that logical, calculating being we consider ourselves to be. Much of the relevant research covered in this volume was pioneered and conducted by Kahneman and his late colleague Amos Tversky, to whom this volume is dedicated.

At root, the interplay between System 1 and System 2 rests upon the fact that we are naturally adapted to choose the path of least resistance, i.e. we make decisions which require the least amount of effort. Whilst this does not necessarily mean that we (or our System 2s) are not making the decisions, it does sometimes result in our System 2s acting merely as auditors of the information being passed on by System 1. If that information appears to fit the facts, it is taken at face value, unchanged and unedited. As a result, this 'quick thinking' leads to errors and biases of which we are almost entirely unaware.

As a summary of decades of research, the book deals with a lot of extremely interesting aspects of these decision-making processes. Each of these is handled in turn and alone, although many of them are linked and could in some ways represent different impressions of the same phenomenon. For example, an issue known as 'anchoring' is investigated, a truly staggering anomaly in which a decision can be influenced by an entirely unrelated and random suggestion placed before us: Kahneman provides us with the example of a set of experienced judges whose sentencing decisions were seen to be tilted by the results of a dice roll.

There is a lot of ground to summarise within these pages, and Kahneman does an excellent job of presenting some fairly mundane experimental data in a way in which it becomes clear to the layman, how insightful and potent the results truly are. The first half of the book in particular is an extremely fluid read, the experimental data plays second fiddle to clear evaluations of both experiments and their results. Whilst some aspects are dealt with purely theoretically, others are highlighted in terms of their effect on certain people in society, and Kahneman makes no bones about pointing out the absurd decisions of stock brokers, businessmen, or even his own psychology students. Another nice feature of the book is that many of the chapters start with a little test which readers themselves can do, becoming a part of the experiments, easily the best way to highlight precisely how 'un-rational' our minds can truly function.

The overarching irony of this book is that it seems to want to prove one of the theories explored between its very covers, that of our 'experiencing' and 'remembering' selves. The evidence suggests that even if the vast majority of an experience was born with enjoyment, if the end was tainted, our memory of the positive experience will be overridden by the negative. Unfortunately, this book is guilty of the very same: it opens beautifully with some lucid and unhampered prose, plenty of example tests and real world extrapolations, occasional anecdotes and witty asides. Yet the latter half of the book feels like it was written by a different Kahneman or for a different reader; it is turgid, almost lethargic, sticky with academic language, no longer peppered with as many human insights, and devoid of example tests for the reader to take part in.

Despite this impression of it being a book of two halves, it is nevertheless highly recommendable to anyone with even a passing interest in psychology or the human mind. One needn't take away any lessons from the book's insights, but it would still be nice to think that by giving this book five stars, I'm successfully overcoming the biassed suggestions of System 1 and my 'remembering self', and basing my judgement on the rational observations of System 2 and my 'experiencing self'. Or perhaps I'm being swayed by some anchoring I'm still unaware of... show less

In order to write these comments I must set aside my natural system 1 mode of being (lazily automatic) and enter the far more arduous mode, System 2, and THINK for MYSELF. We don't spend as much time actually thinking in this mode as we would like to believe we do (which is itself a non-rational and emotionally based stance of System 1). Thinking is HARD WORK. Our brains and bodies are programmed to conserve energy as well as to protect us from . . . well . . . ourselves as THINKING not only show more uses a lot of energy but is often bewilderingly difficult and overwhelming. (As in, having to change your mind, admit you have no idea what to do, etcetera.) You know the difference between 1 and 2. The former tends to work smoothly and automatically and you like best being in that mode. Anything you prefer to put off or avoid doing altogether is probably a System 2 activity, from balancing your checkbook to deciding who to vote for or choosing the right school for your child or evaluating care for your grandmother. All of these choices most of you (including me) would love to leave to others. (And all too often do.)

Possibly the most crucial takeaway is accepting that we are not capable, not a single one of us, of making rational decisions all the time. Some may succeed more often than others, but really, no one. In fact, those who insist on rationality as the basis for all human endeavor are likely to be the most deluded of all. They want to believe themselves purely rational, but belief is emotionally based and not rational. Sorry.

Are you aware that the way a question is put to you affects how you answer it? (The researches call this 'focalism'.) So if you are asked to put a check in a box to donate your organs (on yr driver's license renewal) you are less likely to check that box. However, if you are asked to check that box if you DON'T want to donate your organs you leave the box blank. Why? Didn't you immediately have an ugh feeling for the former? I did. And pretty much no feeling at all at the second choice? I'm fine with that. You have to overcome an instinctive reluctance (System 1) to make the rational (System 2) choice. Or how about this. Are you aware that all unconsciously your answer to an unrelated question is affected by very recent luck or loss (literally, like finding a dime before someone asks you how you are feeling generally about almost anything, if it is a nice day or whatever.) Or that the way the Experiencing self, moment to moment, is supplanted by the story the Remembered self (which is a System 2 creation) has put together. (Official word is Duration Neglect and you add to it Peak-End Rule-that the most recent thing, the last thing in an experience is what you remember the most, both from System 1). System 1 is a mighty broth of basic instincts, deeply learned skills (driving would be one most of us share), habits that allow us all to make instant decisions, choices, opinions. Usually for the best, but not always. A useful acronym is WYSIATI (What You See Is What There Is) -- what you don't know or see before you, you don't (can't) include in your decisions. (Food labelling is fiendishly clever in this regard. As are many media outlets.) The reality of how we think and decide what to do with our lives is a complicated dance between the two and the better you are at recognizing which mode is needed, the better off you will be.

Much of the research involves having people choose between types of bets -- often bets that appear to be weighted one way or another because of the wording, but are either the same in outcome or biased the opposite of what your System 1 tends to be attracted to. System 2 has to be engaged to make the 'right' choice. I had difficulties with ALL of these questions as my instinct is to recoil (and I mean that) as I find betting and gambling so pointless (losing is the only outcome for the majority, duh) I couldn't wrap my head around any of it. I would likely have been dismissed by the researchers.

An intriguing find in the research is that as regards overall happiness or satisfaction our lives appear to depend on two foundations: Enough money for needs to be met -- curiously, more than that provides nothing, happiness and satisfaction flatten right out. The second piece is having goals and ambitions that are achievable (for some it is making money, btw). This fits in well with the (more philosophical) book on agency that I read not so long ago, by [[Agnes Caillard]]. Another undeniable factor is luck. Good or bad. Although the likelihood is, given the fact that this erratic thing, while beyond our control, tends to affect us all rather evenly--although in greater and lesser degrees depending on what risks a person takes, I would imagine. We must all take some, of course.

Another gem is that we tend to expect happiness from acquisition of material objects rather than from friendships and doing things with others. The officialese for this is using 'affective forecasting' that results in 'miswanting' (oh how I love that word!). Things never win out over fellowship. Take that to heart.

The end of each chapter has a kind of 'summary' in the form of statements that illustrate the points Kahneman just made and they are really helpful. He's a good writer, the clarity is stunning. I cannot recommend [Thinking Fast and Slow] more highly. It is a thoroughly System 2 read from beginning to end, so be patient with yourself if you do take it on. And please do.

***** and then some. show less