His essential insight was to use data to diminish the role that intuitive, often wildly inaccurate assessments played in the evaluation. They fled to Palestine after the war, and by the mid-1950s, when he was only 21 years old, Kahneman designed a psychological test for the Israeli army so successful that it is still used today. As a young boy, Kahneman lived with his family in a chicken coop in France to avoid detection by the Nazis during World War II. Half of the book is largely redundant Kahneman himself wrote an excellent 2011 popular book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow." Lewis skillfully highlights the wide-reaching implications of some of these ideas, but much of what makes his new book original is his deep reporting on the personalities and biographies of the two psychologists.īoth men lived interesting and dramatic lives. In "The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds," Lewis narrates the long friendship of Kahneman and Tversky and explains some of their most influential ideas. It was simply an illustration of ideas that have been floating around for decades and had yet to be fully appreciated by, among others, me." He thinks those ideas - many of which classify the systematic biases in human cognition - originated in the collaborative work of two Israeli psychologists, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. After describing his 2003 best-seller "Moneyball," Lewis writes, "My book wasn't original. “Happy species endowed with infinite appreciation of pleasures and low sensitivity to pain would probably not survive the evolutionary battle,” they wrote.While introducing his new book, journalist Michael Lewis makes an unusual and gracious concession. For most people, the happiness involved in receiving a desirable object is smaller than the unhappiness involved in losing the same object.” It wasn’t hard to imagine why this might be-a heightened sensitivity to pain was helpful to survival. “It reflects a general property of the human organism as a pleasure machine. “The greater sensitivity to negative rather than positive changes is not specific to monetary outcomes,” wrote Amos and Danny. To get them to flip a coin for ten thousand bucks, you had to offer them even better odds than you offered them for flipping it for a hundred. If they were going to lose $100 if the coin landed on heads, they would need to win $200 if it landed on tails. To get most people to flip a coin for a hundred bucks, you had to offer them far better than even odds.
That is, when it was like most gambles in life.
“The desire to avoid loss ran deep, and expressed itself most clearly when the gamble came with the possibility of both loss and gain.
0 kommentar(er)
