For everyone saying that this is boring and that he's not entertaining enough, keep in mind that you're not putting in effort to understand what he's saying. You're hoping that system 1, the sensational, intuitive side will kick in so you don't have to think; rather, you'd like to be entertained. I've noticed this with animated videos, powerful public speakers, etc. They do all of the thinking for you, and you just absorb a barrage of information like a sponge. Whereas books, and simple videos like this force our rational and deliberate System 2 thinking to activate. Simple videos like this force us to do the learning ourselves.
So true. Just try having a conversation with a nuclear engineer about... basically anything. You may believe you have an accurate description of something until you speak with them and find out they have a more pinpoint description, which they will offer up without prompting. On the other hand, they can't pick out a good looking tie to save their life, nor can they explain why it looks good, or bad for that matter. This is, of course, a sweeping generalization regarding engineers, for whom I have the utmost respect.
I am the latter , and I believe that I can learn about certain things which I don’t yet completely understand, and once I completely understand it , I can explain it .
I think smart people just know the distinction between what is "percieved" as "the obvious", while smart people look at the obvious, and distinguish how irregular it actually is.
@@quaintgamestudio6149 As per the talk, when you see someone talk and present an idea or an argument confidently you are much more likely to believe that what that person is saying is true. This is because your system 1 is unconsciously making a connection between confidence and accuracy/correctness of the idea. Whereas when some present an argument hesitantly or without confidence you are less likely to trust it even if it has some solid research backing it up and is much more accurate. Hence the above quote: "Confidence is not a good diagnostic for when you can trust either yourself or somebody else"
Now that Empathic abilities are being realized in the scientific community, with the peanut gallery already rushing to whether it is beneficial or detrimental, subjectively, new models of cognition may need to extended beyond standard models of thought cognition that is now being seen in light of not recognized emotion and visual models of how thought and thought frequency is changed with the electrical emotional changes in the nervous system. We know the brain changes the feeling of touch when we are angry, how much does it affect cognition based on emotion. We see this result in PTSD on a severe scale, but how much cognition in its formation is affected by the emotional frequency the mind is experiencing when cognition is formed. It is obvious observation, and new studies show emotion develops prior to cognition at times, other times not.
"It's not a case of: 'Read this book and then you'll think differently. I've written this book, and I don't think differently." - Daniel Kahneman My favorite quote of his that encapsulates perfectly what he is saying.
@@stacknsat It is discouraging if you read the book with the expectation that there is a "fix" for what he is describing. It refers to the power of the type 1 thinking that rules our quick reactions. There is no quick fix, only a recognition of the power and when to slow things down to move to type 2 thinking.
Crypto Cliff notes I would call it awareness, and I think that is what he was getting at too. For example, You may still think that people who like the color yellow are idiots, but now that you are aware that is a system 1 reaction, you can slow your thinking down and move to a more rational place in your thinking.
@@alexfloate2420 Awareness is probably a better word for consciousness ....but in the end we are saying the same thing. If they are now aware they maybe able to slow down and switch systems. Hence thinking differently than what they were doing prior.
For those who don't know what he is talking about; Go and have a copy of "Thinking Fast and slow" then you will understand everything about his talk. For me it's basically like recalling the important topics of the book. P.S. It took me around 6 months to complete in the book coz in the last page cover of the book there is written "Buy it fast Read it slowly It will change the way you think"
@@norwegianzound He's right. I'm currently reading the book, and I just stopped to see this lecture. And as the guy says, Kahneman is summarizing 50 pages in 10 minutes. Of course he's leaving a lot of information out. To understand this information better is essential to read the book first.
It is so refreshing to hear a public intellectual say, "I don't know." I can't imagine other Nobel Laureates in Economics (think Stiglitz, Krugman, Merton Miller) demonstrating such humility.
@@APeeKay That's another pretty good litmus, too. But taking a second look at Maboyd's post, above, it seems to me he's wrong about at least Krugman and Miller. Krugman was famously fast to call himself wrong on the Trump Bump and his last ten years have been a pretty constant process of self-reflection mixed in with his evaluation of others. 'Course Krugman has it easy: he isn't wrong very often. Miller is a slightly different case: it's a bit silly to say he won't admit to being wrong when his entire career is considering degrees of rightness/wrongness. Stiglitz? Does Maboyd have an actual factual case?
@tech four9 That's a pretty strange theory, Tech. Why does your common fucking idiot feels any desperate need for justification for their stupid beliefs? And why would they go looking for premiere intellectuals for that rationalization? Wouldn't the next common fucking idiot over be more trustworthy to them? Just askin' 😎
The best way to understand Daniel Kahenman is to listen to him on a long drive on The Ted Interview podcast. Chris Anderson has a smart way of extracting the best out of the best minds on this planet.
I'm halfway reading (listening to, audible FTW) his book, and I gotta say it's been eye opening. Although not easy to digest and the constant bias that "no I'm different", I think it's good to have this in mind whenever one has to make an impactful decision, and first activate system 2 and second be aware of the biases and influences may cloud your thoughts. Definitely a must read for those that want to know more about decision making.
I love the piece about system 1 answering an easier question than what was asked. I have noticed that a lot with people when I ask questions and so many people answer something related without actually addressing my questions. I usually get annoyed and ask again. I guess I should not take this personal and understand this is not deliberate but automatic. Another thing I really liked was learning the relationship between chaotic environments and probability. So if people don't have enough order to be able to predict information, I don't need to trust their intuitions. I really don't like it when people are so confident in their knowing and I can tell they have no basis for it. I really need to read the whole book.
Its...a large...digestive...book.... I bought it when Obama recommended it. To grasp or even explain what a particular chapter says is...thick in information and jargon.
@@trannel73 What are your main take aways from this book? I didn't get much from this talk, only a little more extra info than I already knew so I am just wondering what else this book might teach me? is it worth my time to read it? Just wondering it's a nice to read but ultimately no practical use to my day to day life. Thanks!!!
It's not really easy to read in my experience, but the main idea which the book is giving me for my everyday life (private and work as a software engineer) is basically how I should judge focus and thoughts of other people. It helped me to understand why sometimes conversations are going into specific directions, why people are experiencing topics a lot different than my impression. So all in all a clearer understanding of the mind's digesting of content with two systems (one for unconscious and one for conscious awareness). The book is helping me a little bit more, because through repetition and detailed content it will get stuck a little bit better in my mind, instead of a 1h interview. Also more examples how stuff get's fooled by our human flaws. Hope this answers your question. I know, it's broad and perhaps philosophical, but I guess my non-native english is preventing a proper answer :D
A thoroughly brilliant man and an inspiration for anyone interested in studying the human mind. Please do also read Dr. Kahneman's book, as you may see in this video, "Thinking, Fast and Slow." It will more than supplement the brief talk he had at this event.
do you have any other suggestions concerning this topic? i found his book really fascinating, it also introduced me to Bayesian statistics to which i devoted much of my time to. perhaps other books similar to this one by him or any other experts in this field?
Dima Shur Well, this topic has quite a broad application, so I daresay that my suggestions may not help you precisely. However, a topical book by Daniel Gilbert, called "Stumbling Upon Happiness", deals with similar issues of prediction and judgment, but with a totally different end. Perhaps that will be a good place to start? Please do not hesitate to message me to clarify your interests, and how I may help.
gwho I have it too. It's great. The densest psychology book I've ever read or heard. My notes for the first 30 minutes filled most of a page in my notebook.
@@Human_Evolution- I'm so glad to read comments like this because I have been struggling with the book for a year. Reading super slowly and not "getting it" right away. I thought I was just stupid 😊
The problem with association although as he says it is beautifully simple. It can be dangerous as in the reason parents not vaccinating their kids. They make the same simple jump.
I have the opposite problem. I'm always a slow thinker and my System1 is very slow to react, so I tend to doubt it too often. I'm always overthinking things. I'm good at solving complex issues (fixing complex software bugs that other team members could not fix for months) but suck at mundane situations, such as counting money while shopping and forgetting that I have something in my hand and it will fall if I open my hand. I'm an introvert, and maybe that's how our brain is wired. Anyway, going to read the book; hopefully it will provide some answers.
Your not using enough focus on those easy tasks. Your autopiloting with system 1 without sufficient basis for it to do it well. Next time you go shopping focus on everything your doing and you realize suddenly you do remember everything.
I'm also in the same situation, I'm a software developer, I think I can solve complex problems, but for simple ones, I can't. (I'm also introvert). For example, if someone tells me in a quick situation to write a number(he speaks in french) I found it difficult to write it on paper.
@@herakles6185 The root cause of the issue is that it is very difficult for an introverted person to focus on simple tasks because of so-called "inner brainstorm", which gets even worse in foreign environments or when socializing. Imagine the following situation. A stranger on the street suddenly stops you and asks you "What is the capital city of France?" An extroverted person might just shrug and immediately answer: "It's Paris." However, an introverted person will immediately get carried away by the internal storm: "Oh, why are they asking me that? Is it a simple question or does it have some caveat? Is there a hidden camera somewhere? Oh, wait, what was the question? Ah, I know that I know the answer but I'm so nervous now, I just can't remember it. Oh, it's Paris... But wait... am I sure? Like, am I 100% sure? How do I know it's Paris? Where did I learn it and can I trust the source of information and my own memory? What will be the consequences if I answer it wrong? Will the person get into some trouble because of me answering wrong? Will I myself have some trouble?" etc. etc. , hundreds of thoughts and doubts. I have read some scientific studies on introverts to explain why they tend to overthink so much and why their reaction can be very delayed. It feels so true for me personally.
@@camelCased that was not the scenario, and what you described is more anxiety than anything about personality type. Out brain remember things we focus on and ignores things we dont. In your shopping scenario your not focused on things and just going through the motions, it can be difficult to focus if you have adhd but that is also separate from personality type.
@@herakles6185 Usually introverts indeed feel more anxiety when dealing with other people or required to react fast. However, even in quiet environments introverts tend to overthink things. That's the strength and the weakness of introverts - we often put the same effort and considerations into solving simple problems, as we do for the complex ones. I guess, introverts tend to focus not on the problem itself but on solving the situation "in general". For an introvert's brain, somehow it's not that important to quickly answer "Paris", but it's important to provide the best answer possible, considering the situation and all the conditions. Thus, for my brain, finding the right answer to "What is the capital of France?" somehow causes the same thinking activity as finding the right software library for a new project, when I know my choice will affect development processes for the entire team for many months to come. When solving some software development problem, I try to dig as much information as possible to find any deficiencies, imagine multiple "what if"s, and make the decision only when I feel sure enough. I feel the same stress and "internal pressure" also when trying to answer simple questions, and that slows me down a lot.
I am currently reading the book - just done 250pages - takes lots of mental effort to understand - you cannot read it with system 1 - you need to tune in your system 2 & it consumes efforts but all worth the time & efforts
From 4 yrs ago; the Test for System 2 is quite evident Today, Self control as an important intelligent characteristic Test, predictions at 4yrs old how one will respond/ react and do 20 yrs down the road. Very fascinating study, thank you Daniel Kahneman.
Excellent interview for such important information. I use Daniel Kahneman's discoveries in helping my clients and giving presentations and interviews. If you think intuition is not real or that your decisions are all wise, I strongly recommend that you listen to this interview.
this is why I love cognitive phycology. I solely implied on my institution when I chose to major in music. But lately, I rely more on my system2 to make decisions concisely cuz my experience has taught me what benefits more rather than just fit my aptitude.
Been working my way through his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Listening to him in this lecture really helped me understand his insights. Thank you Professor and Google
Daniel has the humility and openness to acknowledge ambiguity, uncertainty, and ignorance. He prods, pokes, tickles, and caresses the soft tissue of the mind in its complexity and knee-jerk conditioning without factoring psycho-social and cultural determinants. He more than once pronounced the word 'route' as 'rout' as in 'about' rather than the globally common pronunciation 'root'. Was it pure reflex, habituation, or System 1 jaywalking while System 2 was babysitting a more demanding chore of the mind ? Shine on, Daniel. We carry undependable maps while trekking across and into the terra incognita of the awesome noösphere. I appreciate the cool diffusive lunar luminosity of your mind. Enough for a lapidary to inlay gems in a biodegradable tiara.
Teaching a course in rational policy analysis, it's a challenge to get students to think using system 2. I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it. When you are looking at a difficult problem, don't trust system 1. If you are lucky, system 1 will result in a good decision; most of the time it won't.
I respect to people who read his that book. I am currently at somewhere middle of it. It requires a lot of attention and patient. Hopefully I will finish it soon
One of my favorite books ever. It made me understand the basics of human nature and decision making, I've reread it several times, I'm building so much on these learnings, my habits, my choices, my values. He is amazingly clever and humble in the same time.
While the intuitive people built the civilization, while constantly messing up, The sceptics ,afraid of making a mistake, are still sitting in the caves discussing the pros and cons of leaving. I think I deserve a Nobel, at least one.
He was rejecting his intuitive System One response (the substitution mechanism!!) in favour of System Two which told him that he didn't actually know!!
@@lowereastsideastrologist7769 It's not fake modesty, it's not modesty at all, it's just how scientists think. They can't just say things they don't know about
My degrees are in psychology, however, I also study hypnotherapy, neural linguistics (NLP),etc. If one desires to broaden and deepen an understanding of this topic, I suggest that you resist the urges from system 1 and explore these disciplines (hypnosis, NLP, etc.) with an open mind.. I have been practicing as a medical and clinical hypnotherapist for more than 30 years with great and predictable results. I really enjoyed this lecture.
There is a mistake in the subtitles at 8:17. It is written : "we feel a sense of urgency" but Kahneman actually says is : "we feel a sense of agency". He means that while system 1 processing is unvoluntary, system 2 processing is under the control of the agent (i.e., the person).
There is also slow unconscious processing, which can lead to seemingly fast intuition / recognition as a result. Hence Einsteins daydreaming that led to many of his breakthroughs, and so many other great thinkers too.
I can't speak for HAL, but that is a well established idea in psychology with substantial empirical basis (i.e. the idea that the brain works on problems over time while one is not consciously thinking about them leading to sudden 'ah ha!' moments that seem to pop out of nowhere). I remember learning about this in detail in a cognitive psychology course.
R B Kandel likes the Ah-Ha! Moment. Programmers and technologists think differently than artists. Kahneman likes to be in control and his book has been used by social engineers as they insinuate bias on the entire culture. Much depends on how one uses their mind, or brain. And what does with their brain changes the neural connections. He is a diagnostic thinker instead of an adventurer brain builder. He sounds nicer than I intuited from reading his book where he always wins by puncturing every case he confronts.
('00:00:01', 'John Boyd: All right.'), ('00:18:38', 'How to Use System 1 and System 2 as homunculi'), ('00:34:39', 'How causal thinking works.'), ('00:48:07', 'How to Improve System 1 associative memory'), ('00:56:18', 'How to overcome illusions both visual and cognitive')
•Intuition - recognition. •pupil dialate 50% when focused in problem solving. •system1 (automatic) system2 (effort) •sys 2->1 by repeated application of the skill.
Love this Kahneman and Tyversky are the pre-eminent behavior economists are the key for controlling uncertainty or what the markets call Beta. Pavlov and "Skinner's Box" is also a pivotal and timeless psychological study of epistemology as well. Great meditation for today, of which I will be starting to label "Causal Friday"- in a way to say "how & why did that happen this week".
Brilllient book! The part of his book about our mental flaws are truly terrifying! I make these errors myself and I can see these errors in our leaders and judges. The only part of the book I am skeptical of is his assertion that we are in fact rational, we all can see so many examples to the contrary.
Great talk. Thank you! What does this make me: My answers/responses to Dr. Kahneman's example questions in the lecture were not what he said most of people's first intuitive answers/responses were!
in the Q&A , listen to the one that goes about money. It´s something to be aware off and understand. Great class. Very informative. "i don´t know enough..."
Great speech... EXCEPT for the skid example... People have completely messed this up by using confusing language to describe what you are supposed to when your car enters a skid. It's not counter-intuitive at all. The description is counter-intuitive. If you are driving down the road, and the FRONT of your vehicle begins to move left, you turn right. Period. This is extremely INTUITIVE. You are literally supposed to turn back to the way you were going BEFORE the skid occurred. For years, I was confused by people's description of this, as they used the term 'with' or 'into'... 'with', in particular, is extremely confusing as it makes it sound like you should continue the direction of skid. 'Into' isn't much better. So, PSA, if the front of your vehicle goes left, turn right so that you are straightening out. If you turn left, you are risking a 180 or even a 360.
Thanks-you, your talk seriously enforces my knowledge that personal correction correlates with validity of relationship with others- alacrity with coherence- Authority. . System 1 allows the strength of introspection,
Though I have been reading the book, this video still helps a lot, especially the Q&A session! I have been wondering if there is any physical representations of the two systems. Can't believe I just knew the book after 6 years past!
Рассказывает чертовско интересные вещи. Книга великолепна хотя и немного суховата среднего читателя не смотря на невероятный объем полезной инфы . Меня ребята вдохновляют на создание контента.)
The real bias, is the bias against 'biases'. In real time, these biases/heuristics lead directly and indirectly into new insights. For example, with confirmation bias, it helps serve as empirical evidence towards what we believe . For example, with confirmation bias if "we tend to confirm information we believe" through multiple lines of information, in a certain situation, then there is probably something factual about what we believe, and we know its safe to spend more time on rigorously justifying/proving it. Where as linear thinkers tend to miss on the opportunity. That is a tenant of EMPIRICISM - NOT A BIAS. There is a difference between using a bias to make a quick and impulsive decision in a trivial situation, for which there is little at stake, and using a sense of our biases (in harmony with rationality) towards solving critical problems. In effect, these anti-bias proponents are merely talented straw-man engineers; mostly achievement < IQ types and graying anglophiles who indulge in a deluded sense of intellectual worth.
There aren't really two separate thinking 'Systems' in the brain. Only different processes , that work together to build relationships. This making of this dichotomy is an aversion of the notion that reasoning and creativity is more than just IQ ('system 2') processes, but rather requires and experimental tinkering that can only come from functions attributed to 'System 1'. But the system we live in, especially academia, completely ignores System 1 thinking, while System 2 takes the spotlight with standards tests and formal protocols. Of course, the predictability of these protocols are limited. Until we design theories of mind, that account for differences in real-time cognitive processing. We owe genius to System 1, and commonality to System 2.
actually System 1 is way more about Commonality than System 2 will probably ever be. System 2 is actually more difficult/abstract to comprehend & master.
I have a problem with what he defines as intuition - unless i am interpreting this wrong, he thinks intuition is more automatic pilot type thinking or emotional instinct. However to me intuition is a subconscious way of thinking or perception that is outside of both automatic piloting, or outside of reason that comes from the programming and experiences we have. Discuss?
Charlie Munger & Daniel Kahneman 2 figures that had the most impact on me being more cognizant of my biases and inclined to monitor my system 1 decisions post-hoc & try and nudge them towards more correct solutions. I like to think of system 1 almost as L1/L2/L3 cache that is downstream of system 2. And system 2 can slowly update the cache but it takes time & effort.
Kahneman's book, "Thinking Fast and Slow" is wonderful. So too is Michael Lewis' "The Undoing Project", which describes the partnership with Amos Tversky. Together, they were the Lennon & McCartney of cognitive psychology.
It seems if I had written down all the observations I had made in coffee shops when I was a freshman in college, I’d have a Nobel Prize now. Damn. I blew it.
A really interesting talk about how various people will percieve different things. If any of you have enjoyed this talk I greatly recommend his book on thinking fast and slow. He talks about the way we apprehend the world in two opposed ways. A must read!
Mr. Kahneman,. We don't need the just power to analyze information that is in front of us. We need to power to build ideas when and where they are least expected. Yes some of this building requires analysis, but first there are components of thought that allow us to make novel connections between the sea of distant elements. The cult of the analytic (including Kahneman, have created a society where creativity has fallen behind. Here is a quote regarding JOhn Von Neumann, "Two bicyclists start twenty miles apart and head toward each other, each going at a steady rate of 10 mph. At the same time a fly that travels at a steady 15 mph starts from the front wheel of the southbound bicycle and flies to the front wheel of the northbound one, then turns around and flies to the front wheel of the southbound one again, and continues in this manner till he is crushed between the two front wheels. Question: what total distance did the fly cover? The slow way to find the answer is to calculate what distance the fly covers on the first, northbound, leg of the trip, then on the second, southbound, leg, then on the third, etc., etc., and, finally, to sum the infinite series so obtained. The quick way is to observe that the bicycles meet exactly one hour after their start, so that the fly had just an hour for his travels; the answer must therefore be 15 miles. When the question was put to von Neumann, he solved it in an instant, and thereby disappointed the questioner: "Oh, you must have heard the trick before!" "What trick?" asked von Neumann, "All I did was sum the geometric series." It's clear then that certain solutions are best developed with less conscious deliberation, rather the ability to automatically attract distant ideas into some novel permutation, and then upon a slight moment of reflection, realize there is something useful there. As Einstein said, "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant we have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift".
+DaughterOfTinúviel Obviously, being able to sort through a huge sea of mathematical concepts, to solve an arbitrary problem, requires intuition. Associating distant ideas is what intuition is useful for. Without it, we would be stuck with a plain old Piagetian spatial/temporal grouping cues.
so you are claiming that a instant summing of geometric series could not be a recognition of earlier similar problems, but an "divinly" instant creative process that intuitively made him find the answer? have you done a lot of math?
Have you done a lot of Applied math? They were talking about Flys and bicycles, not geometric series. Just to extract the underlying similarity in the way the fly moves, to geometric series, requires generalization (or idealizing) of elements of the story problem and then sensing the similarity between the concept of a series....that process is done with automaticity through intuition. In applied problems, there are lot of similarities that can be sought, but only a few may be relevant to a problems; in this case fruitless combinations like bicycle wheels-circles, spokes-lines, insect birth and growth trees, ect. In contrast, being able to relate elements that are obviously part of a set, 4, 8, 42, 168, 048, takes very little creative associations as everything you need is already in front of you; though this does take a creative aspect of inventing 'operators' that can relate the set.
without System 2 established in place to build & grow from, System 1 wouldn't have the necessary information/tools to draw from. So it becomes a reinforcing loop of events that stores the relevant information needed for System 1 to function from and for System 2 to allocate & grown from. The trick is to learn when to use them and at what levels can they be beneficial to you. - just a theory I came up with just now =)
Leo Sousa Não temos controle sobre a maquinaria cognitiva automática, mas podemos controlar os ambientes aos quais ela é exposta, e com isto induzir ou inibir seus processos.
When asked if System 2 depends more on cortical centers while System 1 is in subcortical centers, I saw a glimpse of evolution. It would seem that lacking language System 2 would have no space to act, hence System 1 should be more developed than System 1, in the metaphorical sense that Kahneman uses "Systems."
Hi, he’s basically saying that our brains learn much easier if we think about concrete actions instead of the process those involve. So when he compares both system 1 and 2 as ‘agents’, he does it for us to understand better their different actions (rather than learning the separate “steps” each one of them has) sorry if this is wrong but that’s what i picked up
Lots of interesting nuggets in here about how people are influenced. I wonder what ways he would find meaningful examples of thinking processes and influences in the context of the most recent election? What cognitive illusions did people fall for? What ways can we apply system 2 thinking to avoid them?
How would reading this book possibly change my life? (I'm not suggesting that it is marketed to) Is it just an interesting read or can this actually help one's life in some way? Thanks for any replies.
+xhardwarex We all do make mistakes in judgement and analyzis, if you know where the most of the weakness (making irrational choice unwillingly) comes from you might be able to avoid at least few. + you can do smart small talk :). That is Kahnemans Thinking Fast and Slow
I playe a game on Android called Slow Thinking,amazing game for sustained attention training (concentration)and will power exercise.Did 500 digits 1sec/digit with 100%success rate. I would do a Schulte test game before and after the game to assess the increase in concentration and its a very noticeable effect,and it greatly increase brains ability to respond to more complicated tasks. I suppose it switches brain to system2
You will enjoy learning something that is interesting and relevant. I usually don't like popular scientific literature, but this book is the synopsis of Kahneman's work, which really is a treat in itself.
I want to ask if something is just made for our system 1 for a good reason to influence our mind, but because we really aware with our system 2 that it was just some illusion or although we know it good for us but it is 'fake', does the system 2 will disrupt a meaningful thing that will perceive on the system 1? Ex: Movie that intended to make us really motivated but because we analyze with the system 2 we become resist with the meaning in it and can't really felt the benefit of it.
What's the meeting of "homunculi" ? It appears on the subs in English, minute 21:00 if someone can listen and check it and explain me please this word and the context 🤔 thanks!
It's the little man in the brain argument. When some uses the term homunculi pejoratively they mean that a brain activity or any activity is being explained by saying that an agent inside the actor is doing the action. "I see because a part of my brain sees" "My car starts because the starter starts it" It doesn't explain the process it just shifts is to another source. This is infinitely regressive thus not an explanation. In this case Kahneman refers to system 1 & 2 language as homunculus because it like saying "we have intuitive thinking because we have a system that thinks intuitively" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument
Several of the biggest market experts have been voicing their opinions on exactly how awful they think the next downturn would be, and how far equities may have to go, as recession draws closer and inflation continues well above the Fed's 2% objective. I'm trying to build a portfolio of at least $850k by the time I'm 60, therefore I need suggestions on what investments to make
There are many other interesting stocks in many industries that you might follow. You don't have to act on every forecast, so I'll suggest that you work with a financial advisor who can help you choose the best times to purchase and sell the shares or ETFs you want to acquire.,,,...
I think, questions about system 1 and 2 prone people, seem to miss the point. Kahneman clearly stated that there are no separate systems. We all have unconscious bias based intuition. Kahneman stated that Intuition (system 1) and rationalisation (system 2) are part of the same system of cognition. I think, the difference between people, is that there are differences in the process of rationalisation (self regulation) either due to different experiences (information) or more effective (slower or more rigourous) rationalisation.
For everyone saying that this is boring and that he's not entertaining enough, keep in mind that you're not putting in effort to understand what he's saying. You're hoping that system 1, the sensational, intuitive side will kick in so you don't have to think; rather, you'd like to be entertained.
I've noticed this with animated videos, powerful public speakers, etc. They do all of the thinking for you, and you just absorb a barrage of information like a sponge. Whereas books, and simple videos like this force our rational and deliberate System 2 thinking to activate. Simple videos like this force us to do the learning ourselves.
Whoever thinks that is dumb AF
You have surely read his book 👏🏾
yep, I think it typically relies on our system2 while reading the book. it's an energy-taking book lol.
@@layslifestyle2265 buy the hardcover variant, the lovely smell will keep you rejuvenated to finish the book
@@saswatsnayak102030 lol，i would if I finish reading the paperback version
Smart people are good at describing things that many of us know but can't describe.
So true. Just try having a conversation with a nuclear engineer about... basically anything. You may believe you have an accurate description of something until you speak with them and find out they have a more pinpoint description, which they will offer up without prompting. On the other hand, they can't pick out a good looking tie to save their life, nor can they explain why it looks good, or bad for that matter.
This is, of course, a sweeping generalization regarding engineers, for whom I have the utmost respect.
I am the latter , and I believe that I can learn about certain things which I don’t yet completely understand, and once I completely understand it , I can explain it .
I think smart people just know the distinction between what is "percieved" as "the obvious", while smart people look at the obvious, and distinguish how irregular it actually is.
Become who you are
Otherwise u won't know
"Confidence is not a good diagnostic for when you can trust either yourself or somebody else". Well said Sir. Hats off to you!
Please explain me i can't get it
@@quaintgamestudio6149
As per the talk, when you see someone talk and present an idea or an argument confidently you are much more likely to believe that what that person is saying is true.
This is because your system 1 is unconsciously making a connection between confidence and accuracy/correctness of the idea.
Whereas when some present an argument hesitantly or without confidence you are less likely to trust it even if it has some solid research backing it up and is much more accurate.
Hence the above quote: "Confidence is not a good diagnostic for when you can trust either yourself or somebody else"
@@bhavukful thanks for such a nice explanation 🙏
@@bhavukful have you read the book? By the way thanks for the explanation
Now that Empathic abilities are being realized in the scientific community, with the peanut gallery already rushing to whether it is beneficial or detrimental, subjectively, new models of cognition may need to extended beyond standard models of thought cognition that is now being seen in light of not recognized emotion and visual models of how thought and thought frequency is changed with the electrical emotional changes in the nervous system. We know the brain changes the feeling of touch when we are angry, how much does it affect cognition based on emotion. We see this result in PTSD on a severe scale, but how much cognition in its formation is affected by the emotional frequency the mind is experiencing when cognition is formed. It is obvious observation, and new studies show emotion develops prior to cognition at times, other times not.
"It's not a case of: 'Read this book and then you'll think differently. I've written this book, and I don't think differently."
- Daniel Kahneman
My favorite quote of his that encapsulates perfectly what he is saying.
I get what he is conveying but to someone who hasnt read the book, this can be read in a discouraging way.
@@stacknsat It is discouraging if you read the book with the expectation that there is a "fix" for what he is describing. It refers to the power of the type 1 thinking that rules our quick reactions. There is no quick fix, only a recognition of the power and when to slow things down to move to type 2 thinking.
@@alexfloate2420 true so being conscious of "system 1" whether you use that to your advantage or not you're "thinking differently "
Crypto Cliff notes I would call it awareness, and I think that is what he was getting at too. For example, You may still think that people who like the color yellow are idiots, but now that you are aware that is a system 1 reaction, you can slow your thinking down and move to a more rational place in your thinking.
@@alexfloate2420 Awareness is probably a better word for consciousness ....but in the end we are saying the same thing. If they are now aware they maybe able to slow down and switch systems. Hence thinking differently than what they were doing prior.
For those who don't know what he is talking about; Go and have a copy of "Thinking Fast and slow" then you will understand everything about his talk.
For me it's basically like recalling the important topics of the book.
P.S. It took me around 6 months to complete in the book coz in the last page cover of the book there is written
"Buy it fast
Read it slowly
It will change the way you think"
"For those who don't know what he is talking about".....arrogant, aren't you?
@@norwegianzound He's right. I'm currently reading the book, and I just stopped to see this lecture. And as the guy says, Kahneman is summarizing 50 pages in 10 minutes. Of course he's leaving a lot of information out. To understand this information better is essential to read the book first.
yeah but he did not talk about the end of the book, he just talked about the first few sections. I kind of wish he talked more about prospect theory
It is so refreshing to hear a public intellectual say, "I don't know." I can't imagine other Nobel Laureates in Economics (think Stiglitz, Krugman, Merton Miller) demonstrating such humility.
My impression is that this is a relatively good litmus for intelligence: smart people are good at using the "Do I know or don't I?" tool.
@@TheDavidlloydjones ... and there are some who proclaim to be a 'stable genius'
@@APeeKay
That's another pretty good litmus, too.
But taking a second look at Maboyd's post, above, it seems to me he's wrong about at least Krugman and Miller. Krugman was famously fast to call himself wrong on the Trump Bump and his last ten years have been a pretty constant process of self-reflection mixed in with his evaluation of others. 'Course Krugman has it easy: he isn't wrong very often.
Miller is a slightly different case: it's a bit silly to say he won't admit to being wrong when his entire career is considering degrees of rightness/wrongness.
Stiglitz? Does Maboyd have an actual factual case?
@tech four9
That's a pretty strange theory, Tech.
Why does your common fucking idiot feels any desperate need for justification for their stupid beliefs? And why would they go looking for premiere intellectuals for that rationalization? Wouldn't the next common fucking idiot over be more trustworthy to them?
Just askin' 😎
@@TheDavidlloydjones can you explain this a bit
this book had a large influence over how i’ve thought about decisions since i read it almost 10 years ago. great to see the author! thanks, google
The best way to understand Daniel Kahenman is to listen to him on a long drive on The Ted Interview podcast. Chris Anderson has a smart way of extracting the best out of the best minds on this planet.
Thank you for everything DK! The conclusion of "Noise" is especially thought provoking. RIP dear man 😢
This man changed my view of human mind forever in 2010. Big thanks for that!
Just wanted to mention this - amazing (high quality) questions were asked by the audience. Thank you Google audience.
I'm halfway reading (listening to, audible FTW) his book, and I gotta say it's been eye opening. Although not easy to digest and the constant bias that "no I'm different", I think it's good to have this in mind whenever one has to make an impactful decision, and first activate system 2 and second be aware of the biases and influences may cloud your thoughts. Definitely a must read for those that want to know more about decision making.
My Decisions Can't Be This Biased!
Thank you Talks at Google for putting these videos up, its awesome to be able to watch them ....
@Kehnai Bohnyu )))))))l))))))))))l)))l)))
Ll
@@alanwong7514 reesg
I love the piece about system 1 answering an easier question than what was asked. I have noticed that a lot with people when I ask questions and so many people answer something related without actually addressing my questions. I usually get annoyed and ask again. I guess I should not take this personal and understand this is not deliberate but automatic.
Another thing I really liked was learning the relationship between chaotic environments and probability. So if people don't have enough order to be able to predict information, I don't need to trust their intuitions. I really don't like it when people are so confident in their knowing and I can tell they have no basis for it.
I really need to read the whole book.
Great point. Check out the Dunning-Kruger effect.
System 0: (over)confidently repeat prepared answers no matter how relevant the question is...
Wonderful talk. I am buying the book.
Amazing Man ! Terrific Book . Don t be daunted by the size . You could chew one chapter a month and still benefit a lot !
Its...a large...digestive...book....
I bought it when Obama recommended it. To grasp or even explain what a particular chapter says is...thick in information and jargon.
I really love the quote on the back of the book:
"Buy it fast. Read it slowly. It will change the way you think!"
~ Richard Thaler, author of Nudge
Yes! Also, chew it slow for better digestion
@@trannel73 What are your main take aways from this book? I didn't get much from this talk, only a little more extra info than I already knew so I am just wondering what else this book might teach me? is it worth my time to read it? Just wondering it's a nice to read but ultimately no practical use to my day to day life. Thanks!!!
It's not really easy to read in my experience, but the main idea which the book is giving me for my everyday life (private and work as a software engineer) is basically how I should judge focus and thoughts of other people. It helped me to understand why sometimes conversations are going into specific directions, why people are experiencing topics a lot different than my impression. So all in all a clearer understanding of the mind's digesting of content with two systems (one for unconscious and one for conscious awareness).
The book is helping me a little bit more, because through repetition and detailed content it will get stuck a little bit better in my mind, instead of a 1h interview. Also more examples how stuff get's fooled by our human flaws.
Hope this answers your question. I know, it's broad and perhaps philosophical, but I guess my non-native english is preventing a proper answer :D
A thoroughly brilliant man and an inspiration for anyone interested in studying the human mind. Please do also read Dr. Kahneman's book, as you may see in this video, "Thinking, Fast and Slow." It will more than supplement the brief talk he had at this event.
do you have any other suggestions concerning this topic? i found his book really fascinating, it also introduced me to Bayesian statistics to which i devoted much of my time to. perhaps other books similar to this one by him or any other experts in this field?
Dima Shur Well, this topic has quite a broad application, so I daresay that my suggestions may not help you precisely. However, a topical book by Daniel Gilbert, called "Stumbling Upon Happiness", deals with similar issues of prediction and judgment, but with a totally different end. Perhaps that will be a good place to start? Please do not hesitate to message me to clarify your interests, and how I may help.
His book is very in-depth and eye opening.
i like the audiobook. very easy to listen to.
gwho 🎩
gwho I have it too. It's great. The densest psychology book I've ever read or heard. My notes for the first 30 minutes filled most of a page in my notebook.
@@Human_Evolution- I'm so glad to read comments like this because I have been struggling with the book for a year. Reading super slowly and not "getting it" right away. I thought I was just stupid 😊
The problem with association although as he says it is beautifully simple. It can be dangerous as in the reason parents not vaccinating their kids. They make the same simple jump.
I have the opposite problem. I'm always a slow thinker and my System1 is very slow to react, so I tend to doubt it too often.
I'm always overthinking things. I'm good at solving complex issues (fixing complex software bugs that other team members could not fix for months) but suck at mundane situations, such as counting money while shopping and forgetting that I have something in my hand and it will fall if I open my hand. I'm an introvert, and maybe that's how our brain is wired. Anyway, going to read the book; hopefully it will provide some answers.
Your not using enough focus on those easy tasks. Your autopiloting with system 1 without sufficient basis for it to do it well. Next time you go shopping focus on everything your doing and you realize suddenly you do remember everything.
I'm also in the same situation, I'm a software developer, I think I can solve complex problems, but for simple ones, I can't. (I'm also introvert). For example, if someone tells me in a quick situation to write a number(he speaks in french) I found it difficult to write it on paper.
@@herakles6185 The root cause of the issue is that it is very difficult for an introverted person to focus on simple tasks because of so-called "inner brainstorm", which gets even worse in foreign environments or when socializing.
Imagine the following situation. A stranger on the street suddenly stops you and asks you "What is the capital city of France?" An extroverted person might just shrug and immediately answer: "It's Paris."
However, an introverted person will immediately get carried away by the internal storm: "Oh, why are they asking me that? Is it a simple question or does it have some caveat? Is there a hidden camera somewhere? Oh, wait, what was the question? Ah, I know that I know the answer but I'm so nervous now, I just can't remember it. Oh, it's Paris... But wait... am I sure? Like, am I 100% sure? How do I know it's Paris? Where did I learn it and can I trust the source of information and my own memory? What will be the consequences if I answer it wrong? Will the person get into some trouble because of me answering wrong? Will I myself have some trouble?" etc. etc. , hundreds of thoughts and doubts.
I have read some scientific studies on introverts to explain why they tend to overthink so much and why their reaction can be very delayed. It feels so true for me personally.
@@camelCased that was not the scenario, and what you described is more anxiety than anything about personality type. Out brain remember things we focus on and ignores things we dont. In your shopping scenario your not focused on things and just going through the motions, it can be difficult to focus if you have adhd but that is also separate from personality type.
@@herakles6185 Usually introverts indeed feel more anxiety when dealing with other people or required to react fast.
However, even in quiet environments introverts tend to overthink things. That's the strength and the weakness of introverts - we often put the same effort and considerations into solving simple problems, as we do for the complex ones. I guess, introverts tend to focus not on the problem itself but on solving the situation "in general". For an introvert's brain, somehow it's not that important to quickly answer "Paris", but it's important to provide the best answer possible, considering the situation and all the conditions. Thus, for my brain, finding the right answer to "What is the capital of France?" somehow causes the same thinking activity as finding the right software library for a new project, when I know my choice will affect development processes for the entire team for many months to come. When solving some software development problem, I try to dig as much information as possible to find any deficiencies, imagine multiple "what if"s, and make the decision only when I feel sure enough. I feel the same stress and "internal pressure" also when trying to answer simple questions, and that slows me down a lot.
I am currently reading the book - just done 250pages - takes lots of mental effort to understand - you cannot read it with system 1 - you need to tune in your system 2 & it consumes efforts but all worth the time & efforts
What do you mean by system 1 and 2
From 4 yrs ago; the Test for System 2 is quite evident Today, Self control as an important intelligent characteristic Test, predictions at 4yrs old how one will respond/ react and do 20 yrs down the road. Very fascinating study, thank you Daniel Kahneman.
Excellent interview for such important information. I use Daniel Kahneman's discoveries in helping my clients and giving presentations and interviews. If you think intuition is not real or that your decisions are all wise, I strongly recommend that you listen to this interview.
this is why I love cognitive phycology. I solely implied on my institution when I chose to major in music. But lately, I rely more on my system2 to make decisions concisely cuz my experience has taught me what benefits more rather than just fit my aptitude.
i mean intuition lol
Been working my way through his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Listening to him in this lecture really helped me understand his insights.
Thank you Professor and Google
Scholarly, insightful and delivered with great thought and humility. Thank you Dr Kahneman!
Daniel has the humility and openness to acknowledge ambiguity, uncertainty, and ignorance. He prods, pokes, tickles, and caresses the soft tissue of the mind in its complexity and knee-jerk conditioning without factoring psycho-social and cultural determinants.
He more than once pronounced the word 'route' as 'rout' as in 'about' rather than the globally common pronunciation 'root'. Was it pure reflex, habituation, or System 1 jaywalking while System 2 was babysitting a more demanding chore of the mind ?
Shine on, Daniel. We carry undependable maps while trekking across and into the terra incognita of the awesome noösphere. I appreciate the cool diffusive lunar luminosity of your mind. Enough for a lapidary to inlay gems in a biodegradable tiara.
Prof Sattar Basra Do you have a book? Where do you give classes? I want to write like you. Serious. What is your major? Reply,bpls.
Route pronounced like about is the American pronunciation of the word.
Thanks for the input. I slouch over the keyboard, corrected.
Teaching a course in rational policy analysis, it's a challenge to get students to think using system 2. I read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it. When you are looking at a difficult problem, don't trust system 1. If you are lucky, system 1 will result in a good decision; most of the time it won't.
I respect to people who read his that book. I am currently at somewhere middle of it. It requires a lot of attention and patient. Hopefully I will finish it soon
Thank you very much, Dr. Kahneman, amazing speech, amazing finding outs, I love this guy
One of my favorite books ever. It made me understand the basics of human nature and decision making, I've reread it several times, I'm building so much on these learnings, my habits, my choices, my values. He is amazingly clever and humble in the same time.
While the intuitive people built the civilization, while constantly messing up,
The sceptics ,afraid of making a mistake, are still sitting in the caves discussing the pros and cons of leaving.
I think I deserve a Nobel, at least one.
He was rejecting his intuitive System One response (the substitution mechanism!!) in favour of System Two which told him that he didn't actually know!!
One of the books I’d recommend to anyone I meet.
I have it but the tiny letters and the size of the book and the info...It's quite heavy though
Best book ever
it’s just a magic reading it
"I don't know enough"
W
His previous quote 'the world is unpredictable' immediately came to mind.
Fake modesty.
Help me find this particular phrase in the video
@@LaldinpuiaRalte 1:00:33 in response to the question.
@@lowereastsideastrologist7769 It's not fake modesty, it's not modesty at all, it's just how scientists think. They can't just say things they don't know about
My degrees are in psychology, however, I also study hypnotherapy, neural linguistics (NLP),etc. If one desires to broaden and deepen an understanding of this topic, I suggest that you resist the urges from system 1 and explore these disciplines (hypnosis, NLP, etc.) with an open mind.. I have been practicing as a medical and clinical hypnotherapist for more than 30 years with great and predictable results. I really enjoyed this lecture.
I might need to listen to his lecture more than once to absorb knowledge. (and read his book)
Mazing Man! Great talk, a perfect well said, and an eye-opening one! Thanks, Google for bringing him here to us!
There is a mistake in the subtitles at 8:17. It is written : "we feel a sense of urgency" but Kahneman actually says is : "we feel a sense of agency". He means that while system 1 processing is unvoluntary, system 2 processing is under the control of the agent (i.e., the person).
There is also slow unconscious processing, which can lead to seemingly fast intuition / recognition as a result. Hence Einsteins daydreaming that led to many of his breakthroughs, and so many other great thinkers too.
HAL have u spend time on this manner, or are u just trying to look as though u understand.
I can't speak for HAL, but that is a well established idea in psychology with substantial empirical basis (i.e. the idea that the brain works on problems over time while one is not consciously thinking about them leading to sudden 'ah ha!' moments that seem to pop out of nowhere). I remember learning about this in detail in a cognitive psychology course.
R B Kandel likes the Ah-Ha! Moment. Programmers and technologists think differently than artists. Kahneman likes to be in control and his book has been used by social engineers as they insinuate bias on the entire culture.
Much depends on how one uses their mind, or brain. And what does with their brain changes the neural connections. He is a diagnostic thinker instead of an adventurer brain builder.
He sounds nicer than I intuited from reading his book where he always wins by puncturing every case he confronts.
I loved his response to the question about advertising particularly his mentioning that a lot of politics has the same effect as advertising.
Great lecturer and great audience questions. I might have to take my notebook out and watch this again!
One of the best books I have read in my life! Great work
('00:00:01', 'John Boyd: All right.'),
('00:18:38', 'How to Use System 1 and System 2 as homunculi'),
('00:34:39', 'How causal thinking works.'),
('00:48:07', 'How to Improve System 1 associative memory'),
('00:56:18', 'How to overcome illusions both visual and cognitive')
Thank You Google for bringing Him here for US!
•Intuition - recognition.
•pupil dialate 50% when focused in problem solving.
•system1 (automatic) system2 (effort)
•sys 2->1 by repeated application of the skill.
•better way to remember list- by road mapping to in space.
•agent doing work better way of remembering.
I'm half way with the book, I'm glad I made the choice to read it.
Love this Kahneman and Tyversky are the pre-eminent behavior economists are the key for controlling uncertainty or what the markets call Beta. Pavlov and "Skinner's Box" is also a pivotal and timeless psychological study of epistemology as well. Great meditation for today, of which I will be starting to label "Causal Friday"- in a way to say "how & why did that happen this week".
I like how Kahneman talks. He is a very good at speech and speaks in simple layman terms.
Brilllient book! The part of his book about our mental flaws are truly terrifying! I make these errors myself and I can see these errors in our leaders and judges. The only part of the book I am skeptical of is his assertion that we are in fact rational, we all can see so many examples to the contrary.
I don’t know enough- the humility is sexy and inspiring!!
Great talk. Thank you! What does this make me: My answers/responses to Dr. Kahneman's example questions in the lecture were not what he said most of people's first intuitive answers/responses were!
in the Q&A , listen to the one that goes about money. It´s something to be aware off and understand.
Great class. Very informative.
"i don´t know enough..."
Great speech... EXCEPT for the skid example... People have completely messed this up by using confusing language to describe what you are supposed to when your car enters a skid. It's not counter-intuitive at all. The description is counter-intuitive. If you are driving down the road, and the FRONT of your vehicle begins to move left, you turn right. Period. This is extremely INTUITIVE. You are literally supposed to turn back to the way you were going BEFORE the skid occurred. For years, I was confused by people's description of this, as they used the term 'with' or 'into'... 'with', in particular, is extremely confusing as it makes it sound like you should continue the direction of skid. 'Into' isn't much better. So, PSA, if the front of your vehicle goes left, turn right so that you are straightening out. If you turn left, you are risking a 180 or even a 360.
"Intuitive expertise is not going to develop in a chaotic universe" 17:23
Thanks-you, your talk seriously enforces my knowledge that personal correction correlates with validity of relationship with others- alacrity with coherence- Authority. . System 1 allows the strength of introspection,
Though I have been reading the book, this video still helps a lot, especially the Q&A session! I have been wondering if there is any physical representations of the two systems. Can't believe I just knew the book after 6 years past!
It is system 1 that tells you powerfully ,who you are amongst others.
Great talk. It kinda is a really short run down of his book. I definitely recommend coming back to this video after having read the book!
Рассказывает чертовско интересные вещи. Книга великолепна хотя и немного суховата среднего читателя не смотря на невероятный объем полезной инфы . Меня ребята вдохновляют на создание контента.)
The real bias, is the bias against 'biases'. In real time, these biases/heuristics lead directly and indirectly into new insights. For example, with confirmation bias, it helps serve as empirical evidence towards what we believe . For example, with confirmation bias if "we tend to confirm information we believe" through multiple lines of information, in a certain situation, then there is probably something factual about what we believe, and we know its safe to spend more time on rigorously justifying/proving it. Where as linear thinkers tend to miss on the opportunity. That is a tenant of EMPIRICISM - NOT A BIAS. There is a difference between using a bias to make a quick and impulsive decision in a trivial situation, for which there is little at stake, and using a sense of our biases (in harmony with rationality) towards solving critical problems. In effect, these anti-bias proponents are merely talented straw-man engineers; mostly achievement < IQ types and graying anglophiles who indulge in a deluded sense of intellectual worth.
There aren't really two separate thinking 'Systems' in the brain. Only different processes , that work together to build relationships. This making of this dichotomy is an aversion of the notion that reasoning and creativity is more than just IQ ('system 2') processes, but rather requires and experimental tinkering that can only come from functions attributed to 'System 1'. But the system we live in, especially academia, completely ignores System 1 thinking, while System 2 takes the spotlight with standards tests and formal protocols. Of course, the predictability of these protocols are limited. Until we design theories of mind, that account for differences in real-time cognitive processing. We owe genius to System 1, and commonality to System 2.
actually System 1 is way more about Commonality than System 2 will probably ever be. System 2 is actually more difficult/abstract to comprehend & master.
Daniel Giegerz don’t speak, listen
at 8:20, a sense of agency, or urgency as mentioned in subtitle?
I have a problem with what he defines as intuition - unless i am interpreting this wrong, he thinks intuition is more automatic pilot type thinking or emotional instinct. However to me intuition is a subconscious way of thinking or perception that is outside of both automatic piloting, or outside of reason that comes from the programming and experiences we have. Discuss?
Try speeding up playback. 1.25 helps a lot for maintaining focus.
Yeah man I watch at 2 this guy takes forever to get to the point
Charlie Munger & Daniel Kahneman 2 figures that had the most impact on me being more cognizant of my biases and inclined to monitor my system 1 decisions post-hoc & try and nudge them towards more correct solutions.
I like to think of system 1 almost as L1/L2/L3 cache that is downstream of system 2. And system 2 can slowly update the cache but it takes time & effort.
37:16 Confidence we experience is a judgment of probability
So you're a PhD, but this came out as a mind blowing fact for you?
Kahneman's book, "Thinking Fast and Slow" is wonderful. So too is Michael Lewis' "The Undoing Project", which describes the partnership with Amos Tversky. Together, they were the Lennon & McCartney of cognitive psychology.
What an amazing talk! I am glued to him just brilliant!! Thank you!
It seems if I had written down all the observations I had made in coffee shops when I was a freshman in college, I’d have a Nobel Prize now. Damn. I blew it.
One of the few modern books worth reading.
He speaks the same way he write... i am listening to, even seeing him after reading him...
A really interesting talk about how various people will percieve different things. If any of you have enjoyed this talk I greatly recommend his book on thinking fast and slow. He talks about the way we apprehend the world in two opposed ways. A must read!
Mr. Kahneman,. We don't need the just power to analyze information that is in front of us. We need to power to build ideas when and where they are least expected. Yes some of this building requires analysis, but first there are components of thought that allow us to make novel connections between the sea of distant elements. The cult of the analytic (including Kahneman, have created a society where creativity has fallen behind. Here is a quote regarding JOhn Von Neumann, "Two bicyclists start twenty miles apart and head toward each other, each going at a steady rate of 10 mph. At the same time a fly that travels at a steady 15 mph starts from the front wheel of the southbound bicycle and flies to the front wheel of the northbound one, then turns around and flies to the front wheel of the southbound one again, and continues in this manner till he is crushed between the two front wheels. Question: what total distance did the fly cover? The slow way to find the answer is to calculate what distance the fly covers on the first, northbound, leg of the trip, then on the second, southbound, leg, then on the third, etc., etc., and, finally, to sum the infinite series so obtained. The quick way is to observe that the bicycles meet exactly one hour after their start, so that the fly had just an hour for his travels; the answer must therefore be 15 miles. When the question was put to von Neumann, he solved it in an instant, and thereby disappointed the questioner: "Oh, you must have heard the trick before!" "What trick?" asked von Neumann, "All I did was sum the geometric series." It's clear then that certain solutions are best developed with less conscious deliberation, rather the ability to automatically attract distant ideas into some novel permutation, and then upon a slight moment of reflection, realize there is something useful there. As Einstein said, "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant we have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift".
+Ztech wow....thanks for your commen.
..very
enlightening .
+DaughterOfTinúviel Obviously, being able to sort through a huge sea of mathematical concepts, to solve an arbitrary problem, requires intuition. Associating distant ideas is what intuition is useful for. Without it, we would be stuck with a plain old Piagetian spatial/temporal grouping cues.
so you are claiming that a instant summing of geometric series could not be a recognition of earlier similar problems, but an "divinly" instant creative process that intuitively made him find the answer? have you done a lot of math?
Have you done a lot of Applied math? They were talking about Flys and bicycles, not geometric series. Just to extract the underlying similarity in the way the fly moves, to geometric series, requires generalization (or idealizing) of elements of the story problem and then sensing the similarity between the concept of a series....that process is done with automaticity through intuition. In applied problems, there are lot of similarities that can be sought, but only a few may be relevant to a problems; in this case fruitless combinations like bicycle wheels-circles, spokes-lines, insect birth and growth trees, ect. In contrast, being able to relate elements that are obviously part of a set, 4, 8, 42, 168, 048, takes very little creative associations as everything you need is already in front of you; though this does take a creative aspect of inventing 'operators' that can relate the set.
without System 2 established in place to build & grow from, System 1 wouldn't have the necessary information/tools to draw from. So it becomes a reinforcing loop of events that stores the relevant information needed for System 1 to function from and for System 2 to allocate & grown from. The trick is to learn when to use them and at what levels can they be beneficial to you. - just a theory I came up with just now =)
I like that he understands instrumentalist approach in his teaching concepts.
A nice recursive approach to the neuroscience.
@15.30 Is Prof. Kahneman describing what we also know as 'Flow' Mihaly Czichzentmihaly
Iioiiooioiooioiiijj
Yes iioi
This is perhaps the most important thinking, i have come across.
I think it is time for social psychology and related sciences to be listened in social order matters.
Acho que concordo, pode explicar?
Leo Sousa Não temos controle sobre a maquinaria cognitiva automática, mas podemos controlar os ambientes aos quais ela é exposta, e com isto induzir ou inibir seus processos.
Leo Sousa Basicamente, ao entendermos como os seres humanos funcionam, podemos desenhar sociedades mais harmoniosas, que respeitem a natureza humana.
We already tried to take in freuds and bernays theories and look what happened!
Stephen Sinniah It is not because we have fallen in the past that we should lose hope of flying.
When asked if System 2 depends more on cortical centers while System 1 is in subcortical centers, I saw a glimpse of evolution. It would seem that lacking language System 2 would have no space to act, hence System 1 should be more developed than System 1, in the metaphorical sense that Kahneman uses "Systems."
Hi, how does he mean the agents part? Could someone explain? ~ 23:20
Hi, he’s basically saying that our brains learn much easier if we think about concrete actions instead of the process those involve. So when he compares both system 1 and 2 as ‘agents’, he does it for us to understand better their different actions (rather than learning the separate “steps” each one of them has)
sorry if this is wrong but that’s what i picked up
Lots of interesting nuggets in here about how people are influenced. I wonder what ways he would find meaningful examples of thinking processes and influences in the context of the most recent election? What cognitive illusions did people fall for? What ways can we apply system 2 thinking to avoid them?
Is this a discussion about impulse behavior and cognitive responsibility?
Just to control my impulses, had to rewind the video 3 times for complete focus. It's a great video to come back to understand "Systems".
How would reading this book possibly change my life? (I'm not suggesting that it is marketed to) Is it just an interesting read or can this actually help one's life in some way? Thanks for any replies.
+xhardwarex We all do make mistakes in judgement and analyzis, if you know where the most of the weakness (making irrational choice unwillingly) comes from you might be able to avoid at least few. + you can do smart small talk :). That is Kahnemans Thinking Fast and Slow
+vaultsjan I appreciate the reply. Thank you! (this reply came from stage 2 btw)
I playe a game on Android called Slow Thinking,amazing game for sustained attention training (concentration)and will power exercise.Did 500 digits 1sec/digit with 100%success rate. I would do a Schulte test game before and after the game to assess the increase in concentration and its a very noticeable effect,and it greatly increase brains ability to respond to more complicated tasks. I suppose it switches brain to system2
You will enjoy learning something that is interesting and relevant. I usually don't like popular scientific literature, but this book is the synopsis of Kahneman's work, which really is a treat in itself.
axlrosea675 Thanks for your reply.
I want to ask if something is just made for our system 1 for a good reason to influence our mind, but because we really aware with our system 2 that it was just some illusion or although we know it good for us but it is 'fake', does the system 2 will disrupt a meaningful thing that will perceive on the system 1? Ex: Movie that intended to make us really motivated but because we analyze with the system 2 we become resist with the meaning in it and can't really felt the benefit of it.
experience leads to confidence. diagnostic feedback leads to competence.
What's the meeting of "homunculi" ? It appears on the subs in English, minute 21:00 if someone can listen and check it and explain me please this word and the context 🤔 thanks!
It's the little man in the brain argument. When some uses the term homunculi pejoratively they mean that a brain activity or any activity is being explained by saying that an agent inside the actor is doing the action. "I see because a part of my brain sees" "My car starts because the starter starts it" It doesn't explain the process it just shifts is to another source. This is infinitely regressive thus not an explanation. In this case Kahneman refers to system 1 & 2 language as homunculus because it like saying "we have intuitive thinking because we have a system that thinks intuitively"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument
@Dewyu Nohmi Wow my reply was very poorly written lol, sorry. I hope you understood it.
@Dewyu Nohmi Great. Thank you.
Several of the biggest market experts have been voicing their opinions on exactly how awful they think the next downturn would be, and how far equities may have to go, as recession draws closer and inflation continues well above the Fed's 2% objective. I'm trying to build a portfolio of at least $850k by the time I'm 60, therefore I need suggestions on what investments to make
There are many other interesting stocks in many industries that you might follow. You don't have to act on every forecast, so I'll suggest that you work with a financial advisor who can help you choose the best times to purchase and sell the shares or ETFs you want to acquire.,,,...
Hello there, please who is the F/A guiding you? i'm in dire need of one
Oh found her! Looked up her full name and she was my top search. Thank you for this! Really appreciate.
期待下一个Kahneman能解决分清不只是系统一和系统二,系统五或系统六都能弄明白那就厉害哩!
Great! Thanks for the opportunity!
So humble a person.
I think, questions about system 1 and 2 prone people, seem to miss the point. Kahneman clearly stated that there are no separate systems. We all have unconscious bias based intuition. Kahneman stated that Intuition (system 1) and rationalisation (system 2) are part of the same system of cognition. I think, the difference between people, is that there are differences in the process of rationalisation (self regulation) either due to different experiences (information) or more effective (slower or more rigourous) rationalisation.
Probably the smartest video off my Watch Later list. Will seldom watch it through.
World is not predictable. Formulas defeat themselves and the one's who have created them. it's experience that helps build formula.
I don't know enough. He is a wise and modest man.
my thoughts are MAGICAL
Thank you, Dr. for sharing your knowledge with us.
Great talk.
okk...guys this is not the video prakhar is talkin about...this is 9 yrs old how u even clicked on it 😂😂
:(
12years
Just finished Noise, his latest book. Previously I've read Think fast and slow and there are plenty of references between these two.