Be positive 🌟 Charles Franklin Kettering, inventor and philosopher says, “Tomorrow cannot be better while you are thinking about the past all the time.” Yes, be positive in your vision of the present and the future, and then you can change all the mistakes and problems of the past
i sometimes time myself in drawing fast vs drawing slow and of course the drawing is way better drawing slow but i think both systems should be practiced. never stay on one system but balance the 2. if i am drawing a comic strip, and i spend 30 min per drawing for 50 frames in system 1 which is fast drawing and then i practice drawing in system 2 which is slow drawing for like 8 hrs per frame, for 50 frames, i feel the balancing of practicing both increases both systems intelligence and speed.
Excellent book! Lots of food of thought. Recommended to everyone and particularly to those who needs to know more about decisions and choices. You will be surprised! Thank you Daniel!!
👍 Juri Valtanen 📖 I agree, the book is extremely helpful for everyone. Certainly, in my case it has been enormously useful as a long-term equity investor.
Figure it out , thank you for sharing your thoughts. Would you be kind enough to explain the difference between rationalization and science? (I can’t seem to fguire ti uto without your help.) Here’s an overview of Kahneman’s book: 📖 Thinking, Fast and Slow: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
Astounding insight. My immediate impulse tells me to run out & get the book but perhaps I should apply the 2nd strategy & see if it publishes somewhere on the web for free (^-^). Nah, I'm getting that book
Kahneman talks about these "systems" as a dichotomy rather than a continuum. I have called these systems (1) acquisition and (2) performance as they related to learning a musical instrument or anything. With time, its been clear that there is an unconscious, automated processing of highly overrehearsed information which shuts incoming signal more directly through the striatum and chunked loops therein, whereas when there is novelty or surprise or higher levels of uncertainty, incoming data is shunted more directly through the DLPFC and distributed through the cortex to pattern match with less rehearsed, more novel patterns in order to build new ensemble-based patterns from which new automation may be developed if there is enough stereotypical performance redundancy. Many operations may mix these processes depending on the degree of stereotypy versus novelty/urgency/uncertainty. And despite the fact that I've known this for the past 20 years, the Nobel prize committee did not even invite me for coffee.
“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.” - Albert Einstein
@@srinp8726 How many Ramanajuans or Eulers or Gauss's exist? There are a lot of analytical people who are good at providing deep normative answers, but rarely in the instance when faced with a sea of uncertainty. What makes the exceptional mind is the ability to intuitively sense patterns between distance pieces of information.
Withhold Judgement. Senility and other kinds of cognitive dementia boil down to a strengthening of your neural circuits that quickly form conclusions. Conclusions are dead ends. They are lazy. Strengthen your habit/neural circuits for withholding judgement. Genuinely keeping an open mind has side effects of facilitating mutually rewarding social connections, and making projects and adventures more successful.
I've known a character who began to reach conclusions so effectively that he became mentally paralyzed, Looking back, I understand that this pattern began quite early. He reached conclusions about situations, other people and about himself. This habit made discourse and intimacy pointless Although this gentleman was skilled at maintaining a cheerful outward persona, it eventually became obvious that the fundamental cognitive utility had slowly ground to a halt.
Although professor Kanneman says that being stuck in system 1 will make you more emotional -- when subconscious sensitivities may get triggered . Being stuck in system 1 can also make you mentally paralyzed.
When the answer comes to me immediately it is intuition and not thinking slow.... I believe and practice intuition. Thinking is the work of the mind. Intuition is from the Heart.... and the Answer is true. ♥️SORRY GUYS! 🤔
I have one question. Let’s say I am learning to read. In the beginning, it’s slow, it takes a lot of effort and I have to use logical thinking to solve the process of language.(System 2)After learning how to read it becomes automatic, fast and I am almost unconscious of the process. (system 1) How can one skill- reading- be simultaneously two different systems? Can someone smarter explain this?
I would argue the majority (i.e. 90%) of decisions made using Thinking Fast (i.e. which hand do I open this door with?) are the correct decisions. It's more likely the decisions requiring Thinking Slow are going to be wrong because they are the more difficult ones.
I don't get this strange distinction between in voluntary and deliberate thinking. When we deal with complex choices (which are after all the only choices worth talking about) we mostly act on stomach feeling. Too much thinking will make your head spin, not lead to better decisions. Of course, this is hard to prove, but consider e.g. chess. The most frighteningly complex game in the world has a sort of check function through powerful chess progs. And what do they show? That your gut feeling is pretty almost always kind of ok. Also, no amount of deliberate thinking can do away with the errors. It's all a grey zone. Do pardon my pun...
Whats lazy is system 2, that just sits there and waits for something to show up in front of you to snatch at the answer. System 1 is doing a bunch of work in the background, creating new associations between distant ideas, before reflecting with System 2.
Then again do you really trust system 1? Cause that's what's most prone to be deceived or tricked as mentioned many times in the book.what was your state of mind when you wrote this? Was it at ease or strained? It's easy to write about statements when at ease. Would you have corrected yourself when challenged? Did you even think or challenge your idea. System 2 requires effort and isnt lazy. But passing though a filter of system 1 also praises system 1 because it is easier to do so.
🤯 Kaley Hall , thank you for having the courage to share your thoughts. I suspect you have not read Daniel Kahneman‘s book before you wrote your original comment. If you have read his book - you certainly did not understand it properly. Here’s why it is obvious: (This is very meta.) Instead of using the slow and deliberate System 2 - you used the quick but often faulty System 1 to make quick but sloppy descriptions and judgements about System 1 and 2 . ...If you happen to be familiar with Daniel Kahneman‘s work you would understand that System 2 burns far more calories than System 1 - because it takes a significant amount of effort and energy to use System 2. In contrast, System 1 is almost effortless. Given that, which system seems more "lazy"? Certainly, System 1 is used by lazy people who do not want to expand the effort and calories needed to use the more deliberate - System 2. ...Kaley Hall, I hope my comments encourage you to learn more details about Daniel Kahneman‘s work. It is extremely useful to me in most areas of my life. I believe a detailed study of Daniel Kahneman’s work is valuable to everyone. 🍀 Good luck.
System 2 is lazy. Kahneman says as much in his book. This is because "real" thinking is difficult and laborious. System 1 is creating associations, but they are not being critically examined by system 2. When system 2 does critically examine something, that knowledge now goes to sit on System 1's shelf where it can be easily accessed. However, S1 and S2 are just placeholders for this central cognition system that drives human understanding.
🧠 I suspect that was the "System 1" of your brain that reflexively wrote nonsense in an attempt to feel superior to "System 2" thinkers. FYI, in the context of System 1 - habits and reflexes are almost the same thing in that they are done nearly automatically - without slow and deliberate thought process - in contrast with the very deliberate System 2.
Peter Dentice , thank you for your explanation. I could easily be wrong, but it doesn’t seem like you read Daniel Kahneman’s book. ...My understanding is that Kahneman’s System 1 and System 2 are mere labels that encompass many different parts and processes that happen inside of a brain. Besides, I may be wrong, (you should check for yourself) but my understanding is that the left versus right brain phenomena is not as clear cut as some of the early science may have originally indicated. I’m sorry if I’m wrong. I will have to do more research to better fortify my understanding and answer your questions more precisely. For now, I just wanted to share my "System 1" line of reasoning about your original comment.
Daniel Kahneman spent majority of his career studying cognitive and logical errors as well as the biases that lead us to making mistakes. Your criticism is unfair and inherently misleading because you are not, at all, familiar with his work. It seems that your ignorance on this topic is the reason why you are accusing Daniel Kahneman of the precise thing that he is attempting to bring to your attention - faulty reasoning. 🤯 (This is very meta.) Instead of using System 2, you used System 1 to make quick but faulty judgements about the inventor of System 1 and 2 - Daniel Kahneman.
Conman is the sort of cowardly proponent of the analytic, always glorifying the value of linear thought, and the function of short-term memory - receiving praises only from a public with an already inflated sense of intellectual worth (IQ theory). It remains so, the greatest philosophers of mind have always supported intuition and the freedom in selecting elements of thought (Von Neumann called it art), while the laymen will always cower behind analysis, as if it somehow makes up for their lack of worldly achievements. Very few minds in Western societies today, given the presence of the biases against intuition, heuristic, and creative thought, can flourish, but still the evidence of the powers of intuition prevails, thought most often, in the one in a million types, who come to change the world.
I think both intuition and analysis play an important role, Intuition does output a thought quickly but analysis tells us whether to proceed with the action or not, your intuition does not have a rational subcomponent that only outputs a correct thought. Using analysis you could decide whether to proceed or not. The video title and his book name is not quite right, "fast thinking" and "Slow thinking" gives us a wrong impression, sort of separating the thinking process, whereas slow thinking is what comes after what's produced by fast-thinking, The analogies are misleading tbh
Honestly people like you challenging "IQ theory" is pretty dangerous and does not help humanity evolve, IMO. Do you have an alternative theory that doesn't try to pretend intelligence doesn't exist or is without value? All of those "one in a million types" who changed the world through intuition likely had high IQ's.
@@Yusuke_Denton There are more complex models where different brain functions can interact (Multi-process models), which have higher explanatory power than the current straight line, working memory memory limited model, which obviously better reflects elementary learning speed. Who are people like me? What the ##*# do you actually know about me?! People like you, forgetting to cite your asshole, are simply a waste of space.
It's a great book, love it, everyone should read it twice. Once fast, once slow.
A clear explanation of the two systems- useful to keep in mind
Thanks for taking time to produce such a treasure for all of us who strive to make the best decisions we can for ourselves.
Interviewer: “What’s the difference between thinking fast and thinking slow?” - Me: “Thinking fast is thinking fast. Thinking slow is thinking slow.”
That means ur answer is thinking fast
Be positive 🌟
Charles Franklin Kettering, inventor and philosopher says, “Tomorrow cannot be better while you are thinking about the past all the time.” Yes, be positive in your vision of the present and the future, and then you can change all the mistakes and problems of the past
Think calmly..
Act quick!
Just Starting the work is the main key :)
Specially when we are in times of competitive companies and the fast information, there is more temptation to not think much of what we do.
👍
i sometimes time myself in drawing fast vs drawing slow and of course the drawing is way better drawing slow but i think both systems should be practiced. never stay on one system but balance the 2. if i am drawing a comic strip, and i spend 30 min per drawing for 50 frames in system 1 which is fast drawing and then i practice drawing in system 2 which is slow drawing for like 8 hrs per frame, for 50 frames, i feel the balancing of practicing both increases both systems intelligence and speed.
Thank you very much Dr. Kahneman, amazing finding outs
Excellent book! Lots of food of thought. Recommended to everyone and particularly to those who needs to know more about decisions and choices. You will be surprised! Thank you Daniel!!
👍 Juri Valtanen
📖 I agree, the book is extremely helpful for everyone. Certainly, in my case it has been enormously useful as a long-term equity investor.
📖 Thinking, Fast and Slow
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
Garbage book, which presents a rationalist narrative. The real bias is Coneman.
Figure it out , thank you for sharing your thoughts. Would you be kind enough to explain the difference between rationalization and science? (I can’t seem to fguire ti uto without your help.)
Here’s an overview of Kahneman’s book:
📖 Thinking, Fast and Slow:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
Astounding insight. My immediate impulse tells me to run out & get the book but perhaps I should apply the 2nd strategy & see if it publishes somewhere on the web for free (^-^). Nah, I'm getting that book
+Lock0n sure, why not😅😅😅
Nice
Haha nice one😄
Amazing humour 💯
Thank you!
Kahneman talks about these "systems" as a dichotomy rather than a continuum. I have called these systems (1) acquisition and (2) performance as they related to learning a musical instrument or anything. With time, its been clear that there is an unconscious, automated processing of highly overrehearsed information which shuts incoming signal more directly through the striatum and chunked loops therein, whereas when there is novelty or surprise or higher levels of uncertainty, incoming data is shunted more directly through the DLPFC and distributed through the cortex to pattern match with less rehearsed, more novel patterns in order to build new ensemble-based patterns from which new automation may be developed if there is enough stereotypical performance redundancy. Many operations may mix these processes depending on the degree of stereotypy versus novelty/urgency/uncertainty. And despite the fact that I've known this for the past 20 years, the Nobel prize committee did not even invite me for coffee.
“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.” - Albert Einstein
White Man From Town U... what does that mean? Aren’t intuitive and rational mind same?
@@srinp8726 How many Ramanajuans or Eulers or Gauss's exist? There are a lot of analytical people who are good at providing deep normative answers, but rarely in the instance when faced with a sea of uncertainty. What makes the exceptional mind is the ability to intuitively sense patterns between distance pieces of information.
Thanks for the borrowed aphorism that says nothing about this topic. But you sounded smart for a quick second!
@@lowereastsideastrologist7769 Now define intuitive, please.
@@mjamesharding Intuitive means, naturally; without the use of cognition.
Fascinating
Interesting for personality typing. Which people feel most comfortable in type 1 or 2? I’d say type 2 is more rare and perhaps have to be training.
In 1 system you explore new concepts while while in other you execute them in a habitual manner
We have to test our beliefs (intuition) to make them valid(sometimes thinking does not work)
Interesting and informative
The great book is teaches us rationalist and scientific nation in the world. Many many thanks you.
He's one of the great minds of our Time.
@Mounir Asnai 👍
My brain is often pure chaos. At least part of it is. It's kind of broken. It's an amazing thing to watch.
+Hide Seek me too!
Now as you know it, you need to process a renewal of your mind but the key is in your decision to put it in order for you to benefit from it.
Brilliant
Very interesting!
Withhold Judgement. Senility and other kinds of cognitive dementia boil down to a strengthening of your neural circuits that quickly form conclusions. Conclusions are dead ends. They are lazy. Strengthen your habit/neural circuits for withholding judgement. Genuinely keeping an open mind has side effects of facilitating mutually rewarding social connections, and making projects and adventures more successful.
I've known a character who began to reach conclusions so effectively that he became mentally paralyzed, Looking back, I understand that this pattern began quite early. He reached conclusions about situations, other people and about himself. This habit made discourse and intimacy pointless Although this gentleman was skilled at maintaining a cheerful outward persona, it eventually became obvious that the fundamental cognitive utility had slowly ground to a halt.
Although professor Kanneman says that being stuck in system 1 will make you more emotional -- when subconscious sensitivities may get triggered . Being stuck in system 1 can also make you mentally paralyzed.
Walking meditation and exercise: Repeat the reminder to self -- "Witthold Judgement."
Be Curious. Engage.
❤️👨🏫 #DanielKahneman
When the answer comes to me immediately it is intuition and not thinking slow.... I believe and practice intuition. Thinking is the work of the mind. Intuition is from the Heart.... and the Answer is true. ♥️SORRY GUYS! 🤔
maybe you are right. maybe intuition is very important but how do you know which decission is right? is intuition close to random decission?
PROFOUND
I have one question. Let’s say I am learning to read. In the beginning, it’s slow, it takes a lot of effort and I have to use logical thinking to solve the process of language.(System 2)After learning how to read it becomes automatic, fast and I am almost unconscious of the process. (system 1) How can one skill- reading- be simultaneously two different systems? Can someone smarter explain this?
I would argue the majority (i.e. 90%) of decisions made using Thinking Fast (i.e. which hand do I open this door with?) are the correct decisions. It's more likely the decisions requiring Thinking Slow are going to be wrong because they are the more difficult ones.
I don't get this strange distinction between in voluntary and deliberate thinking. When we deal with complex choices (which are after all the only choices worth talking about) we mostly act on stomach feeling. Too much thinking will make your head spin, not lead to better decisions. Of course, this is hard to prove, but consider e.g. chess. The most frighteningly complex game in the world has a sort of check function through powerful chess progs. And what do they show? That your gut feeling is pretty almost always kind of ok. Also, no amount of deliberate thinking can do away with the errors. It's all a grey zone. Do pardon my pun...
Conscious thinking he must mean
yes very sigma 🍷
🕊
Whats lazy is system 2, that just sits there and waits for something to show up in front of you to snatch at the answer. System 1 is doing a bunch of work in the background, creating new associations between distant ideas, before reflecting with System 2.
Nice reflection
Then again do you really trust system 1? Cause that's what's most prone to be deceived or tricked as mentioned many times in the book.what was your state of mind when you wrote this? Was it at ease or strained?
It's easy to write about statements when at ease.
Would you have corrected yourself when challenged?
Did you even think or challenge your idea.
System 2 requires effort and isnt lazy. But passing though a filter of system 1 also praises system 1 because it is easier to do so.
👍 akshay kumar , thank you for correcting the line of reasoning that was clearly produced by System 1.
🤯 Kaley Hall , thank you for having the courage to share your thoughts.
I suspect you have not read Daniel Kahneman‘s book before you wrote your original comment. If you have read his book - you certainly did not understand it properly. Here’s why it is obvious:
(This is very meta.) Instead of using the slow and deliberate System 2 - you used the quick but often faulty System 1 to make quick but sloppy descriptions and judgements about System 1 and 2 .
...If you happen to be familiar with Daniel Kahneman‘s work you would understand that System 2 burns far more calories than System 1 - because it takes a significant amount of effort and energy to use System 2.
In contrast, System 1 is almost effortless. Given that, which system seems more "lazy"? Certainly, System 1 is used by lazy people who do not want to expand the effort and calories needed to use the more deliberate - System 2.
...Kaley Hall, I hope my comments encourage you to learn more details about Daniel Kahneman‘s work. It is extremely useful to me in most areas of my life. I believe a detailed study of Daniel Kahneman’s work is valuable to everyone.
🍀 Good luck.
System 2 is lazy. Kahneman says as much in his book. This is because "real" thinking is difficult and laborious. System 1 is creating associations, but they are not being critically examined by system 2. When system 2 does critically examine something, that knowledge now goes to sit on System 1's shelf where it can be easily accessed. However, S1 and S2 are just placeholders for this central cognition system that drives human understanding.
What? 2+2 for him is automatic? What a legend
The interviewer should get his own nobel prize 👏
Reactive behavior versus Proactive behavior.
Are they doing this interview in a barn?
A sad loss for the world his book on cognitive reasoning is outstanding. R.I.P.
👍
So habits is renamed system 1 and reflexive is renamed system 2.
My grandma could have win the nobel price 😂😂
He created the idea and was bold to enough publish the book. The concept and book could’ve gone totally wrong
You sound like an idiot.
yes true,
very noble grandma is a winner and your laughter is her prize.
stay blessed 😊
🧠 I suspect that was the "System 1" of your brain that reflexively wrote nonsense in an attempt to feel superior to "System 2" thinkers.
FYI, in the context of System 1 - habits and reflexes are almost the same thing in that they are done nearly automatically - without slow and deliberate thought process - in contrast with the very deliberate System 2.
Can you give me an example? tRump perhaps ...
Flo Canyon
Macejkovic Extension
"Your mother"
- wise man
I was not Impulsive emotional
Kip Island
His system is odd. Based on how he defines things,
System 1 is FP2
System 2 is FP1.
Forgive my ignorance, what do you mean by "FP"?
Plato's Cave alum
The left and right prefrontal cortex.
Left is FP1, logic/decisions.
Right is FP2, manage process/emotions.
Peter Dentice , thank you for your explanation.
I could easily be wrong, but it doesn’t seem like you read Daniel Kahneman’s book.
...My understanding is that Kahneman’s System 1 and System 2 are mere labels that encompass many different parts and processes that happen inside of a brain. Besides, I may be wrong, (you should check for yourself) but my understanding is that the left versus right brain phenomena is not as clear cut as some of the early science may have originally indicated.
I’m sorry if I’m wrong. I will have to do more research to better fortify my understanding and answer your questions more precisely.
For now, I just wanted to share my "System 1" line of reasoning about your original comment.
I think fast and ask questions later...
😅
Coneman's bias is that he avoids instances when and how rationality is limited and prone to errors.
Daniel Kahneman spent majority of his career studying cognitive and logical errors as well as the biases that lead us to making mistakes. Your criticism is unfair and inherently misleading because you are not, at all, familiar with his work.
It seems that your ignorance on this topic is the reason why you are accusing Daniel Kahneman of the precise thing that he is attempting to bring to your attention - faulty reasoning.
🤯 (This is very meta.) Instead of using System 2, you used System 1 to make quick but faulty judgements about the inventor of System 1 and 2 - Daniel Kahneman.
@@platoscavealum902 And Plato was delusional.
Did you read the book?
Simple intro to System 1 vs System 2: ua-cam.com/video/GJUyObrMibs/v-deo.html
Okuneva Harbors
Old knowledge, 16th century shoes
What the hay!!?!? That's not what I typed
"Greater Good", woah that sounds like a Voldemort sorta thing, I dunno 😶
lmao what
Bernie Madoff... lol... what a great example though
Conman is the sort of cowardly proponent of the analytic, always glorifying the value of linear thought, and the function of short-term memory - receiving praises only from a public with an already inflated sense of intellectual worth (IQ theory). It remains so, the greatest philosophers of mind have always supported intuition and the freedom in selecting elements of thought (Von Neumann called it art), while the laymen will always cower behind analysis, as if it somehow makes up for their lack of worldly achievements. Very few minds in Western societies today, given the presence of the biases against intuition, heuristic, and creative thought, can flourish, but still the evidence of the powers of intuition prevails, thought most often, in the one in a million types, who come to change the world.
Very well said
@@simonjurado2326 Yes, Cohneman is bullshit.
I think both intuition and analysis play an important role, Intuition does output a thought quickly but analysis tells us whether to proceed with the action or not, your intuition does not have a rational subcomponent that only outputs a correct thought. Using analysis you could decide whether to proceed or not. The video title and his book name is not quite right, "fast thinking" and "Slow thinking" gives us a wrong impression, sort of separating the thinking process, whereas slow thinking is what comes after what's produced by fast-thinking, The analogies are misleading tbh
Honestly people like you challenging "IQ theory" is pretty dangerous and does not help humanity evolve, IMO. Do you have an alternative theory that doesn't try to pretend intelligence doesn't exist or is without value? All of those "one in a million types" who changed the world through intuition likely had high IQ's.
@@Yusuke_Denton There are more complex models where different brain functions can interact (Multi-process models), which have higher explanatory power than the current straight line, working memory memory limited model, which obviously better reflects elementary learning speed. Who are people like me? What the ##*# do you actually know about me?! People like you, forgetting to cite your asshole, are simply a waste of space.
All I heard is illusion, illusion and illusion!