Thanks! Timestamps: System I: fast thinking, reactionary. System II: slow thinking, deeper level of analysis. 1. Frequent Exposure - The more we see something, the more we trust it. - Our preferences will be based upon our environmental conditions - Is this the best option, or the option that I've been frequently exposed to? - 1:52 2. Status Quo Bias - i. Loss aversion (losses loom longer than gains) & ii. Endowment effect (Emotional attachment) - Ask yourself: what opportunities (opportunity cost) am I losing by maintaining the status quo?- 3:32 3. Tunnel Vision - System I tends to use limited information (and block all conflicting information) to draw conclusions / quick judgments - (W-Y-S-I-A-T-I) What You See Is All There Is! System I Infers and invents causes and intentions, THEN neglects ambiguity and suppresses doubt- "Why might the opposite be true?" That will allow you to challenge old assumptions, and to avoid underestimating - 6:00 Be aware of biases to avoid costly mistakes.
The Endowment Effect is what happens when I go to garage sales. Sometimes people will price their stuff too high because they have an emotional attachment to the items. I go into the sales with no emotional attachment and offer less for an item. If they have too much emotional value in it, they won't sell it for less and take a sure sale. Very valuable info here! Thanks for your hard work!!
Firstly, I would like to congratulate you and thank you for the great video. I bought this book a month or two ago, and it was a hell of a pain to read it. Although I like to read scientific facts behind every event, like what we think and why we do so, this book goes deep into science that it becomes hard to continue after a while. You provided a great summary and explanation because I know how hard it would be to summarise this rather scientific explanation book.
Great book, and thanks for trying to present it's main points simply. One criticism though: Kahneman is not simply "the author" - he's a Nobel Prize-winning research psychologist and economist. Might be worth mentioning that....very important.
I am not a native English but I started to read this book even somehow it is hard to me to understand it but the information that this book has and gives you is incredible and I realized that we did not educated about the way of thinking , this book will help you to be more smart and be more wise so I highly recommend it you
This summary is much better than the actual book. It's very long and not that much good information in it. I would highly recommend not wasting your time reading it. This summary is more than enough.
Great summary! I've been listening to the audiobook on and off for a long time because unlike some other books this one really dives deep into the nuances of cognitive bias so I recommend reading the book because there are so many layers to it. It really forced me to challenge my deep rooted belief that humans have an intuitive wisdom beneath all the fear, emotion, and bias but I'm no longer sure it's that simple after reading this.
4:10 regarding the coin toss bet for losing 100 or gaining 150. You mentioned that most people would turn down the bet even though that if they bet 10,000 times they are virtually guaranteed to make money. However, the key part to the bet is not going broke before the odds turn in your favor. If you go broke in 5 or 10 turns then it does not matter what the overall odds are over 10k or even 1000 turns.
@Pat its correct but why stress moving b to the right at the beginning, the expansion of brackets times 1 automatically remove it. So (1.00+b) + b = 1.10 1.00 + 2b = 1.10 b = 0.1÷2 = 0.05 Oh also its 0.05 not 0.5 Anyways its good im just being extremely fussy
*Why would a person use their slow reasoning system over a measly ten cents? Even if they get it wrong, it's not like losing much. If we're talking about $100, then it makes sense to slow down a bit and let's think this through.*
wonderful. thank you. can't help but see how this is relevant in a time when we're bombarded with other people's narratives and interpretation of "news"!
Great summary! I recently discovered your channel and am enjoy listening to your summaries while I'm cooking. Have you ever considered putting your recordings online as podcasts as well?
One thing I want to point out is thinking fast in everyday matters isn't bad. You should ONLY jump to a conclusion by thinking fast when the decision you are making is of significant importance. Because doing that with everything in your life will be mind costly and probably cause "paralysis by analysis". "You get a 90% okay deal. Buy it" (simple)
To give some additional insight in the "tunnelvision"-example: As mentioned multiple times in the book, humans are very bad at applying statistics. In the given example, one tends to conclude a probability from a representativeness. The given character traits are very typical of a librarian. The amount of farmers with these traits relative to all farmers is lower than the amount of librarians with these traits relative to all librarians. Therefore, the likelihood of having these traits, given that you are a librarian (farmer), is very high (very low). However, the question we ask is: "what's the likelihood of being either a librarian or a farmer, given the character traits". In this case, we assume that the ABSOLUTE number of nerdy farmers is still higher than the absolute number of nerdy librarians. For example, 5/10 (50%) librarians and 10/200 (5%) farmers are nerdy, then among the nerds, there is still a higher percentage of famers (10/15=66.7%) than of librarians (5/15=33.3%). From what is said in the video, one could conclude that the fact that there are 20x more farmers than librarians is sufficient to conclude that the guy is a farmer. Let's reduce the percentage of nerdy farmers to 2%. Now only 4/200 farmers are nerds. The likelihood of being farmer given you are a nerd is now only 4/9 compared to 5/9 librarians among the nerds. This is why you have to be careful, if the character trait is even more specific and if the base rates (the probability of belonging to a certain group, i.e. being a farmer/librarian in general) are not as different as in this case.
"if we don't do our research before an election, we'll trust the candidate who's name we've heard or seen the most" Story of the 2020 democratic primary.
What I mean is, there are a number of factors in having him be one of the last 2 Democratic candidates in the race. Factors that made other candidates less attractive to voters. Warren too progressive, most others too inexperienced. The order in which the primaries took place, etc.
JohnnyArt Pavlou Oops, it looks like you’re thinking fast again. Nope, it’s name recognition. Heres the slow thinking version: 1) Biden was Vice President. 2) Leftist policy/Bernie gets zero support on tv 3) Old people watch more tv news 4) news cries wolf about trump and russiagate 5) old people panic, understandably. 6) news tells them centrists have a better chance of beating republicans despite 2016 definitively shattering this decades long lie. 7) old people vote turn out is more than young people (who don’t watch propaganda) and this swings the nomination. 8) Biden wins on name recognition and voter suppression (centrist that they know and rich people are fine with and the media drums this home). 9) Biden loses to Trump because he’s even more vulnerable than Hillary. Repeat of 2016. See how thinking fast and slow works? You learn something new every day. :)
The main strength of democracy is the ability to sack the government when they are going down the wrong path, corrupt or incompetent. Unfortunately it is rather a blunt tool, because bad decisions get through, but like others said, so far its the best we got.
@@JamboRiffs Democracy is immoral and the best we have is no government at all. The belief in “authority,” which includes all belief in “government,” is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity.
Bitmap Jack Steve Nanno doesn’t work with trump anymore, and do pray tell how it’s authoritarian? It’s the dems that are scary, they have media behind them, and people use talk show hosts as reliable news sources that are 24/7 orange man bad. There’s no accountability with them. If trump does something bad at least you’ll hear about it, heck even if he does something good they’ll report it as bad.
Even followers of this community are so lit... Many of us give real life examples of the theory explained... Its very valuable to read comments also...
I read the book several times a couple of years ago. You should read it too. Parts of it are scary! It is not difficult to deceive any of us or all of us if you had good understanding of these conative flaws and were conscious free person.
Never read the book but seeing your video , how may I know which is the best choice even after slow thinking . Slow thinking leads to overthinking & sometimes just like a pendulum, you come back to your original choice ! #Life
Concise summary. I have read this book and it is very deep. We need to spend considerble time to complete this book. This summary is really helpful for people who cannot read this book fully. Thanks .
For anyone still unsure about the ‘bat & ball’ question.... The total cost of both bat and ball have to add up to $1.10. So if the ball costs $0.10, then the bat has to cost $1.00. The DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO NUMBERS IS $0.90. So to readdress the original question.... if they both have combined cost of $1.10, but the bat costs $1 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?.... well, $0.05. That would leave $1.05 left over for the bat. The difference between $0.05 and $1.05 is $1.
Just snagged this book on Amazon (paperback)... excited for it to come in. Admittedly, that very first example in this video took me way longer than it should have to actually understand 🤣
My fast thinking would be telling me it's a con. If something is too good to be true it's because it is. It's a common tactic to sucker people in with a good deal only to take advantage of their trust later with a really bad deal they're less likely to see coming. Then the villain gets to think you deserved it because you took a deal that was one sided, how immoral! Let the galaxy brains think they are perfectly rational and immune to slippery slope and other brain hiccups. Sometimes you lose more than money when you think you understand something you don't, or you trust someone you shouldn't have.
Our core beliefs about life have been programmed into us from a very early age. (Whether good or not so good) Our lives will be run by these beliefs “unchecked” if we do not make a conscious decision to sort thru them. And pick and choose which beliefs need to be rewired and changed. Our brains are made of plastic and can be remolded and reformed with new habits, attitudes and core values.
Very interesting. I see that the media uses these tactics to a science. I'm going to implement some of these ideas on my marketing and sales approach. Thank you!
Your videos are pure gold! who needs blinkist anyway? I'm sure it takes so much time and effort to produce these but let me point 2 aspects that might encourage you to continue: -Imagine the impact you are creating and millions of people's life by creating these videos -The amount of knowledge you've accumulated for your personal growth is immense So in the name of all the people who watch your videos I wanna say THANK YOU!
Good attempt at simplifying a complex book on a complex topic. I've read the book myself, and consider it one of the most important books I've read in my 60 years. The video gives a wrong slant to the book by seeming to imply that the slow, rational system is superior to the fast, instinctive system. It is not. Kahneman makes it clear with his superb experiments why we need to pay attention to BOTH systems. We are not ever in real life given the chance to bet on 10,000 coin tosses (the video neglected to mention that it was not a one-off coin toss); however we are faced with many situations where we need to make snap decisions. The fast system excels at this and saves us. The book is a wonderful read, anybody who wants to understand human behaviour must read it.
Faulty Fast Thinking Bias #1: Frequent Exposure Bias Concept: Kahneman explains that frequent repetition can make falsehoods easier to believe because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Example: In a study at the University of Michigan, students were more likely to associate Turkish-sounding words advertised frequently with positive attributes. Strategy to Overcome: To combat this bias, it is crucial to question preferences that may be influenced by frequent exposure without critical assessment of the actual quality of the options. Timestamp: 1:52 - 2:52 Faulty Fast Thinking Bias #2: Status Quo Bias Concept: This bias relates to the reluctance to change existing conditions. Kahneman highlights two main aspects: loss aversion and the endowment effect. Example: Kahneman illustrates the endowment effect with a coffee mug experiment, where mug owners priced their mugs higher than those who did not own the mugs. Strategy to Overcome: Utilize loss aversion against itself by considering the opportunities that may be lost by maintaining the status quo. Timestamp: 3:33 - 5:42 Faulty Fast Thinking Bias #3: Tunnel Vision Bias Concept: This is the tendency to draw conclusions from limited information while ignoring conflicting data. Example: The riddle about Steve, a shy and orderly person, who is more likely perceived to be a librarian than a farmer, despite there being statistically more farmers. Strategy to Overcome: Pose questions like "Why might the opposite be true?" to challenge assumptions and broaden perspectives. Timestamp: 5:57 - 8:00
@4:24 Loss Aversion: Just because you're favored by probability doesn't mean you'll make money. Other facts weigh in such as how much you can afford to lose. How do we quantify the amount of risk a decision represents if he started with $150 vs. $150,000,000? Tbh, I don't know but I'm sure the finance folks have a measure for it. The "slow reasoning system" is just as flawed as the "fast reasoning system" if it didn't have information about that measure. @6:30 Status Quo: If you had no idea that there were more farmers than librarians and all you had to reason with was an understanding of what either a librarian or farmer does, the guess made by your "fast reasoning system" is substantiated. @4:37 Endowment Effect: Represents a bias in how much 'monetary value' you'd assign to an item but because there is no absolute measure of 'value', neither 'fast' nor 'slow' reasoning can assign a value to an object and expect to be 'the right value'. The value of the mug is the negotiated price between seller/buyer. This is not to say I don't think we have cognitive biases. I think the whole "fast/slow reasoning system" is a useless/unsubstantiated distinction. There seems to be only 1 way about which we reason and it's based on what we know. The first exercise @0:29 represents a miscalculation performed by a hasty brain. The degree to which our conclusions are valid depends on whether we have 'the whole picture', which we don't (unless we prove that 'there is nothing else more to know').
Great channel n brilliant summary of a heavy book like that ✔️💯✌🏾👍🏾👍🏾. U have taken efforts to simplify and give the gist of it with the right examples. Thank you n all the best for your future endeavours ✌🏾 ✋🏽 👍🏾
Terrible question worded awkwardly by shitty math teachers who try to turn math problems into IQ tests instead of conveying clear meaning and focusing on abstraction. But mathematically, it should be set up like this: $1.10 = ($1 + x) + x, where x is the cost of the ball. So, the ball cost $0.05 and the bat $1.05
1) you will love your wrong decision because you own it 2) You confuse familiarity with truth or ability 3) Loss aversion with status Quo 4) Tunnel vision where you don't think it through
Bhaskar Jyoti Nath I believe so, things like “what you see is all there is” and the distinction between system 1 and system 2 are now in my subconscious mind.
Key takeaways FaST 1.frequent exposure to repetition make it hard for people to judge someone immediately and they believe it to be good bcoz they heard or seen it so many times. In recent political Scenario most of the people in the country do not have proper information on whom to vote they vote on intuition so frequent exposure to a candidate despite him/her being a bad leader people tend to vote for the same leader again as they don't want to go into nut and bolt of the whole process. 2.frequent exposure to status quo. If we react to what we just understood without going through the slow analytical approach we tend to be wrong many times even if we are wrong we don't want to accept it and rather maintain our status quo igoring many biases subconsciously. 3.Narrow thinking is a tunnel approach you don't have to turn around or take cut it is a straight one dimensional road , Means that we don't give another thought about the possible scenarios of the same situation and believe in that our fast thinking reached at first , It should be multidimensional approach but we tend to follow a single dimensional approach to a given problem.
This was helpful! I got this book on amz with the mindfulness meditation workbook called "30 Days to Reduce Anxiety" by Harper Daniels. It's critical to learn to detach from societal expectations of going faster and set boundaries to take control of one's time and life.
Interesting demonstration of the availability bias you're cautioning against at 2:08. You don't need to look to other nations to demonstrate your point.
My system 1 was so strong that I was convinced you were wrong at @0.22. In fact, I even started typing how wrong you were and only when I was typing it out did my system 2 kick in.
I couldn't finish the book. Exactly as I thought. You control your mind don't let it or anyone else control it. Pretty much same thing as meditation. Gives you better judgment and decision making.
Shout out to Stefan Mischook for introducing me to Dr. Kahneman & mentioning his book "Thinking Fast & Slow". And thank you Productivity Game for breaking it down in layman's terms.
In a way yes, sunk cost fallacy means that you want to stick to something because you have already invested a lot of time and money in it, loss aversion means that you weigh loss more than you weigh the gain.
are you simply using the word random because it's the current status quo or does it actually mean what the definition is. Are you also saying the word library without the letter r because it's the status quo or is it missing the first R?
Hello Productivity Game, excellent summary, great content, and very very true. I was wondering if you have any plans to summarize the 48 laws of power, I know this is a long one but it will be great to even get a summary of the most important chapters and laws or even one summary per law? Thank you so much for all the great work!
I don’t understand the farmer vs librarian example. Are we saying that we must completely discount the fact that Librarians would tend to be more meek and geeky and neat? Or are we saying that assumption is completely wrong - and being neat etc has nothing to do with Librarians?
He got the example wrong. The example goes like this "Linda is thirty-one years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participate in the anti-nuclear demonstration." Now the question is; does Linda, look more like a bank teller or more like a bank teller who is active in the feminist movement? Most people say feminist bank teller. However, this is wrong because the probability of being a teller is higher than being a feminist teller. Probability (Linda is a teller) = probability (Linda is feminist teller) + probability (Linda is non-feminist teller). This is the difference between probability and plausibility. It is plausible that she is a feminist teller but higher probability to be a teller. The statement messed up our thinking and started to conflict between our intuition and logic.
Myo Thu Ya Aung shouldn’t Linda’s temperament also be factored into the probability? Without knowing anything about Linda, then we can say she has a higher chance of being a bank teller opposed to a feminist bank teller (assuming there are more non-feminist bank tellers than feminist bank tellers). But since we know Linda’s temperament and background, let’s assume that on average the majority of feminists are also deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and participate in anti-whatever demonstrations often (which I think is probably true). If that’s the case, then factoring in Linda’s personality makes it more likely that she will be a feminist bank teller opposed to the non-feminist bank teller. The example in the video and your example both assume that the strongest predicting factor is the number of people per occupation (number of farmers vs. number of library people, number of non-feminist bank tellers vs. number of feminist bank tellers) but i don’t see how you can claim that that is a stronger predictor of their occupation or stance on feminsm
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks!
Timestamps:
System I: fast thinking, reactionary. System II: slow thinking, deeper level of analysis.
1. Frequent Exposure - The more we see something, the more we trust it. - Our preferences will be based upon our environmental conditions - Is this the best option, or the option that I've been frequently exposed to? - 1:52
2. Status Quo Bias - i. Loss aversion (losses loom longer than gains) & ii. Endowment effect (Emotional attachment) - Ask yourself: what opportunities (opportunity cost) am I losing by maintaining the status quo?- 3:32
3. Tunnel Vision - System I tends to use limited information (and block all conflicting information) to draw conclusions / quick judgments - (W-Y-S-I-A-T-I) What You See Is All There Is! System I Infers and invents causes and intentions, THEN neglects ambiguity and suppresses doubt- "Why might the opposite be true?" That will allow you to challenge old assumptions, and to avoid underestimating - 6:00
Be aware of biases to avoid costly mistakes.
Before an important decision -Slow down, and scan your "faulty thinking" checklist. That's an excellent summary of an exceptional book!
The Endowment Effect is what happens when I go to garage sales. Sometimes people will price their stuff too high because they have an emotional attachment to the items. I go into the sales with no emotional attachment and offer less for an item. If they have too much emotional value in it, they won't sell it for less and take a sure sale.
Very valuable info here! Thanks for your hard work!!
1:50 Fast thinking is not faulty, it's incomplete and we can't do without it. Great video, thank you!
Firstly, I would like to congratulate you and thank you for the great video. I bought this book a month or two ago, and it was a hell of a pain to read it. Although I like to read scientific facts behind every event, like what we think and why we do so, this book goes deep into science that it becomes hard to continue after a while. You provided a great summary and explanation because I know how hard it would be to summarise this rather scientific explanation book.
I thought it only me
Thank you
Is it hard to read?
@@ajrandomfacts honestly it's interesting topic but it's just too boring off a read, this summary was excellent.
Well said. I finished the book, but it was a challenge. I reccomend this video over the book itself.
what a brilliant youtube channel idea. Its like video spark notes. Love it
Great book, and thanks for trying to present it's main points simply.
One criticism though: Kahneman is not simply "the author" - he's a Nobel Prize-winning research psychologist and economist. Might be worth mentioning that....very important.
I am not a native English but I started to read this book even somehow it is hard to me to understand it but the information that this book has and gives you is incredible and I realized that we did not educated about the way of thinking , this book will help you to be more smart and be more wise so I highly recommend it you
Wow. I felt this was probably the most actionable youtube video I've watched all week. Thank you for summing this up.
This summary is much better than the actual book. It's very long and not that much good information in it. I would highly recommend not wasting your time reading it. This summary is more than enough.
Great summary! I've been listening to the audiobook on and off for a long time because unlike some other books this one really dives deep into the nuances of cognitive bias so I recommend reading the book because there are so many layers to it. It really forced me to challenge my deep rooted belief that humans have an intuitive wisdom beneath all the fear, emotion, and bias but I'm no longer sure it's that simple after reading this.
I don’t think this man knows just how truly valuable this channel really is!
4:10 regarding the coin toss bet for losing 100 or gaining 150. You mentioned that most people would turn down the bet even though that if they bet 10,000 times they are virtually guaranteed to make money. However, the key part to the bet is not going broke before the odds turn in your favor. If you go broke in 5 or 10 turns then it does not matter what the overall odds are over 10k or even 1000 turns.
I got this book on Google play book for year almost free thanks to Google offer,
I didn't knew it was this mind boggling. I will read it this week
Read the book twice, but was unable to get the core concept, you made it oversimplified. Thank you
This book is like eating a thick porridge with peanut butter. It's sooo dense and slow.
I really like the way you present the summary and putting in some sense of humour.
Thanks for the summary. It helps to filter down the key points. Video is awesome too!
outstanding videos. Unmatched review of some of the most important books ever written. Thanks, for your precious work.
The bests summary page out there easily for me! Fast to the point and easy to understand are the two things that does it for me keep going!
When you use your “slow reasoning System” and you still get it wrong because you don’t know math
(1+0.05)+0.05=1.10
@Pat 1.00+b= bat+ball
@Pat its correct but why stress moving b to the right at the beginning, the expansion of brackets times 1 automatically remove it.
So
(1.00+b) + b = 1.10
1.00 + 2b = 1.10
b = 0.1÷2 = 0.05
Oh also its 0.05 not 0.5
Anyways its good im just being extremely fussy
*Why would a person use their slow reasoning system over a measly ten cents? Even if they get it wrong, it's not like losing much. If we're talking about $100, then it makes sense to slow down a bit and let's think this through.*
1+1 =2
wonderful. thank you. can't help but see how this is relevant in a time when we're bombarded with other people's narratives and interpretation of "news"!
Great summary! I recently discovered your channel and am enjoy listening to your summaries while I'm cooking. Have you ever considered putting your recordings online as podcasts as well?
Plz tell some of the good podcasts u listen to ....
@@vijendrasharma2904 school of greatness, tim Ferris , tony robbins , Tom bilyeu
My friend suggested this book to me a few years ago. I have it in my to read list but never got to actually read it.
Thanks for the video!
One thing I want to point out is thinking fast in everyday matters isn't bad. You should ONLY jump to a conclusion by thinking fast when the decision you are making is of significant importance. Because doing that with everything in your life will be mind costly and probably cause "paralysis by analysis". "You get a 90% okay deal. Buy it" (simple)
1:55 frequent exposure
3:34 status quo
5:59 Tunnel vision
I’ve just recently bought this book. I hope I don’t regret.
Persik II let me know if it’s good or not, please. I’m trying to buy it.
You should really try it, it's really a must read
destiny ovbiebo it will take time before I read it because I’m still reading three books.
Persik II ok, still let me know, anyway.
Thank you very much for your contribution! All the best to you!
To give some additional insight in the "tunnelvision"-example: As mentioned multiple times in the book, humans are very bad at applying statistics. In the given example, one tends to conclude a probability from a representativeness. The given character traits are very typical of a librarian. The amount of farmers with these traits relative to all farmers is lower than the amount of librarians with these traits relative to all librarians. Therefore, the likelihood of having these traits, given that you are a librarian (farmer), is very high (very low). However, the question we ask is: "what's the likelihood of being either a librarian or a farmer, given the character traits". In this case, we assume that the ABSOLUTE number of nerdy farmers is still higher than the absolute number of nerdy librarians. For example, 5/10 (50%) librarians and 10/200 (5%) farmers are nerdy, then among the nerds, there is still a higher percentage of famers (10/15=66.7%) than of librarians (5/15=33.3%). From what is said in the video, one could conclude that the fact that there are 20x more farmers than librarians is sufficient to conclude that the guy is a farmer. Let's reduce the percentage of nerdy farmers to 2%. Now only 4/200 farmers are nerds. The likelihood of being farmer given you are a nerd is now only 4/9 compared to 5/9 librarians among the nerds. This is why you have to be careful, if the character trait is even more specific and if the base rates (the probability of belonging to a certain group, i.e. being a farmer/librarian in general) are not as different as in this case.
"if we don't do our research before an election, we'll trust the candidate who's name we've heard or seen the most"
Story of the 2020 democratic primary.
Hooga Booga, is that the story? Isn’t it more complex than that?
@@JohnnyArtPavlou No actually, Biden will win because of his name recognition. Not because of his policies
What I mean is, there are a number of factors in having him be one of the last 2 Democratic candidates in the race. Factors that made other candidates less attractive to voters. Warren too progressive, most others too inexperienced. The order in which the primaries took place, etc.
JohnnyArt Pavlou Oops, it looks like you’re thinking fast again. Nope, it’s name recognition. Heres the slow thinking version:
1) Biden was Vice President.
2) Leftist policy/Bernie gets zero support on tv
3) Old people watch more tv news
4) news cries wolf about trump and russiagate
5) old people panic, understandably.
6) news tells them centrists have a better chance of beating republicans despite 2016 definitively shattering this decades long lie.
7) old people vote turn out is more than young people (who don’t watch propaganda) and this swings the nomination.
8) Biden wins on name recognition and voter suppression (centrist that they know and rich people are fine with and the media drums this home).
9) Biden loses to Trump because he’s even more vulnerable than Hillary. Repeat of 2016.
See how thinking fast and slow works? You learn something new every day. :)
unlike trump that runs on platform of well thought out policies? lol
This is such an underrated channel
Frequent exposure bias - true. A good one to evaluate and challenge before making a decision. Thank you for this summary.
This video is brilliant, thanks, I just subscribed
Will be thinking fast & slow from now on!
That’s why Socrates hated democracy just anybody can vote without prior knowledge
The main strength of democracy is the ability to sack the government when they are going down the wrong path, corrupt or incompetent. Unfortunately it is rather a blunt tool, because bad decisions get through, but like others said, so far its the best we got.
@@JamboRiffs Democracy is immoral and the best we have is no government at all. The belief in “authority,” which includes all belief in “government,” is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity.
What sucks is authoritarian morons behind donald tromp like steve bannon crew trying to use this knowledge to bypass peoples minds using marketing
Bitmap Jack Steve Nanno doesn’t work with trump anymore, and do pray tell how it’s authoritarian? It’s the dems that are scary, they have media behind them, and people use talk show hosts as reliable news sources that are 24/7 orange man bad. There’s no accountability with them. If trump does something bad at least you’ll hear about it, heck even if he does something good they’ll report it as bad.
China communist party claimed they found a better system, Chinese style socialism
Great concise and useful review of the book!
Great work, lots of value added!
Thank you
Just bought the book. Ready to dive in. Thanks for the synopsis. :)
Even followers of this community are so lit... Many of us give real life examples of the theory explained... Its very valuable to read comments also...
The Tunnel Vision also applies to a common notion that you don't need the education to be successful.
I read the book several times a couple of years ago. You should read it too. Parts of it are scary! It is not difficult to deceive any of us or all of us if you had good understanding of these conative flaws and were conscious free person.
Thanks for the summary. I am currently listening to this book and you’re summary helps to filter down the main points. Video is awesome too !
Never read the book but seeing your video , how may I know which is the best choice even after slow thinking . Slow thinking leads to overthinking & sometimes just like a pendulum, you come back to your original choice ! #Life
I could not finish the book. Thanks for the summary, which makes a lot of sense.
Concise summary.
I have read this book and it is very deep. We need to spend considerble time to complete this book.
This summary is really helpful for people who cannot read this book fully.
Thanks .
Thank u very much for sharing this book... I should buy it
For anyone still unsure about the ‘bat & ball’ question....
The total cost of both bat and ball have to add up to $1.10. So if the ball costs $0.10, then the bat has to cost $1.00. The DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO NUMBERS IS $0.90.
So to readdress the original question.... if they both have combined cost of $1.10, but the bat costs $1 more than the ball, how much does the ball cost?.... well, $0.05. That would leave $1.05 left over for the bat.
The difference between $0.05 and $1.05 is $1.
Finally someone mentioned it.
You can use this simple equation:
x for ball
x + 1 for bat
1.1 = (x +1) + x
1.1 = 2x + 1
2x = 1.1 - 1
2x = 0.1
x = 0.05
I'm going to start reading this book soon. My stock mentor did always tell me "trust but verify."
Just snagged this book on Amazon (paperback)... excited for it to come in. Admittedly, that very first example in this video took me way longer than it should have to actually understand 🤣
4:24 hold up buddy, my fast thinking can confidently say I would not have the chance to take that bet 10 000 times lmfao
My fast thinking would be telling me it's a con. If something is too good to be true it's because it is. It's a common tactic to sucker people in with a good deal only to take advantage of their trust later with a really bad deal they're less likely to see coming. Then the villain gets to think you deserved it because you took a deal that was one sided, how immoral!
Let the galaxy brains think they are perfectly rational and immune to slippery slope and other brain hiccups. Sometimes you lose more than money when you think you understand something you don't, or you trust someone you shouldn't have.
Our core beliefs about life have been programmed into us from a very early age. (Whether good or not so good)
Our lives will be run by these beliefs “unchecked” if we do not make a conscious decision to sort thru them. And pick and choose which beliefs need to be rewired and changed. Our brains are made of plastic and can be remolded and reformed with new habits, attitudes and core values.
Definitely adding this book to my list of must reads! Thank you for the video 🙏🏻
Great summary. I love this channel and the books you recommend
Merci beaucoup Nathan!
Why didn't I find your channel before? Thanks for such awesome videos :)
Wow! You did amazing job to explain this difficult book, thank you for this brilliant video.
Very underrated channel
0:16 the worth of an item is not necessarily related to the cost at all. So the cost could be $5 bat and $4 ball
Very interesting. I see that the media uses these tactics to a science. I'm going to implement some of these ideas on my marketing and sales approach. Thank you!
Your videos are pure gold! who needs blinkist anyway?
I'm sure it takes so much time and effort to produce these but let me point 2 aspects that might encourage you to continue:
-Imagine the impact you are creating and millions of people's life by creating these videos
-The amount of knowledge you've accumulated for your personal growth is immense
So in the name of all the people who watch your videos I wanna say THANK YOU!
"needs blinkist anyway?" Answer = No one. and no one needs this crap either.
Good attempt at simplifying a complex book on a complex topic. I've read the book myself, and consider it one of the most important books I've read in my 60 years. The video gives a wrong slant to the book by seeming to imply that the slow, rational system is superior to the fast, instinctive system. It is not. Kahneman makes it clear with his superb experiments why we need to pay attention to BOTH systems. We are not ever in real life given the chance to bet on 10,000 coin tosses (the video neglected to mention that it was not a one-off coin toss); however we are faced with many situations where we need to make snap decisions. The fast system excels at this and saves us. The book is a wonderful read, anybody who wants to understand human behaviour must read it.
Incredibly relevant for today’s situation with the vaccines!
Thank you for this video.
Faulty Fast Thinking Bias #1: Frequent Exposure Bias
Concept: Kahneman explains that frequent repetition can make falsehoods easier to believe because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth.
Example: In a study at the University of Michigan, students were more likely to associate Turkish-sounding words advertised frequently with positive attributes.
Strategy to Overcome: To combat this bias, it is crucial to question preferences that may be influenced by frequent exposure without critical assessment of the actual quality of the options.
Timestamp: 1:52 - 2:52
Faulty Fast Thinking Bias #2: Status Quo Bias
Concept: This bias relates to the reluctance to change existing conditions. Kahneman highlights two main aspects: loss aversion and the endowment effect.
Example: Kahneman illustrates the endowment effect with a coffee mug experiment, where mug owners priced their mugs higher than those who did not own the mugs.
Strategy to Overcome: Utilize loss aversion against itself by considering the opportunities that may be lost by maintaining the status quo.
Timestamp: 3:33 - 5:42
Faulty Fast Thinking Bias #3: Tunnel Vision Bias
Concept: This is the tendency to draw conclusions from limited information while ignoring conflicting data.
Example: The riddle about Steve, a shy and orderly person, who is more likely perceived to be a librarian than a farmer, despite there being statistically more farmers.
Strategy to Overcome: Pose questions like "Why might the opposite be true?" to challenge assumptions and broaden perspectives.
Timestamp: 5:57 - 8:00
@4:24 Loss Aversion: Just because you're favored by probability doesn't mean you'll make money. Other facts weigh in such as how much you can afford to lose. How do we quantify the amount of risk a decision represents if he started with $150 vs. $150,000,000? Tbh, I don't know but I'm sure the finance folks have a measure for it. The "slow reasoning system" is just as flawed as the "fast reasoning system" if it didn't have information about that measure.
@6:30 Status Quo: If you had no idea that there were more farmers than librarians and all you had to reason with was an understanding of what either a librarian or farmer does, the guess made by your "fast reasoning system" is substantiated.
@4:37 Endowment Effect: Represents a bias in how much 'monetary value' you'd assign to an item but because there is no absolute measure of 'value', neither 'fast' nor 'slow' reasoning can assign a value to an object and expect to be 'the right value'. The value of the mug is the negotiated price between seller/buyer.
This is not to say I don't think we have cognitive biases. I think the whole "fast/slow reasoning system" is a useless/unsubstantiated distinction. There seems to be only 1 way about which we reason and it's based on what we know. The first exercise @0:29 represents a miscalculation performed by a hasty brain. The degree to which our conclusions are valid depends on whether we have 'the whole picture', which we don't (unless we prove that 'there is nothing else more to know').
Great channel n brilliant summary of a heavy book like that ✔️💯✌🏾👍🏾👍🏾.
U have taken efforts to simplify and give the gist of it with the right examples.
Thank you n all the best for your future endeavours ✌🏾 ✋🏽 👍🏾
Damn I took a WHILE on the ball - bat question.
I still don't understand it
It was indeed a bat question
Terrible question worded awkwardly by shitty math teachers who try to turn math problems into IQ tests instead of conveying clear meaning and focusing on abstraction. But mathematically, it should be set up like this: $1.10 = ($1 + x) + x, where x is the cost of the ball. So, the ball cost $0.05 and the bat $1.05
@@KarlGutowski yes what a shitty explanation he gave
@@KarlGutowski thank you, I felt so slow because I was thinking "if you had a bat that's $1.00 and ball that's $0.10, then it equals $1.10....."
It is really helpful, thank for your efforts
this is why chess often is good for your mind, quick self mistake learner.
1) you will love your wrong decision because you own it 2) You confuse familiarity with truth or ability 3) Loss aversion with status Quo 4) Tunnel vision where you don't think it through
I read the book also, excellent summary! Saved in my favorites!
Has the book helped you to make better decisions now?
Bhaskar Jyoti Nath I believe so, things like “what you see is all there is” and the distinction between system 1 and system 2 are now in my subconscious mind.
Robert Hernandez is it repetitive?
@@rhlogic what's system 1 & system 2?
@@jelw3197 Somewhat, but I think that is good to solidify the concepts. I am not far beyond average brain capacity.
This is so interesting! It's funny how many different ways we can think and process the same problem. Thanks for sharing. Cheers!
Thank you so much
Key takeaways
FaST
1.frequent exposure to repetition make it hard for people to judge someone immediately and they believe it to be good bcoz they heard or seen it so many times.
In recent political Scenario most of the people in the country do not have proper information on whom to vote they vote on intuition so frequent exposure to a candidate despite him/her being a bad leader people tend to vote for the same leader again as they don't want to go into nut and bolt of the whole process.
2.frequent exposure to status quo.
If we react to what we just understood without going through the slow analytical approach we tend to be wrong many times even if we are wrong we don't want to accept it and rather maintain our status quo igoring many biases subconsciously.
3.Narrow thinking is a tunnel approach you don't have to turn around or take cut it is a straight one dimensional road , Means that we don't give another thought about the possible scenarios of the same situation and believe in that our fast thinking reached at first , It should be multidimensional approach but we tend to follow a single dimensional approach to a given problem.
A classic that is in my backlog
Awesome whiteboard animation video-.
Bought it but can’t bring myself finish this book.
Why is that?
if you start to value the book or the content of the book , by setting 20 min of reading everyday this will work .
Don’t finish it then. Just think rationally. That’s what it’s about.
Listen to the free audio version in UA-cam
This was helpful! I got this book on amz with the mindfulness meditation workbook called "30 Days to Reduce Anxiety" by Harper Daniels. It's critical to learn to detach from societal expectations of going faster and set boundaries to take control of one's time and life.
Summary on the one minute manager please! I am loving your videos....
Easier said than done. Even identifying these biases doesn't in and of itself help with predicting the future.
Thank you for your work 😊
Absolutely great summary.
Great book, read it a few years back. I need to read it again. (prob a few times)
Very well put. Thanks
Great explanation
Interesting demonstration of the availability bias you're cautioning against at 2:08.
You don't need to look to other nations to demonstrate your point.
Concisely stated! Well done.
My system 1 was so strong that I was convinced you were wrong at @0.22. In fact, I even started typing how wrong you were and only when I was typing it out did my system 2 kick in.
"A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because FAMILIARITY IS NOT EASILY DISTINGUISHED FROM TRUTH"
I couldn't finish the book. Exactly as I thought. You control your mind don't let it or anyone else control it. Pretty much same thing as meditation. Gives you better judgment and decision making.
Nobody else thought that the ball and bay together cost 2.10?!
Me
Shout out to Stefan Mischook for introducing me to Dr. Kahneman & mentioning his book "Thinking Fast & Slow".
And thank you Productivity Game for breaking it down in layman's terms.
Is the 'sunk cost bias' a composite of loss aversion and endowment effect or something different altogether?
In a way yes, sunk cost fallacy means that you want to stick to something because you have already invested a lot of time and money in it, loss aversion means that you weigh loss more than you weigh the gain.
So the ball cost .5 cents and the bat 1.5 right?? How do you call these problems to look them up
What a Great video
WYIATI, Tunnel Vision, new names for the concept of making a snap judgement?
Brilliant...
My life have meaning now!!!!
I'm thinking of buying.
are you simply using the word random because it's the current status quo or does it actually mean what the definition is. Are you also saying the word library without the letter r because it's the status quo or is it missing the first R?
Thanks
Hello Productivity Game, excellent summary, great content, and very very true. I was wondering if you have any plans to summarize the 48 laws of power, I know this is a long one but it will be great to even get a summary of the most important chapters and laws or even one summary per law? Thank you so much for all the great work!
I don’t understand the farmer vs librarian example.
Are we saying that we must completely discount the fact that Librarians would tend to be more meek and geeky and neat?
Or are we saying that assumption is completely wrong - and being neat etc has nothing to do with Librarians?
He got the example wrong.
The example goes like this "Linda is thirty-one years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participate in the anti-nuclear demonstration." Now the question is; does Linda, look more like a bank teller or more like a bank teller who is active in the feminist movement? Most people say feminist bank teller. However, this is wrong because the probability of being a teller is higher than being a feminist teller. Probability (Linda is a teller) = probability (Linda is feminist teller) + probability (Linda is non-feminist teller). This is the difference between probability and plausibility. It is plausible that she is a feminist teller but higher probability to be a teller. The statement messed up our thinking and started to conflict between our intuition and logic.
Myo Thu Ya Aung shouldn’t Linda’s temperament also be factored into the probability? Without knowing anything about Linda, then we can say she has a higher chance of being a bank teller opposed to a feminist bank teller (assuming there are more non-feminist bank tellers than feminist bank tellers). But since we know Linda’s temperament and background, let’s assume that on average the majority of feminists are also deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and participate in anti-whatever demonstrations often (which I think is probably true). If that’s the case, then factoring in Linda’s personality makes it more likely that she will be a feminist bank teller opposed to the non-feminist bank teller. The example in the video and your example both assume that the strongest predicting factor is the number of people per occupation (number of farmers vs. number of library people, number of non-feminist bank tellers vs. number of feminist bank tellers) but i don’t see how you can claim that that is a stronger predictor of their occupation or stance on feminsm
@@asap397 Probability (Linda is a teller) = probability (Linda is feminist teller) + probability (Linda is non-feminist teller).
Myo Thu Ya Aung Probability (Linda is a feminist teller) > Probability (Linda is a non-feminist teller)
Myo Thu Ya Aung I now realize we’re answering different questions