Episode 4 − Intuition and Rationality: Conversation with Daniel Kahneman (Part 1)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 бер 2014
- In order to improve everyday thinking, we need to understand the difficulties we're operating under and the fact that we can't make fully informed, deliberate decisions on most of the issues we face. We need to understand the shortcuts that people use (and must use).
Think101x: The Science of Everyday Thinking is a free online course on edX that's open to anyone. You don't need any previous education or experience, and you can participate as much or as little as you'd like.
Learn more at: think101.org .
--
Attributions:
docs.google.com/document/d/1v...
guys you might want to add subtitles here.........its difficult to understand what kahneman is saying. thanks.
So, where's the part 2? Why no link provided here?
Conman seems to think intution is non-generative. How so? When he says 2 + 2, the entire sequence is generated subconsiously.
Wow... Intuition is an illogical and unreliable way of making judgements? No shit, Sherlock. Tell me something I don't know. I mean really... A whole field of science conducting research since the 1970's has concluded that "intuitive thinging is unreliable." What a waste of time and money.
xkcd.com/386/
Sure. But his (and Amos Tversky's) work gets right into the details of just where intuition goes wrong. It is therefore very useful - and not mere mental masturbation. For example, knowing about the 'anchoring effect' is important and affects each and every negotiation.
@Jeremy Battle You're right. Intuition is obviously not useless or we simply wouldn't have evolved it (not taking into account the possibility of it being a spandrel, but it seem unlikely that something so complex could be a mere evolutionary biproduct of another evolved trait). Intuition, which, roughly speaking, is equivalent to Daniel Kahneman's system 1, is almost useless when dealing with certain areas - like statistics - but almost mysteriously good at dealing with other areas, such as judging character, or judging when something feels off. Indeed, a master in any given domain seems almost superhuman to a layman, having such a depth of intuition that they can at times seem omniscient - an obvious example would be a chess grandmaster.