STOP reading Thinking Fast and Slow
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 май 2024
- Join Shortform for amazing book summaries, 20% off the annual subscription with my link: www.shortform.com/pete
Follow me:
Behavioral Science Instagram: @petebitsofficial
Instagram: @petejudo
Twitter: @petejudo
LinkedIn: Peter Judodihardjo
References:
Ulrich Schimmack's Replication Index of TFAS: replicationindex.com/2020/12/...
Priming article: replicationindex.com/2017/02/...
Watching eyes original study: www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Watching eyes failed replication: www.frontiersin.org/articles/...
Money priming makes you selfish original study: web.missouri.edu/~segerti/cap...
Money Priming doesn't replicate: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...
Old Priming leads to slower walking original study: psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-0...
Old Priming leads to slower walking failed replication: journals.plos.org/plosone/art...
Can you explain 3:37 statement? You say, "The worst part about this is that not only more than 50% of what you're reading is a lie, but you don't even know which 50%?" Strange statement considering you just pointed out which chapters contain studies with replication indexes below 50%.
Yeah I see how that was unclear- What I mean is. In those chapters more 50% of the studies are false. But you don’t know which ones are true or false without lots of independent research
@@behavioraldesign pls which book would you recommend 4 me to read, book to make me at least intelligence
@@hussainidovi6813 did u find a good book, I want a book that makes me understand ppl more, faster
@@hussainidovi6813 the hell is wrong with you guys. Read whatever that stands in your way. Only do so after verifying that the book is authentic and contains telling material.
He didn;t pointed out all 50% but you wouldn't even know the information is wrong in the book if you wouldn't watch his video or other studies of the book
It took me more than 20 days to finish, and it is hands down one of the best books I have ever read. it helped me earn to career promotions and change my perspective of life forever
Thanks Pete, I read TFAS last year.
I struggled to finish the book for pretty much the same reasons you mention. Thought it was just me so I kept pushing because in my view if I can't get through this, BE is not for me..
I did finish it and the book is insightful. I appreciated how it lays out the shortcomings of utility theory/ but struggled with the many ideas including priming being so powerful.
Good to know that the evidence base has changed since then, keep up your very informative work!
Reading the comment section to this video was an education in itself. I hope you've learned from the experience.
I read this 5 years ago when I was a high schooler, and I can relate to what you are saying, its great to see that the author accepts criticisms and is dedicated to science and instead of making money
I think the biggest problem with Behavioral economics is that it’s hard to create environment in which you can make experiments that will give new theories. I think Kahneman (and Thaler for example) have more life anecdotes which are interesting to read but can’t be the base for solid theories. But of course their work in this field is exceptional. Anyway I appreciate your criticism for this book, this could also help with reading the news - you read something and accept it as truth but don’t know the population or environment in which they conducted those facts.
Yeah it’s really difficult but not impossible.
Large scale randomised control trials with actual control groups can provide pretty reliable results.
This wasn’t standard practice for many of the studies in TFAS though.
Thanks for the comment 😁
I, too, earned a degree at Warwick Uni in behavioural economics & sciences. At about the same time you did. Talked with the same faculty you studied under. No one said this book is false. In the same vein that no one says you should take any budding theoretical field as "absolute gospel". That's a common bias young academics often suffer. I've seen a few of your other videos and it appears you have two main outputs, either pretend you know more than the giants who came before you, or promote theoretical concepts you don't seem to really understand. I'll give you an example of the latter, the power of replication studies is not only in showing which studies continue (or not) to result in statistically similar results as past studies, but also in showing how we've changed beyond those previous cognitive realities. Failure to replicate is not an absolute indicator of false results in earlier studies. You also very noticeably cherry pick your definition of priming effect (hint, it's both an explicit & implicit effect) as well as the example studies. One poorly executed study does not define an entire phenomenon. "We should stop teaching it to people". Wow, you really are well off the mark. And calling these researchers and their discoveries liars is little more than hubris on your part. Overconfidence much? To assume cognition never changes, is to assume evolution doesn't exist. Kahneman states as much. Unsurprising you fail to mention this. Societies, culture, minds and brains, just like all physical systems, evolve. I'd suggest you take a step back and stop acting like you know so much, but your RUclips channel makes it clear you're well beyond this level of self-reflection at this time.
I don't think he's claiming that the results in the study were false, just that they're not relevant anymore and therefore should stop being recommended so vehemently..
@@aditi22012 He straight up says they're false and literally calls the researchers liars. Notice also how he completely fails to reply to anyone who calls him out on his overzealous statements that have now been proven wrong?
I literally made a whole other video replying to comments Megan. Hello?
@@PeteJudo1 Yes, I watched it when you promoted it in another group. You use one man's work (the same one you use here) as your sole reference to reconfirm your stance in this video. A guy who hasn't been able to publish the one tool you're relying on to negate TFAS research and actually implies the peer-review process, of which he has not gone through, is more biased than his own self-published work. Sounds more like a sour-grapes defense. Since you're here to promote good science and good scientific practice, then using one researcher's unpublished, self-promoted work as your only source for counter-argument is an onion of poor scientific practice.
The studies in TFAS are not 100% accurate, but how far off from being valid, reliable or generalisable is still to be discovered. Schimmack's metric may be an excellent tool for detecting what it is meant to detect, but regardless of how much he laments the peer-review process, it is a more powerful method in the scientific process than self-publication, when it comes to weeding out poor and biased research. The very foundation of yours and his research are peer-reviewed research publications. So pretending the whole peer-reviewed process is garbage just because his tool isn't published yet is a sloppy argument, at absolute best. Umm, Hello?
@@megancrawford5826 That's just Pete's MO. He's deleted two or three of my comments that pointed out factual inaccuracies and other mistakes (i.e., that he didn't know what he was talking about). Deleting comments demonstrates to me that he can't take criticism and apparently can't take being wrong (which he often is in his videos).
Please! That one result fails to replicate does not mean that the effect "does not exist" or that "it is a lie". Reality is far more nuanced. What a replication failure tells you it's that you need to carefully examine accumulated evidence, as there is always uncertainty.
There is an overwhelming amount of cumulative evidence falsifying many of the theories in the book. I just put one failed replication study in the description as an example
i think the 2 main takeaways from this book should merely be the sheer extent of the egos impressionability and to take chances, it is by no means an in dept guide into the field but still offers some great learning opportunities
will check out your books that you recommend, but the things you point out in this video were personally things that i didn't put much weight into in the first place. the eye opening brilliant appeal of the book for me was that it was an introduction to the idea of system 1 and system 2 thinking. this video has not convinced me to throw out that baby with the bathwater of a couple of failed extrapolations. but maybe i missed something. the system 1/2 thinking was a paradigm shifter for me. hopefully (for me) your recommendations include something along the lines of a more empirical description of those
Great content. Thank you. I subscribed.
Dude, you're so on point. I also never got to an end.
Glad you agree :)
I think it is very important to make people aware of studies that have low replication. That being said I think in a way you are being way too harsh. Firstly I didn't find the book boring at all. Sescondly, I feeling like things such as the "watching eyes" and the " priming" experiments aren't really the central thesis of Thinking Fast and Slow. The central thesis of thinking fast and slow is 1) Humans aren't the rational actors that economics makes us out to be. 2) We use two systems of thinking one fast and inuitives but mistake prone and one that is slow and usually more accurate (assuming the person has the skills to back it up). 3) Experts are good at some things but not others and we need to be aware of the what areas experts make reliable decisions and when we should perhaps rely on quantitative data and formulas. Thinking fast and slow should probably be re-written to remove poorly replicated research, but ignoring it entirely is throwing out the baby with bath water. In all I agree that perhaps you shouldn't read it cover to cover, but doing research into the more solid parts of the book isn't a bad thing. In fact ANY research/book should be taken with a grain of salt until it is replicated.
Thank you for this. Finally someone I agree with about this book. Yes it is dull, so dull. I stopped after 20 or so pages.
Interesting video, let down by one thing. You refer to the contents of some of the chapters as lies. That is a misuse of the word "lie". To lie is to intentionally deceive and, to quote directly from the Replicability Index page that you showed in the video:
"It is likely that Kahneman’s book, or at least some of his chapters, would be very different from the actual book, if it had been written just a few years later."
In other words, his survey of results from (and mostly prior to) 2011 has been superseded since, as you'd expect in a relatively new and growing field.
I personally still think that it's a very important book but it has to be read with one's critical faculties engaged (as is true of reading any book, especially one referring historical studies). The replicability index for the book is a helpful guide as to which chapters to treat with the most skepticism. I'm sure that could be applied to, for example, 'The Righteous Mind', 'Moral Tribes', and a host of other moral psychology books (another area of the social sciences experiencing a renaissance of late).
“A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”Bertrand Russell
@niko welcome to society. and more especially academia. They are notorious for being arcane, using extra verbage, for no good reason. They just like to hear themselves MORE than they want communicate their ideas to others.
@kurak3n Haha your response illustrates perfectly what Bertrand Russell says in that quote
Nice quote but doesn't apply here.
@@gauthierthomas4171gratuitous "not to me it doesn't"
clever man is somebody who can explain complex terms and ideas in simple understood way even for stupid person
if he didn't understand it means you are idiot yourself not a clever person
Thanks man!
I do agree with what you are saying but I liked the reading of the book because you could see that it was the pioneering work of the field. Nothing is bound to stay absolute through time especially something that was created less than 50 years ago
Yeah totally agree. I think Thaler’s misbehaving does a better job at explaining the origin of the field now though with less of the falsified theories.
Hey Pete! I'm currently reading Misbehaving by Richard H. Thaler and it seems to talk a lot about Amos and Kahneman. Do you know anything about the reliability and relevance about it. Don't want to get a wrong idea about the topic right from the start as I'm new to Behavioural Economics. Thanks, love your videos!
Kahneman and Tversky's research hold up pretty well for the most part! The dodgy stuff in the TFAS is all the stuff that Daniel Kahneman didn't research himself!
Bro, Great stuff.
this book was published 10 years ago, of course some of the findings are outdated, but that does not you shouldn't read it, we just need to update what's wrong in the book
You referring to the content as “lies” is pretty disgusting. It implies intent from the authors. It was one of the first books in the field, and while it all doesn’t hold, they were pioneers. Go ahead and recommend other books and and state this one isn’t high quality, but it really wasn’t necessary to drag it through the mud.
If you watch a little further into the video I think you can see that I pay due respect to Kahneman
It was necessary to know which chapters or parts are not updated to latest findings, and that being the first book of its kind is the most imp reason that new researches might have changed the course of the field.
@@PeteJudo1 I know that you did. But you still referred to him as a liar.
Was he intentionally misleading readers?
@@davincidribbler7427 don't you think an update should have been given by author himself that book has now few disapproved theories?
Coz it happens when you relate non-parametric data to parametric with small data sample, the theory is not generalized then.
Read your comment.
People nowadays get offended so easily, it funny 🤣
I think you need consider: Make a video telling people about read or not read the book in your perspective and life story is just a point.
Sorry almost never comment on RUclips videos but I must here. Begining around 3:20, you say that some thing had been proven false due to failed replication. Please just eradicate the words proven false from that sentence. What it does it increases the probability that a result is wrong but does not prove it false. I know it is tedious but if you are going to do science you have to be comfortable dealing with degrees of certainty.
Attending the Behavioural and Economic Science program at Warwick this year and I am so excited to come across your page Pete! Also very happy that I am not the only one who struggles to read the book- three times so far!
Good luck at Warwick Namrata!
i would like to know more about the watching eyes ... do they change your behavior in anyway other than morally if that couldnt be replicated?
Thank you!!!
I loved the book! I couldn't pout it down! My background is physics, math, and statistics which might have helped me read it. If the analysis you cite simply looked at the papers cited, then the analysis is flawed because Kahnemann cites many papers simply to show the errors in them that otherwise intelligent, well-educated researchers make. The book explains the irrationality I see all around me and have never understood.
It answered my question about humans - why don't people think things through, research both sides of an issue, and try to be objective? The book gives an answer - because although people CAN think and reason, they don't want to because it takes effort and takes time. They just go with their emotions, take the shortest, easiest route, even if it contrary to what they have been taught and believe in terms of scientific and mathematical and statistical rigor.
An intro stat course I took many years ago had as homework assignments, reading various papers and finding the flaws. Invariably, it was insufficient data, non-random data selection, and no control group.
Thanks. Returning this after 20 pages of boredom.
i read 180 pages of straight horse shit. unrelentingly boring shit author
I remember trying to read this when it first came out and I was bored after about 20 pages. I never went back to it.
I read it in german and actually found it quite interesting and recommended it to a friend. Maybe the translated version is less boring. The content itself is fascinating in my opinion, too bad that there is a lot of misinformation in that book. Can't recommend it anymore...
Unfortunately so
no, you are just German, you have easier time reading boring things 😂
I’m on page 170 and I really was pushing myself to read it, tbvh I am preparing for military and I thought it’ll help me in someway but I think I am wrong at this 🤷♂️
I recall an experiment where warm and cold drinks were used as the priming stimulus. Do you know if this has been replicated? Is there any validity to the priming concept?
The algorithm finally realized I’m interested in behavioral economics and sent me your channel. Good stuff! Thank you! 🙏🏾🇺🇸❤️
As far as I know, straightforward semantic priming has generally been replicated better than subtler forms of priming…such as visual cues (e.g., watching eyes), temperature, symbols, posture (e.g., power posing), location (e.g., seeing a church bldg makes people act ethically), etc.
What would you recommend ?
Great. I found Schimmack's blog recently, and was very interested in that post. One correction to your video: the post is not complete. He doesn't survey all chapters with empirical results. He surveyed most, then stopped (presumably to get to it later, but he's a busy man y'know?)
not finishing things isn't signal of reliable person
Bit of a stretch here. I do understand the problem of replicability (which to be fair is ubiquitous in social sciences even with p values of 0.001 given the difficulty of spotting causality) in some of the chapters, but that’s not what makes the book a great effort. The idea of the two systems - which in my honest opinion is the core takeaway - was an absolute game changer in many fields and deeming the book as worthless to read is a bit absurd. Again, I’d rather go with a Taleb’s approach and not try to overstate *absolute replicability* in social sciences to make a theory (pay attention, not a *theorem*) worthy of consideration.
Can you explain more abt Taleb's method or give the keyword for us to search ?
@@khairulimran1269 hi Khairul! Taleb’s view (perhaps opposed to other greats such as Judea Pearl) is that in social science there is a widespread illusion of causality. Complex systems are hard to grasp and p-values - with which replicability is evaluated - don’t tell much about causal relationships between variables and we perhaps need to come to terms with some limits of our knowledge (the sole fact that social science models begin with an x number of assumptions speaks volume on the authenticity of social science as a *real* science).
This might seem a pessimistic approach but I disagree, it actually frees social science from the burden of being a hard science, where theory != theorems.
In fact, even the most statistically comprehensive social science paper “suggests” doesn’t “prove”. And it’s fine like that.
To come out and say that Kahneman’s book should not be read, when his theory on the two system was also adopted (with reasons) from other fields (for instance in neuroscience), seems a bit too rough…
@@khairulimran1269 oh and btw you can read his collection: INCERTO or you can watch the conversation he had with kahneman on YT
Kahneman's book taught me mainly about correct and incorrect ways to use and interpret data. In that sense I consider it to be one of the best books out there.
Of course the examples about psychology should be taken with a grain of salt, but that's absolutely not his fault (in regards to this book), it's the fault of the field of psychology which is still in its infancy and riddled with flaws and errors. You should be blaming the experiments that he used as examples, those are not his experiments. But the ideas about statistics and perception that he teaches from those examples are pretty much spot on and they'll transform your scientific mind in very valuable ways.
Yeah I agree about the data interpretation side. Never said the examples were his experiments. Just in his book. Grain of salt is quite generous too. The whole foundation of many of the concepts has been unequivocally disproven at this point.
The data stuff alone is not enough to make the book worth reading though
@@PeteJudo1 Are there other book(s) that you'd recommend for data analysis, cognitive biases and statistical fallacies (I don't have an academic degree)?
@@ETBrooD he recommends other books here: ruclips.net/video/vzpsTJRECM4/видео.html
I sure hope psychology stays in its infancy and we can take it with a grain of salt. lol Be careful what U wish for, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
question, are you saying the premise of the book is wrong that there is not two brain systems one which is more likely to be biased or that the examples used overstate the case, and do not stand up to replication?
pls which book would you recommend 4 me to read, book to make me at least intelligence
Thanks a lot
hello @Pete can you recommend some books about behavioural economics? Thanks
ruclips.net/video/vzpsTJRECM4/видео.html
Had it in my to-read pile like for some time. I will still read it but glad I can go into it with this in mind (proceed with caution!) 👍
😬 if you’re determined to read it. I recommend referring back to Ulrich’s Replication Index so you know which chapters to watch out for in particular
Still a good book though. Great insights about how we have both a fast intuitive system and a slow deliberate planning system.
It's not only Kahnemann though, it's sadly the whole sphere of modern scientific psychology that struggles with poor replication. Self defeating really.
What do you think about his latest book Noise?
Important to note Kahneman himself in the book admits that researches including himself do not apply the statistics correctly. Also worth noting that Kahneman responded to the blog post stating he agreed with the main findings.
Good video. I just bought it lol
Sorry 😬
What I really like with your review is you put your proverbial balls on the line and have strong opinions. Regardless of whether people agree with your opinions or not, it helps them form their opinions.
There are tons of studies showing how having money and power changes your attitude and empathetic capabilities towards others 4:44
Jaw dropped. I started reading that book when it first came out. Only got half way through. Thought it was me. Now I’m really glad I never finished it.
As for priming replicating horribly, well, it's a bit complicated, because, for example, a huge part of the prejudice research is based on priming and it replicates quite well. So what becomes interesting is what kind of priming replicates, and what doesn't.
I don't know if that is true though. A lot of the implicit prejudice paradigm that is based on social priming and which based a lot on the Implicit Association Tests or similar data is even more troubling that the social priming.
@1:31 Sir, did you just dox your grandparents? 😭😭
The problem is that the field of psychology is highly academic and largely inaccessible to people without a psychology degree. Kahnemans book has made the subject matter accessible to everyone, in relatively plain English. The work on biases (not all his) availably, affect, overconfidence, optimism, prospects et al all stand to have been reconfirmed numerous times, over many years.
I saw the LinkedIn post that inspired you to make this post. You are quite young , be mindful of other academics downplaying others in an attempt to look better and promote their own interests. This is common among academics.
@@mun5763 Science is disconfirmatory, no one would disagree with you. Kahneman did win the Nobel Prize - I would have to imagine this process has some level of peer review/scientific rigour to it if you're suggesting Kahneman's work has gone "unchecked". Further, have you seen the LinkedIn post in question? If not, best to reserve your comments. A book - not a peer reviewed paper - was being promoted and advertised by the author that hadn't even been published yet, claiming to discredit Kahneman's work. It was promotional self interest and a clear conflict of interest.
I bought and downloaded this book to my Kindle in 2017, and many books and 5 years later, I still didn’t touch it. I simply deleted it after some contemplation and lost of interest in the book.
what about his new 2021 book?
I bought this almost an year ago . Still hasn't read it more than 2 chapters.
Since time is a scarcity. I thank you for saving me the time I would have put in reading it. And I thank everyone for their opinions and insights about Daniel and Amos work. " A Friendship that challenges are mind" LOL
I honestly thought I was the only one who had similar opinions, I haven’t finished the book that’s because whilst reading it the riddling book sometimes didn’t make sense itself… nonetheless my opinion too
Suggestions for better reads?
I’ve been slowly erring towards buying the book over recent months.
ruclips.net/video/vzpsTJRECM4/видео.html
You're great!
I’m not a social sciences person but started reading this book recently after watching an interview of Kahneman. First 50 pages were sometimes so difficult to understand that I wasn’t sure if the explanation is not clear enough or I’m just not getting it. Although I didn’t enjoy it I’ll keep reading the book.
Not one discussion in this review of a single concept in the book: availability heuristic, planning fallacy, reversion to the mean, and many more.
The book is rich in insights worth grappling with.
Ouch, harsh. I get it but, sheesh. As you say, it was okay for it's time. At least he got y'all started in the right direction.
so, its pretty concrete in the data that cameras reduce crime even if they don't function.
4:40
i read the half of the book and then got bored, glad i didnt finished it. Do more videos like this. Youre content is amazingly rich!!!
Thanks mate!
I don't agree with you. To tell that the book is useless and not to read this book is very midleading. And you are exhibiting something in the book called 'confirmation bias'. You are seeking reasons for not to believe in the book. I don't think we need that book to be perfect to learn from it. I am an economist by background. I am now a health economist. I have dealt a lot with clinical trials. So, I felt the same that experimental studies mentioned in the book are not that good good (it actually far far from good). But this is quite common in non-medicine field. You cannot have perfect RCTs for that (e.g. very costly). Even what you have done for experimental at Warwick, can you be sure that you do proper randomisation to replicate general population for those you recruit for your works? I think the book is very well writen, using language that quite easy to follow (this is migth be because he is psychologist. I read 'misbehaving' and I know how bad economist write compared to psychologist!). The book has introduced many important concept e.g. confirmation bias, Bayes rule other cognitive biases. Yes, several things are arguable. So, it is your work to find out what to believe or not. For me I have a background in doing several research, I evident myself how serious the confirmation bias is (the problem is not all reseachers know this. They don't even know that they don't know!). Those with background in economics should really read this book (even before you read 'misbehaving'). Lastly, the book is reccommended preliminary reading for several courses including at LSE for MSc behavioural science.
But the like baseline assumption of the book that our perception is fallible and not totally logical, thats still true? Right? Like we experience cognitive illusions, just not some of the ones described by kanneman
Bro really?
You didn't even once in the whole video point out a single mistake in the book ( though there may be some ) , you just latched at the author and the book from the very start... That's i suppose what you guys call The Cognitive Bias.
I KNEW it! I knew I would never be able to complete , so I just skipped the first part and read the Heuristics and behavioral econ part. Thanks Pete Judo , this video saved me guilt of not having completed the book
No need to feel guilty!
This is a perfect demonstration of how and why psychology isn't high on the science hardness scale. You won't see such disagreement in physics or chemistry. And I'm a big fan of psychology.
When practitioners condone a huge issue of non-replicability by saying that the human behavior has changed since the research was done, then you could question the value of the whole research area.
Don't underestimate the amount of problems physics and chemistry have undergone to get where they are now. The social sciences however ha e a whole range on problems which make the research very hard. And the large multifactorial relationships that are often tested with the absence of true experiments (which are often impossible due to obvious ethical reasons) and the unreliable measurement methods are just a few. I think it does the social sciences an unjustice and physics too much justice to make such large claims.
Have you read his new one, "Noise - A Flaw in Human Judgement"? A review would be nice! :)
Making my way through it
@@PeteJudo1 Nice! I will wait for the release in portuguese that will be in september here in Brazil. Can't wait to read it too.
@@PeteJudo1 You must make a video on it now XD
I have been finding the book very interesting
Any book. I mean any book that you read shouldn't be used as gospel of all the books. This is true even for the religious books.
Take the ideas from that book and analyse it on your own before fully accepting it. Take the consideration of the parameters of life that the author himself is in, the parameters of his examples and your own parameters of life. Parameters such as society that you, the author and his examples live in; the thinking of that time and your time, your own life experiences and your family/personal condition, etc.
Implement and test those ideas and add your own learnings to it.
True!
I just started reading this book i made it to level 50 and am dying of boredom 😮💨
What should i read instead of it? Is there a book that registers the new findings on the same topics? (With new facts and corrections to the errors in the book by Kahneman) Ty this is a pretty usefull video, very interesting for anyone who took a basic behavioural economics course (I study economics in the university of Florence. Ps. sorry if my english is not clear, I'm still working on it ahah)
*hearts comment instead of giving a reccomendation*
@@dkhosh7380 😂😂😂
@@dkhosh7380 hold my heart
ruclips.net/video/vzpsTJRECM4/видео.html
I like the intention of this video. However, the way it is being presented needs to be further refined or needs a bit more tact. It sounded a bit more contemptuous than necessary. The title is a bit too clickbait especially for a negative feedback. It works for a compliment, but iffy when it comes to negative feedback. It comes across as voyeuristic. As an example, how you capitalise S-T-O-P
I see where you’re coming from darccw, but I disagree that it’s clickbait. Clickbait is when you promise one thing in the title and thumbnail, and then deliver something else or underdeliver. STOP reading Thinking Fast and Slow encapsulates my argument well, I really do want people to stop reading it.
@@PeteJudo1 Irrespective of my agreement or not, I am liking your comment, because I appreciate your effort in crafting a response. Thanks.
I mean, here you’re saying that you’ve taken a book as gospel, then calling to authority with the opinion of « challenging young minds who are studying the field » and saying that it’s completely wrong, despite it being a well known and established book. There’s a bigger lesson to be learnt here…
Great video! What do you think about the book: Nudge?
Not as bad but not perfect for sure
"All" of those are wrong?
All the ones I mentioned plus more yes!
you saved me lmao. i just started reading this book, and it seemed very difficult to understand (lol). i am high school junior, interested in studying behavioral econ. what books would you recommend me to read?
Honestly, coming from a scientist with years of research experience in the field (who attended the same uni & degree as this guy), I don't recommend listening to him. Several of us don't. He misleads nearly everything he discusses.
Daniel Kahneman , was awarded the Nobel prize in economics. Who are you to just trash his book. Show some respect Judo Boy.
Great book still
Hi, kindly advise on on the predictably irrational, 50 great myths of popular psychology,
Hey Pete! I work in behaviour science and couldn't make it through TFAS 🙈 Can you recommend books for those of us who aren't beginners per se, but would like to deepen our understanding of the field? Thanks!
Yes please check out my video 6 books that will change your life
ruclips.net/video/vzpsTJRECM4/видео.html
Dude you're Malaysian? Hello from a fellow Malaysian!
Hello my friend!
His name sounded more Indonesian 😁
Wow fellow Malaysians 👋🏻
Sorry PETE !! This book changed my life.
Is Noise by Daniel Kahneman worth looking at
Will make a video on this. Worth reading the beginning at least.
I love the way how you expose your content and how you explain some things like experimental replication very clearly. I also like the intros and outros, but I noticed something. If I can make a short suggestion, try adding some background music to the main part of the video. I think it could really make a positive difference. Keep it up! :)
I couldn't disagree more with you about it being boring
Read the book called Behave. It is much better
Like how many times he said "Thinking fast and slow" in this video!?
I really appreciate 😊 you saving my time from buying this book. I’ve been deliberating to the point of delaying whether to purchase this or not coz there’s so much I don’t understand about it when reading it. Luckily for me I stick to my first rule and principle in buying books i.e. if after reading and skimming it I still don’t understand then I will not buy it. Your summary and review of this saves me both my time⏳ and money 💵 😅
Impressive. I want to read the book even more after your video. Was that your purpose?
Literally the opposite
I read it-forcefully-thought it was made for AI. Agree totally with replication flaws problem…hated this book.
When I read this book I was not impressed at all. And even now I'm not surprised by the meager replication of his examples. To me it is more a quick and light read for business men at the airport waiting for their next plane. People liked it because they thought that by extension of the examples they could make an extra buck. For example when people are really biased in risk taking, then you can great a financial product that benefits from that bias. Like the smart uncle who teaches you a trick to win from or impress your friends. This should never have gotten a Nobel prize. It is almost a disgrace to other Nobel prize winners.
Deductive reasoning must be foreign to him.
I have read almost 65% of the book. I will complete the book.
First, the book seemed boring. I liked the idea system1 and system2. But I expected that I would read problems with solutions. But the book does not include solutions, but only about misinterpration of our attitude and flaws. The book is giving bad message to corrupted people. I knew 2 people who have read it, they are trying to use the book's example to use other people and manipulate them, and to game on people. I thought that bad people use books for their bad ways.
Actually, the book's idea was to discover people's thinking flaws. But the author failed to express his idea.
What book do you recommend instead ?
Check out my book recommendations video titled “6 books that will change your life”
I don't know why he doesn't just give a link...ruclips.net/video/c1EbHBaeKi8/видео.html
I am so shocked.
Hopefully in a good way!
hahah to the guy who outbid me on ebay for this book