Thinking, Fast And Slow

[anart]

The same for me, though I haven't finished the book yet either. What I've noticed is he gives you all sorts of 'tests' and then tells you, with what I would call misplaced certainty, what your results were.

I don't think it's misplaced certainty. I think that these are the results for the vast majority of human beings. Just because you may not answer that way does not mean that most people don't, as his research has indicated. Also, even when I answered differently, which was most of the time, I definitely understood how and why most people would answer the way he is indicating, so I think you might be off a bit.

Then he goes on to tell you how your results confirm his theory. And if your results differ, he ignores you. I do think his models overreach in their conclusions.

I don't see any evidence that the above is the case. I don't think he ignores anyone. He even states that people who answer differently are merely what he calls 'more engaged' - but make no mistake, the vast majority of people are not (and even 'vast majority' is an understatement)!

 

[mamadrama]

The same for me, though I haven't finished the book yet either. What I've noticed is he gives you all sorts of 'tests' and then tells you, with what I would call misplaced certainty, what your results were.

I don't think it's misplaced certainty. I think that these are the results for the vast majority of human beings. Just because you may not answer that way does not mean that most people don't, as his research has indicated. Also, even when I answered differently, which was most of the time, I definitely understood how and why most people would answer the way he is indicating, so I think you might be off a bit.

Then he goes on to tell you how your results confirm his theory. And if your results differ, he ignores you. I do think his models overreach in their conclusions.

I don't see any evidence that the above is the case. I don't think he ignores anyone. He even states that people who answer differently are merely what he calls 'more engaged' - but make no mistake, the vast majority of people are not (and even 'vast majority' is an understatement)!

Part of the reason I say this is because of his choice to consistently use the second person narrative - you - when addressing the reader. Look through his narratives describing the answers to the tests. Most of them, if not all say and thus assume 'you answered this way' and it was wrong. Nor does he say you 'likely answered this way' - just that you did. When you consistently ignore a part of your readership who might not be conforming to your analysis, it becomes erroneous not to mention irritating.

None of this is to say there's nothing of note here. The data is interesting and worth exploring. That being said, I plan to continue reading this book not only using my System 1 as he would say, but also engaging my System 2 as most of us do here, when considering the implications of his work.

 

[Laura]

Part of the reason I say this is because of his choice to consistently use the second person narrative - you - when addressing the reader. Look through his narratives describing the answers to the tests. Most of them, if not all say and thus assume 'you answered this way' and it was wrong. Nor does he say you 'likely answered this way' - just that you did. When you consistently ignore a part of your readership who might not be conforming to your analysis, it becomes erroneous not to mention irritating.

Interesting observation.

I just finished reading Pennebaker's "The Secret Life of Pronouns" and based on the studies done there (which are fascinating), the use of the 2nd person in this way can indicate several things, most notably that the individual speaking is taking a certain stance of authority. That CAN rub some people the wrong way.

 

[go2]

I am surprised the forum sees Daniel Kahneman’s two centered model of man worthy of our time and effort. The two-brained model of man is the model of a psychopath, a being centered in the intellect, connected to the instinctive-motor center’s survival function without a feeling center of value of relationship. Mr. Gurdjieff’s model of man is a three-brained, self-developing being with thinking, feeling, and instinctive-motor centers or brains. Why bother trying to reconcile Kahneman’s two-brained model with Mr. Gurdjieff’s ancient esoteric three-brained model of man’s psyche? OK, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. I am not a blind pig to spend my time reading Kahneman’s wiseacreing, to find a few acorns.

Daniel Kahneman is known as the father of behavioral economics. He is a central figure in weaponizing psychology and finance. Kahneman is an expert on human behavior, in the context of uncertainty. This is valuable data for those whose well-being depends on the ill-being of others. Kahneman’s Nobel Prize Lecture includes the experiment on perception of pain in colonoscopy depending on ending amplitude, rather than duration of the pain is useful data to determine the most efficient application of pain to human populations via financial manipulation. The famous colonoscopy experiment echos the use of Kahneman’s research by the Lords of Finance in the current controlled collapse of the world economy.

Sources:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14216 Anton Chaitken’s historical research on the ideas of behavioral economics and its advocates .

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/22750/1/04064.pdf Utility Theory from Jeremy Bentham to Daniel Kahneman by Daniel Read.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2002/kahneman-autobio.html Daniel Kahneman’s Nobel Prize Autobiography from the IDF to Nobel Prize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman for general information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory for behavioral economic theories of Daniel Kahneman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham for Daniel Kahneman’s ideological ancestor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon for Jeremy Bentham’s vision of a vast prison for mankind under the watchful eye of psychopathic, two-brained overseers.

The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed for context of Daniel Kahneman’s origin and agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NupXR8aLgc4&feature=related The Chief Culprit in the Destruction of All the Very Saintly Labors of Ashieta Shiemash: Part 1-Part 5 by HaroldComingGood offers Mr. Gurdjieff’s insight on wiseacreing of learned beings of new formation and the destruction of man’s possibility of self-developing in the image of God.

 

[Laura]

I think you are missing the point, go2: the machine is the machine is the machine.

 

[mcb]

I find Kahneman's approach to be a "useful simplification" for helping to notice what is going on in my mind, which adds to my available tools without taking the place of anything else. Obviously there are many applications for his work that I would not care for, and I draw on many sources to avoid too much influence from the biases of any one author or teacher.

I suspect that the more complex "center" models that we use reflect our experience of what happens in our minds rather than actual neurological architecture. But our experience is what we have to deal with, and I find the two-system model useful in that regard.

 

[go2]

I think you are missing the point, go2: the machine is the machine is the machine.

It is by intentionally suffering my own mechanical reactions of vanity, pride, self-pity, self-righteousness, self-love, self-knowledge etc., that I understand I am a machine. I can never understand with words or knowledge the feeling or taste of I am a machine. I cannot think I am a machine or read about being a machine and thereby understand the terror of I am a machine. As you often say, I cannot think my way out of the prison of my mechanical thinking. So, yes I do understand I am a machine, and I didn´t get understanding by studying cognitive psychology, but by suffering myself. As I said above, I am no longer a blind pig who reads a book and thinks I understand what it is to be a machine.

 

[mcb]

...As I said above, I am no longer a blind pig who reads a book and thinks I understand what it is to be a machine.

Could you read the book without thinking that?

 

[ana]

I think you are missing the point, go2: the machine is the machine is the machine.

It is by intentionally suffering my own mechanical reactions of vanity, pride, self-pity, self-righteousness, self-love, self-knowledge etc., that I understand I am a machine. I can never understand with words or knowledge the feeling or taste of I am a machine. I cannot think I am a machine or read about being a machine and thereby understand the terror of I am a machine. As you often say, I cannot think my way out of the prison of my mechanical thinking.

go2, the point is to try to make good use of what seems to be a fruitful line of work to get started, specially for people who are less attracted to the work as exposed by Gurdjieff.

No one is saying that Kahneman's book is a complete work on human knowledge but still, it gives a first and practical sight of our impulsive, unconscious and mechanical nature which can be very useful for many people here, and does no harm and even reinforce to him whom already has some degree of understanding.

So, yes I do understand I am a machine, and I didn´t get understanding by studying cognitive psychology, but by suffering myself. As I said above, I am no longer a blind pig who reads a book and thinks I understand what it is to be a machine.

I think the above is full of vanity and self importance, besides a total lack of external consideration for others.

Who's driving now?

 

[go2]

So, yes I do understand I am a machine, and I didn´t get understanding by studying cognitive psychology, but by suffering myself. As I said above, I am no longer a blind pig who reads a book and thinks I understand what it is to be a machine.

I think the above is full of vanity and self importance, besides a total lack of external consideration for others.

Who's driving now?

Of course; what you think is right, Ana. If it were not so, I would post more often. What am I to do?

 

[truth seeker]

So, yes I do understand I am a machine, and I didn´t get understanding by studying cognitive psychology, but by suffering myself. As I said above, I am no longer a blind pig who reads a book and thinks I understand what it is to be a machine.

I think the above is full of vanity and self importance, besides a total lack of external consideration for others.

Who's driving now?

Of course; what you think is right, Ana. If it were not so, I would post more often. What am I to do?

Hi go2,

Perhaps I'm off but you seem frustrated and I'm unsure if the issue has to do with this thread or if it's something else. Is everything okay?

 

[Buddy]

Roland JP's recent contribution to this topic brought my attention back to this board and I bothered myself to re-read some stuff without prejudice.

Confession time:
My initial reluctance to take the info on this child board seriously consisted of two concerns. One, that there was, in this material, an implicit assumption that we are all the same. Two, the idea that the work of all these psychologists was oh, so helpful, while we, ourselves, have to admit we are not conscious, lie to ourselves everyday, in every way and know nothing.

Allow me to say that after re-reading the Adaptive Unconscious topic and thoroughly reading this one, the following quote pulled a lot of threads together for me:

There is a reference to a paper by Daniel Gilbert called "How Mental Systems Believe" ( original paper link ).

[quote author=Thinking, Fast And Slow]
Gilbert proposed that understanding a statement must begin with an attempt to believe it; you must first know what the idea would mean if it were true. Only then can you decide whether or not to unbelieve it.

[/quote]

I think there are profound implications there for anyone who will allow some time for contemplation so that some dots can connect.

Regarding number one concern: It's much more clear to me now, that there are enough genomic, cellular, neural and possibly other non-neural substrates common enough to all of us such that many of these generalizations are indeed valid. Maybe our individual differences simply build up from there, for the most part.

Regarding number two, in combo with the info on the Adaptive Unconscious thread, the contrast, or difference in feel, between conceptions based on fiction and those based on input from the proprioceptive network is much sharper for me.

Thanks to all who participate here.

 

[go2]

So, yes I do understand I am a machine, and I didn´t get understanding by studying cognitive psychology, but by suffering myself. As I said above, I am no longer a blind pig who reads a book and thinks I understand what it is to be a machine.

I think the above is full of vanity and self importance, besides a total lack of external consideration for others.

Who's driving now?

Of course; what you think is right, Ana. If it were not so, I would post more often. What am I to do?

Hi go2,

Perhaps I'm off but you seem frustrated and I'm unsure if the issue has to do with this thread or if it's something else. Is everything okay?

Truth Seeker, you are right on both counts. I am frustrated with the thread’s lack of context of Kahneman’s psychology, knowing something of his reputation from work in the field of financial speculation. I am also experiencing an inner dislike of go2, but have nothing externally considerate to offer in its stead. There is nothing more I can say beyond what I posted above; without digging the hole deeper.

 

[truth seeker]

Truth Seeker, you are right on both counts. I am frustrated with the thread’s lack of context of Kahneman’s psychology, knowing something of his reputation from work in the field of financial speculation. I am also experiencing an inner dislike of go2, but have nothing externally considerate to offer in its stead. There is nothing more I can say beyond what I posted above; without digging the hole deeper.

Well, as for the first, perhaps someone else can help you better than I can. In terms of the second (in bold), is it possible for you to start a separate thread in a more private section if it makes you feel more comfortable? It seems as if you may need to get some things off your chest and I don't think holding them in will do you much good. What do you think? :)

 

[Laura]

Truth Seeker, you are right on both counts. I am frustrated with the thread’s lack of context of Kahneman’s psychology, knowing something of his reputation from work in the field of financial speculation.

No reason to be frustrated, all you have to do is write a post discussing this.

I actually did look him up and got an overall picture of him but, after reading a lot of his work, I realized that even if his work is used nefariously, that doesn't diminish it's importance. Obviously, the PTB want fairly accurate studies for their control methods and it definitely behooves us to know what they know!!! Seeing ourselves as they see us gives us an edge. So what is negative about that?

Seems like you've fallen into some black and white thinking: throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I am also experiencing an inner dislike of go2, but have nothing externally considerate to offer in its stead. There is nothing more I can say beyond what I posted above; without digging the hole deeper.

In short, you are exhibiting yourself behaving in ways that are rather exactly described by Kaheneman.

Yesterday evening, in an effort to try to figure out what was bugging you, I read over some of your past posts - quite a few, in fact - and I'd like to suggest that you do this yourself - read them as if you were me, or a stranger and really try to see yourself.