Thoreau's 'Walden' and Ayn Rand's 25th anniversary introduction to 'The Fountainhead' summarize my library well.
Kahneman's life work is a fascinating revelation of the human mind's limitations, including its own inability to see these limitations. The challenge with this audiobook is its reliance on numerical and mathematical exercises--I start to drift when equations and ratios are narrated at length. Seeing this data in print would be easier to digest.
That said, my two takeaways from this book are significant and worth the spent credit:
- "All you see is all there is." (Re: the mind's inability to see data and scenarios in broader contexts)
- "A person's willingness to apply the specific to the general is matched only by their inability to apply the general to the specific." (This paraphrased quote, as Kahneman states, is not his; it stopped me in my tracks nonetheless.)
This book was capable of keeping my attention and wanting more. I consider it thoroughly enjoyable, but this is the type of book that requires your full attention. If you are looking for something to listen to while you are bull fighting or experimenting with electricity this is not the book for you. You will probably die. You have been warned.
It is intriguing to see how the mind is categorized and the paths it takes to figure something out. It is highly educational for everyone.
Somewhat akin to Ben Stein. The narrator could stand to add some inflection and pace changes to sound less like he has given up on life.
Your brain is lazy and so are you.
It would star Matthew McConaughey and Winona Ryder. MMC would be the fun loving stoner that takes everything at face value (System 1) while WR tries desperately to see if what MMC is saying is real (System 2) or just some ghost that wants you to say his name three times. Either way the plot doesn't really progress. In the end the Funions are gone and the M&M's are sorted by color. You learned a lot, but you didn't really get anywhere.
I will probably buy the book since the audio version lets distractions slip by easier.
great to understand how many of our decisions and evaluations come to place, and insights into learning and the importance of practice. so many flaws and biases that can occur in thinking, and typically without us recognizing. also awesome to shatter the too-often held-up doctrine of rational choice. one of the best listens in the last years!
Fascinating, though provoking, well-substantiated.
The effect of "priming"
Hard to believe he's a professional narrator! Painful to listen to.
This book is written by the expert who studied this their whole life. I learned so much. It is thick at times but it will help you grow as an individual and learn how to think. I can't recommend it enough.
Great book on the function (not the anatomy) of the brain. and inspired narrative regarding the human psychology and behavior that result from and interaction between the author's two-part model of brain function.
Yes - Great way to understand how our brains make split second decisions and how outside forces can influence your decision.
I'd definitely have the author simply give the information from the studies he did rather than telling the audience what to think about the outcome. He spends some of the time attacking other professionals and making statements that seem to subtly be intended to convey how much cleverer he is than they are. For example, he talks about the foundation brought about by Bill Gates investing in small schools but that how according to the results of empirical studies that the results of student learning within small schools are simply more volatile in their results rather than actually being consistently better or worse than the performance within larger schools. Despite the questionable accuracy via usually never having a full sample of everyone in question when it comes to relevant respondents for a certain statistic and the false sense of security implicated in having a fixed number regarding statistics overall, The author seems very sure of himself when it comes to the outcomes of the studies he suggests and that bias to me feels more like a sort of intellectual chest pounding than any profound insight that I should be noting. There is a chapter in the book that addresses anchoring, which is a way of saying that we will have certain preconceptions in a certain situation when we have been given a sort of reference point that can often influence human decisions. In this chapter he introduces the concept of suggestion, meaning that a person can influence a certain reaction into being merely by suggesting its existence. It seems situationally ironic to me that it seems to be what he's doing throughout the entire book by naming his studies and then telling us what to think about the outcome after being given the subject matter and the data that he suggests. Should not he should be using his intellect to help us find other interpretations and possibilities so we can choose among them the most likely outcome that we can find for ourselves? Does the truth not exist in a realm of possibilities? Why are we only being given limited information in the form of his conclusions, delivered in a self certain way at that? In short, I can register the implications that he's making but I'm constantly having to make note of points at which I disagree with how self-certain he is. As far as I've experienced, although the truth can be expressed in a range of ways, the easiest way to initially understand the truth is to simply realize that it exists independently of our understanding of it and to be open to the other potential options until consistency in one facet or another seems to reasonably point at a specific outcome. I think anything analyzed severely enough can be made to seem preposterous but in a realistic way, when open to any option or interpretation that presents itself, consistency in certain outcomes given common circumstances and one controlled variable, usually the truth will come forth that way as long as we are aware about the dynamics of the situation in question. This can be without us listening to some extremely self-certain individual who appears to be harboring loads of biases. Also, I'd use simpler vocabulary and I'd use less morbid subject matter in some of the statistical examples he uses because is this book more about showing how smart he is or enlightening the public?
I was fine with the narrator though I don't mind hearing Matt Damon
To not be impressed by Nobel Prize winners because human flaws seem ubiquitous across the entire spectrum of our species
His intense willingness to judge people based on general group affiliation betrays something notably conservative: in group favoritism and outgroup derogation. Things like this are not unbiased and to me, and the truth and bias seem to be polar opposites. The truth to me represents a range of things that are true in and of themselves and true, also making other things true, to further degrees depending in a situational way based on other factors. There is no absolute truth independent of our own biased means of observance that we will ever be likely to access, usually, other than our ability to simply sit back and watch it exist. To me the difference between truth and perception is that truth exists in and of itself and perception is what we talk about. Perception seems able to mirror truth but at any given moment can diverge without our awareness of its divergence whatsoever. Knowing this, I am not inclined to let the fact that a group of experts as awarded a Nobel Prize to a man influence me not to use my truest sense of reality to question him and the material based on the flaws they betray.
This book is so good, so packed with useful, practical, mind-expanding information, that every human being should read this. This book will make you a better person. No matter what your interests, career, etc., this book has insights that will make you better.