Edited by John Brockman, publisher of Edge.org, Thinking presents original ideas by today's leading psychologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers who are radically expanding our understanding of human thought.
Daniel Kahneman on the power (and pitfalls) of human intuition and "unconscious" thinking.
Daniel Gilbert on desire, prediction, and why getting what we want doesn't always make us happy.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb on the limitations of statistics in guiding decision making.
Vilayanur Ramachandran on the scientific underpinnings of human nature.
Simon Baron-Cohen on the startling effects of testosterone on the brain.
Daniel C. Dennett on decoding the architecture of the "normal" human mind.
Sarah-Jayne Blakemore on mental disorders and the crucial developmental phase of adolescence.
Jonathan Haidt, Sam Harris, and Roy Baumeister on the science of morality, ethics, and the emerging synthesis of evolutionary and biological thinking.
Gerd Gigerenzer on rationality and what informs our choices.
©2013 Edge Foundation, Inc. (P)2015 Tantor
"[T]his book offers nourishing food for thought." (Kirkus)
I am a retired high school science and math teacher.I love listening to science, religion, and philosophy audiobooks.
This audiobook is quiet entertaining and enlightening. There is a ton of information regarding the workings of the mind as related to intuition, philosophy, morality, and evolution. Tom Perkins reads effortlessly. As I listened, my mind was packed with new concepts and thoughts that I have never considered.
I would highly recommend this audiobook to anyone interested in the science of the mind.
This is one of the rare cases in which I simply stopped listening. I couldn't take any more. I did not purchase this book to learn how much the authors care or how hard they are trying to be relevant. The discussion on super forecasting reminded me of a remote viewing exercise. I've seen too many narrative fallacies at work.
Give me Taleb or Kahneman. Their books are excellent.
The narrator probably did fine, but the lack of meaningful content drove may entire reaction to this book.
It's hard to imagine the narrator stressing more words incorrectly. I'm not sure if he was a robot or what.
Heavy on generalities about the contributing fields and the resumes of those leading them, light on "take homes" from the various literatures. A few kernels, that's about it.
He has some interesting ideas, but at the expense of sitting through a gratuitous rant about religion, some self aggrandizement about his PhDs, and some basic grammatical errors (singular/plural). I was hoping for more substance on the topic of Thinking.
It depends on if they make the first few chapters about their own Prejudices in regards to politics and religion. I was very offended by both.
I liked the views about how to solve problems. I got lost on the prediction models and the decision making process was probably more narrowed to an individual ideology or belief system rather than a practice that "all" could use.
There is enough good information here that anyone interested in learning more about the title's subject should listen. Avoid the first few chapters though if your not interested in their personal views on politics and religion.
Finding a balance in: Decision-Making, Problem-Solving, and Prediction requires one to realize that their audience will have came from many different walks of life and journeys, and the balance of keeping a neutral frame of reference will serve a better purpose. Anyone who has a psychology background, or a discerning ability to know others will no doubt be able to pick up on the biases the author has. In my personal opinion, biases are not places one can do solid research from because they always start from a slant and therefore can never fully produce a "balanced" objective.
The book is an incoherent stream of consciousness. While it is clear the author is a deep thinker, it is also clear he has not spent adequate time thinking about how to best communicate his message. Complete waste of my money and time.
Although there are some interesting points some of the medical contributors make to this book such as testosterone levels in infants affecting the way the brain develops in logical and verbal areas, the affect of glucose on self control(not what you would expect), and the differences between male and female infants in their responses to systems and people, all told there are many problems with parts of the book dealing with psychology and philosophy.
After the first few mostly helpful chapters on the aforementioned subjects, the work then spins into a litany of pysch surveys commissioned by a cadre of ambitious far-left junior ivy-league professors.
Most of their survey respondents appear to be college age subjects who answer in unrealistic terms. Although they may be correct in that our responses to questions such as "is it OK to...", or "Is this person.." may be affected by our initial emotional reactions, whether or not we were primed by a set of repeated words and, and our values; on the whole, most adults base their responses to questions, and their long-term views, on well thought out logical positions and not on superficiality. Quotes from the book such as "all the respondents said the factory owner intentionally harmed the environment" , or, "in our survey 100% of people said that race or nationality doesn't affect the way they judge people" combined with silly off-white remarks such as "100% of people said that mixed race dog couples were completely OK, but their emotions colored how they responded to subsequent questions about the effect of Rap music Videos featuring mixed dog couples on changing peoples views on this topic", reflect the un-grounded and immature nature of their interviewees and/or interviewers. Although a one-sided tome may be acceptable to the books contributors, many of whom are liberal 30-something psych or philosophy profs, such as Yale's Knobe, Cornell's communist-libertarian Pizzaro, or the renowned Bass, it may not be acceptable for the large percentage of mainstream America. Their part of the book is a mixed bag of colored hypothesis followed by unsubstantiated or wrong-headed conclusions.
The book concludes with a clever although quite labyrinth discussion of the mysterious theory of type one and type two thinking.
Report Inappropriate Content