-
In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 836 on Wed Apr 17, 2024 11:57 pm
Part 2: Heuristics and Biases
- Chris OConnor
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 17024
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
- 21
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 3513 times
- Been thanked: 1309 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Part 2: Heuristics and Biases
Please talk about Part 2: Heuristics and Biases in this thread or feel free to create your own threads.
- denisecummins
-
Atop the Piled Books
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:22 pm
- 11
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: Part 2: Heuristics and Biases
Kahneman's take on heuristic decision-making is that they lead us astray. An alternative view is Gerd Gigerenzer's Adaptive Toolbox view which holds that heuristics can efficiently lead to good decision-making in the right environments. His classic example is that people are notoriously bad at Bayesian decision-making when information is expressed in terms of probabilities (e.g., probability of .4). But if you give people exactly the same problem using frequency information (e.g., 4 out of 10), their decision-making performance improves dramatically. Gigerenzer argues that is because information naturally comes to us in the form of frequencies (e.g., seeing that 4 out of 10 shirts are blue) while probability as a means of expressing information has only been around since the 17th century and has to be explicitly taught and learned.
Denise Cummins, PhD
Author and Experimental Psychologist
http://www.goodthinkingbooks.com
http://www.denisecummins.com
Author and Experimental Psychologist
http://www.goodthinkingbooks.com
http://www.denisecummins.com
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: Part 2: Heuristics and Biases
This is my favorite part of the book. What's fascinating is that there are systemic biases that affect humanity in general. Quirks in how we interface with and understand the world.
It was always a fascination of mine during high school that such a vast portion of society can completely disagree with other vast portions of society. Essentially, I was trying to harmonize the idea that people are at the same time rational, yet hold false conclusions. How does that make sense? In many cases, the answer is that the primary causal nexus includes systemic biases that apply species wide.
Availability Heuristic is one of the most commonly referenced heuristics in the book. It's the proper name for the concept that while the universe is infinite, our minds are finite. We will always be missing some information about nearly every subject, which taints our conclusions.
In the author's words - What You See Is All There Is.
It was always a fascination of mine during high school that such a vast portion of society can completely disagree with other vast portions of society. Essentially, I was trying to harmonize the idea that people are at the same time rational, yet hold false conclusions. How does that make sense? In many cases, the answer is that the primary causal nexus includes systemic biases that apply species wide.
Availability Heuristic is one of the most commonly referenced heuristics in the book. It's the proper name for the concept that while the universe is infinite, our minds are finite. We will always be missing some information about nearly every subject, which taints our conclusions.
In the author's words - What You See Is All There Is.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
-
-
Genius
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:09 am
- 16
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: Part 2: Heuristics and Biases
Yeah ... really - and this in itself is a perfect example of what I've been suspecting all along. A whole lotta' words to plow through with basic knowledge that we all knew already ... think before you speak - don't just jump in on intuitive feelings and WYSIATI.
Which is also exactly as I suspected ...
Ho Hum ... I'll leave you fine scholars to bend your minds on this one. I've closed the book on it, in more ways than one - ha ha!
Which is also exactly as I suspected ...
Ho Hum ... I'll leave you fine scholars to bend your minds on this one. I've closed the book on it, in more ways than one - ha ha!
- DWill
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
Re: Part 2: Heuristics and Biases
I think that whenever a book can make us think more often about the true basis of our thoughts, encourage us to be detectives of our own minds, that's a good thing. But many people I feel want just the opposite. They want to take their every thought and judgment at face value and to believe what is basically a myth, that we are perfectly rational deciders whose reports about our thinking must be correct. This is a strange thing to believe when you consider that rational people aren't seen as warm or particularly human. Remember Spock?
-
-
Official Newbie!
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:06 pm
- 5
Re: Part 2: Heuristics and Biases
It bothers me that heuristics are cast as biased or bad. Can you imagine if we didn't use heuristics? We'd stand around all day trying to make a decision. What I like about this concept is learning about and then recognizing these heuristics. You can change your mind when you look objectively at why you made a choice. Or, you might decide that's an oaky choice anyway,
- Harry Marks
-
Bookasaurus
- Posts: 1920
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
- 12
- Location: Denver, CO
- Has thanked: 2335 times
- Been thanked: 1020 times
Re: Part 2: Heuristics and Biases
Yes, your sentiment makes sense. Denise Cummings, above, made much the same point.M_K_Saxton wrote:It bothers me that heuristics are cast as biased or bad. Can you imagine if we didn't use heuristics? We'd stand around all day trying to make a decision. What I like about this concept is learning about and then recognizing these heuristics. You can change your mind when you look objectively at why you made a choice. Or, you might decide that's an oaky choice anyway,
Kahneman (and Tversky) had a complex relationship with the real world. Much of the attention received by their work was because they successfully challenged the prevailing methodology in economics by showing that people do not, in fact, generally behave as fully-informed rational agents. In fact there are systematic biases to people's sub-rational behavior, and in this book Kahneman made a good case that those are generally due to the effect of heuristics.
Interestingly, their research also showed that people quickly adapt to incentives and give up heuristic biases if substantial amounts of money are involved. That is, "professionals" in a market don't fall for the heuristic errors over and over on any substantial scale. So in fact, standard economics provides a good model of behavior in markets dominated by professionals.
Where their "behavioral economics" needs to be better applied is in providing safeguards so that professionals don't have an incentive to systematically rip off the casual participants in the market, like consumers of medical care or housing.