Talk:Thinking, Fast and Slow

I think this needs checked for copyright infringement. Notice the "As shown in the figure below" in the "Prospect Theory" section.--Therealdrag0 (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a first pass to improve NPOV in this article. I think it could still use some more work. I suspect the original article was written by the publisher or at least a big fan of the book. User:snickell —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Will see if some references can be added. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Part about two selves

It seems that two findings are mixed up in this section. Kahnemann observed patients having a colonoscopy and let them rate their state of (un)happiness, but he did not change the length of the treatments ( this would probably be viewed as highly unethical, so I think it is important to check that point) and this was an observation study and not a controlled experiment.

There is another experiment described in the book where subjects have to put their hand in extremely cold water. There are two settings in this experiment: in the first setting, subjects had to hold their hands in the water ( held at a fixed temperature ) for x seconds and then they could withdraw the hand from the water. Subjects in the second setting also had to hold their hands in the water for x seconds ( at the same fixed temperature ), but then have to hold the hand in the water for another y seconds which is made slightly warmer, without the subjects knowing of it.

The second setting was rated as less negative in hindsight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4B35:6901:5D3B:2A00:3ABF:D1C0 (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of preferences for probability of loss

The section in Prospect theory say that "place the greatest value of all on a change from 0% to 10% (going to a chance of winning from no chance)", but then "the order of the first and third of those is reversed when the event is presented as losing ... there, the greatest value is placed on eliminating the probability of a loss to 0.". But this would be exactly the same ordering. Something is amiss. FMalan (talk)

Either you are misreading. You quoted "place the greatest value... " but the article says "place the greater value...".

...Or perhaps the article was edited to be correct, and then someone forgot to remove the flagging on the article.162.205.217.211 (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: The link for the cited material, Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, points to a document that no longer exists. -199.83.221.236 (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thinking, Fast and Slow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://people.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/Ec101/ProspectTheory.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true oder failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

chapter 25 Bernoulli's Errors. (Penguin 2012 pg275)

Am i the only one who fails to comprehend Anthony & Betty example ?

I do not compute the same final numbers. Are they gifts or investments with cost to initial wealth, or typos !? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.116.91 (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

criticism - style of writing

i belive the article about the book cant be complete without a criticism section. a criticism focusing not only on the theories/findings presented in the book, but also on how the book is written. if i may say so, theres just too many crappy books out there being heavily advertised by saying that it is a bestseller, therefore it must be a good read, or eg. falsely creating the notion, that the author is associated with the world famous nobel laurate prize.

i dont feel entitled to start such a section myself by reading the first 67 pages of the book, but i already have an uneasy feeling about it: it seems to me, that however exciting the idea described in it, the writing itself is somehow clumsy, doesnt lend itself to be easily read/followed/understood. I should get back to this after finishing the book, but one conclusion already lends itself: even a brilliant scientist doesn't necessarily make a good writer - which is what really matters in popular science literature. So i suggest to add a section to the article abut how well written the book is (based on what critics made of it). 176.63.176.112 (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC).

The feeling that sg is deeply wrong with this book seems coherent with this review: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-k-levine/thinking-fast-and-slow-an_b_1906061.html

This is not to say the book is completely bad, or that the author's ideas are is wrong - but to make a neutral and informative article theres definitely a need for a criticism section. The description of thid book in the lede as "a bestseller" implies the false notion that it is well written. 176.63.176.112 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC).

now, after having read almost half of the book, i must adjust my previous opinion, it is extremely poorly written. omitting detalis crucial to understanding while pondering on many less relevant, or straight irrelevant details, often awkwardly written sentences, verbosity making me want to rewrite the book, or rather throw it away. p.154 in the paperback (towards the end of the section called "tom w's specialty") he desribes some typical intuitive answers to a probability-related question, tells us that the real probability is surprisingly different , tells the correct answer 11 and 94.1 percents respectively), and concludes by saying that how the correct percentages are calculated is not relevant in this book, ergo the reader is left to just take his word that we should rather believe an undisclosed statistical calculation rather than our intuition. i bet that this much was known to most readers before this book was written. if i know anything, the single purpose of book s of this genre (popular science) is to disclose exacltly how something is according to science and do it in a way that is easily followed by the layperson. now this book is all the opposite of that. yet it still contains a lot of interesting information hidden behind its horrible writing style and pompous awkwardness which sums up to a book only slightly worse than the average half-decent book. Maybe even not worse. 176.63.176.112 (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC).