[PREV - BERNOULLI_DEFECT]    [TOP]

THE_GREAT_KAHN_KNOWS


                                                   November 17, 2013

Daniel Kahneman, "Thinking, Fast and Slow" (2011)

Kahneman continues with his odd tick
of addressing the reader as though he         KAHNEMAN_SLOWLY
knows absolutely how the reader reacts
at any moment.

He leads off chapter 4 asking the reader to consider:

     Bananas       Vomit

He then remarks: "A lot happened to you in the
last second or two.  You experienced some
unpleasant images and memories.  Your face             Directly addressing the
twisted slightly in an expression of disgust ...       reader in second person
Your heart rate increased ..."                         isn't done very often in
                                                       fiction.  I've heard it
                                                       argued that we find
                                                       it off-putting to have
   Actually "Bananas Vomit"                            someone shaking a
   sounds to me like a band                            finger in your face,
   name, or an underground                             going "you, you, you".
   comic book or something,
   and while I can accept the                              Remember Kahneman
   reactions Kahneman              It's of course          claims some insight
   describes as a statistical      possible that if        into how to put a
   norm, his insistence that       I were hooked up        message over, hence
   I must match the norm is        to a polygraph          the "System 1"/
   peculiar.                       while reading,          "System 2" jargon.
                                   I would realize
   It's a mistake you wouldn't     that my reactions        FIRE_MIND
   expect from someone with a      are closer to this
   scientific background, but      norm than I'm aware.       How did he miss
   he's actually quite                                        the problem with
   insistent about it.                                         using "you" as a
                                                              synonym for "most
                                                              people"?
                  STATISTICAL_INDIVIDUAL

K. is ready for my denials-- or maybe
for a similar but different set of
denials-- after laying out the basics
of studies on associations, and how
reaction to one thing can be
influenced by first being primed by a
reaction to another thing he remarks:

   "When I describe priming studies to audiences,
   the reaction is often disbelief.  This is not a
   surprise: System 2 believes that it is in charge
   and that it knows the reasons for its choices.
   Questions are probably cropping up in your mind
   as well ... "

   "The idea that you should focus on, however, is
   that disbelief is not an option.  The results are
   not made up, nor are they statistical flukes.
   You have no choice but to accept that the major
   conclusions of these studies are true about
   *you*.  If you had been exposed to a screen saver
   of floating dollar bills, you too would likely
   have picked up fewer pencils to help a clumsy
   stranger.  You do not believe that these results
   apply to you because they correspond to nothing
   in your subjective experience.  But your
   subjective experience consists largely of the
   story that your System 2 tells itself about what
   is going on. ... "

      Psychologists have been telling us this in
      one form or another since the days of Freud:       The idea that we
      we are ignorant of our true natures, and only      have unconscious
      they, the psychologists have access to the         impulses is surely
      secret knowledge of what we are really like.       not so unusual at
                                                         this point.
      We hope, however, that today's
      psychologists are more evidence-driven,            I think Kahneman has
      and more careful about over-interpreting           a knack for provoking
      their results...  I continue to worry              confrontations about
      that Kahneman is not so careful.                   what should be
                                                         uncontroversial...
      I wonder if he might not be hearing the
      message that his audiences have actually
      been trying to tell him.                          I wonder if Kahneman
                                                        may be another Lakoff...
           In any case, I personally don't doubt
           that the priming association effects            GOLDLEAF_FRAME
           he's discussing actually happen, and
           also don't doubt that I personally am
           prone to some of them.

           But ignoring the possibility that any
           particular reader might not share some
           particular response, however common,
           seems very peculiar.

           I'm very interested in questions of application
           of this material, as I expect most readers
           are... I would be very surprised if anyone,
           Kahneman included, really wants to back the
           idea that a previously measured statistical
           inclination is our eternal destiny.

                                          So, I have Kahneman in a bind:
                                          I want him to take this material
                                          and speculate about applications
                                          both to individual living and
                                          wider social programs.  But if he
                                          actually goes there, I'm going to
                                          be ready to accuse him of
                                          pseudo-science...

                                                 MONEY_PRIME


--------
[NEXT - MONEY_PRIME]