<story><title>Daniel Kahneman has died</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2024/03/27/daniel-kahneman-dead/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>zug_zug</author><text>Yeah I wouldn&amp;#x27;t read too much into any single study. But what I would defend vigorously is System1 &amp;#x2F; System2 distinction as something so clear&amp;#x2F;fundamental that you can see it constantly once you understand it.</text></item><item><author>mistercow</author><text>It’s worth noting that many of the results in Thinking, Fast and Slow didn’t hold up to replication.&lt;p&gt;It’s still very much worth reading in its own right, but now implicitly comes bundled with a game I like to call “calibrate yourself on the replication crisis”. Playing is simple: every time the book mentions a surprising result, try to guess whether it replicated. Then search online to see if you got it right.</text></item><item><author>zug_zug</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m not one to give an exaggerated eulogy nor rhapsodize about all those &amp;quot;Books with a white cover and a weird picture&amp;quot; -- but I will say I read thinking fast and slow for the first time last year, after decades of resisting, and felt it covered some generally profound ideas that still are relevant as ever and not widely understood.&lt;p&gt;(Though at some point, maybe the 2nd half of the book, drags on and you can skip most of those chapters. If you don&amp;#x27;t have time for that, I&amp;#x27;m sure chat GPT can give you a taste of the main premises and you can probe deeper from there.)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>lupire</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s been called &amp;quot;emotion &amp;#x2F; intuition&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;logic&amp;quot; for centuries or millennia before the goofy System name was invented.</text></comment>
<story><title>Daniel Kahneman has died</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2024/03/27/daniel-kahneman-dead/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>zug_zug</author><text>Yeah I wouldn&amp;#x27;t read too much into any single study. But what I would defend vigorously is System1 &amp;#x2F; System2 distinction as something so clear&amp;#x2F;fundamental that you can see it constantly once you understand it.</text></item><item><author>mistercow</author><text>It’s worth noting that many of the results in Thinking, Fast and Slow didn’t hold up to replication.&lt;p&gt;It’s still very much worth reading in its own right, but now implicitly comes bundled with a game I like to call “calibrate yourself on the replication crisis”. Playing is simple: every time the book mentions a surprising result, try to guess whether it replicated. Then search online to see if you got it right.</text></item><item><author>zug_zug</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m not one to give an exaggerated eulogy nor rhapsodize about all those &amp;quot;Books with a white cover and a weird picture&amp;quot; -- but I will say I read thinking fast and slow for the first time last year, after decades of resisting, and felt it covered some generally profound ideas that still are relevant as ever and not widely understood.&lt;p&gt;(Though at some point, maybe the 2nd half of the book, drags on and you can skip most of those chapters. If you don&amp;#x27;t have time for that, I&amp;#x27;m sure chat GPT can give you a taste of the main premises and you can probe deeper from there.)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rileyphone</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s just such a bad name though.</text></comment>