History and Rationality Lecture Series - Daniel Kahneman

Daniel Kahneman, Princeton University (December 14, 2006): "Biased Biases: Do Cognitive Biases Give an Advantage to Hawks over Doves"

[@PavelSTL]

Every time I listen to Kahneman, there's alway something new and interesting, even if it's on the same topic and impromptu. The dude is amazing.

[@ZackSmyth]

English begins at 2:27 *Like* if you'd like :P

[@fritsvanzanten3573]

1:08:30 Funny: Google translates 'my friend Rick Thaler' as 'my friend Big Failure'. This is almost like Life of Brian. ;-)

[@KeePassDownload]

Great lecture Daniel, always interesting to learn about cognitive biases.

[@fritsvanzanten3573]

I think a major 'flaw' in this field, something that is overlooked, is the assumption 'all people are the same and should be smarter/rational, but still the same'. I think a shorter roadmap would be not to 'repair' everybody, but recognize the qualities of both optimists and pessimists. Let me compare it to soccer: in soccer you got the goalkeeper and the defense. They should be pessimistic, prepare for the worst. You can 't think (optimistically) 'I'll let that striker pass, for he already missed two times, he'll miss again'. Strikers on the other hand should be optimistic. Only one successful attack may decide the game. So you mix optimists and pessimists in the same team. You flourish from the diversity, solid defenders and frivolous strikers. These days however, of positive thinking, everybody is supposed to be a striker. So I think we shouldn't apply the same to everybody. Just recognize each one it's strength and use that to the benefit of all.

[@greggh]

I can think of many examples that seem to engender just the opposite of the endowment effect. 44:01 One in particular is that people can't wait to give up their still almost new cars to get a slightly newer one and incur significant costs to boot.

[@PavelSTL]

@dmokhtar I understand, but YOUR reason is just as good as "invisible men telling us what to choose". The "logic" behind "internal drives" is a function of a specific psychological model. There's no SCIENTIFIC good model that explains WHY we're biased towards the choice, and Kahneman makes that clear. All the evolutionary psychology speculations are interesting "just so" stories, but fairly useless. We simply don't know, and I have no "better" explanation than yours, but I can make one up :)

[@jigyanshushrivastava6153]

This video must be in wattsup feed of every country head of this world.

[@fritsvanzanten3573]

I think rationality is about applying certain rules (including priorities) to make decisions. However you apply these rules to what you consider 'to be the case' (let's call it reality, your perception of it). These biases are mainly about this reality, your perception, your assessment, or even better construction of it. In way you can be rationally deciding. based on a flawed perception/construction of reality. Unless you include this construction of reality, 'what the case is' in what you consider rational. In short, I think you can reason rationally with your biases intact.

[@HailLuzifer]

thx for the upload

[@PavelSTL]

@dmokhtar The reason why YOU chose the risk option is irrelevant to the point. Kahneman's insight is that you DID make that choice. And I would too, although instead of having an imaginary story of Life and Creation in my head, I'd simply resort to my irrational hope of winning by chance. We all make up reasons why we prefer one option over the other, but the Kahneman's message is that we're internally driven to prefer one choice over another. The justfications come a posteriori.

[@TheGazaMethodChannel]

@31min unfortunately I now understand why the Ukraine will be destroyed due to biases on trust and the hawk advantage.