Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Thinking, Fast and Slow is a 2011 popular science book by psychologist Daniel Kahneman. The book's main thesis is a differentiation between two modes of thought : "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional ; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative , and more logical .
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 ...
Thinking, Fast and Slow, book by Daniel Kahneman This page was last edited on 21 May 2023, at 21:41 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative Commons ...
Overconfidence effect, a tendency to have excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of questions, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time. [5] [43] [44] [45] Planning fallacy, the tendency for people to underestimate the time it will take them to complete a ...
Dual process theory within moral psychology is an influential theory of human moral judgement that posits that human beings possess two distinct cognitive subsystems that compete in moral reasoning processes: one fast, intuitive and emotionally-driven, the other slow, requiring conscious deliberation and a higher cognitive load.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
An Iowa school is catching flak for having no “rizz.”. A teacher in a school district near the Nebraska border is being accused of banning the word short for charisma along with over two dozen ...
System one, also known as the adaptive unconscious, is fast, intuitive and unconscious. System 2 is slow, logical and deliberate. Their research was collected in the book Thinking, Fast and Slow, [37] and inspired Malcolm Gladwell's popular book Blink. [38] As with AI, this research was entirely independent of both Dreyfus and Heidegger. [36]