/lit/ - Literature

>kahneman, lasch, fischer
why do ppl read this bugman non-fiction, like what do you think this will accomplish

>>17367222
>never reading about the world around you

>>17367222
Not OP, but Kahneman's book is one of the ones commonly recommended to people trying to get into day trading. So it's not necessarily that people want to read about biases and probably more that people want to read famous trading related books to get into the most straightforward way to try to go into business for yourself and earn money without a traditional job.

>>17367222
because i feel like i have to to be able to relate to people.

bugman nonfiction is an accurate characterization. fisher was fun though

>>17367235
>thinking award winning bugs have insights into the world around you

I couldn’t make it past the prologue. The intro sounded like something straight out of anti fragile and then the mother fucker actually mentions taleb. I had to throw it out immediately and unfriend the person who recommended it to me from discord. Fucking trash Reddit book

>>17367241
day trading is fucking gay, if you want to piss away your money gambling vegas at least has hookers

>>17367243
oh sorry i thought your position was more based than it was. carry on.

>>17367245
yes it is a reddit trash book. He does mention Taleb a LOT
>Kahneman - "The Black Swan changed my view of how the world works" and explains the influence in his own 2011 book Thinking, Fast and Slow.

Going by these books, we have entered the age where society is divided into two classes, Taleboid/Kahnemanoid/Gladwelloid noblemen, and their feeble, cattle-like subordinates.

>>17367207
go to Google Scholar, search for Kahneman & Tversky and stop complaining

>>17367245
Taleb came after, doofus

I listen to books like this on audio because they’re basically midwit lectures. I enjoyed it, but I wouldn’t want anyone to actually force themselves to read it.

>Just finished section 3 of 5 today, 150 pages of this drivel left. It just winds on and on. It's not even bad, imo it has very valuable insights. The book just strings them out over such a huge volume of pages/material/text.
Every self-help book or a book in the self-help sphere does this, its like 50 pages of actual material spread out with 300 pages of pure filler.

>>17367318
good take

>>17367304
uninformed take

>>17367318 >>17367323>>17367245>>17367222
>midwit lectures
>self-help
>reddit trash
>bugman book
can anyone who recognizes this recommend something else that they consider substantial insightful reading? no one out is really reading OP book for pleasure

>>17367362
homer

It's alrite. I can't really remember much of the biases though.

All I can remember is the hindsight bias, WYSTIA and the halo effect. The halo effect is very interesting especially in the privilege discussion since the most powerful form of privilege is being attractive.

Unfortunately the only real big take away from the book so far is that stock trading is basically gambling and there's a bunch of biases that people fall into to think they can actually predict what the market will do.

i only think slow. i never think fast. "speed kills," they say. slow is the way for me. you gotta do the thinking slow.

>>17367323
80% of the book is summed up in the articles it's based on , tacked on at the very end
I'll never get tired of pointing this out to people, hope somebody notices and saves literal hours of their time to get the same insights

>>17367382
that's why it's not worth reading it, since you just already become aware of those ideas just from listening to any lectures on investing or browsing autistic bug forums like hn

this was actually good but the guy who wrote it is not an academic or anything but maybe that's why

>>17367397
I think the book is worth it for the end notes on each chapter, if you refer to them before making a big decision in your life, you can use the associative memory to remember the biases and then apply them to the situation you're facing now.

I don't know much about books but i'm pretty sure the end notes in each chapter are extremely important

>>17367411
have you never thought about biases before? if you done investing or diversity training you probably already well versed in most of them, recommend me an obscure bias you only found out about from that book, not saying that as a gotcha, legit tell me sth new

>>17367391
you gotta do it slow

>>17367415
well for example the bias you may be acting out right now is the bias of expert intuition. as a rule the author hates intuition and would much rather algorithm's are used instead. I can also see that doctors are possibly the worst case of this, and I wouldn't be surprised that in the near future a computer will be able to diagnose medical problems much more accurately then doctors.

Of course we all have an intuition about the different biases you have, but the books lays them out in a basic way. Then the following weeks you will constantly be going "oh my boss is having a hindsight bias," and what not.

>>17367415
>obscure bias
they couldn't be relevant if they were obscure. the endowment effect and loss aversion are extremely important to be aware of if you're investing, the affect and availability heuristics if you're working in marketing, etc. if you're already aware with most heuristics and biases, it's mainly due to this book and the research it's based on

>>17367435
machine learning can already diagnose a lot of stuff better than humans, really anything that involves looking at images that can be fed into a neural network. it is true that my experience with pop econ books being trash might be leading me to be prejudiced against kahneman's book. on the other hand, i've read a lot of investing books to the point that they get repetitive so probably any important research he published has already been rolled in to those.

>>17367362
I mean a lot of these books have some good insights, its just that those insights could be explained in 50 pages or less but they have to market a full length book so they streeeeeetch it out to 300 pages.
One example that comes to mind is Millionaire Fastlane. The core concepts of the book could be adequately explained in like 15 pages max. The core takeaways are don't trade money for time, you need to find a scalable business, etc. But somehow this nigger stretches it out to 300+ pages with anecdote after anecdote and rant after rant, saying the same fucking thing forty different ways.

>>17367458
It doesn't read as an investing book and I picked it up and read it mainly as a psychology book. Obviously the biases apply to investing, but they are very much useful in every day life.

I think my favorite part is when he describes the personality trait of hedgehogs, when you means someone who has a single world view that they use to answer every question they receive about the world. I know of a friendly neighborhood tripfaggot who suits that name very well

>>17367488
well even humanites ppl who actually went to school and not basement dwelling autodidacts will know grand narratives are dead, but people easily fall into them anyways, hopefully a good humanites and social science education would prevent it though. ironically the same people who bitch about post-modernism are the same people who read dudes like taleb who i believe wrote on some shit " the narrative fallacy" where since we think in language we try to make a story to explain things to ourselves be it why the roman empire collapsed or why target raised the price on clif bars. i never read taleb though, just heard about it in a book about jeff bezos lol

>>17367511
>hopefully a good humanities and social science education would prevent it though
I think they encourage it at this point.

>>17367207
Great book and very readable. You probably find it tedious because you have a low reading level.

>>17367458

You're a literal nobody. I think I'll read Kahnemans book over your opinion thanks.

>>17368116
something about Kahneman always makes the dumbest of /lit/ show up in force

>>17367296
>Taleboid/Kahnemanoid/Gladwelloid
Imagine being so smoothbrained that you see no difference between the three

jewish author - everyone is evil except me
also jewish author - im actually also evil

>>17367207
>The moral is that we are subject to statistics
stats are peak atheism

>>17367207
>Daniel Kahneman is an Israeli psychologist

>>17367304
>Amos Nathan Tversky was an Israeli cognitive and mathematical psychologist

>>17368811
>>17368818
H-HOLY SHIT... (((KAHNEMAN))) WAS WORKING THE ISRAELI ARMY... HE EVEN APPLIED HIS THEORIES THERE... DOES THAT MAKE HIM... A BASED JEW?????????

bump

>>17367207

Just so you know: you are a deeply stupid person, and one day you're going to realise it.

>>17370914
classic opinion of a "fast"-type thinker

>reading pop-econ books

now that's what i call bugman

>>17368395
Yeah op is really stupid

>>17367207
>The moral is that we are subject to statistics that we have poor natural intuition for and this turns out to have really profound implications for basically all our perceptions.

The irony here is that most of the studies in the book have been non-replicative. You'd be a fool to internalize all the mental models presented in the book by the book's own logic.

>>17367222

Midwits want to feel smart without having to go through the work of digesting complex subject matter

>>17367207
OP, no one in this board (hopefully) reads trash bugman jew books
Posting this exposes you as an idiot or as underage. Please lurk more

>>17372564
ive lurked for 1000 years. what are they reading instead? Pynchon DFW Joyce Homer Nabokov Dosto, Moby Dick, Culture of Critique??

literally fuckoff. know thy enemy dumbass. I'm reading eat pray love next.

>>17367235
this post made me happy, you are based as fuck

>>17372547
You are dumber than OP

>>17372536
Not true.

>>17372536
>non-replicative.
>replicative

LOL fuck. It's replicable you absolute mong.

>>17373012
cringe

>>17373173
still waiting for you to post books you consider legitimate

>>17367207
Good post, thank you for sharing!

honestly guys yes it is middlewit, but it is still very much worth reading. the thought experiments are very insightful in an objective way. it's not a self help book

>>17374015
Yeahs its great.

>>17367362
Surfing uncertainty by Clark
Theoretical Neuroscience by Dayan
some general intro to traditional neuroscience

Read this if you want to understand the brain, fuck popsci

>>17367511
>humanites ppl who actually went to school and not basement dwelling autodidacts will know grand narratives are dead
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
midwits are truly hilarious

>>17375067
>he unironically believes grand narratives

yikes

To be fair, the book has a succint summary of all its ideas in the appendix at the end. Just read that if you want to get the main ideas.

>>17375094
A. I can guarantee your understanding of "grand narratives" is based on absolutely nothing and probably connected it to ideas like communism or fascism, you have zero awareness on the functions and symbolism of contemporary society leading to a midwit fucktard idea that we are "'''post ideological''''' and ''''elevated'''' and ''''evidence based''''''
B. Your understanding of what "debunked narratives" are is based upon midwit readings such as this jew and taleb, things like "narrative fallacies" which has been explored and intuitively understood for centuries, there was no need for a sub 130 iq to repackage it with "hekin facts and statistics!" for sub 120 iqs in order to influence the actual outcomes of civilization. This is like giving a 5 year old a kumon math book to explain high school math. "See! Math exists!"
I bet you think taleb is some genius for being aware that complex systems are a thing right?
C. The only narrative I believe I created myself
D.Grand narratives are what separates the subhumans from humans.

>>17375094
I believe in the grand narrative of you being a faggot

>>17375094
if you don't believe in any grand narratives than make an argument right now without using them on why I shouldn't just kill you

>>17367362
Ken Wilber

>>17372564
based

Do you think anchoring isn't a thing?
Do you think loss-aversion isn't a thing?
Do you think priming isn't a thing?

>>17367368
damn that is so fucking retarded.

>>17374840
that first one seems even more like popsci than OP and definitely more bogus. Reading a neuroscience textbook outside of the context of studying neuroscience will convey effectively zero useful information.

>>17375392
>contemporary philosopher
opinion discarded
>author is jacked
wait.. maybe i spoke too soon

>>17375264
You should save this post and look at it again in 4-5 years.

>>17377164
do you think i have to read that shitty bugbook to know about those?

>>17375264
you never went to college did you?

>>17367362
Scott Adams' htfaeaswb is a philosophy book masquerading as a self-help book

>>17378094
Based

>>17374840
Imagine taking your opinion on what’s good instead of Daniel Kahneman LOL

>>17374840
"Surfing uncertainty" is literal conjecture. It's pop sci in the extreme.

>>17367207
I read this one a while ago. Completely agree. It's interesting but it could be half of its length without losing much. I noticed this with a lot of these sorta pop-science sorta academic books, they tend to ramble on.
Content wise it was a bit of a blackpill to me since it made me realize just how unpredictable and non rational people are.