Those who are saying its a plagiarism, must first read the book. He quoted every research and given credit to all researcher. More importantly many great researcher comes up with different analysis and theories, would it be possible for us to read everything. This is a nice all-in-one book, which provides summary of all the great work done
I found this book written in a way as to provide just enough details to sufficiently explain the concepts without going to each research paper and how they sampled, how people behaved etc. This was the reason I stopped reading “Thinking fast and slow” midway as I was mentally tired after reading about so many experiments. I would read a book like the “Art of thinking clearly” or his another book “Art of a good life” multiple times
Summary: Outcome bias: We always focus on the outcomes but not on the process behind that outcomes! - Sunk cost fallacy (cognitive, decision error): non recoverable cost should not play a role anymore, so shouldn't be accounted or to continue on what's hurting you! - crowding out effect (social error): bringing in an incentive or monetary system driven by internal or social motivation might devalue our relationships. - focus on negative knowledge of not to do those mistakes (cognitive errors) & try to eliminate them. Then the upside will take care of itself!
I liked this clip. I think the last 1.5 minutes says it all. Funny thing is I've been actually doing this for awhile. Couple years ago I thought, I'll work on removing or minimizing the toxins in my life, I figured that would meet my objectives in a shorter more direct path. Thinking clearly is tough work, but with practice, you get better at it. It's changed my life and I've never looked back.
Sunk cost theory. It’s funny but so true. It also applies to relationships. I don’t want to end this relationship. It’s not working and I know it. I invested years in it so I’m going to spend more years trying to fix it . BAM . Three years later I leave. In retrospect I should have left three years prior. Im buying this book today. To save myself from SELF HARM.
I have never read a book before, but thid author is just awesome. I love the way he talks, expresses his ideas and more than that, I love his bokk "The Art of thinking clearly. I'm starting from now, to read his book and i would really like to have more suggestions about his books.
Always thought sunk-cost fallacy was heavily oversimplified. Yes you spent $20 already on movie tickets so it's a sunk cost. BUT, there is also the future cost of if you do want to go see that movie some other time you'll have to spend another $20. Or if you're close to the peak of a mountain you might prefer turning around but the effort to re-climb the whole mountain another time is much higher than simply sticking to it this time.
Just finished reading this value-packed book and I can confirm that the title aptly describes how I am right now as compared to when I first read the first topic.
In India, political parties give money to voter just before the voting day. Now, its become a habit it and doesn't impact the outcome. But the parties are stuck with this practice.
hard to resell tickets that are one the same day unless you have some kind of app for it to do it conveniently. Also the 500 euro shoes should not be thrown away and maybe try to sell those.
How is the matter of subjectivity accounted for when considering pleasure vs displeasure in this conclusion? If all humans found the same things pleasing all of the time, how could any human dislike any experience? We wouldn't see phenomena like masochism. Because all people would enjoy pain, or no people would. As we know, this is not presently the case. The first fallacy described seems to work in a body count situation, but to compare war to consumerism and bodies to monetary value seems to break a code of some kind.... of ethics, perhaps. It's not as if negotiations were made in body counts for the things either side wanted. One might argue that negotiations were made over who would lose less, but not for who would get more for their loss. A pair of expensive shoes has cost the practical person in time worked. I suppose they also lost their life in the exchange but didn't ultimately lose it and isn't still here to suffer the consequences of a bad decision. I don't know. I'm not saying it's wrong or illogical, I'm saying it doesn't seem to equate, maybe it's an ethics call for me. I'm not sure. Still the comparison just doesn't fit.
I have discovered another cognitive bias, I call it "Bias Denial". Which is the phenomenon whereby somebody discovers a cognitive bias, and then admits it's a thing, however insists they themselves never, or even, have never suffered from it.
Well one of his stories where penalties influenced people behaviour to come more often late and take thier babies with them is situational based idea. If you see in a country where people have good average income they can afford to pay penalties for thier comfort or to save thier time. But countries like India where average income is so low that people become more Conciousous to save thier money if they have to pay penalties. They save money in exchange of thier time. So this behaviour is regional based.
This device, in context, is both destructive and not logically valid. Being this way sabotages relationships and hurts people. You are taking a personal, subjective statement, and disqualifying the emotions associated with it as “illogical”. You are, essentially, labeling a statement as a rational argument when it is not. In doing so, you invalidate the importance of the subjective reality of the individual who is talking. What’s worse - you will think you have the right to discount the opinions and feelings of other people, but more importantly, you will often be wrong and unable to see it. I was like that for a long time. It took a lot of effort for me to humanize my perception and respect other people. Don’t follow this guys advice. Learn to look for the unspoken argument. If someone feels obligated to wear $500 shoes, the unspoken argument is that if they did not use them, they would feel shame, regret, and possibly not have confidence in their buying decisions. Your argument against this is essentially “You shouldn’t suffer physical pain to spare yourself emotional pain. Just don’t have feelings about it, because your feelings are stupid.” The person you’re talking to can’t control their emotional association to what they perceive to be a waste of their money. They can control whether to wear the shoes.
I don't think Mr.Dobelli's work is any less important as he is working more towards the application of this fields in the investment world and now into the individual decision-making process for education, career, relationship etc. For original read Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman who won Nobel Prize for his work in cognitive psychology and is the base for literature, we know today as behavioral psychology or behavioral economics.
