Comment by SeanAnderson 3 days ago
Daniel wrote one of my favorite books, Thinking: Fast and Slow (https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp...). If you haven't read it, and you're into economics, behavioral psychology, and thinking about thinking then I'd highly recommend it. The first half of the book is especially compelling.
You will be missed! Sad to hear he passed, but glad he was able to go out on his own terms.
I had read so many raves about that book, and heard the author got a Nobel prize for his ideas, so I started reading it.
I just could not digest it. I understood the words but I couldn't make whatever message he was trying to convey... it felt too "dense" for me. Maybe im just stupid, but I could not get past I think the first two chapters.
It’s largely a popsci book for poseurs. To wit: most of these people “into economics” haven’t read a word of Smith or Keynes.
It’s best use is to be announced your favorite book among undistinguished company. Some people need such books. Such as those from Smith and Keynes.
Since you’re giving an edgy take in a thread discussing the death of a respected author, I’ll be pedantic: you’re wrong about those people not reading a word of Smith or Keynes, since it’s impossible to avoid reading at least one of their common quotations if you have even a passing interest in the field.
I suffered through the book and I just think it is a rather boring writing style.
The poseur part is that it doesn't matter if you know what is in the book or not. That is actually the interesting part of the book to me but also why it is largely an exercise in futility.
I would assume someone who says it is their favorite book just has not read that many non-fiction books.
Don't worry, it doesn't matter, because at best a lot of claims in this books just cannot be replicated, and at worst the book is completely useless because it's based on shitty science - depends on your POV.
I really didn't get on with that one. Felt very much like a book that could have easily been shortened down to an essay and suffered for the additional length.
I'm sorry to pile on, since I just replied to you at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45560985, but this is such a bad case that I think two replies are warranted.
You started and perpetuated a completely unnecessary flamewar here, and of all the offtopic things to do that about, someone's use of the word "next" is particularly superfluous.
An isolated comment of that sort is forgivable, but perpetuating the flamewar and crossing into personal attack, as you did below, is not. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do that.
It didn’t take me long to parse out the meaning but the phrasing was confusing.
“The next book he wrote, Noise, ….” Would have been better or “After that book he wrote Noise….”.
I absolutely was confused for a second or two and thought “wait, are we talking about a different person? He isn’t going to have a ‘next’ book unless he had one queued up?”.
Did I need the explanation above? Not really, I’d come to the right conclusion on my own but I can imagine someone who isn’t a native speaker (reader?) might stumble on that more and I enjoyed the confirmation.
> Probably nobody at all got confused by that word choice.
This is overconfidence; e.g. it "it is clear to me, so it must have been clear to everyone else."
Indeed, there is a person in this overall thread [1] saying the use of "next" was ambiguous:
> I literally thought some unpublished book.
The sheer irony of your unwarranted pedantic critique of the usage of “next” is that all HN threaded comments, including yours, have a “next” link in their headers which clearly does NOT refer to unwritten future comments.
Not sure why I bothered responding to a troll.
Part of the book has been swept up in the replication crisis facing psychology and the social sciences. It was discovered many prominent research findings were difficult or impossible for others to replicate, and thus the original findings were called into question. An analysis[51] of the studies cited in chapter 4, "The Associative Machine", found that their replicability index (R-index)[52] is 14, indicating essentially low to no reliability. Kahneman himself responded to the study in blog comments and acknowledged the chapter's shortcomings: "I placed too much faith in underpowered studies."[53] Others have noted the irony in the fact that Kahneman made a mistake in judgment similar to the ones he studied.[54]
A later analysis[55] made a bolder claim that, despite Kahneman's previous contributions to the field of decision making, most of the book's ideas are based on 'scientific literature with shaky foundations'. A general lack of replication in the empirical studies cited in the book was given as a justification.