Charlie Rose

dmp  04/20/2012 04:16 PM Report

rajkmd,

i believe they are talking about Bridgewater associates, run by Ray dalio.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/09/2012 02:34 AM Report

He says you can help people make good decisions without forcing them. Have them opt out for organ donation. So the effect of default is enormous.

Then make the people pay all their possible taxes in their paycheck deductions. Then have them ask for a refund for any tax deductions. Debt and deficit solved.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/09/2012 02:28 AM Report

He mentioned this . . .

Take the study out of the National Academy of Sciences, which found that Israeli parole judges — known for turning down parole applications — were more likely to award parole in cases they heard immediately after taking a meal break.

"Presumably they are hungry, but certainly they are tired, they're depleted," Kahneman says of the judges' state when they are a few hours away from a meal. "When you're depleted, you tend to fall back on default actions, and the default action in that case is apparently to deny parole.

So yes, people are strongly influenced by the level of glucose in the brain."

The implications of such a study are tremendous: If democratic society is based on people making decisions, what does it mean when all it takes to influence those decisions is a little bit of glucose?

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/27/141508854/fast-and-slow-pondering-the-speed-of-thought

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/09/2012 02:24 AM Report

'The most reliable player should shoot the last shot NOT the player who has the game’s hot hand. It is an illusion. A hot hand is a random phenomenon but not seen.'

Sorry, my intuition tells me that your statistics are wrong. I want the player with the hot hand. It is so much sexier.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/09/2012 02:19 AM Report

“Pundits are no better at it than readers of the New York Times.”

Oh, oh Charlie and so, so many shows.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/09/2012 02:18 AM Report

Obama is a System 2 and he may do it too much.

Americans like leaders who are decisive.

Not this American, I like leaders who are thoughtful first.

bobparker  03/07/2012 01:03 PM Report

Nice review of highlights of the book think fast and slow.

TAGS - think slow, think fast,

anne4444  03/02/2012 09:45 PM Report

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Biv_8xjj8E

rajkmd  03/01/2012 10:08 PM Report

Does anyone know what investment fund Daniel Kahneman advises? Charlie Rose and Kahneman seemed to discuss an investment fund that uses behaviorial economics, but did not mention the actual name of the fund.

signalsixteen  03/01/2012 05:44 PM Report

Like most social scientists, Mr. Kahneman has a poor grasp of intuition, confusing it with superficial or simplistic thinking. I would like to know what David Brooks thinks about Mr. Kahneman's book.

eileeneast  02/29/2012 09:07 PM Report

I wish he had been on for the hour. He completely fascinated me. I hope you have him on again and give him more time.

StinkyBubbles  02/29/2012 08:39 PM Report

Malcolm Gladwell may be unreliable in general; see this blog post:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/extreme-fear/200912/gladwells-stickiness-problem

tabs  02/29/2012 06:04 PM Report

WHERE IS THE HOW TO MANUAL?

First let one say that one was disappointed by this discussion for one wants to know process, mechanics, how do these systems work in human beings. Not that they just work,from an academicians observations and statistical computations. Otherwise how do you apply this knowledge, how do you make it work in PRACTICE for you and me? How does this make you more enlightened and or aware in your day to day life? "Well with this knowledge we have a better understanding of human processes and the brain." Yes I understand the sun comes up in the east and goes down in the west, and....what are the mechanics that makes the sun work the way that it does? Come back when you figure it out and then we will have a discussion.

First of all we need to define what "INTUTION" is? So that we have a common basis of understanding. Let one explain A process in organic terms. You walk into a room and you get a feeling, an emotion. Or it can be as simple as an image in your mind, or a line from a play etc.. You then ask yourself what is that emotion trying to tell me? What is going on that makes me feel or think that way. Then you can figure is it my own predisposition or is it something that is going on in the room? Now what the Scientist would say is that the sub conscience brain is doing all these calculations and is then sending a message up the elevator to the conscience mind. However the subconscious brain speaks in images, sentences and emotions that may seem akin to a foreign language. It is up to you to pay attention and translate those images into useful information. When they say practice make perfect, your subconscious brain accumulates information, it can spot trends very quickly. That is why a basketball player sitting on the sidelines can tell if another basketball players free throw is going to make it or not. He can just see it.

The reason why a person is more afraid of dying in a Terrorist attack than just dying. What it comes down to is that ones life is cut short by making a decision of being in a place where one usually has control over ones destiny but by random circumstance it is the wrong place at the wrong time. In other words ones fate is out of ones control..That is why one has long said that we only have the illusion of control.

As to the question that you would like answered...Does ones feeling of attitude, awareness (peace of mind) on a daily basis affect health more than ones happiness about ones perceptions about ones overall life? First one thinks that the question is phrased incorrectly. One can resolve ones own inner conflicts and have peace of mind so that one can play the cards one is dealt by life/fate the best that they can. Then there are external circumstances that we have no control over that may limit or determine where our life leads us. An example is that the Stock Market crash may have caused us to throw that Gulf Stream catalog in the trash and look for a nice warm spot under a bridge instead. Once one can separate internal stress from external stress one can role with the punches. Therefore it is understanding and resolving the internal dynamic that affects one the most. Then there is that as long as one has life there is always room for accomplishment in the world. Until the last breath that is undetermined.

Let one be perfectly clear one has been dealing with this sort of thing for more decades than one wants to admit. One is a practitioner rather than a theorist. One can construct and deconstruct the mechanisms and processes of personality dynamics at will. Then one can extrapolate those principles to other areas of endeavor in the world.

rjbnerb  02/29/2012 06:00 PM Report

What's your point?

REMant  02/29/2012 11:52 AM Report

That the problem with research lies in its conception rather than in the statistics, has been obvious to market researchers for many, many yrs. Probably to J. B. Watson. Certainly long before the research on which he was awarded the Nobel was done more than 30 yrs ago.

What we consider micro-, marginal or classical economics was never really intended by anyone as a dynamic theory anyway. It was always intended to be descriptive and rely on long-run information. Behavioral economics can thus be considered a straw man, tho you can put mercantilism in this category. The difference is as between normal statistics and Bayesian statistics, which is to put it simply, the science of guessing. What he is saying simply is that ppl tend not to look at things in the long run. But I am not sure if he means that is because they are smart enough to know they don't know enough, or rather, as it seems the popular imagination has taken to heart, that they are irrational. I would expect someone of his heritage to believe the latter.

The basic principle upon which all this rests is the idea that ppl react to loss more than to gain. But I am not sure this is always true. Certainly many irrational ppl are gamblers, well known for not stopping when they should, if they intend to come out ahead. He is now, as was said, interested in utilitarianism, which not only strikes one as not unusual in a Princetonian, but also clearly reflects preoccupation with choice, also in the voluntarist, mercantilist, or non-classical sense. The singular principle adopted here seems to be "the grass is greener."

I, myself, could have told you intuition is the result of experience and concept formation about 45 yrs ago. And if that IS the case, wouldn't it logically be better approached by looking at the past and through cultural comparison? But if you don't believe in science anyway, if you have no use for the past, why for God's sake, study it at all?

This was all argued in the "Methodenstreit" a century ago. "Adaptationism" was fundamental to Stoic thinking two millennia ago, and fundamental to equilibrium economics, as much as to Darwin. Whether there are preexisting forms experience is pressed into is a question argued since Plato. Psychologists have argued about cognitive vs behavioral learning for the past hundred years or so. Whether previously learned info determines how and what we tend to assimilate agitated Piaget more than 50 yrs ago, and as I mentioned a while back was noticed as long ago as the first New World voyages. And ALL of this was adequately discussed by John Locke. What really would seem to be needed is a psychology of recapitulation.

Or better, IMHO, another Reformation, because in this area as in many others historicism, skepticism and voluntarism have gone in the past couple centuries way too far. The fact is that the idea of liberty for thousands of years has rested on the acceptance of design. You will not find freedom in skepticism.

Even so, no one really knows the precise mechanics of what is being called intuition. Some of it appears to be a process of mapping, some a question of optimization, some the consideration of analogies, some the application of predetermined responses.

In any case, the "last shot" should, all the things considered, go to the person with the open shot, not a statistician, though I imagine the player passing the ball, determines not only that, but what kind of shot is possible and how good the potential shooters are at making it. If not any good coach would sit him down.