In this SMP thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...s-etc-1361391/
I blatherskite on about the book
Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. A worthwhile book but I suspect some of what is given as questionable (as anyone should). One example I found silly was the question, part of a Cognitive Reflection Test, in which 63% of respondents’ would prefer to get $3,400 now instead of $3,800 in one month (assume this means 30 days). The correct answer is to wait for the increased money. This was supposedly to test “impulsive, impatient, and keen to receive immediate gratification” on the part of the subjects*.
Upon reading that question my immediate thought was: How can I turn $3,400 into more than a 12% gain (I calculated the % in my head in a few micro-seconds) in 30 days? Or, I like instant gratification and if I can spend $3,400 on hookers and blow in Las Vegas, why would I wait 30 days for the paltry extra $400 that will not really buy me that much more gratification? Those are the real, and important, implied question(s) with any number of variants on the same theme.
As a practical example, say I take the $3,400 and with some explicit risk have a scheme to turn that into ~$34,000 in about 30 days through investing in heroin trafficking, or say I just double the money through a loan sharking deal, or being an excellent punter taking a flutter on cricket or the horses; or, having some insider information, investing in stocks or other securities, or say, just buy a piece of art that you realize will trump the 12% gain in a short time, etc, etc, etc (and need I say many choices do not have to involve questionable activities?). Really, to say that, waiting for that extra $ 400 is the ONLY right answer is to miss so much and shows very cramped thinking on the part of the researchers.
To some extent the researchers appear to be silly asses and very unimaginative thinkers, and also very low on the rationality scale of exploiting opportunities. Honestly, very poor critical thinking skills displayed and a lackluster and mundane view of life choices. I suspect hooey in most of what I read, but am disappointed that Kahneman and his fellow Psychologists’ fall victim to much bad thinking and research.
* This in relation to testing subjects on system 1 and system 2 thinking. To be fair my objections may not be completely in tune with the research objectives, but that is neither here nor there in reality. Those that display static and uncritical thinking skills should be kicked in the nuts - repeatedly.
Last edited by Zeno; 09-29-2013 at 04:01 PM.
Reason: Added footnote