“I began this book by introducing two fictitious characters, spent some time discussing two species, and ended with two selves.”
My draft made me think of the 90-second Hamlet that I once saw in a theater.
But my goal is to entice you to read the book, not to boil it down. So let me completely give up on completeness, refer you to Jeremy McCarthy’s recent article for a discussion of the two fictitious characters, and just share eight of the statements that I underlined and why they are important to me. I’ll say thanks along the way to Daniel Kahneman and his late thinking partner, Amos Tversky, for the light bulbs that they turned on in my mind.
1. “She is an Alzheimer’s patient. She no longer maintains a narrative of her life, but her experiencing self is still sensitive to beauty and gentleness.”
This comes at the end of a discussion of the two selves:
- The experiencing self, which does the living
- The remembering self, which keeps score and makes choices
Most of the discussion about the two selves is about the remembering self and the amazing ways that it makes decisions that are often suboptimal for the experiencing self. The remembering self often chooses an option with lower total pleasure because of duration neglect (a bias of ignoring how long something lasted and condensing a rich experience into a snapshot) and the peak-end rule (a bias of judging experiences largely based on their peak moments and how they end). Knowledge of the quirks of the remembering self gives us ways to game our own minds. For example, we can make sure to end a meeting or a class on a high note so that memories of it are positive.
Thank you for this potent and tender reminder that the remembering self is not the whole self. There is still someone at home, even when planning, keeping score, telling stories, even recognizing faces are no longer happening.
2. “A recurrent theme of this book is that luck plays a large role in every story of success; it is almost always easy to identify a small change in the story that would have turned a remarkable achievement into a mediocre outcome.”
Awareness of this viewpoint has affected me in two ways:
- We’ve all seen books and webinars and articles by successful people, telling us how they did it. The implication is that there is a recipe we can follow to have the same success. But with awareness that luck had a lot to do with their successes, I’ve found it easier not to get swept away by successful people trying to sell their secrets.
- Barry Schwartz made the same point in a TED-X talk at Swarthmore. He goes on to suggest that if we all remembered just how important luck is to the outcomes that matter in our lives, such as getting in to a particular college, we’d be much less likely to feel entitled to what we’ve gained and much more likely to feel empathy for those with less luck who may be just as deserving as we are.
Thank you for the reminder to be humble about what we gain, not to attribute it all to our own efforts, and not to assume that our own recipes for success will work for all.
Kahneman spent 7 or 8 years exploring the question of expertise with Gary Klein, “the intellectual leader of an association of scholars and practitioners who do not like the kind of work I do.” Klein has studied how experts work. Kahneman has explored thinking errors that are as common to experts as they are to others. They failed to disagree when they realized they tended to look at different kinds of experts.
3. “When can you trust an experienced professional who claims to have an intuition?”
“The acquisition of skills requires a regular environment, an adequate opportunity to practice, and rapid and unequivocal feedback about the correctness of thoughts and actions. When these conditions are fulfilled, skill eventually develops, and the intuitive judgments and choices that quickly come to mind will mostly be accurate.”
Kahneman commented that the conditions they identified for experience to turn into skill are more likely to occur for clinical nurses and firefighters (the people Klein studied) than they are for stock pickers and political pundits (the people Kahneman studied).
Thanks for reminding us that all types of expertise are not equal, and that it’s not enough to go by the person’s confidence in his or her own judgments.
4. “A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth.”
Thanks for an important reminder for an election season!
Come back for four more quotations in Part 2 on Monday.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Allen Lane. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D. & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515-526.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350.
Klein, G. (2011). Streetlights and Shadows: Searching for the Keys to Adaptive Decision Making. A Bradford Book.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases Science, 185 (4157), 1124-1131
Kahneman, D. (2010). The riddle of experience versus memory. TED Talk.