#amos tversky

[calicojack1718]

The Passing of Daniel Kahneman, Personal Hero and Inspiration of Ye Olde Blogge

SUMMARY: Daniel Kahneman died at age 90 on 27 March 2024. He was the co-founder of behavioral economics along with the late Amos Tversky, for which he won a Nobel Prize in economics. Kahneman’s work will have an enduring influence on the way we view decision making and human behavior. Ye Olde Blogge was greatly inspired by his work and used it to help explain and predict voting patterns, the…

[usunezukoinezu]

''What is more likely, that a seven-letter word randomly selected from a novel would end in ing or has the letter “n” as its sixth letter? This highlights both the availability bias and the conjunction fallacy. All seven-letter words ending with ing have the letter “n” as its sixth letter, but not all with the letter “n” as its sixth letter end in ing. Again, the driving force for the conjunction fallacy is the availability bias. Words ending with ing come to mind more easily.''

-Tversky and Kahneman, Extensional versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment

[june-of-earth]

“The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours.”

​— Amos Tversky​

[azspot]

The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours.

Amos Tversky

[nicdevera]

daniel kahneman died. someone do a cartoon, kahneman goes to heaven, amos tversky's there: "hey danny, i've got an idea for a paper"

[kendinigelistir]

YAVAŞ ve HIZLI DÜŞÜNMEK

Doğum tarihinizi oluşturan 8 rakamı yüksek sesle söyleyin.

Şimdi de bu 8 rakamı yüksek sesle tersten söyleyin.

Birincinisi söylerken, beyniniz Sistem 1 ile çalıştı. Hiç düşünmeden, hızlıca söyleyiverdiniz.

İkinicisini söylemeye çalışırken ise yavaşladınız, duraksadınız, zorlandınız. Beyniniz bu alışık olmadığınız görevi yerine getirirken Sistem 2 ile çalıştı.

Beynimizde iki farklı sistemin olduğunu keşfeden bilim insanları Daniel Kahneman ve Amos Tversky, bu buluşlarıyla Nobel ödülü aldılar.

YAZININ TAMAMI : https://www.kendinigelistir.com/yavas-ve-hizli-dusunmek/

[eregyrn-falls]

Okay, I'm not ashamed to admit that I hadn't heard of "the conjunction fallacy" before! So I looked it up, and here it is for those others who haven't heard of it. (I'm also not sure that it's an example of the Conjuction Fallacy, exactly; but I'll get to that.)

From the Wikipedia article (a bit long, but thorough):

The conjunction fallacy (also known as the Linda problem) is an inference that a conjoint set of two or more specific conclusions is likelier than any single member of that same set, in violation of the laws of probability. It is a type of formal fallacy. The most often-cited example of this fallacy originated with Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.[2][3][4] Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. Which is more probable? 1. Linda is a bank teller. 2. Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. The majority of those asked chose option 2. However, the probability of two events occurring together (that is, in conjunction) is always less than or equal to the probability of either one occurring itself. (I cut out a bit here that wouldn't copy that well; see the original article for a written mathematical formula that expresses this.) For example, even choosing a very low probability of Linda's being a bank teller, say Pr(Linda is a bank teller) = 0.05 and a high probability that she would be a feminist, say Pr(Linda is a feminist) = 0.95, then, assuming these two facts are independent of each other, Pr(Linda is a bank teller and Linda is a feminist) = 0.05 × 0.95 or 0.0475, lower than Pr(Linda is a bank teller). Tversky and Kahneman argue that most people get this problem wrong because they use a heuristic (an easily calculated) procedure called representativeness to make this kind of judgment: Option 2 seems more "representative" of Linda from the description of her, even though it is clearly mathematically less likely.[4] In other demonstrations, they argued that a specific scenario seemed more likely because of representativeness, but each added detail would actually make the scenario less and less likely. In this way it could be similar to the misleading vividness or slippery slope fallacies. More recently Kahneman has argued that the conjunction fallacy is a type of extension neglect.[5]

If I'm reading the intention of that tag correctly, the reason the Fairy vs. Walrus question is an example of the Conjunction Fallacy is because, as the OP here says, we're not just evaluating

"Would I be more surprised to run into a walrus?"

We're evaluating

"Would I be more surprised if a walrus knocked on my door?"

The second option is much more unlikely than the first one, because the first one has only one apparent requirement -- that I encounter a walrus (an animal that I know exists).

(This is leaving aside the fact that, if just asked the question, everybody is also evaluating unspoken conditions, such as our own individual likelihood to run into a walrus based on where we live and if we might normally expect there to be a live walrus in the vicinity... although, note that the simpler statement actually doesn't specify a live walrus. If you read further conditions into this, and suppose that "a walrus" could include a taxidermy walrus in a museum display, or a plush walrus, the likelihood could actually go up for many people.)

The second option, though, adds more complications to the scenario: the walrus is an animal that we know exists, the walrus is a presumably real, living animal, because the walrus is engaged in the action of knocking at a door, and specifically, it is OUR DOOR.

So in that scenario you have to calculate the likelihood of each separate condition, and as the conjunction fallacy points out, the requirement to fulfill ALL of these conditions at once makes the scenario MORE unlikely (mathematically; but also, logically).

This now cannot be a taxidermy walrus or a plush walrus, because the walrus itself is knocking at the door. (Note how this condition would be quite different if the original question had been phrased as, "There is a knock at your door, and you open it to find a walrus".) A lot of people first pointed out that "knocking at the door", as we understand the phrase (the actual action, plus its intention as a polite declaration of presence and request for entrance), seems almost impossible for a walrus to DO, or even understand in those terms. And then, of course, as with the first statement, people are evaluating not only whether they would expect to find a live walrus where they live, but now ALSO whether the walrus could get to their door at all (if you live in an apartment building, where the walrus would have to navigate an elevator or steps, this becomes far more impossible, in addition to the question of whether you live in an area where a walrus could realistically be.)

But *IS* this an example of the Conjunction Fallacy? As demonstrated (at length) above, it's definitely worded that way. But if I'm reading it correctly, the Conjunction Fallacy supposes that the majority of people will choose the more complex statement because it seems MORE representative (i.e. contains options that feel to the respondent as if those options make it more likely).

However, it seems like the majority of respondents to the poll *rejected* the more complex statement *because* the conjunction of options were added up and made it seem more and more unlikely. As people often argued: finding a fairy had knocked on your door requires ONE very improbable thing to have happened (fairies exist despite you having thought that was not possible). The walrus requires *at least* THREE improbable things to have happened, even though "walrus exists" is a given. ("Walrus could be in your area" is already improbable; then you are adding, "walrus can get to your door", and also, "walrus knows to knock and can do so".)

So it's phrased like the examples of the Conjunction Fallacy, but most respondents didn't, in fact, engage in the fallacy.

In conclusion: TIL!

(ed. to add the actual 2 possible choices in the original quote, as I didn't realize that those, too, did not copy/paste over, lol.)

because here's the thing here's the thing the question was not "would you be more surprised to run into a fairy or a walrus" the question was "would you be more surprised to find a fairy or a walrus AT YOUR DOOR" and while no, i do not believe in fairies and would be surprised to know they EXIST i would NOT be surprised to find one at my door. HOWEVER, if a WALRUS shows up at my door i have to contend with the fact that a walrus somehow made it to my apartment specifically and knocked on my door for god knows what reason. i would be more surprised to know that a fairy EXISTS, of course, but NOT that they're at my door, do you get me?

[armandotapia999]

Día 35: La Heurística de Representatividad

“Las apariencias engañan, y la similitud no siempre es sinónimo de verdad.” — Amos Tversky y Daniel Kahneman

¿Qué es la Heurística de Representatividad? La heurística de representatividad es un atajo mental que usamos para evaluar la probabilidad de que algo pertenezca a una categoría basándonos en qué tan similar parece a un prototipo o estereotipo mental. Este sesgo nos lleva a ignorar datos relevantes, como las probabilidades estadísticas, y a centrarnos únicamente en las características que…

[newristics]

Ambiguity Aversion: The Science Behind Our Fear of the Unknown

The fear of the unknown often influences our decisions. This phenomenon, known as ambiguity aversion, describes our preference for known risks over uncertain outcomes. Understanding this phenomenon can help individuals and businesses make more informed decisions, ultimately leading to better results.

What is Ambiguity Aversion?

Ambiguity aversion is a cognitive bias where people prefer options with clear, known probabilities over those with unknown probabilities. This aversion to uncertainty can lead to more conservative decisions, even when the unknown option might offer better potential rewards.

Key characteristics:

Preference for Certainty: Individuals tend to choose options with predictable outcomes.

Risk vs. Uncertainty: While risk involves known probabilities, ambiguity involves unknown probabilities, which can cause discomfort and avoidance.

Several psychological theories explain why we fear the unknown:

Prospect Theory:

Developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, prospect theory suggests that people value potential losses more than equivalent gains, leading to a stronger aversion to uncertainty.

Ellsberg Paradox:

This thought experiment by Daniel Ellsberg demonstrates that people prefer bets with known probabilities over those with unknown probabilities, even when the expected outcome is the same. This highlights our discomfort with ambiguity.

Financial Decisions:

Investors often prefer safe, low-yield investments over potentially higher-reward but uncertain options like startups or cryptocurrencies.

Medical Choices:

Patients may opt for established treatments with known outcomes rather than experimental therapies, even if the latter offers a higher chance of success.

Consumer Behaviour:

Shoppers tend to choose familiar brands over new ones despite the potential benefits of trying something new.

Overcoming Ambiguity Aversion

Gather More Information:

Reducing uncertainty by obtaining more information about the options can help make more informed decisions.

Scenario Planning:

Considering different scenarios and their potential outcomes can prepare individuals for various possibilities, reducing the fear of the unknown.

Risk Education:

Educating oneself about risk and uncertainty can lead to more balanced decision-making.

Mindfulness Practices:

Techniques such as mindfulness can help individuals manage the anxiety associated with uncertainty.

Conclusion

Ambiguity aversion is a widespread cognitive bias that significantly affects our decision-making process. By understanding the science behind this fear and adopting effective strategies offered by companies like Newristics to manage it, we can make more informed and balanced choices. This cognitive awareness allows us to analyse situations more objectively and weigh the pros and cons of various options. Embracing uncertainty and learning how to navigate it can unlock new opportunities, drive innovation, and lead to greater success in both personal and professional areas of life.

[bookeysnewsletter]

Noise: A Comprehensive Summary of Daniel Kahneman's Insights

Chapter 1 What's Noise by Daniel Kahneman

"Noise" by Daniel Kahneman is a book that explores the concept of randomness and inconsistency in decision-making and judgment. Kahneman, a Nobel Prize-winning psychologist, argues that people are often influenced by irrelevant factors, leading to mistakes and biases in their thinking. He highlights the importance of reducing "noise" in decision-making processes to improve overall performance and accuracy. The book offers practical insights and strategies for individuals and organizations to limit the impact of noise and make more rational decisions. Kahneman's work sheds light on the complexities of human cognition and behavior, offering valuable lessons for individuals seeking to navigate through a world filled with uncertainty and inconsistency.

Chapter 2 Noise by Daniel Kahneman Summary

In "Noise," Daniel Kahneman explores the concept of noise in decision-making processes and how it can lead to errors and inefficiencies. Noise refers to the variability in judgments or decisions that should be uniform, leading to inconsistent outcomes. This can happen when decision-makers are influenced by irrelevant factors or when there is no explicit standard for making choices.

Kahneman argues that noise is a systemic issue in organizations and that it can have serious consequences for individuals and societies. He suggests that reducing noise in decision-making can increase efficiency, accuracy, and fairness. To combat noise, Kahneman recommends implementing structured decision-making processes and using algorithms and technology to minimize variability in judgments.

Overall, "Noise" is a critical examination of the impact of noise on decision-making and the importance of reducing it to improve outcomes. Kahneman's insights will be valuable to anyone interested in understanding the psychology of decision-making and improving the quality of their own choices.

Chapter 3 Noise Author

Daniel Kahneman released the book "Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment" in May 2021. He is a renowned psychologist and Nobel laureate known for his work in behavioral economics and decision-making.

Some of his other notable books include "Thinking, Fast and Slow" and "Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases," which he co-authored with Amos Tversky. "Thinking, Fast and Slow" is considered his most popular and influential work, receiving critical acclaim and winning numerous awards, including the National Academy of Sciences Best Book Award.

In terms of editions, "Thinking, Fast and Slow" has been widely praised for its insights into human decision-making processes and has been translated into multiple languages. It remains one of Kahneman's most widely-read and cited works.

Chapter 4 Noise Meaning & Theme

Noise Meaning

In his book "Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment," Daniel Kahneman explores the concept of noise in decision-making. Noise refers to the random variability in judgment that can lead to inconsistencies and errors in decision-making. Kahneman argues that while bias has been well-studied and understood, noise is an equally important and often overlooked factor that can have a significant impact on the quality of decisions.

Kahneman uses the term "noise" to emphasize the unpredictability and inconsistency that can occur in decision-making processes. He argues that when judges, experts, or decision-makers are confronted with the same information and asked to make a decision, the outcomes should ideally be the same. However, in reality, there is often significant variability in the decisions made, which can be attributed to noise.

The book explores various sources of noise, including individual differences in judgment, situational influences, and cognitive biases. Kahneman argues that noise can have serious consequences, leading to inefficiency, unfairness, and poor outcomes in decision-making processes. He suggests that organizations need to be more aware of the impact of noise and take steps to reduce it in order to improve the quality of their decisions.

Overall, "Noise" by Daniel Kahneman highlights the importance of understanding and addressing the concept of noise in decision-making. By recognizing and minimizing noise, organizations and individuals can make more consistent, accurate, and fair decisions.

Noise Theme

The theme of "Noise" by Daniel Kahneman revolves around the concept of randomness and inconsistency in decision-making. Kahneman highlights how noise, or variability in judgments and perceptions, can lead to errors, biases, and inefficiencies in a variety of contexts, including healthcare, criminal justice, and business.

Additionally, the book emphasizes the importance of reducing noise by implementing standardized processes, algorithms, and feedback mechanisms to enhance decision-making and improve outcomes. Kahneman argues that by acknowledging and addressing the presence of noise, individuals and organizations can achieve greater accuracy, consistency, and fairness in their decision-making processes.

Chapter 5 Quotes of Noise

Noise quotes as follows:

1. "The world makes much less sense than you think. The coherence comes mostly from the way your mind works."

2. "Noise is a major problem in making good decisions. It leads to inconsistencies and biases that can have serious consequences."

3. "Noise is the unwanted variability in judgments that should be identical."

4. "One of the biggest sources of noise is the human brain itself. Our minds are constantly creating patterns and shortcuts that can lead to errors in judgment."

5. "Noise can lead to unjust decisions, discrimination, and inefficiency. It is a serious problem that needs to be addressed."

6. "Noise is just as harmful as bias in decision making. It can lead to incorrect judgments and poor outcomes."

7. "Noise is a hidden and pervasive problem that affects all areas of our lives. It is important to be aware of its impact and take steps to reduce it."

8. "Noise can happen when two people who should be making the same judgment make different judgments. This can lead to inconsistencies and errors."

9. "Noise is a real and measurable problem that can have serious consequences. It is important to address it in order to make better decisions."

10. "We need to be aware of the noise in our decision-making processes and take steps to reduce it. Only then can we make more accurate and reliable judgments."

Chapter 6 Similar Books Like Noise

1. "The Power of Habit" by Charles Duhigg - This book explores the science behind habits and how they can be changed to improve our lives.

2. "Atomic Habits" by James Clear - Similar to "The Power of Habit," this book delves into the power of small changes and habits to transform our lives.

3. "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success" by Carol S. Dweck - Dweck explores the concept of fixed versus growth mindsets and how our beliefs about our abilities can shape our success.

4. "Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance" by Angela Duckworth - Duckworth explores the importance of grit, or the combination of passion and perseverance, in achieving long-term success.

5. "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen R. Covey - This classic self-help book outlines seven habits that can help individuals become more effective in their personal and professional lives.

Book  bookey.app/book/noise

Quotes  bookey.app/quote-book/noise

Atomic Habit  bookey.app/atomic-habits

Mindset  bookey.app/book/mindset

Youtube  youtube.com/watch?v=0IcznbEUqgs

Amazon  amazon.com/Noise-Human-Judgment-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0316451401

Goodreads  goodreads.com/book/show/55339408-noise

[upcomingtradera]

[gregmh-blog]

Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion

Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion https://ift.tt/wG7dxLk Kahneman and Tversky’s Prospect Theory posit that individuals have loss aversion. What is loss aversion? It means that individuals experience losses more intensely than gains of the same magnitude; for instance, the psychological impact of losing a certain amount of money is greater than the pleasure derived from gaining that same amount. A key question is how much more intensely to individuals experience gains than losses? To formalize things, prospect theory assumes the following utility function: The most widely cited estimates are for these parameters are from Tversky and Kahneman (1992). In that paper they find that loss aversion λ=2.25, and α=β=0.88. We can plot the utility function with this parameterization on the graph below as follows. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jel.20221698 One key issue, however, is that the Tversky and Kahneman (1992) loss aversion estimates came from a single study of 25 graduate students from an elite American university. How generalizable are these results? Is there a better estimate of loss aversion out there? A paper Brown et al. (2024) aims to answer this question by conducting a meta-analysis of loss aversion estimates from all studies published between 1992 and 2017. They found 607 empirical estimates of loss aversion across 150 articles. The studies came from a variety of disciplines (e.g., economics, psychology, neuroscience) and a variety of data types. Most studies (53%) relied on a lab experiment design, but 26.5% of articles identified came from a field experiment of other field data; 42% of the studies came from Europe and 30% came from North America. The unadjusted results (shown below) estimated a median loss aversion of 1.69 and mean loss aversion of 1.97. After applying a random effects meta-analytic distribution, the mean loss aversion coefficient was found to be 1.955 with a 95% probability that the true value falls between 1.820 and 2.102. https://ift.tt/JsKnWV8 These results are somewhat lower, but not disimilar to the Tversky and Kahneman (1992) estimate of 2.25. We can also compare the results to two previous meta-analysis studies of loss aversion. Neumann and Böckenholt 2014–which examined los aversion using 33 studies about consumer brand choice–reported a base model estimate of λ = 1.49 and an “enhanced model” estimate of λ = 1.73; Walasek, Mullett, and  Stewart (2018)–which examined 17 studies of gain-loss financial lotteries–estimated that λ = 1.31. In short, the Brown et al. results are higher than previous estimates, but lower than Tversky and Kahneman. You can read the full paper here. Key References Brown, Alexander L., Taisuke Imai, Ferdinand M. Vieider, and Colin F. Camerer. “Meta-analysis of empirical estimates of loss aversion.” Journal of Economic Literature 62, no. 2 (2024): 485-516. Neumann, Nico, and Ulf Böckenholt. 2014. “A Meta-Analysis of Loss Aversion in Product Choice.” Journal of Retailing 90 (2): 182–97. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1992. “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 (4): 297–323. Walasek, Lukasz, Timothy L. Mullett, and Neil Stewart. 2018. “A Meta-Analysis of Loss Aversion in Risky Contexts.” https://ift.tt/ONuQh3R. via Healthcare Economist https://ift.tt/1VdBW4G June 26, 2024 at 08:12PM

[hugobuenodefreitas]

Paradoxo de Framing: Uma Análise Multidisciplinar

## Introdução

O paradoxo de framing é um conceito fascinante que permeia diversas áreas do conhecimento, desde a psicologia até a economia, passando pela comunicação e o marketing. Este artigo tem como objetivo explorar o paradoxo de framing de maneira abrangente, oferecendo insights valiosos para profissionais de diferentes campos.

 Que é o Paradoxo de Framing?

O paradoxo de framing refere-se à maneira como a apresentação de uma informação pode influenciar a percepção e a decisão das pessoas. Em outras palavras, a mesma informação pode ser interpretada de maneiras diferentes dependendo de como é apresentada. Este conceito foi amplamente estudado por Amos Tversky e Daniel Kahneman, que demonstraram que as pessoas não são sempre racionais em suas decisões, sendo fortemente influenciadas pelo "frame" ou "quadro" em que a informação é apresentada.

Aplicações em Diversas Áreas

Psicologia

Na psicologia, o paradoxo de framing é crucial para entender como as pessoas tomam decisões. Estudos mostram que as pessoas tendem a evitar riscos quando uma escolha é apresentada em termos de ganhos, mas são mais propensas a assumir riscos quando a mesma escolha é apresentada em termos de perdas. Este fenômeno é conhecido como "aversão à perda".

 Economia

Na economia, o framing pode influenciar decisões de investimento e consumo. Por exemplo, um investidor pode ser mais propenso a investir em um fundo que apresenta um "crescimento de 70%" em vez de um que "não cresceu 30%". Embora as duas afirmações sejam matematicamente equivalentes, a forma como são apresentadas pode influenciar a decisão do investidor.

Marketing

No marketing, o framing é uma ferramenta poderosa para influenciar o comportamento do consumidor. Um produto pode parecer mais atraente se for descrito como "95% livre de gordura" em vez de "contém 5% de gordura". A maneira como a informação é enquadrada pode fazer uma grande diferença na percepção do valor do produto.

 Comunicação

Na comunicação, o framing pode afetar a opinião pública e a interpretação de eventos. Jornalistas e comunicadores frequentemente utilizam o framing para direcionar a percepção do público sobre determinados assuntos. Por exemplo, uma notícia pode ser enquadrada de maneira a enfatizar aspectos positivos ou negativos de um evento, influenciando assim a opinião pública.

 Estudos de Caso

Caso 1: O Experimento de Tversky e Kahneman

Um dos experimentos mais famosos sobre o paradoxo de framing foi conduzido por Tversky e Kahneman. Eles apresentaram aos participantes dois cenários de um problema de saúde pública. No primeiro cenário, os participantes tinham que escolher entre um programa que salvaria 200 vidas com certeza e outro que tinha 1/3 de chance de salvar 600 vidas e 2/3 de chance de não salvar nenhuma vida. No segundo cenário, os participantes tinham que escolher entre um programa onde 400 pessoas morreriam com certeza e outro onde havia 1/3 de chance de ninguém morrer e 2/3 de chance de 600 pessoas morrerem. Embora os dois cenários fossem logicamente equivalentes, as escolhas dos participantes variaram significativamente dependendo de como o problema foi enquadrado.

Caso 2: Marketing de Produtos Alimentícios

Um estudo de marketing mostrou que consumidores preferem comprar carne rotulada como "90% magra" em vez de "10% de gordura", mesmo que as duas descrições sejam idênticas em termos de conteúdo. Este exemplo ilustra como o framing pode influenciar a percepção do consumidor e, consequentemente, suas decisões de compra.

 Implicações Éticas

O uso do framing levanta questões éticas importantes. Manipular a apresentação de informações para influenciar decisões pode ser visto como uma forma de engano. Profissionais de todas as áreas devem estar cientes das implicações éticas de suas práticas de framing e buscar um equilíbrio entre persuasão e transparência.

 Conclusão

O paradoxo de framing é um fenômeno complexo e multifacetado que tem implicações significativas em diversas áreas do conhecimento. Compreender como o framing influencia a percepção e a tomada de decisão pode ajudar profissionais a tomar decisões mais informadas e éticas. Seja na psicologia, economia, marketing ou comunicação, o framing é uma ferramenta poderosa que deve ser usada com cuidado e responsabilidade.

[betshy]

Understanding Anchoring Bias: Impact on Decision-Making

Anchoring bias is a cognitive bias that influences our decision-making processes in subtle yet significant ways. This bias occurs when individuals rely too heavily on the first piece of information they receive (the "anchor") when making decisions or judgements. This can lead to skewed perceptions and inaccurate conclusions, as our brains have a tendency to give more weight to the initial information we receive. The concept of anchoring bias was first identified by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in the 1970s. In one famous study, participants were asked to estimate the percentage of African countries in the United Nations. Before making their estimates, they were randomly given either a high or low anchor (e.g. 10% or 65%). The researchers found that participants who were given a higher anchor tended to give higher estimates, while those given a lower anchor gave lower estimates - even though the anchor had no relevance to the actual percentage. Anchoring bias can have a significant impact on our daily decision-making processes, from negotiating prices to making investment decisions. For example, if a real estate agent sets a high listing price for a house, potential buyers may anchor on that price and have a harder time negotiating a lower price, even if the house is not worth the asking price. Understanding anchoring bias is important not only for individuals making decisions, but also for businesses and organisations. By being aware of this bias, companies can avoid anchoring customers on higher prices and instead focus on providing accurate and fair pricing. Additionally, businesses can use anchoring to their advantage by setting positive anchors that lead customers to perceive their products or services as valuable. To combat anchoring bias, it is important to consciously question the initial information we receive and consider other sources of information before making a decision. This can help us avoid being swayed by irrelevant anchors and make more well-informed choices. In conclusion, anchoring bias is a common cognitive bias that can affect our decision-making processes in various aspects of our lives. By being aware of this bias and actively working to overcome it, we can make more rational and informed decisions that are not influenced by irrelevant anchors. Read the full article

[whatsinyourstory]

Why should one read books?

There are a tonne of humorous tweets, educational videos, and fascinating articles on the Internet. To understand about current events, why not read the news instead of books? Why read books when there are so many smart individuals blogging about fascinating concepts you've never heard of? When compared to other forms of reading, there are numerous reasons why reading books is a worthy endeavour.

Superior quality distillation of knowledge

To begin with, the writers have devoted numerous hours to conducting the necessary research for a book's publication. For instance, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky's outstanding careers are summarised in the book Thinking Fast and Slow. The Nobel Prize went to Daniel Kahneman. It seems incomprehensible that adopting the "learn by doing" method might enable someone to acquire a comparable level of knowledge in a short period of time. For example, Ray Dalio's wisdom throughout a lifetime is condensed into several hundred pages in his book Principles. You may condense the years of labour that the author or authors put in across several hours when you read a book.

Learn a subject well

Books can be quite narrowly focused on one topic. They are usually of a high calibre and thoroughly researched. You will gain knowledge of new ideas, their background, and how they relate to one another. Your mental models will become far more richer as a result.

They make a significant contribution to your competency.

buy second hand books online,sell books online,story books online

[dannart37]

Kalauer & Kapitalismus CCCXCIX

Rafah und die Unerträglichkeit.

Unsere Urteile fällen wir zumeist auf der Basis von Bildern und auf der Basis von Gefühlen, deren Gründe zumeist in unserer privaten Verfasstheit zu finden sind, die wiederum korrelieren mit unserem Wunsch nach Zugehörigkeit und Anerkennung. Wir tun alles, um soziale Isolation und Konflikt zu vermeiden. Dahinter (oder besser: davor) kommen wir nicht einfach zurück. Der instinktive, schnelle Zugriff unseres Denkens beherrscht uns in fast jeder Alltagslage. Bei Meinungen kommt noch hinzu, dass unsere digital grundierte Aufmerksamkeitsökonomie kaum mehr langsames Denken zulässt. Daniel Kahnemann und Amos Tversky haben das alles aufgezeigt. Man kann es nachlesen. Wenn man Zeit hat. Und sich irritieren lassen möchte, sprich, wenn man den eigene Grundüberzeugungen nicht schon von vornherein jede Chance einräumt. Freilich ist offenes Lesen, weil es ebenfalls den oben beschriebenen Mechanismen dawider läuft, schwierig und auch wieder alles andere als Zeitgeist.

Ein Beispiel: Ein Foto auf Spiegel online illustriert am 27. Mai 2024 den jüngsten Luftschlags der IDF auf eine Hamas-Stellung in Rafah, bei dem u.a. zwei hochrangige Hamas-Funktionäre getötet wurden. Einmal Yassin Rabia, der für die gesamten terroristischen Aktivitäten der Hamas im Westjordanland verantwortlich war (Nebenbei stellt sich die Frage, wie der es in den Gazastreifen geschafft hat, aber das ist hier nicht der Fokus). Zum zweiten Khaled Nagar, ebenfalls aus dem Westjordanland. Legitime Kriegsziele. Gedeckt durch internationales Recht. Da die Hamas wie immer Deckung hinter Zivilisten gesucht hat, gab es ebenfalls Tote und Verletzte unter Zivilisten. Wieviele Terroristen, wieviele zivile Opfer? Das wird derzeit nicht unterschieden.

Spiegel online titelt nun „Erschütternde Bilder aus Rafah“. Niemand würde auf die Idee kommen, angesichts des damit illustrierten Fotos und weiterer Bilder, die kursieren, dem zu widersprechen. Jegliche Analyse, entsprechend langsam gedacht, kommt angesichts des emotionalen Zugriffs und angesichts der Bilder zum Erliegen. Selbst der Gedanke, wie Kriegs- und Kampfhandlungen etwas anderes als „erschütternde Bilder“ zur Folge haben sollen, kann kaum mehr gedacht werden, ohne sofort dem Verdikt der eigenen seelischen Grausamkeit zum Opfer zu fallen. Die Journalist:innen auf Spiegel online, deren Aufgabe es sein sollte, einzuordnen und zu bewerten, beugen sich dem Druck der Mehrheitsgesellschaft und wählen Formulierungen, die zwar auf das Unbestätigte aller Meldungen des UNRWA (das nicht unabhängig von der Hamas in Gaza operieren kann) und des Roten Halbmonds verweist; zugleich aber in der Floskelhaftigkeit der Formulierungen diese Einschränkung quasi selbst zurücknimmt. Den schnellen Leser:innen bleibt als Fazit: Israel hat Zivilist:innen angegriffen. Der Tod der beiden Terroristen und sicher auch Teilen ihrer Entourage (in den Meldungen sind unterschiedslos alle Toten und Verletzten Zivilisten) gerät völlig aus dem Blick.

Nebenbei wird wieder einmal auf das Urteil des Internationalen Gerichtshof verwiesen: „Der Internationale Gerichtshof (IGH) hatte Israel am Freitag verpflichtet, den Militäreinsatz in Rafah unverzüglich zu beenden.“ Das ist geradezu eine Falschmeldung. Das Gericht hat Folgendes verlautbart: „By thirteen votes to two, Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part“. May and could. Konjunktiv. Das klingt wie Wortklauberei. Ist aber, gerade im juristischen Kontext, keine. Paraphrasiert bedeutet das: Im Falle, dass.. Nicht: Es ist der Fall. So wie Spiegel online schreibt, ist jedwede Operation in Rafah völkerrechtswidrig. Das freilich stimmt nicht. Im Übrigen sind diese Urteile die Ergebnisse vieler Eilanträge Südafrikas in Folge seiner Klage vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof. Südafrika erkennt die Hamas, eine Terrororganisation, als legitime Vertretung der Palästinenser an und empfängt deren Vertreter in Südafrika als Staatsgäste. Vieles mehr ließe sich zu Südafrika (wie auch zu Nicaragua) sagen, was die Schwere der Argumentation der Klagen vor dem IGH in den öffentlichen Debatten anders als üblich einordnen würde. Derzeit bleibt vor allem der Kurzschluss der allermeisten öffentlichen Debatten im Gedächtnis: Klage entspricht (Vor)Verurteilung.

Das eigentliche, das gravierende Problem dabei: Meldung für Meldung wird so das Narrativ von Israel, das für Genozid verantwortlich ist (und ein Apartheidsstaat sein soll, was sicher für radikale Siedler zutrifft, aber nicht für die israelische Demokratie als Gesamtheit) verfestigt. Jedwede Auseinandersetzung auf der Straße, die sich inzwischen in den sozialen Netzwerken abbildet (jede schnelle Auseinandersetzung also) beginnt und endet bei dem Tod von Zivilist:innen (der doppelt unterschiedslos inzwischen als Mord bezeichnet wird, obwohl natürlich Terrorist:innen im Fokus stehen und Tod durch Kriegshandlung nicht per se Mord sind. Wie könnte beispielsweise die Ukraine sich sonst gegen Russland verteidigen? Die meisten Kriegshandlungen zielen auf die physische Vernichtung des Gegners ab.. Eine Selbstverständlichkeit, die im Falle Israels inzwischen fast vollständig ausgeblendet wird.) Verteidigt man Israel, verteidigt man nicht nur diesen „Mord“. Nein, man ist sogar dafür. Im Extremfalle sogar dafür, dass „kleine Kinder ermordet“ werden. Womit dann jede Auseinandersetzung endet. Warum soll man sich mit empathielosen Monstern, die für so etwas sind, auseinandersetzen. Die brüllt man. Die brüllt man nieder. Die versucht man zu canceln. Eine Trennung der Ebenen der Debatte ist so nicht möglich. Die notwendigen Auseinandersetzung, denen man sich als Erwachsene:r nun einmal stellen muss, ist vom Gefühlsüberschuss der Wohlstandsgesellschaft absorbiert worden.

Das Problem ist u.a. freilich folgendes: Allenthalben kann man lesen, dass Israelkritik nicht automatisch antisemitisch ist. Wobei dem selten ein fundierter Begriff von Antisemitismus zugrunde liegt. Vielmehr wird antisemitisch eher als Synonym für „verboten“ benutzt. Daraus wird geschlussfolgert, man müsse den Anfängen wehren, man müsse das vorgebliche Verbot bekämpfen, denn man muss alles sagen dürfen. Das hat zwar niemand konstatiert, aber wie gut kämpft es sich gegen Windmühlen, die man selbst zu Rittern erklärt hat. Wie sehr dieses „alles“ auch immer auf dem schnellen Denken beruht, das eigentlich ungeeignet für Analyse und Erkenntnis ist, sondern darin seine Existenz begründet sieht, dass wir aufgrund bereits gefasster Urteile in Momenten, wo es auf schnelles Handeln ankommt, eben handlungsfähig sind und bleiben. Manchmal ist für Abwägung keine Zeit. Der Notstand gebietet Handeln auf der Grundlage fertiger Muster. Warum dieser Notstand freilich in der für die meisten von uns immer schon realitätsfernen Debatte über den Nahen Osten gegeben sein soll, erschließt sich nicht. Abgesehen davon, dass dem Postulat, man dürfe dieses und jenes nicht sagen im Moment der Äußerung ja der logische Widerspruch schon uneinholbar eingeschrieben ist. Wie denn nun? Darf man dieses und jenes sagen nur in der Benennung des Verbots? Nur unter dem Deckmantel des zitierenden Verteidigens? Was für ein Unsinn.

Das Argument der Nichtgleichsetzung von Israelkritik und Antisemitismus blendet dabei m.E. aber völlig aus, dass die Existenz Israels spätestens nach der Shoa eine existentielle Bedeutung der Unabhängigkeit von Verfolgung und Mord innewohnt, die man als Nichtjude gar nicht ermessen kann und vielleicht auch nicht ermessen sollte. Manche Wahrheiten sind tiefer als das Recht, sie anzuzweifeln. Israel hat auch in der Diaspora eine kaum zu unterschätzende Bedeutung und ist so eng verflochten mit (s)einer zweitausendjährigen Geschichte und insbesondere dem deutschen Faschismus, der realen faschistischen Gesellschaft, die bis heute spürbar bleibt, in dessen Geschichtsraum alle Menschen, die in Deutschland leben, ungeachtet der Positionierung ihrer Vorfahren und egal welcher Herkunft.., dass eben im Zweifel nicht scharf zwischen Antisemitismus und Israelkritik zu trennen ist. Schon gar nicht in Deutschland. Das war mal Staatsräson. Aber es scheint, als ob dies, rechts wie links, eine unerträglich große Last war, welche nun vor allem die Linken bereitwillig, aufatmend, abwerfen.

Macht man sich dann journalistisch noch nicht einmal die Mühe oder versucht, schlimmer noch, derart dem Zeitgeist zu entsprechen, wie es eine Unzahl an Meldungen derzeit tun, leistet man mindestens Antisemitismus Vorschub. Das Aufatmen, das auch daraus resultiert, dass man sich endlich aus der geschichtlichen Verantwortung stehlen kann und kontextlos werten darf, ohne dafür Verantwortung übernehmen zu müssen, hört man aus vielen Artikeln derzeit prustend heraus.

Urteile (die aus langsamem Denken resultieren) werden verwechselt mit Meinungen (die ihrerseits in der Regel das Resultat schnellen Denkens sind). Meinungen resultieren aus Bildern und Emotionen und aus einer zumeist unreflektierten Ich-Perspektive. Meinungen sollten zudem mehrheitsfähig sein, wobei man gut daran tut, sie als Minderheitenmeinungen wahrzunehmen und zu propagieren. Sonst bekommt man soziale Probleme. Schwierig freilich wird es, wenn mit diesen Meinungen das Existenzrecht Israels mehr und mehr in Frage gestellt wird und man, wie jüngst im DIE ZEIT Interview Emilia Roig, schon gesellschaftsfähig konstatieren darf, dass Israel im Nahen Osten keine Chance hat und warum Deutschland nicht beispielsweise Bayern 1947 als zukünftiges Siedlungsgebiet zur Verfügung gestellt hat. Nebenbei eine unfassbar unempathische Äußerung, wenn man bedenkt, dass dieses vorgeblich zugespitzte Argument das Land der Täter:innen als Pointe adressiert. Und zudem auch nur eine weitere „Israel kann weg“ Polemik, die nur besonders rotzig und großstädtisch ungeduldig daherkommt.

The point is: So wird inzwischen täglich die Grenze des Sagbaren weiter verschoben und kaum jemand aus der Mehrheitsgesellschaft wehrt sich dagegen. Oder wenn, dann dermaßen verklausiert und abgesichert, dass es in all den Bildern und Emotionen und Ich-Perspektiven untergeht. Natürlich geht es nicht um die Vernichtung Israels. Nicht um Antisemitismus. Nein.

Oder doch?