Think fast. Think slow.
Daniel Kahneman's tour of the mind's two systems — the fast one that answers before you think, the slow one too lazy to check it — and the small, merciless experiments that caught them both — a listening summary of the 2011 book.
The two systems
In 2002, the Nobel Prize in Economics went to a psychologist. Daniel Kahneman had spent decades, most of them with his friend and partner Amos Tversky, running small, merciless experiments on how people actually judge and decide — and the experiments kept showing that we do it far worse, and far more predictably, than we believe. Tversky died in 1996 and could not share the prize, but this book is the map the two of them drew together: a mind run by two characters. System 1 is the fast one. It works automatically, effortlessly, all the time: it reads a face, finishes your sentence, knows that two plus two is four and that a snarling dog is not a friend. System 2 is the slow one: it works through seventeen times twenty-four, checks an argument, fills in a form — and it is lazy. It can follow a rule, compare two prices, hold back a rude reply — but only while something keeps it awake, and it tires quickly. Its deepest habit is to endorse whatever System 1 suggests and go back to sleep. Most of your life is lived by System 1, with System 2 signing the papers.
The storyteller that never doubts
Kahneman gives System 1 a motto: What You See Is All There Is. Shown a few facts, it builds the best story it can from exactly those facts — and never asks what might be missing. A man is described as stubborn and argumentative, and you judge his whole character, although everything you know about him fits on one line. A jury that hears one side told smoothly will convict on it; inside System 1, the missing side has no advocate. Confidence, Kahneman insists, is not a measure of evidence. It is a measure of how smoothly the story hangs together. That smoothness has a name: cognitive ease. Whatever feels familiar, clear and repeated feels true, safe and good. It is why a claim printed in bold, readable type is believed more readily than the same claim printed faintly — and why a name you have seen once before starts to feel like the name of someone famous. Ease becomes the halo effect: learn one good thing about a person — he is generous — and his stubbornness begins to look like principle. Learn one bad thing, and the same trait looks like rigidity. And System 1 can be primed without your knowledge: in one famous experiment, students who had unscrambled sentences full of words about old age — grey, wrinkle, Florida — then walked down the corridor measurably slower than the others. Ideas they never noticed had reached into their legs.
Three traps with names
Some traps are so reliable that they have become famous. The first takes ten seconds. A bat and a ball cost one dollar ten in total, and the bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? Your System 1 has already answered: ten cents. It is wrong — if the ball cost ten cents, the total would come to one dollar twenty. The ball costs five cents, the bat one dollar five. More than half of the students at Harvard, MIT and Princeton gave the intuitive, wrong answer. The second trap is anchoring. In one experiment, a wheel of fortune rigged to stop only on ten or sixty-five was spun in front of the participants, who were then asked what percentage of African countries belong to the United Nations. A meaningless number from a wheel dragged real estimates with it: the average guess after ten was 25 percent; after sixty-five, it was 45 percent. Whatever number happens to be on the table — a price, a deadline, a first offer — pulls judgment toward itself. The third is Linda. Linda is thirty-one, single, outspoken and very bright; she studied philosophy and spent her student years fighting discrimination and social injustice. Which is more likely: that Linda is a bank teller — or that Linda is a bank teller and active in the feminist movement? The second can never be more likely than the first; a part cannot be bigger than the whole. Yet about 85 percent of people chose the impossible answer, because it sounds more like Linda. The same machinery runs your sense of danger: we judge how common something is by how easily examples come to mind, so a plane crash feels deadlier than the quiet diseases that kill far more people every year.
Losses loom larger
The deepest discovery of Kahneman and Tversky's career is Prospect Theory, the work the Nobel recognized. Offer people a fair coin: heads, you gain 150 dollars; tails, you lose 100. Most refuse — although the bet is profitable on average. Run many such choices through their experiments and a pattern emerges: a loss hurts roughly twice as much as an equal gain pleases. We are not built to maximize. We are built not to lose. The same facts, dressed differently, reverse decisions entirely. Told that a program will save 200 of 600 people threatened by an epidemic, most people choose that program for certain. Told instead that 400 of the 600 will die, the same majority now gambles on a one-in-three chance of saving everyone. Nothing changed but the wording: gains make us cautious, losses make us reckless. And whoever frames the question has already half-answered it. Every gain and loss, moreover, is measured from a reference point — where you stand today — never from a final tally: a smaller raise and an outright pay cut can be exactly the same money, and they are entirely different events.
The planning fallacy and the outside view
Kahneman learned this one on himself. He gathered a team of experts to write a new school curriculum, and after a year of work asked each member, privately and in writing, how long the job would take. The estimates clustered around two years. Then he asked the team's most experienced member how long similar projects usually took. The answer: not one of them had finished in less than seven years — and 40 percent had never finished at all. Kahneman's team pressed on anyway, certain that they were different. They finished in eight years. That is the planning fallacy: we plan from the inside view — our intentions, our resources, our best case — and ignore the statistics of every similar attempt that came before us. The cure is not pessimism. It is the outside view. Before asking how long your project will take, ask how long such projects take. It feels like surrender. It is the single most reliable correction the book offers. The same inside view inflates experts: asked to make predictions, specialists in study after study barely beat chance — while their confidence never dips.
The two selves
Late in the book, Kahneman splits you in two again. The experiencing self lives the moments, one by one. The remembering self keeps the story, retells it later — and makes nearly all the decisions. And the remembering self is a careless accountant: it judges an episode almost entirely by its worst or best moment and by how it ended, and it barely counts how long the episode lasted. Ask it how the holiday was, and it will not average the days; it will report the best afternoon and the last evening. In a study that still startles doctors, patients underwent colonoscopies — one group the standard procedure, another a longer version, with the instrument left gently in place for an extra minute at the end. The second group endured more pain in total. Yet they remembered the procedure as less awful, and were more willing to come back for the next one — because it ended better. We do not choose between experiences. We choose between memories of experiences — and then the experiencing self is sent off to live with the choice. It is why a long holiday with a miserable final day can lose, in memory and in next year's plans, to a shorter one that ended in sunlight.
What the book teaches
What does Kahneman ask of us? Not to switch System 1 off — nobody can, and life without it would be paralysis. He asks us to learn the geography of its lies. Slow down exactly where the traps are known to sit: when an answer arrives too easily, when a number was placed in front of you before you estimated anything, when a loss is being framed, when a plan has never been compared with the record of similar plans. Distrust smooth confidence — your own first of all — and take the outside view. One honesty note, from Kahneman himself: a few of the book's most charming findings, including some of the social priming experiments, were later questioned when other psychologists tried to repeat them, and he wrote publicly that he had placed too much faith in those studies and that the chapter needed repair. The core stands: the heuristics and biases, Prospect Theory and the two selves have survived every test thrown at them. A book about how minds fool themselves, corrected by its own author — perhaps that is the most fitting ending it could have.
Source
- Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. Experiments and figures as reported in the book.
Think slow, where it counts.
System 1 will answer first for the rest of your life. The book's whole teaching is to know the few places where its answer must not be the final one.
More articles
Put your comment here