Year: 2012

I need to finish off my notes on Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow” since I posted some criticisms before I’d read the concluding chapters.

Strange to read the explicit dualisms:

Two systems – Fast intuitive thinking and Slow considered thinking.
Two species – Humans (reasonable) and Econs  (entirely rational).
Two selves – Experiencing self and Remembering self.

As I commented before it’s almost trivial to conclude this is how humans do actually work, what was slightly scary was the implicit suggestion that human deviation from pure rationality was a problem to be corrected. Cognitive biases (vs rationality) are real, but they value more than rationality. In admitting a complex picture of values without prescriptive conclusions Kahneman uses masterful understatement to admit economic decision-making is more than maths:

“Philosophers could struggle with these questions for a long time.”

He makes a number of plain wrong statements along the lines that – the integral of pain experienced over time is somehow obviously more significant than remembered pain – doh ! But also a number of key positive conclusions:

“I have …. devoted many pages to errors of intuitive judgement and choice … However, the relative number of pages is a poor indicator of the balance between the marvels and the flaws of intuitive thinking. System 1 is indeed the origin of much of what we do wrong, but it is also the origin of most of what we do right – which is most of what we do. Our thoughts and actions are routinely guided by system 1 and are generally on the mark.”

“One of the marvels is the rich and detailed model of our world that is maintained in associative memory: it distinguishes surprises from normal events in a fraction of a second, immediately generates an idea of what had been expected instead of a surprise, and automatically searches for some causal interpretation of events as they take place.”

ie we’d do well not to assume system 1 is somehow inferior to pure rationality, to be corrected and brought under control of system 2 – which would be autistic.  [see McGilchrist – let’s not forget who is master and who is emissary.]

Also, often talks of “laziness” in under-use of system 2, as If more use would lead to more (rationally) optimal decisions – but this is basic economy of effort – consideration costs are part of the optimisation. [Brunsson / Argyris  decision rationality is action irrationality, etc.]

Libertarian Paternalism – after Richard Thaler’s “Nudge” – we humans do actually need “help” with free choices, beyond free access to “information”. We need meta-information about different ways information should be considered and valued, and how presenting the same information different ways, might lead us to different considerations. Those entrusted with governance do (need to) know better than free popular choice would suggest. Their power to “nudge” us to given conclusions must be trusted, even if we baulk at their power to physically restrict our choice. And:

“Decision-makers are sometimes better able to imagine the voices of present gossipers and future critics, than to hear the hesitant voice of their own doubts. They will make better choices when they trust their critics to be sophisticated and fair, and when they can expect their decision to be judged by how it was made, not only by how it turned out.”

Governance, sophistication, values, fairness and trust – all in there.

“Better able to imagine than to hear“

Another case of less communication is more.
A little ignorance goes a long way.

All this recent negative stuff around football contrasts with the real thing seen as Barca visited Leverkusen last night.

Scrap handshakes ? That’s how to do it. Defenders laughing and congratulating Messi when he beats them. Messi continuing regardless as he is repeatedly mis-tackled, and coming back for more. Contrast the grace of Messi (again) with the graceless Ballack, fortunately dropped from Leverkusen’s squad for the game.

Interesting that Malcy MacKay actually suggested scrapping handshakes – to put the focus back on the game. Gentlemanly conduct is part of the game. Suarez could / should have been sent off before the kick-off – full marks to the ref for not doing so, so as to better manage the situation – and again at the end. Let’s hope the apologies are not hollow politics. The beautiful game needs grace.

[Though misery-guts German director of football Rudi Voller  wishes his players weren’t quite so enthusiastic about their opponent 😉 ]

Matt’s 2008 article on Philosophos – just capturing the link so I don’t lose it.

It’s customary to reckon Godfather III as the weakest of the trilogy; it happens to be my favourite, so I notice the fact. I also noticed this Simpson’s gag that reinforces the meme. Thanks to Jorn for the link.

“Moe Baby Blues,” Season 14 – Moe becomes Maggie’s caretaker, rescuing her from a standoff between Fat Tony’s crew and rival gangsters, moving them to tears with a paean to Maggie’s goodness.

“I ain’t cried like this since I paid to see Godfather III,”
Tony sobs.

Or does it ?

Tickled by this “high energy” physics story.

Apparently the potential of a particle hurtling round CERN’s LHC at its full power of several TeV’s (Tera 1,000,000,000,000. electron volts)

… is equivalent to the energy of …

… one whole mosquito in flight.

[Post Note : See ex-page-footer for the significance of the “fly on a windshield”.]

Ooh another fight. This one runs and runs – like any catchy black vs white meme. Of course militant secularism is a threat to religious faith – that’s its point by definition.

Sadly popular secularism has become a one-trick militant pony – whose sole purpose is to attack religion and/or faith in public. The professor for the public understanding of science would do well to focus on his job rather than shooting fish in a barrel – it sets such a poor example of what makes for quality science. It wouldn’t be an issue if science weren’t such a public shambles itself in these days of mass media, public funding and crass sound bites.

Roll on Alain deBotton. Or Zizek; taking sides in a battle to the death is never the best course.

[Post Note : From Zizek’s “Empty Wheelbarrow” –

“… clearly perceived by GK Chesterton who – in the very last pages of his Orthodoxy, the ultimate Catholic propaganda piece – exposed the deadlock of the pseudo-revolutionary critics of religion: they start by denouncing religion as the force of oppression that threatens human freedom; but in fighting religion, they are compelled to forsake freedom itself, thus sacrificing precisely what they wanted to defend: the atheist radical universe, deprived of religious reference, is the grey universe of egalitarian terror. Today the same holds for advocates of religion themselves: how many fanatical defenders of religion started by ferociously attacking secular culture and ended up forsaking religion itself, losing any meaningful religious experience?”

And the “militant” BHA gets one thing right at last;
Andrew Copson quoted in response to Baroness Warsi;

“In an increasingly non-religious and, at the same time, diverse society, we need policies that will emphasise what we have in common as citizens rather than what divides us.” 

Let’s focus on the humanity, rather than picking fights. I’m a fully paid up atheist member of the BHA, I support what it’s for – but not for being what it is against.]

Richard Price in TechCrunch (via David Gurteen).

The democratization of the web is good for the freedom, but not for the quality, of information. Of course if peer-review is too narrowly subject-matter focussed, the opposite “censoring” effect can distort and slow-down or even destroy the knowledge-evolution processes, but some level of editorial quality control (see Bruce Charlton) is needed to counter memetic spread of fashionable but dumb “reactionary” science.

Interesting.

Strangers, over
Friends, over
Brands.