Thinking Fast and Slow, D. Kahneman, 2011

심리학자로서 처음으로 노벨경제학 수상

의식과 무의식을 같이 고찰

 

오늘 킨들에서 일단 구입하고 (책값은 2.2달러)

 

G. Le Bebon,  The Crowd  찾다가

이건 무료라서 일단 다운로드 받았고

 

근래, 좀더 진지하게 시장과 경제를 직면하다보니 

군중심리에 대해 신경쓰지 않을 수 없는 것 같다

수요공급과 더불어 탐욕공포도 있기 때문이다

한족 눈 감고 살 수는 없다는 취지에서

일단 몇가지는 인용

 

 

The basis thesis of the book is simple. In judging the world around us, we use two mental systems: Fast and Slow. The Fast system (System 1) is mostly unconscious and makes snap judgments based on our past experiences and emotions. When we use this system we are as likely to be wrong as right. The Slow system (System 2) is rational, conscious and slow. They work together to provide us a view of the world around us.

So what's the problem? They are incompatible, that's what.

System 1 is fast, but easily swayed by emotions and can be as easily be wrong as be right. You buy more cans of soup when the display says "Limit 12 per customer". We are on autopilot with this system. System 1 controls an amazing array of behavior. System 2 is conscious, rational and careful but painfully slow. It's distracted and hard to engage. These two systems together provide a backdrop for our cognitive biases and achievements.

This very well written book will enlighten and entertain the reader, especially if the reader is not exposed to the full range of research relating to behavioral economics. 

 

빙산의 일각이라고 의식의 영역이 뜻밖에 작고, 

무의식에 눈감고 살 수는 없으리

 

Kahneman notes that even top performers in business and sports tend to revert to the mean in the long run. As a result, he attributes success largely to luck. I'm not so convinced of this. There can be alternative explanations. People who achieve high degree of success are also exposed to a high degree of failure and the reversion to the mean may be attributable to this possible mirror effect. Spectacular success may go with spectacular failure and run-of-the-mill success may go with run-of-the-mill failure. Eventually everyone may revert the mean, but the ride can be very different. Chance may not account for that.

도데체 잘한다는건 뭔가?

항상 그럴 수 있는가?

그렇지만 뭔가 차이는 있는 것 같은데