Reddit Reddit reviews Thinking, Fast and Slow

We found 20 Reddit comments about Thinking, Fast and Slow. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Books
Self-Help
Personal Transformation Self-Help
Thinking, Fast and Slow
PENGUIN GROUP
Check price on Amazon

20 Reddit comments about Thinking, Fast and Slow:

u/PM_me_goat_gifs · 62 pointsr/socialskills

I read through your full post and here are my takeaways:

  • You've done self-improvement stuff which is solely focused on you. It made you more confident, but didn't bring you any dates. Your only motivation to exercise is to make yourself attractive to women. So this advice seems like its not really that useful at all.

  • You've read lots of advice from women which says "Leave women alone. I don't want to be approached." When you comply with all of them simultaneously, you conclude that there is no real-life environment where it is acceptable to approach women.

  • Your personality deviates from the traditionally-masculine script. You naturally value Active Listening and being emotionally supportive. You've seen signs that most women don't find this attractive.

  • You feel rather upset about 15 post-puberty years of feeling lonely. You feel more upset that when you read about this problem, you see a load of people dismissing that problem as being a sign of a Male Entitlement. You see lots of people shaming straight men for their sexuality. It makes you feel awful and like the endeavour of finding romantic love is pointless.

    Did I miss the mark on anything?

    -----

    Married late-20s straight man here.

    I have a few responses.

  1. I sympathise.

    Your problem is real. Your problem doesn't make you a bad person or a creep. Your problem does deserve a sympathetic ear. I suspect you would find some catharsis in reading https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-romanceless/ and then https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/deradicalizing-the-romanceless/

  2. You can do this, despite difficulty.

    I strongly suspect your problem is solvable, though with a sort of difficulty that people often find hard to grapple with. It requires enduring emotional discomfort, trying things despite lots of randomness in the results, re-evaluating your strategy and progress every 2 weeks, and learning new habits.

  3. Find ways to learn tactics which enable you to be successful at being emotionally honest.

    The reason it might require study is because the goal isn't to be honest just to yourself, but to carry the right meaning to other people. Anyone who's ever taken a class on public speaking or bedside manner is saying that communication is hard and worth studying. Why should sexual communication be any different? It is worth finding a therapist or coach, but it is also worth taking the time to seek out someone you trust to point down a healthy and consensual path.

    See from this summary if this book would be helpful. https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/models-a-summary/

    Also look at Charisma on Command

    Remember that your goal is to learn things which you can turn into intuition. If something doesn't make sense, it is worth following that feeling and asking about it.

    <continued>

  4. Develop a healthy relationship with rejection.

    Getting rejected isn't about you. Its about what she thinks about the you-her system. I have heard good things about the rejection therapy game but haven't looked into it.

    <continued>

  5. Be more gentle with yourself and your maleness.

    Words of anger and disgust at male behaviour are probably swirling around in your head far more than is actually reasonable. Most women generally like men. Social media amplifies the most dramatic hot takes and hits your brain with them when you're most emotionally vulnerable -- during your morning poop.

    <continued>

  6. Worry less about catastrophe.

    Find and follow a reasonable set of guidelines to avoid acting in a way that a reasonable person would find threatening. Don't try to 100% eliminate the possibility that you creep someone out. You can't do it and you don't have to. Being accidentally creepy on rare occasion happens to everyone and almost everyone is capable of brushing it off.

    There are people who have had serious trauma at the hands of men. They are still processing that trauma and need spaces where they can do that. But it is a bad idea to go to those same spaces looking for dating advice because what they say won't be a measured response to your situation but a response to theirs.


    <continued>

  7. Think about the broad set of interactions you want to have and choose your activities based on that.

    If you genuinely couldn't give two shits about yoga, don't do more than try it out. Take some time and imagine some interactions with a girlfriend which you'd find fun and satisfying. Do a Freewrite Pomodoro: Set a 20-minute timer and force yourself to keep listing out bullet points. This list is private so go wild. These can be sexual. These can be arbitrarily dorky. These can be boring.

  • Making escalatingly-wierd fart noises? Goes on the list.

  • Trying to make apple pie, but failing and eating the resulting apple crumble? Goes on the list.

  • Traveling to Morocco and taking a Tagine cooking class? Goes on the list.

  • Eating her out while she tries to play Mario Kart? Goes on the list.

  • Running around with a broom between your legs and a robe and wizard hat, trying to body-check someone? Goes on the list.

  • Going to real estate open houses and whispering critiques of the interior design and home layout to each other? Goes on the list.

  • Watching a movie about the 1918 flu pandemic? Goes on the list.

    Now, once you have this list, go through and for each one, see if there are any communities which correlate with that activity. Then, sort by their gender ratio. Go there and first see if you enjoy the community. Make a few friendly-acquaintances. If you're not genuinely enjoying building acquaintance-relationship with the non-datable people there, ask yourself why...maybe talk to a friend or therapist about why. "these particular people are habitually rude" is a possible answer, so be willing to move to a different community with the same activity.

  1. Think about the positive interactions you're able to create.

  • Can you cook?

  • Can you use your knowledge of anatomy to learn to give great massages?

  • Does dancing bring you joy?

  • Do you like telling stories?

  • Do you like being silly around kids?

  • Do you want to learn how to play the guitar?

    Do the same thing as in #7. List these out and then list out environments where you can display these. Then sort by the likelihood that there will be a dateable straight women there. Be willing to learn a skill if you've already been kinda wanting to do so.

  1. Learn to read avoidance vs interest in body language.

    It will help you act and speak with more confidence. To start, read What Every Body is Saying and watch some of Charisma on Command's videos.

    <continued>

  2. Actually ask people out.
u/jboyd88 · 13 pointsr/GetStudying

I'll share my reading list for the next 12 months as it's how I plan to become a better learner:


 

Learning

u/Sennmeistr · 9 pointsr/Stoicism

>Combatting depression

Quoting a recent comment of mine:

>You might want to look into cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), if that isn't what you already did.

>Recommended books:
The Philosophy of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and
Unshakeable Freedom.


>Also: Recommended Post.

 
>Philosophy and Stoicism

Apart from the Enchiridion and the Meditations, the primary reading list includes letters and essays from Seneca as well as Cicero or the fragments from Musonius Rufus. Modern books include How to be a Stoic, A guide to the good life and Stoicism and the art of happiness. The FAQ has a nice list which is worth checking out.

>Books about changing the way you think (false thoughts vs. truths)

This might not be Stoic, but you might be interested in Thinking fast and slow.

>Identity

Might not be exactly what you were looking for, but reading The mind illuminated and implementing meditation as a practice, changed the way I think about myself and my thoughts on a daily basis.

>The ego

A favourite of mine is the eight page-long article by urbanmonk.

A good starting point for thought provoking and self-help books is the sub /r/BettermentBookClub. If you search for thought provoking articles, /r/Foodforthought or /r/philosophy is the way to go.

u/hunty91 · 6 pointsr/business

If you haven't already, read Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, which gives a really interesting analysis of (among many other things) anchoring.

u/moleccc · 4 pointsr/btc

> Think that's not accurate.

You're seem to be thinking from the part of your brain that ususally does the wanting.

maybe read some Kahneman - Thinking fast and Slow or Robert A. Wilson - Prometheus rising to get a better understanding. There's also good training exercises in the latter one.

u/ctolsen · 4 pointsr/videos

It's fairly established psychology, and it's just a small piece of the puzzle. Using the right words and emphasising them is not enough to sell, it's a part of the entire thing.

You can't prime someone to do something they wouldn't have a tendency to do in the first place, so a person couldn't get you to kill yourself. He's helping you reach the conclusions you're already on your way to reach. Read something like Thinking Fast and Slow and Predictably Irrational for more on these kinds of things.

u/IanCal · 3 pointsr/UKPersonalFinance

I think the main PF ones will be recommended well, and lots of the same approaches apply on both sides. Tax treatment is probably the key difference, which might not be best learned through a book.

So aside I'm going to recommend one book I adore that I think is hugely applicable through life (has probably changed my view upon the world more than almost anything else) and one that I've just started but is so far fascinating.

Thinking, fast and slow: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0141033576

Nobel prize winner, talking about how humans think weirdly. I challenge anyone to read this and not find something they think is applicable to their own life or how they view the world.

How to Be Miserable: 40 Strategies You Already Use: https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Be-Miserable-Strategies-Already/dp/B01HH0BC70

A guide to being miserable. A self help book effectively written from the other side. I detest saccharine self help things, this is captivating and I think a great way of viewing problems.

Not as relevant, but The Evolution of Cooperation: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Co-Operation-Penguin-Press-Science/dp/0140124950

A simple and perhaps laboured point but something that has stuck with me over the past 10 years.

Two of these, the first and last, are ones I've finished and lent out to others as much as I can possibly do so. I expect that how to be miserable will fall under these ranks but I've not finished it yet.

u/JekoJeko9 · 3 pointsr/Digibro

There's a lot of research available in regards to the kinds of accusations you present at the start; online sociology and psychology has a field day with any behavioral patterns online.

This issue of being put into a group is largely due to an aspect of what's called the 'Online Disinhibition Effect', where interaction through the medium of the net makes people less inhibited against certain behaviours, in 'benign' or 'toxic' ways. The relevant aspect to this subject is what J. Suler calls 'Solipsistic Introjection' (bear with me on these long-ass words). In short, Solipsistic Introjection is the phenomenon of how what people read online is processed into a kind of narrative. What they read or even hear is ascribed a kind of voice from their mind, and that voice is simplified into a role they see what they read or hear filling. This person is the 'feminist', this one the 'SJW'. This one the 'hipster'. And those roles are framed in a narrative that the person likes to facilitate online; they like to see the 'SJW' get criticized by the 'anti-SJW' in a good guy/bad guy dynamic. They love seeing the 'postmodernist' get argue against by what they think of as the 'rational human being'. And so on.

This ties into how Daniel Kahneman's Nobel Prize-winning recent work on how our brains make decisions. He argues there are two 'systems' of thought; that the first is 'fast' and runs on instinct, while the second is slow and skeptical. The fact we have so many people who will rush to rally under one side of a mental narrative of 'the people vs the Digibro' is likely due to a lot of thee people running on the instinctive 'system 1' of their brain. Those who operate on the slower 'system 2' have no part in Suler's 'Solipsistic Introjection', and are actually trying to listen to what you have to say.

I think the latter group are your viewerbase, and the former can be ignored for how they will regularly, inevitably come into error because they replace the complex question of 'does Digibro have a point' with 'do I like what he's saying' or 'do I like how he sounds'.

Just some scholarly stuff to put in the background of this issue.

u/Spoonshape · 2 pointsr/worldnews

Speaking personally, I'd actually love it if people actually made political decisions based on scientific evidence and reasoned argument. The sad fact is that our brains are wired such that once the emotional limbic part of the brain gets provoked we react emotionally and rationalize afterwards as to why we made that decision. Theres an excellent book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0141033576 which describes the processm the neurochemistry and it's effects.

u/D-Hex · 2 pointsr/Entrepreneur

Ignore the 101 tips and self-help books. They tend to be useless.

I have three nooks set out for you bellow. The Mullins is a good general guide on teams, personnel and leadership. Hayes is an excellent book on mamanging change ( which is what you're doing) and the Kahneman helps you think through how you interact by working on your understanding of bias.

Use Mullins to understand how teams work. Use Hayes to build yourself a strategy of leadership and management. Use the Kahneman to help you understand behaviour and how you can enhance it to develop your people.

Beyond this you can use all three through out the rest of your career, and if you end up doing an MBA they're on the syllabus so you're getting a head start.

You need:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Management-Organisational-Behaviour-Laurie-Mullins/dp/0273792644/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483273605&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=mullins+orgnaisation+development

this:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Theory-Practice-Change-Management/dp/1137275340/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483273647&sr=8-1&keywords=hayes+change+management

and this :

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0141033576/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483273684&sr=8-1&keywords=daniel+kahneman+thinking+fast+and+slow

u/Shiminit · 1 pointr/AdviceAnimals

There are a lot more intelligent people than I who have debated this, and with the advent of more intricate neuro science what we perceive as conscious decisions are far more layered and complex than merely being a 'free will' choice. Without getting into complex philosophy here's a link to an interesting book that's an easier read than Descartes, Dennett or Kant.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0141033576?pc_redir=1408889481&robot_redir=1
It shows how easily your brain can be fooled into making a decision that is not your own.

u/Emoticone11 · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

The theory of "post-hoc rationalization" is actually a pretty well-developed one within modern neuroscience and behavioral economics in particular. There's a brief summary of some major ideas here.

Robert Zajonc, who is known for his extensive research on the mere-exposure effect, had this to say about post-hoc rationalization:

>"decisions are made with little to no cognitive process ... we make judgements first, and then seek to justify those judgements by rationalization."

(Source here).

Dual Process Theory also comes to a similar conclusion w.r.t. post-hoc justification, as the "rational" system of cognition tends to be slower and limited in capacity. Kahneman has a pretty excellent and accessible book exploring this and its implications for behavioral economics.

A related phenomenon is the tendency of humans to exhibit choice-supportive bias, which is essentially where a person subconsciously attaches positive aspects to a choice or object after they make the choice or purchase the object.

Interestingly though, when some Swedish cognitive scientists created an experiment relating to this, they found some very strange results. Subjects were offered two photographs of people and were asked who they found most attractive. After the subject chose a photo, they would be given a closer look at the photo and were asked why they decided to choose that option. However, in some of the rounds they would be given the declined photograph rather than the one they chose. The majority of subjects in these rounds did not notice conspicious differences with the picture they had just chosen before, and confabulated explanations for why they preferred the second picture, in effect explaining a decision they never made.

(Source here).

TL;DR: The idea that people tend to act on an unconscious reasoning system and that these decisions are post-hoc rationalized (or perhaps aborted) by a slower conscious reasoning system is not at all a dubious claim and is one of the major recent developments in cognitive science.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/PerfectTiming

On a semi-related note, I picked this book up a week or two ago after reading an insightful comment on Reddit

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0141033576

Has some very interesting research about how our minds work, how we instantly recognize things without knowing why or how, and the ways it can deceive us. Recommended.

u/locster · 1 pointr/lectures

If you like this then also check out Danial Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow, which, among other things, discusses the planning fallacy and Dunning-Kruger effect.

u/Moratamor · 1 pointr/politics

> People don’t decide on what candidate they support or what issues they stand or do not stand for with this same mindset.

Actually it's worse, because people do make generalisations about a candidate's unknown attributes based on quite possibly unrelated known attributes. Hence candidates (and people in general) can be thought of as trustworthy and competent purely on the basis of their being physically attractive.

It's worth reading Daniel Kahneman's seminal book Thinking, Fast and Slow for more on this fascinating, but slightly depressing, phenomenon.

u/murphy38 · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Awesome!

My request would be Thinking, Fast and Slow.


But anything you choose would be fine, Murphs! ;)

u/McMonty · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Awesome. I just finished my masters myself. I will explain the mathematical reasons then as well as I can. My point is that often, economists use economic models that make assumptions for event likelyhoods that reflect gaussian distributions. In nature, most scale-free systems and networks (systems and networks that have fractal like properties) tend not to be gaussian, and have long tailed power law distributions. But even these distributions are oversimplifications because they fail to model things like cascading failure. The sheer amount of derivatives present in the financial system today makes modelling risk extremely difficult. Now put people in charge of these institutions who have massive incentives for gains, but are not held equally responsible for losses, and you have a recipe for disaster. Even for highly rational administrators, intuitive thinking is strongly biased towards overconfidence(Another book to recommend here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0141033576)

It is not hard to make money in finance because all you have to do is ignore any kind of unknown factors that might contribute to risk, and right now we make it way too easy to do so.

EDIT: Sorry, I left out an important bit to make money: I you have to gamble with someone else's money. That part is important. Otherwise you own the risk yourself. We cant have that.