Best decision-making & problem solving books according to redditors

We found 876 Reddit comments discussing the best decision-making & problem solving books. We ranked the 217 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Decision-Making & Problem Solving:

u/Maytree · 13287 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

You might be interested in this book:

Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Kahneman has done Nobel-award winning research into the way human beings make irrational decisions and why. The TL;DR is that the brain has two distinct systems for thinking -- a strong, fast, emotional and relatively dumb one, and a weaker, slower, rational, much smarter one. When you "think with your gut" you're using the first system, and when you ponder something carefully and make a rational choice you're using the second system.

So what you had here was a good example of the two systems being in conflict. The dumber but stronger emotional system probably said something like "Ugh, I don't want to walk up those stairs! I can do this with a butter knife." The smarter but weaker rational system then pointed out that this was pretty dumb, but it wasn't strong enough to override the "fast" system, which is all about short-term tactics, not long-term strategies. The slow system then sent you off to Reddit to complain about how your fast system is an idiot.

Edit: I wasn't aware the the ebook links were unauthorized so I've removed them per request of the moderators.

u/adante111 · 1463 pointsr/news

That and the entire list of cognitive biases on Wikipedia.

edit: as this seems to be so popular, here is a good book about cognitive bias

u/MasterOnion47 · 664 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

In terms of war, corruption, oppression, unnecessary deaths, and overall human well-being, this is by far the best time to be alive in human history.

It’s really not even close.

For those that are actually interested:

u/greatmoonzini · 227 pointsr/Showerthoughts

You’re not wrong. Even in developing countries it’s better than at any time in history. Check out the book Factfullness if you like to read. It’s pretty amazing.

u/miroe · 161 pointsr/AskReddit

"Going with your instincts" and "thinking things through" are obviously different things. But why are we so inclined to prefer former over latter? What are the strengths and limitations of both systems? What are the easy mistakes, convenient half-truths and sneaky traps we fall for every day while staying completely oblivious to flaws in our thinking processes? Well, here it is: [Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman] (

u/wideiris · 95 pointsr/canada

be careful when at intersection? should be retitled, ANOTHER REASON TO GET OFF YOUR PHONE WHEN DRIVING. if someone gets busted, good, they should be fined 10 times the current amounts. IT's SO fucking dangerous.

I am currently reading this book (, nobel prize winning author Daniel Kahneman is not the best writer, but his ideas are troubling and important. highly recommended.

u/J42S · 79 pointsr/IWantToLearn

Check out harry potter and the methods of rationality.

u/hitsujiTMO · 65 pointsr/askscience

There isn't really such thing as fast thinkers, just people that rely more frequently on the fast thinking process that the slow thinking process. The fast thinking process happens by training information into your mind. the more often you are exposed to something, the more likely you will retain it in a fast thinking process.

This is how we learn things some basic things (alphabet, numbers). For an example, as children we repeatedly get exposed to the times tables in school. We are asked to read and recite the 1 times table,s then 2 times tables, frequently up to the 15 times table. This constant and frequent exposure is to train it to be written to the fast thinking process.

The fast thinking process is also highly unreliable and easily fooled. Take this for example (System 1 refers to fast thinking process, System 2 refers to slow thinking process):

A bat and ball costs £1.10 in total.
The bat costs one pound more than the ball.
How much does the ball cost?

System 1 provides the almost instant answer of 10p, which is, of course, wrong. The correct solution (5p) requires the conscious slow thinking of the cerebral cortex referred to as System 2.

Edit: The reason why this fails is because we look at the problem and attempt to apply a best fit known fast process that we have in our mind (X - Y model). However, the correct model is (X - Y)/2. the X - Y model is something we are exposed to extremely frequently and so retains in System 1 very well. But the (X-Y)/2 model, for most people, is rarely needed, and since we aren't exposed to it at any stage in our lives on a regular basis, it doesn't get stored in System 1. The problem with "fast thinkers" is that if they overly rely on System 1, then there's a danger of applying the wrong model to a given situation giving the wrong answer.

If you are interested in reading up on the 2 systems, I highly recommend the book "Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman". The author is a Nobel Memorial Prize winning psychologist who has studied extensibly in this area.

u/KarnickelEater · 57 pointsr/starcraft

Here is a scientific explanation of the Artosis curse: Regression toward the mean.

Basically, Artosis makes his predictions based on observations of high above (their own usual) average achievements of players. The problem is that there is actually quite a bit of randomness involved. At the high level SC II is being played at no single player is skilled enough to dominate everyone else (consistently, but likely not even at any one point in time if everyone would play against everybody else instead of just a random(ha!) selection). Randomness means, that when you observe someone being above average the chance that next time you observe them they will be WORSE, closer to the mean (back to normal!), is much higher compared to observing them doing something outstanding again.

I would like to point out that this is ONE of the forces at work. It does explain the Artosis curse. It does not (need to!) explain everything that goes on in the world or even just in the world of SC II. And it doesn't claim that this happens every single time, only on average.

Here is what Kahneman used as an example:

> The psychologist Daniel Kahneman, winner of the 2002 Nobel prize in economics, pointed out that regression to the mean might explain why rebukes can seem to improve performance, while praise seems to backfire.[8]

> “I had the most satisfying Eureka experience of my career while attempting to teach flight instructors that praise is more effective than punishment for promoting skill-learning. When I had finished my enthusiastic speech, one of the most seasoned instructors in the audience raised his hand and made his own short speech, which began by conceding that positive reinforcement might be good for the birds, but went on to deny that it was optimal for flight cadets. He said, “On many occasions I have praised flight cadets for clean execution of some aerobatic maneuver, and in general when they try it again, they do worse. On the other hand, I have often screamed at cadets for bad execution, and in general they do better the next time. So please don’t tell us that reinforcement works and punishment does not, because the opposite is the case.” This was a joyous moment, in which I understood an important truth about the world: because we tend to reward others when they do well and punish them when they do badly, and because there is regression to the mean, it is part of the human condition that we are statistically punished for rewarding others and rewarded for punishing them. I immediately arranged a demonstration in which each participant tossed two coins at a target behind his back, without any feedback. We measured the distances from the target and could see that those who had done best the first time had mostly deteriorated on their second try, and vice versa. But I knew that this demonstration would not undo the effects of lifelong exposure to a perverse contingency.

If you only read one book this year, let it be Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow.

u/revgizmo · 56 pointsr/datascience

I can’t recommend highly enough 3 books on good visualizations in business (and everywhere else)

  1. Storytelling with Data: A Data Visualization Guide for Business Professionals buy this, use this

  2. The Wall Street Journal Guide to Information Graphics: The Dos and Don'ts of Presenting Data, Facts, and Figures

  3. Show Me the Numbers: Designing Tables and Graphs to Enlighten (the gold-standard usable textbook)

    Report format for abstract/methods/etc vs PowerPoint for salespeople varies dramatically from company to company, so I don’t have any good recommendations there. But in the “a picture is worth a thousand words” world, visualizations really matter.
u/Pejorativez · 55 pointsr/psychology

> "Collectively, the world is more stressed, worried, sad and in pain today than we've ever seen it,"

I would contend that this statement from the article is contentious. Was the world less stressed during the major wars that have plagued it? What about the cold war?

Here are multiple counterexamples of things going better:

Scroll down and have a look at the graphs

Lastly, this is a short time-span. Movement upwards could simply be regression toward/away from the mean

u/kinderdemon · 40 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

It totally is: it applies through various principles, like priming or conditioning, that psychologists study.

For instance, an experiment was done in England. An office kitchen served as the site: the kitchen had a small donation box for leaving money if you used the kitchen supplies: milk, sugar, etc. Near the donation box there was a poster that changed weekly.

Sometimes it was images of nature and sometimes it was an image of a human face, only showing the eyes.

On weeks with the eye posters the donations jumped by a huge margin, nature days had level donations. The eye posters primed people into thinking they were being watched.

Another study tested altruism, both the experimental and control groups were lead into a classroom and had to take a multiple choice test. At some point during the test, the "teaching assistant" running the test would drop a big packet of pencils, scattering them across the classroom. The altruism test measured altruism by comparing how many pencils the test subjects would pick up to help the "teaching assistant", the multiple choice test itself was a red herring.

The only difference between the control and the experimental groups, was a screen saver on a computer sitting in the back of the classroom. The control screen saver was abstract patterns, while the experimental screen saver was floating dollar bills.

Surprisingly, even that small factor significantly decreased altruism: people were less likely to pick up pencils to help someone else when primed to think about money.

or another totally crazy one: this one was done on college students, and again asked them to take a test. The control test was very generic, while the experimental was all about old age, growing old and aging. Before and after the students took the test, their walking speed was measured and the students who took the aging exam dramatically slowed down walking afterwards: they were primed to act as thought they were old (!).

All of the above examples come from a very accessible book I highly recommend: Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow

u/cutestain · 27 pointsr/Entrepreneur

My advice is to follow 3 tracks.

  • Build relationships. Find local meetings where people building products/companies or other designers go. Such as: 1 Million Cups, Open coffee club, Creative Mornings, CoFounders Lab, StartUp Grind, local UX meetups. Pick 1 weekly and go every week. Pick 1-2 others, go when you can. Talk to the people who run the group. See if they need any help checking people. Volunteer to do that. If you get to, be friendly and chat with people on the way in. This is your tribe. Don't feel like you don't belong b/c you are young or are checking them in (or whatever other excuse your mind might come up with). This is your opportunity to find out about what people are working on. Some people will be working on something that interests you, that you have the skills to help with (eventually if not now), and have a personality you could enjoy working with. Give 100% of these people your card. Tell them you do UI/UX on contract. Ask for their card. Talk to them more at the end of the meeting if you can. Not in a sales way. But in a get to know more about them way. Then follow up with an email shortly afterward, a few days to a week. And in 6 months again if you haven't connected since. Do this every week for 2-3 years and you will have your client base and reputation in town. If you need practice to feel confident doing the networking part, then practice. Your career counseling dept at college could probably help you practice. Friends can be good practice too. Comfort with networking is critical to running your own business. Your goal should be to eventually lead a recurring meeting.

  • Build your skills. First college is great for learning some things. I believe it is terrible for learning UI/UX. Studying behavioral economics would probably be the most applicable, some psychology or data science as well. UI/UX moves too fast. But here are my recommendations for becoming good at UI/UX quickly:

  1. Start using Sketch app by Bohemian coding. It is the current industry standard.

  2. Sign up for Subform app wait list. It will probably be the next industry standard. But is not available yet.

  3. Study design systems Practice using these elements to create screens. Download the Sketch file. Then grab the elements you need and create screens to build an app (preferably to solve a simple problem you care about). Start small. Practice designing quickly. Then go back and make details precise. Eventually you should be able to build your own design system like this.

  4. Study material design and iOS design.

  5. For inspiration in practice, look at examples on Dribbble, Behance, and at the apps you use everyday.

  6. Get feedback from friends and family on the things you have designed.

  7. Read books like Inspired, Seductive Interaction Design, Sprint, Product Leadership. There are many more.

  8. Understand you need to know more than design to do contract work for small businesses. Your clients may often ask for one thing but really need something different. Study business in general. Read books and magazines about business models, industry shifts, etc. Good UX designers are always balancing user needs and business model needs. There is no formula for this. It takes practice. Lots of practice. Youth and inexperience here will be a challenge. Talk to as many people in their 30s/40+s about business lessons they have learned as you can. This knowledge will help your design.

  9. Don't wait for the perfect idea to practice. Practice everyday.

  • Build your savings. So you can go full-time at a co-working space. This is less direct advice. But you will need to have a few months of living expenses saved so one day you can dive in. A co-working space costs a few hundred per month but this is where your client base likely lives or goes to meetings occasionally. Being part of one shows you have a professional presence. And the serendipity at these places can be off the charts. And I highly recommend not working form home only for many reasons, sanity being an important one. Also, contract work can be feast or famine. I have had a handful of weeks in the past 4 years where I have needed to complete 60 billable hours work. This is more stressful than the weeks where I only have 20 billable hours b/c I save knowing work will be up and down.


    These are things that led me to where I am today. Others may have completely different or contradictory advice. But these are my go to methods. And most of my clients in the past 2 years have come to me. I didn't call them, or post an ad. Generally they found me through a recommendation from a friend, LinkedIn, Twitter, slack group, Dribbble, or at a meeting.
u/stonerbobo · 27 pointsr/politics

oh man.. just read /r/AskTrumpSupporters.. its depressing.

It really doesn't matter what arguments you make at all. Their intuitions come first, arguments come second. Intuition says Hillary is snobby/rich/evil and Trump is not, end of story.

There are people justifying Trump Jrs collusion with Russians! Anything can be justified with enough mental contortion and denial.

Really, the sooner you realize critical thinking means nothing to a huge group of people the better. Arguments don't form opinions, they are formed after the fact to justify them. Social pressures (what do my friends think?) & intuitions inform opinions.

EDIT: If this is interesting, checkout The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Its where i stole most of this from. Theres also other related stuf in behavioral econ & psychology - Thinking Fast & Slow by Daniel Kahneman, Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. Its the tip of an iceberg

u/almao0aoOa0oa0aao · 24 pointsr/cscareerquestions

I would recommend Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions. It's not as technical as some of the other recommendations on this thread but it's very interesting and introduces you to a lot of applications of CS theory in real life.

u/drivincryin · 23 pointsr/printSF

I try to shut off the hysterics as much as possible. NEVER watch tv news and especially none of the dedicated news channels.

Also read and think about things like this book.

u/nezumipi · 23 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

People are incredibly good at justifying their beliefs and actions.

People are masters of saying, I'm not X, I'm just X-1. "I'm not an alcoholic; I'm just a guy who likes a fifth of scotch with breakfast." "I'm not a wife beater; that bitch just needs to learn some respect." "I'm not a sexist, I just think neuroscience proves men are better."

The reasoning starts something like this: A "racist" is a monster, and I'm not a monster, so I'm not racist. And if I'm not a racist, then there must be some other reason why I believe these things. Maybe I'll claim to hate everyone equally. Maybe I'll rely on religion. Maybe I'll say I truly believe in separate but equal.

There's a reason racist forums spend so much time posting about "evidence" that supports their beliefs. They feel that if they can "prove" it, then they're just realists, not racists. (Conversely, you'll notice that /r/biology doesn't spend an inordinate amount of time posting evidence that genes are the main mode of inheritance. They believe it, but they're don't need to be defensive about it.)

So, yeah, there might be some people on there who think of themselves as "racist", but I'm guessing most of them would say they are not.

If you want to learn more about how we trick ourselves about our beliefs, I would recommend The Unpersuadables and Thinking, Fast and Slow.

u/veRGe1421 · 23 pointsr/GlobalOffensive

> I have a theory that your brain tries to "automate" processes and to do them subconsciously when it feels confident enough about it.

You should read the book Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman - excellent read that I would highly recommend. I think you'd find the book interesting, and it discusses this topic in depth.

u/lakai42 · 20 pointsr/AskReddit

You have to practice. Communication is a subconscious skill. You can't consciously plan your way through an entire conversation because there isn't enough time. It's possible to think of a few things that are good conversation starters, but that's about it.

In order to train any subconscious skill, you have to practice. When you practice your brain starts by trying to make the neural connections necessary to create the movement you want. At first the brain uses a lot of neurons. After more practice the brain finds more efficient ways of creating the movement and uses less neurons. That's how musicians look like they can effortlessly play an instrument the more they practice.

The biggest mistake people make about communication is that they don't approach learning it like they would approach learning a new sport or musical instrument. That's why nerds who like to be analytical about everything suck at communicating, because you have to learn communication by practice; the same way you learn a sport, which is another thing nerds suck at. You can't ride a bike by thinking every time before you move the pedals or handles. You can't make your way through a conversation that way either for the same reason - there's no time.

Practice keeping eye contact and saying what's on your mind without any hesitation. You'll find that after a few conversations you'll be able to do this more easily because your brain has gotten used to the skills. A good rule of thumb is to be yourself, but if you happen to be an asshole, you'll have to change.

If you can't find the courage to talk to random people right away, then start small. Talk to people you've been avoiding, like neighbors, coworkers, or classmates. Come up with a few prepared conversations and see what happens. If things don't go too well, know that you won't be that nervous and awkward during the next talk.

The neuroscience in this comment comes from The Brain That Changes Itself by Norman Doidge, and Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

u/zarathustra1900 · 18 pointsr/TrueReddit

If you want to learn more about this I suggest reading Thinking fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman.

u/mhornberger · 17 pointsr/politics

Teaching people that they can't just tell someone's character is not actually easy. I'm fascinated with books like Thinking, Fast and Slow and Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me). But getting normal people to entertain these arguments that our intuition isn't really all that great, that we really can't just know someone's character from their demeanor, is difficult as hell.

People are not receptive to the notion that their intuition is biased or can be manipulated, or that they subconsciously favor tall, good-looking people with good hair, or people with certain accents, etc. Our whole culture is one long celebration of intuition and gut feeling. People love to think they can "just tell," and that leaves them open to all kinds of manipulation.

u/omaolligain · 16 pointsr/AskSocialScience

Nudge by Thaler (Nobel Prize in Economics) & Sunstein
A book which is unquestionably about Economics and Public Policy


I haven't read it yet but it's on my list:
Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics also by Thaler


Thinking Fast & Slow by Kahneman (Nobel Prize in Economics)
Not strictly about economics but Kahneman essentially created the field of "Behavioral Economics" and the implications for his theories about decision making bias are extensive in Economics. In many ways Kahneman and Tverski's work is the foundation of Thaler's in Nudge.


Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely
If you can't tell I like the Behavioral Econmics books...

u/Grandberry · 14 pointsr/askscience

Daniel Kahnenman talks about this in his new book, that there's a remembering self and an experiencing self in terms of pain experiences.

TED Talk


u/nyct0phile · 14 pointsr/statistics

Humans are not intuitively good at probability and statistics, because of numerous cognitive biases. -Thinking: Fast & Slow

u/kalabash · 13 pointsr/Conservative

People have always been treated like shit, though. As I understand it, what's changed is our exposure. With 24/7 media/internet, we're just seeing things we wouldn't have seen before. They were still happening before. We just didn't see them. It's also much easier to focus on specific types of discourse and information and that can make it seem like such information is increasing in amount. It's not. We're just exposing ourselves to more of it. If I started following r/Malta, it'd be tempting in a couple months to slide into the thinking that shit is "suddenly" heading south there. All the bad stories. All the abuses. In reality, it was always there because people are dicks regardless. Collectively, from what I understand, though, things are overall getting better in a lot of ways. I don't know how much bias is in it, but someone recommended the book Factfulness the other day. Haven't ordered it yet, but I'm going to because personally I'd like a little positivity in my geopolitical forecasts for once.

u/common_currency · 13 pointsr/neuroscience

Algoriths to Live By by Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths. Written for the lay person so very accessible, by a brilliant cognitive scientist at Princeton (though at Berkeley when the book was written).

Vision by David Marr. One of the first and most important books that anyone interested in cognition and computation will ever read. Absolute must if you want to understand why the field began looking at the mind more or less like a computer.

u/snapxynith · 12 pointsr/SocialEngineering

As you realize becoming great at social skills is just like training any other skill. Realizing you can train it will allow you to build the skill stronger than others who stumble into it. So many will say you can't get better or amazing by reading in a chair. They're right. Read a little, apply a lot, take notes, then review what you did right and what you did wrong, repeat. Get a mentor or training buddy if you can, it accelerates learning, because we can't see ourselves the same as those outside us can. Make a regimen to go out, greet and meet people every day. Or at least three times a week minimum, make it a habit.

I can tell you that I've been in customer service and sales jobs, they taught me nothing because my skills were garbage and sub-par. So I didn't have a paddle for my raft in the world of social interaction. All I got was "people get irritated if I cold approach or try to sell them. Or worse I have to dump mountains of information to make them feel safe." So after studying for the better part of a decade, here's some points that got me to the basics and more advanced subjects. With the basics under your belt, then a job or daily practice will get you understanding and results.

First, learn how to steady yourself mentally, breathing exercise here. Breathing is important as we seem to be learning your heart rate and beat pattern determine more about our emotions than we'd like to admit.

Second, Accept and love yourself, (both those terms may be undefined or wishy-washy to you at the moment, defining them is part of the journey.) Because you can only accept and love others the way you apply it to yourself first.

Third, pick up and read the charisma myth. It has habits/meditations that will be a practice you use every day. I'd say a basic understanding will happen after applying them over three months. Never stop practicing these basics, they are your fundamentals. They determine your body language. The difference between a romantic gaze and a creepy stare is context of the meeting and body language, especially in the eyes.

Sales or cold approach networking will do the same for practice. If you do sales or meeting new people, it is a negotiation. You're trying to trade "value" (safety + an emotion). So if you figure out how to make yourself feel emotion, then inspire emotion in others, mutual agreements happen. Start with Why is a good reference. Here is a summary video. Chris Voss will help you find out that you don't tap into people rationally, you tap people emotionally, big think summary video. Or the full book treatment, Never Split the Difference. The supporting book for Chris Voss' position can be helped by reading Start With No

For training habits and understanding how we execute behaviors, Thinking, Fast and Slow

For dealing with hard arguments and heavy topics both Nonviolent Communication and Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most

Learning what listening is, instead of "hearing" people. Just Listen: Discover the Secret to Getting Through to Absolutely Anyone is a good book for that. This is touched on in Never Split the Difference and in the Charisma Myth because true listening, making the person you are speaking with feel "listened to and understood" is most of what makes a charismatic person work.

u/Bilbo_Fraggins · 12 pointsr/raleigh

Problem gambling has nothing to do with being stupid. Human decision making just doesn't work like that: I'll point you to one of the better cognitive science/behavioral economics books to come out recently if you're really interested in understanding more how people actually make decisions, or if that's too long, perhaps a short TED talk to whet your appetite?

The gambling industry employes cognitive science findings to entrap people. You can't really understand the problem with gambling until you understand our biases and how limited our decision making ability really is.

Problem gambling affects all socio-economic classes, but those of us with more money:

  1. Have more opportunities for hedonic pleasure. Things with bad long term effects like smoking and gambling affect the lower classes more because they are accessible to them, while many other forms of hedonism usually aren't.

  2. Can absorb the impact better. If I lost a thousand or two over a year, I'd have to cut back on a few other things but I'd still be ok. If I was much closer to the poverty line, that same amount would be devastating.

  3. Do not tend to suffer from ego depletion as much. The poor tend to live more stressful lives, and those burn them out from being able to make as good decisions. citation

    Once you understand behavioral economics and the place of gambling in the world, it's much harder to just leave it alone. That's why we have the laws we do.

    On the other hand, all of that is somewhat unimportant to the discussion at hand. ;-) The point is we're attempting to enforce laws created for the sole reason that rich people don't like having to deal with poor people hanging around in public places, while not enforcing rules that demonstrably positively affect the economic situation of poor people.

    (edit: Added ego depletion w/ citation)
u/rfurman · 12 pointsr/math

First, consistently solving A1 and B1 is a great start! Puts you well above the typical. Be sure to pay attention to how you write it up: Putnam graders are very strict and solutions most often get 0, 1, 9, or 10 points. Be also aware of what your goals are and don’t get anxious, you’re not looking to solve everything, so it's good to fully solve one problem before moving on. Putnam problems in particular often have short clean solutions that are really satisfying to find.

You also can't beat just working through problems. Putnam 1985-2000 by Vakil, Kedlaya, Poonen is fantastic as it gives many ways of solving or approaching each of the problems. It also gives just the right level of hints. This way you can learn both by working through the problem and by seeing the different perspectives. For example, with a single problem there may be a long brute-force solution, a quick but hard to discover solution, and a quick solution based on advanced math (you can use most things that come up in an undergrad math curriculum, even elliptic curves).

The Art and Craft of Problem Solving is a great read for general strategies and practice, and will remain relevant throughout any later work.

Mathematical Olympiad Challenges by Andreescu and Gelca shows off a few major problem solving styles and has a great selection of problems. I studied it in high school and it ended up being very important for me getting Putnam Fellow.

Earlier I had also studied Problem-Solving Strategies but that may be too big and not as focused on Putnam type of problems

u/deadasthatsquirrel · 12 pointsr/beyondthebump

/u/ThanksForStoppingBy mentioned Cribsheet. Here's the conclusion of the food chapter:

> Early exposure to allergens reduces incidences of food allergies.

> Kids take time to get used to new flavors, so it is valuable to keep trying a food even if they reject it at first, and early exposure to varying flavors increases acceptance.

> There is not much evidence behind the traditional food-introduction recommendations; no need to do rice cereal first if you do not want to.

> Baby-led weaning doesn’t have magical properties (at least not based on what we know now), but there is also no reason not to do it if you want to.

> Vitamin D supplementation is reasonable, but don’t freak out about missing a day here and there.

u/Ponderay · 11 pointsr/badeconomics

Thinking Fast and Slow

Shiller and Akerloft have a book on behavioral macro that I haven't read but have heard mentioned.

u/ludwigvonmises · 11 pointsr/naturalbodybuilding

If you want to learn about the other 99 cognitive biases people are unwittingly carrying around (perhaps you, too), check out Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow.

u/GLIDRPilotJim · 11 pointsr/Entrepreneur

you don't need a business school to experience the core of this class ...

Here's a link to Steve Blank's HBR article on The Lean Startup. Also a series of free lectures that Steve Blank put up on  Udacity, called "How to Build a Startup" a course that over 500,000 people have viewed.    These lectures are supported by a book that Steve Blank wrote with Bob Dorf called The Startup Owners Manual, as well as a best selling business book by Alexander Osterwalder called  Business Model Generation. You may also want to see Alexander's other book, Value Proposition Design for more input/insight.

u/GrassCuttingSword · 11 pointsr/martialarts

Get a cup of coffee. Then order a copy of Rory Miller and Lawrence Kane's book "Scaling Force" and while it's in the mail, head over to Marc MacYoung's website,

u/TerminalGrog · 11 pointsr/serialpodcast

Here are my observations.

I started coming to this subreddit because I had a lot of questions after listening to Serial. I thought between this sub and the others I had found SPO and Undisclosed, I would get some satisfactory answers, some keen insights. I posted some questions on all three subs. On SPO, most my posts seem to disappear into oblivion. On Undisclosed, my questions were seen as hostile or stirring the pot or something. On this one, it's 50-50.

After listening to Serial, I leaned toward Adnan being innocent but had some grave doubts, some questions that I needed clarified, so I would guess I am in the 2b category.

In the course of my discussions here and reading through the trial transcripts, the MPIA file, and lots of other documents (not all by any means), many of my original questions have been answered and I no longer consider Adnan a principle suspect in the death of Hae Lee. However, I am open to the possibility that he's guilty and have no reason to be committed to his innocence. If he's guilty, then he is where he ought to be.

I think a major difference between the two groups that I see is that the guilt side depends far more on innuendo, cherry picked details from contradictory witness statements and testimony, and seem overly committed to details that don't that much. Usually, what I see is little attempt to reconcile contradictory and mutually falsifying beliefs.

I am not saying that those who believe Adnan is innocent don't sometimes do the same thing. I would say overall, though, they handle the evidence more carefully, consistently, and methodologically soundly.

Principally, I think the main difference is between fast and slow thinkers. Fast thinkers make quick judgments and often rely on a "What I See Is All There Is" way of thinking. So, for example, we have quite a lot of information about Adnan and his day and we can pick through all that information to find inconsistencies, lies, whatever. We have a lot less information on other potential suspects, for example, Don. So the focus is on Adnan because there is a lot more there to cherry pick and confirm our initial biases.

I think the innocent crowd is more likely to withhold judgment both on Adnan and individual pieces of evidence until their questions and doubts are more satisfied. The are less likely to rely on an initial rush to judgment.

Here are some examples:

  1. Jay's Spine. Guilters are much more likely to accept Jay's "top spots" as being true in a sea of changing details that they view are important. For some reason, the fact that Jay could stay consistent on 3 main points (Come get me call, Trunk pop, burial in Leakin Park) is verification of the truth of history even though the circumstances and details are often wrong. They are likely to forgive Jay's observation that there was snow on the ground in Leakin Park, while dismissing Asia's alibi testimony based on her recollection 15 years later that an ice storm was snow storm.

    I am thinking of writing a spine post because I keep hearing this as some kind of evidence that Adnan is guilty. If you have ever heard of the Cental Park 5 and watched or read their statements, you will see that all five confessed to the rape of the jogger, separately included similar corroborating details, and yet it was all made up through suggestive leading questioning by detectives. The true rapist was a serial rapist who was caught for another case soon after the fact. It didn't stop the wheels of justice against the 5 teens who were convicted though. Here you had a "spine" corroborated by not just one sketchy witness, but 5 separate young people.

    I'm going to stop there. These are my observations. It is entirely possible that despite their weak reasoning and amateur use of evidence, that the guilters are right and Adnan is guilty. I am not at this point at all convinced.
u/gfody · 11 pointsr/programming

The best advice I've found about interviewing and hiring was in Thinking fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman and it's not specific to engineering/programming at all. Basically decide on what aspects you will measure up front and calibrate your interviewers on what good/bad/great looks like. Then have your interviewers meet and grade each candidate on each aspect independently without sharing notes until it's all over. Tally up the scores and hire the winner.

If you do that then you'll have more successful hires than if you don't. Virtually everything else programmers tend to do while interviewing is either a waste of time or hurting your success rate.

The other big problem with technical interviews is the emphasis on making perfect hires or screening bad engineers. It's simply way too complicated to do reliably and you end up wasting a lot of time interviewing and going without the help you desperately need. It's better to put more emphasis on actually making the hires you need, and if they struggle with the engineering work then give them feedback and help them improve, if they can't improve then fire them and hire someone else.

u/ehaaland · 10 pointsr/psychology

It depends on what types of things you're interested in!

Over time, you'll come to know certain people who research in different areas and you can go to their personal webpages and access their Curriculum Vitae. Through that, you can find all the work they've done and many times they link to PDF copies of their papers.

But psychology is a very broad field. Here are some suggestions I can come up with:

For dealings with moral political psychology (the psychology of how people on the right and people on the left feel about moral decisions - includes religions and other aspects to our deeply-rooted conceptions of 'self'), see Jonathan Haidt - He just wrote a new book called The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

For dealings with the extent and limits of human rationality, I'd suggest Daniel Kahneman. He also just wrote a new book called Thinking Fast and Slow.

Stuffisnice suggested William James. James' Principles of Psychology is remarkable and very fun to read. It's quite dated both in science and in language, but his writing is impeccable.

In fact, James didn't just do psychology. He did philosophy as well. His later philosophy was at odds with the picture provided by most mainstream psychology that takes the brain as the source of our mental experience. These philosophical aspects have recently been brought into the empirical realm in the branch of Ecological psychology. This is my personal preference for psychology reading as I feel it is much more willing to ask harder questions than traditional psychology; it is willing to do away with assumptions and premises that are generally taken for granted.

This ecological framework deals more with perception and the role of the animal's action in perception. Instead of the traditional way of looking at perception (cells react to stimuli in the environment, feed this encoded stimuli into the brain, the brain processes things and makes sense of them, recreating a picture of the world through its activity, and finally sending out directions to the body to move), the ecological perspective focuses more on how the animal perceives the world directly and does not require internal processing to make sense of the world. It's much cleaner and much simpler. The brain is still crucial for the lived experience, but it is not the whole story.

For readings in ecological psychology, I would recommend Ed Reed's Encountering the World and Eleanor Gibson's An Ecological Approach to Perceptual Learning and Development.

After you get your bearings, then you can get into some really deep stuff that tries to synthesize biology, psychology, and the essence of human/animal experience (phenomenology). For that, Evan Thompson is my go to guy. His work is heavily philosophical and is sometimes overly dense, but you may find it interesting.

PM me if you have any questions!

u/SuperCow1127 · 10 pointsr/SubredditDrama

> Being color blind doesn't mean pretending color doesn't exist. It means not taking it into consideration when it's not relevant.

You're mistaken, and the second sentence emphasizes it. The fact is, color is more relevant than you realize, especially when you haven't gone through most of your life being judged negatively because of it. "Color blindness," is a happy way to pretend that race matters much less than it really does.

> If I'm getting someone foundation, I'm going to check it against their skin tone. But I'm not going to look at skin color to decide whether to sell a house to someone or anything like that.

I assume what you're implying here is that race only matters when specifically relevant to physical characteristics. Unfortunately, our society isn't built like that, and never has been. To your example, people do consider race when selling a house, and have (and continue to) actively and deliberately hinder the ability of people of the "wrong" race (particularly African Americans) from home ownership or rentals. "Color blindness" says it's wrong to focus anti-discrimination efforts on African American victims, since it says it's wrong to involve race in decision making.

> And if you act like I described, then there are no "innate biases". Not sure where you're getting that.

So, even if you deep in your heart believe that racism is wrong, even if you try your hardest every day to treat everyone fairly, and even if you are a member of an underprivileged race, you likely carry a racial bias (e.g., even if you're black, you subconsciously associate negative assumptions with black people). This has been scientifically proven again and again, but there's a fantastic demonstration here if you want to see first hand instead of reading lots of dry papers. Try it out and you'll likely be very surprised by the results.

> As for the wheelchair thing, again, if it is directly related to the wheelchair, I take it into consideration, but I'm not going to make assumptions about, for example, intelligence or voting rights.

There's two problems here.

First, if you grew up in the western world, and especially if you grew up white in America, you are very unlikely to be able to judge exactly what is related to race. If you are a human who is not specifically educated on these matters, chances are very high you'll be wrong. This is what people are talking about when they deride "privilege." Think about the likely-fictional account of Mary Antoinette saying "let them eat cake." She wasn't saying that to dismiss the starving population, she just heard there were riots because there was no bread, and therefore concluded that in the absence of bread, cake should be available and suffice. It was absolutely unfathomable to her what the life of a French peasant was really like. The same is true in a large part for anyone growing up with any kind of privilege. It's so hard to think about experiences you have nothing in common with, and as a result, you color (no pun intended) your every decision in your own ignorance. (Read this, and maybe the article it's about).

Second, whether you like it or not, you probably do make assumptions about things like intelligence, unless you are constantly vigilant against it. By purely following your intuition (which is based very rapid subconscious decisions), you will almost certainly be wrong, and you will almost certainly convince yourself that you came to any conclusion rationally. By assuming you have no bias, you actually allow your bias to take control. I highly recommend Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow for some eye opening information on human cognition.

> Color blind=not grouping people together based on skin color, not completely erasing individual experiences.

The fact is, again, that this is just wrong. When you purposefully disregard race, you are erasing individual experiences. You are encouraging the creation of implicit groupings by ignoring them. There's more to racism than Jim Crow and the KKK.

u/WastedP0tential · 10 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

Sure, that's what psychologists (and skeptics, and atheists) have always argued. Irrationality, superstition, gullibility, biased and fallacious thinking are deeply ingrained in human nature. Humans are cognitive misers, because thinking rationally is hard and costly. We're evolved in an environment where, in order to maximize chances of survival and reproduction, we had to act, react, think and form beliefs quickly, rather than thinking things through thoroughly. Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow is a must-read on this.

But, no reason to lose heart. Humans have a remarkable ability that distinguishes us from other animals: we're capable of metacognition. We're able to think about and analyze our own thinking. We can identify flaws and compensate for them, recognize biases and correct for them. Methods that have proven effective in this endeavor have even been institutionalized: they're called science and skepticism. Other human endeavors have gone the opposite route, fostering and exploiting human irrationality. Those are called superstitions, pseudosciences, charlatanry, religion.

u/distantocean · 10 pointsr/exchristian

That's one of my favorite popular science books, so it's wonderful to hear you're getting so much out of it. It really is a fascinating topic, and it's sad that so many Christians close themselves off to it solely to protect their religious beliefs (though as you discovered, it's good for those religious beliefs that they do).

As a companion to the book you might enjoy the Stated Clearly series of videos, which break down evolution very simply (and they're made by an ex-Christian whose education about evolution was part of his reason for leaving the religion). You might also like Coyne's blog, though these days it's more about his personal views than it is about evolution (but some searching on the site will bring up interesting things he's written on a whole host of religious topics from Adam and Eve to "ground of being" theology). He does also have another book you might like (Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible), though I only read part of it since I was familiar with much of it from his blog.

> If you guys have any other book recommendations along these lines, I'm all ears!

You should definitely read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, if only because it's a classic (and widely misrepresented/misunderstood). A little farther afield, one of my favorite popular science books of all time is The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker, which looks at human language as an evolved ability. Pinker's primary area of academic expertise is child language acquisition, so he's the most in his element in that book.

If you're interested in neuroscience and the brain you could read How the Mind Works (also by Pinker) or The Tell-Tale Brain by V. S. Ramachandran, both of which are wide-ranging and accessibly written. I'd also recommend Thinking, Fast and Slow by psychologist Daniel Kahneman. Evolution gets a lot of attention in ex-Christian circles, but books like these are highly underrated as antidotes to Christian indoctrination -- nothing cures magical thinking about the "soul", consciousness and so on as much as learning how the brain and the mind actually work.

If you're interested in more general/philosophical works that touch on similar themes, Douglas R. Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach made a huge impression on me (years ago). You might also like The Mind's I by Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett, which is a collection of philosophical essays along with commentaries. Books like these will get you thinking about the true mysteries of life, the universe and everything -- the kind of mysteries that have such sterile and unsatisfying "answers" within Christianity and other mythologies.

Don't worry about the past -- just be happy you're learning about all of this now. You've got plenty of life ahead of you to make up for any lost time. Have fun!

u/WhatWayIsWhich · 10 pointsr/videos

Please read a book like this. Wealth disparity might be getting larger but the world is getting better for people due to capitalism.

Wealth gaps are a red herring. Yes, we should tax rich people more and close loopholes and redistribute a bunch of it. However, rich people should exist and having billionaires is not a problem. Having rich people actually has made the world better in a lot of ways. We just need to have them provide more than they have already.

u/donyadine · 9 pointsr/phinvest

Hello! I am a social investment supporter. My journey started last year when I read Hans Rosling's book: Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World -- and Why Things Are Better Than You Think. According to Hans, the best investment opportunities are in the emerging markets of Asia and Africa. He described how we should look at statistics to make smart business decisions. I especially liked how he was optimistic about the future of the world and how countries are working hard to get out of poverty. It's not an investing book per se but it gives a good insight on where you might want to focus your attention if you want to make a difference in this world. It also solidified my rule to invest in the Philippines only and not be distracted by any foreign investment product (as I am currently based abroad).

Here's a TEDtalk as an intro to Hans Rosling:

I further asked myself how could his ideas be particularly applicable in the Philippines, where a lot of my countrymen are still living in poverty? Fortunately, I found Vince Rapisura on Facebook and he constantly discusses being a "Social Investor." Before meeting him, I have never heard anything about Social or Impact investing. I thought investing was just to make my money work for me. But through him, I learned that investing can create more value than just mere profit. We can select investments that have a conscious goal of making a positive impact on society. Vince's company, SEDPI, is focused on such ventures and his presentations are on his website:

I am still reading more books about the topic and my search got me to Banker To The Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty. It was written by Muhammad Yunus and he earned a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in Bangladesh. I think his concepts are pretty similar to what Vince is doing with his company.

Let me also share this episode about Tagum Cooperative (which Vince has been raving about recently) and I must say their work and mission are inspiring:

Sorry, I am just blabbing about my recent reading/watching list but to answer your question, yes, socially responsible investments have been on my mind lately and I got excited when I saw your question. I admit that I still have an index fund and I know that some companies there don't have the best reputations, so I am slowly transitioning and studying more materials in order to invest in enterprises that I can understand and have the same principles as I do. It is a hard task but hopefully, I would get there. If you ever have a chance to attend a seminar by Vince, I'd say go for it.

u/codedface · 9 pointsr/exjw

I just posted this on another thread. Buy this book. Read it and show the fam. in a respectful way. It’s a very balanced view of the world based on facts. It has a cool website that shows graphical examples around the world.

Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think

u/narakhan · 9 pointsr/rational

Don't know specifics of what you're after, so I'll shotgun you with links:

u/waffleeee · 9 pointsr/Infographics

If you think this is interesting, you should read [Thinking Fast and Slow] (

u/millsvl · 9 pointsr/BabyBumps

Cribsheets is a very helpful parenting book

u/Winham · 8 pointsr/WayOfTheBern

I really do need to read that. I recently read Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow which is largely based on Epstein's work on dual processing.

I just checked out Tom Stafford's For Argument's Sake: Evidence That Reason Can Change Minds

>Are we irrational creatures, swayed by emotion and entrenched biases? Modern psychology and neuroscience are often reported as showing that we can't overcome our prejudices and selfish motivations. Challenging this view, cognitive scientist Tom Stafford looks at the actual evidence. Re-analysing classic experiments on persuasion, as well as summarising more recent research into how arguments change minds, he shows why persuasion by reason alone can be a powerful force.This is a collection of previously published essays, revised and expanded by the author, and accompanied by a previously unpublished introduction and annotated bibliography to guide further reading on the topic.Tom Stafford is Lecturer in Psychology and Cognitive Science at the University of Sheffield.

I have my doubts, but we shall see.

u/The_Biggest_Monkey · 8 pointsr/AskReddit

Hi! Psych major + bookworm over here. Some well written and accessible books that I've enjoyed reading are:

Thinking Fast and Slow from Kahneman

Willpower: discovering the greatest human strength by Baumeister

And Outliers by Gladwell

Baumeister and Kahneman are the leading figures on the research done within their particalur fields and these books show a glimpse inside of the kitchen, so to speak. (Iḿ not 100% sure about Gladwell, Iḿ on my phone atm). The books are well written, accessible, entertaining and fascinating.

u/[deleted] · 8 pointsr/math

Check out math competition questions, and hang out on the AoPS forums. The Art and Craft of Problem Solving by Paul Zeitz is a good start, though it's far from sufficient for getting proficient at problem solving.

u/Terr_ · 8 pointsr/news

It doesn't dive into the US ethnic divides, but the book Factfulness takes a stab at some other "situations everyone assumes are still bad even though they've gotten a lot better."

u/MinaDawngate · 8 pointsr/chile

Estaba Leyendo Factfulness, y en verdad doy gracias a personas como el Doctor Monckeberg que lograron con su trabajo erradicar la desnutrición, combatir la falta de estimulación a edades tempranas, y en general disminuir la mortalidad infantil. También por impulsar un programa de salud que estuviera enfocado a suplir las necesidades de salud básicas más inmediatas de la población, además del programa integro para madres, lactantes, niños.

En las propias palabras del Doctor: Es el avance más trascendente en la historia de este país.

u/eaturbrainz · 8 pointsr/rational

/u/xamueljones had suggested we do another collective read-through. I nominate Algorithms to Live By, which is basically a combination of freshman-to-sophomore computer science with a bit of the probabilistic-computation school of cognitive science, for a lay audience.

Thoughts, anyone?

u/bukvich · 8 pointsr/slatestarcodex

There is a chapter in Algorithms to Live By which claims the effect is beyond silly and annoying.

> If you want to be a good intuitive Bayesian--if you want to naturally make good predictions, without having to think about what kind of prediction rule is appropriate--you need to protect your priors. Counterintuitively, that might mean turning off the news.

p. 148 Algorithms to Live By, Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths

Link to book on Amazon

u/psycho_trope_ic · 8 pointsr/GoldandBlack

Thinking Fast and Slow is not exactly what you asked for (as other people have responded to that) but it is also an important aspect of learning about how you think.

u/Baeocystin · 8 pointsr/AskWomenOver30

I fully agree regarding the news. To follow on to this- Hans and Ola Rosling's TED Talk from 2014, How not to be ignorant about the world, genuinely helped me. Their later 2018 book, Factfulness, further helped focus my understanding of things. Things are better than it seems for the vast majority of humanity.

u/CJP_UX · 8 pointsr/AcademicPsychology

Have you read Thinking Fast and Slow?

Cognitive psychology is where lots of decision-making stuff is housed, but if you start with cognition as a broad topic, it will take a while to get to decision-making.

u/jambarama · 8 pointsr/Economics

As are we all. But I don't have the same stressors to impair my ability to make good decisions. And when I make a stupid decision, I attend a slightly worse college, or skip a nicety for a few months. Easy recoveries are not a luxury those in poverty can afford.

u/drMorkson · 7 pointsr/booksuggestions

Thinking, Fast and Slow by nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman.

It is an amazing book and I have recommended it to almost everyone I know. It is really thoroughly researched.

from wikipedia:
>Thinking, Fast and Slow is a 2011 book by Nobel Memorial Prize winner in Economics Daniel Kahneman which summarizes research that he conducted over decades, often in collaboration with Amos Tversky. It covers all three phases of his career: his early days working on cognitive bias, his work on prospect theory, and his later work on happiness.

>The book's central thesis is a dichotomy between two modes of thought: "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. The book delineates cognitive biases associated with each type of thinking, starting with Kahneman's own research on loss aversion. From framing choices to substitution, the book highlights several decades of academic research to suggest that people place too much confidence in human judgment.

u/listenerreaderwriter · 7 pointsr/ColinsLastStand

Information which threatens your core beliefs is perceived by the brain very similar to a physical threat. A visual introduction to confirmation bias and the backfire effect (5-10 min to read):

A big reason for the current situation is the media landscape. People often are not even in the position to ignore expert opinion because it does not penetrate their media bubble.

We even ignore expertise of ideological allies when inconvenient. Like how Republicans portray an overly simplistic picture of how markets work. How often do you hear "negative externalities", "information asymmetry", "market failure", "monopoly" or "oligopoly"? Markets are great, but not magical.
Healthcare as an example (30 min to read, a little technical):

A great book about how our reasoning skills are more limited than we might think:

u/BrusqueWillis · 7 pointsr/IncelTears

>no one tried to tell my that my thinking is wrong

It's a difficult task, because the way our brains work makes personal experience supersede external information that contradict it, even when scientifically, objectively, our experience is... not "wrong" per se, but so incomplete that it veers into "wrong" teritory. I teach people how to get along with people, which is mainly applied psichology and neurology (specifically social neurology), so I come against this feature (it's not a bug, it's a feature) every time. For reference: Daniel Kahnemann's work. For reference: Chris Niebauer's book.

Your brain dupes you (it meakes you wrong, giving you the impression you're right) in several key areas relevant to our discussion here:

  1. What You See Is All There Is: our brains operate on the assupmtion they have all the info needed to make good decisions and reach true conclusions, neglecting that there are swathes of information that might be / are relevant and that finally change the outlook completely.
  2. Our Left-Brain Intepreter has the task to keep the story in our heads logically consistent, not correct. As such, it will gladly add to reality, or substract from it, only to keep the story. Please see this and this.
  3. To accomplish this task, the LBI resorts to cognitive biases like overgeneralization, personalization, confirmation bias etc.
  4. Its work is so powerful and so well hidden from conscience that most people, when confronted with science, will readily deny science ("well, that might be true but not for me") than accepting our thinking might be flawed.

    In your case, in order to examine what biases are in play and what is their result, I'd start questioning the hidden meaning of your use of notions like "chad", "betabux" and such. It speaks to overgeneralization (with a heavy serving of dehumanization) and confirmation bias.

    Humans are unique. There are, of course, trends (sociology doesn't exist for nothing) but so far no human being looks and act exactly like another human being always and in all aspects; more, humans change over time: experience, opinions, world views and behavior shift as time passes. That would be the first step I'd take if I were you: stop working with archetypes and start looking for tiny differences. The world will get extremely rich if you do that.

    TL;DR: you're wrong, but your brains won't let you see that and you have to voluntarily challenge it to improve your life quality.

    Edited to add: and I didn't even touch the issue of cultural and social norms and conditioning, learned helplesness and many other phenomena that interfere and change all the stuff above.
u/TubePanic · 7 pointsr/italy

> Come da titolo, se siete esperti di economia ditemi un po' dove posso trovare una trattazione divulgativa della materia o un qualche corso online.

Dunque: IEA e' abbastanza tecnico e te lo sconsiglio, ma Undercover Economist e' divertente, e puo' valer la pena di leggerlo anche solo per intrattenimento; sulla stessa riga c'e' anche Freakonomics che pero' a me e' piaciuto molto meno.

Se poi ti viene la voglia, io inizierei con un po' di microeconomia, ci sono ottimi testi universitari che pero' costano un botto; pero' in genere si trovano usati a poco. Quello di Krugmann e' molto 'easy/pop' e con poca matematica (l'ho solo sbirciato, pero'); io ne avevo uno di Perloff e non mi sembrava male (ma parlo di un bel po' di anni fa; probabilmente c'e' qualcosa di piu' aggiornato).

Per i corsi online: una mia conoscenza ha seguito un corso su Coursera di un tipo indiano (non mi ricordo), ma era orripilante: un mio amico lo seguiva, mi ha chiesto di dargli una mano, ho provato a guardare uno dei video e non ho mai visto spiegazioni cosi' vaghe e confuse. Evitalo come la peste..

Credo che qualcosa di migliore sia su Khan Academy; vale la pena di guardare. (EDIT: ho guardato ed e' un po' stringato, ti servira' un supplemento. Krugmann, Perloff o qualunque altra cosa sia disponibile usata a prezzo ragionevole; evita le traduzioni italiane, pero').

Dopo aver guardato un po' di microeconomia, potrai decidere su cosa buttarti.

Se ti interessa la finanza e ti piacciono i romanzi, leggi Liar's poker, che mi e' sembrato spettacolare. E se a questo punto ti prende l'idea di capire cosa sono mai questi misteriosi bond e derivati, c'e' un ottimo e chiarissimo (ma un po' pesante) libro di finanza di Ivo Welch disponibile online; richiede un po' di matematica ma e' chiarissimo.

Ah, visto che ora va di moda la 'behavioral economy', puoi anche leggere qualunque cosa di Dan Ariely (tipo Predictably Irrational), ed e' sempre divertentissimo (e ha fatto pure lui un corso su Coursera con cui mi sono diverito un sacco). Ma se ti interessano poi gli aspetti seri, leggi lo spettacolare Thinking fast and slow di Kahneman (premio nobel, a ragione).

u/chiggynugitz · 7 pointsr/beyondthebump

The book cribsheets by Emily Ostler goes into the data on a lot of parenting issues including breastfeeding. A lot of the benefits they claim that breastfeeding gives are actually not backed by good studies. It helped me see that the whole breast is best is over exaggerated and that fed is what really is best.

Cribsheet: A Data-Driven Guide to Better, More Relaxed Parenting, from Birth to Preschool

u/puppy_and_puppy · 7 pointsr/MensLib

I'm not sure if this would work or not, but I would try redirecting people who have conservative or right-wing leaning views at least toward better thinkers than Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and toward optimistic views of the future of society, to cull some of the us-vs-them and zero-sum thinking that plagues these discussions.

Sometimes it feels like men, especially, feel existentially threatened by other modes of thought, so being at least sympathetic to the good bits of their ideas and offering something similar but that promotes openness and liberal ideas may help.

Hans Rosling's Factfulness presents a pretty optimistic view of the world. It's all getting better! Seriously!

Jonathan Haidt (and Greg Lukianoff for the first book)

u/thisisaoeu · 7 pointsr/DecidingToBeBetter

This could quickly become the "book of stereotypes", and people don't want to be stereotypical, so the stereotypes would change. Not sure it would work.

But I'd like to recommend Algorithms to Live By. It's a bit like a "here are mathematically proven optimal strategies to live by", they are very useful and interesting. Not so far reaching as you'd like, but useful nonetheless.

u/Cobra_McJingleballs · 7 pointsr/compsci

Algorithms to Live By.

Anything that involves optimal stopping theory (how many significant others to date/apartments to check out before committing) is automatically fascinating – to me anyway.

u/codefinbel · 7 pointsr/algorithms

I suppose this might be something along the lines of what you're looking for:

Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions

It is hard to decouple algorithms from programming and mathematics, but my brother who is neither programmer nor mathematician as well read that book.

Don't know if it was good though.

u/birkir · 7 pointsr/bestof

"My" data on Fukushima is from the National Police Agency of Japan and Ichiseki (2013). According to police records, the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami caused 15,894 confirmed deaths, and 2,546 people are still missing (as of December 2017).

Tanigawa et al. (2012) concluded that 61 very old people in critical health conditions died during the hasty evacuation.

About 1,600 further deaths were indirectly caused by other kinds of problems for mainly elderly evacuees, reports Ichiseki:

>The reconstruction agency reports that more than 95% (1206) of victims were aged 60 years or older. About 64% (814) had chronic diseases. About 48% (608) of deaths were confirmed within 1 month, and 78% (986) within 3 months after the earthquake. The most common cause of death was “physical or mental fatigue from life at evacuation shelters” (n=638 [33%]), followed by “fatigue from moving to evacuation shelters” (401 [21%]), “aggravation of illnesses due to halted hospital operations” (283 [15%]), and “excessive mental and physical stress caused by the earthquake and tsunami” (150 [8%]).

Nobody was reported dying from the nuclear leak, and WHO concludes that it might be possible to detect a small increase of mortality, but that it is expected to occur in a very limited group of people.

According to Pew in 2012, 76 percent of people in Japan believed that food from Fukushima was dangerous. The contamination of the very word Fukushima is discussed in the book “Hazards, Risks, and Disasters in Society” by John Shroder (2014).

It's really cool that a lot of elderly people found a new purpose in life by being united after living so far apart for so long. But moving is not easy for sick and old people and it causes a lot of health problems as well.

Anyway, the main point I guess is that our fears are disproportionate to the reality of what causes harm.

u/anonlymouse · 6 pointsr/martialarts

If you're not in a bad area now, you're likely able to keep yourself from ending up in one in the future, which is always the best policy.

Once real, pressing, threats have been eliminated as a concern, it becomes a matter of speculation. What kind of not nice area do you expect to end up in? Where do you plan to move. What's an appropriate response in one locale will land you in serious trouble in another locale.

For starters I'd say get your hands on Scaling Force, which will give you a good idea of the necessary considerations for self defense, and that might help you narrow down what might be appropriate.

As far as a general rule goes though, running is often the best option. So practicing Parkour is a good idea (your small size is actually something of an asset here, as it's easier to pull your body up to get over obstacles compared to a larger person). Most martial arts and self defense instructors will advise that running is the best option, but won't actually teach you how to run. It's a good default option, and even if you have a false positive, it's never really going to be the 'wrong' decision.

In a situation in which you really can't run, a lot of martial arts will be limited, or useless. Tae Kwon Do, Shotokan Karate and Capoeira, for instance, all work best at ranges at which you can run very well, so practicing those styles isn't particularly useful (for modern people in most situations). You're either unable to run because you're being held, or because the area is crowded. For either situation, clinch work is ideal. If you're being held, you want a strong grappling base to get out of the hold - and once you're out, run - and if you're in a crowd, you don't want to turn it into a brawl, so throwing a punch and accidentally hitting someone else isn't a good idea. Still in line with the recommendation for dealing with school bullies, Judo and wrestling are very good default options (and with wrestling, once you graduate high school your opportunity to train it is quite limited, while you can quite easily begin practicing most other martial arts as an adult).

With a parkour + wrestling/Judo base, you can then look at other options, which would be best selected based on what you expect your situation to be. For instance it's utterly pointless for me to train gun disarms because where I live only gang members get shot, and when they do, it's at a distance. I could potentially be a victim of collateral damage, but that's not something I'd ever have the opportunity to do anything about. In other parts of the world, people actually get guns pointed at them at personal range, so for there practicing gun disarms would actually be useful. Since it's impossible to adequately prepare for every possible situation, for good self defense it's really important to figure out what the most likely risks are and specifically address them.

u/nimble_moose · 6 pointsr/UXResearch

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman is a fantastic and (relatively) easy to read book about how the mind learns and makes decisions.

u/Darsint · 6 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

To quote Thinking, Fast and Slow:

"success = talent + luck. great success = a little more talent + a lot of luck"

I have no doubts that you worked hard for your degree and that you have quite a bit of talent. But don't knock the fact that quite a bit of luck was involved in you getting the job you wanted straight out of college and that it was high paying enough to let you pay off your loans right away. My girlfriend has been a teacher for several years and she's been working with the school system since she got out of college. She finished her Master's degree in 2010. She still has at least a decade of payments left before she pays it off.

While you are right that the degree you choose can influence whether you can successfully pay them off in a reasonable time frame, it is by no means the only factor. Painting all of them as stupid crybabies is a disservice to them.

u/McKoijion · 6 pointsr/changemyview

I once hosted a talent show. I had to announce a winner. I was handed three index cards with the names of the winners. I didn't screw it up, but I felt like I was about to. Here is a quick recap of some of the stuff I thought about in that moment:

I was onstage in front of hundreds of people. I had to come up with witty things to say off the cuff. I had to remember to stand in the light. I had to remember to hold the microphone at the right distance (too close causes interference, too far means no one can hear me.) I had to look out at an audience of people judge everything I did. I had to worry about whether a joke was going to land or not. I had to think about my delivery. I had to make sure I didn't say the names in the wrong order. I had to make sure I didn't drop the cards on the floor. I had to come up with something to do when the winners were walking up to the stage to collect the prize I was about to hand them. I had to make sure I didn't spend too much time staring at the cards (have you ever had shared an awkward silence with someone? Every second feels like an hour. This experience is like that on steroids.) I had to make sure I pronounced the names correctly.

All of this stuff flashed in my brain in the five seconds when I got the card and read the first name. I'm the kind of person who has to read and reread my emails three times before I send them to make sure I don't have any mistakes. Heck, I read and reread my Reddit posts multiple times before I post them. On stage in front of a large crowd, you don't have time to do any of that. You just get something in your head, and go with it.

If I had to read that card the same way that Steve Harvey did, I would likely have made the same mistake too. That card is a nightmare. It is the opposite of good design. It seems slightly confusing, but still clear when you are sitting at home without anyone judging or waiting for you, but under those lights everything moves at light speed. In a high stress situation, people use different reasoning. They rely on simple heuristics instead of clear logic. Fire exits are red and glow for a reason. Pilots have extensive training and labeled emergency buttons for a reason. When people are under pressure to make quick decisions, they think differently. Check out the book Thinking, Fast and Slow. It's written by a Nobel prize winner, and it really captures exactly why a pilot, surgeon, or live tv host could make such a seemingly stupid mistake. Unfortunately for that event, they didn't have anyone as competent as a pilot or surgeon. They had Steve Harvey, arguably the stupidest person I can think of.

Overall, having been in a similar situation, I think it's completely understandable that Steve Harvey screwed it up. Any jackass can be a Monday morning quarterback. But unless you've felt that kind of pressure before, I don't think it's a fair criticism.

u/_belikewater · 6 pointsr/Meditation
u/drwicked · 6 pointsr/hsp

You are not alone in feeling this way. The way I think of it is I feel like I have the wrong kind of interpersonal Velcro for most people, so they just don’t stick like I perceive most other people stick to each other. It’s understandable for this to make one feel defective, and very alone.

I try to twist it and think of it as an advantage, I think the upside to this means that you can be capable of tremendous self-sufficiency. Invest in you. Take care of yourself even when you want more than anything for someone else to take care of you.

I’m also prone to beating myself over the head with painful facts like “everyone always leaves me”, “nobody loves me like I love people”, etc. these feel so true because you might not have instances to contradict these “facts”. But in truth this is a fallacy summed up as “what you see is all there is” by Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow link. Just because everyone has left doesn’t mean everyone will always leave. There are billions of humans and we happen to be a tiny percentage who have this sensitivity, there are still millions of us and millions more who have the empathy and imagination to understand us to some extent. Don’t give up. Good luck.

u/JimJimmins · 6 pointsr/math

It's difficult to make recommendations without being certain of what you actually know and what you imagine mathematics to be like. A lot of university-level mathematics is technical and requires familiarity of high-level concepts. This is in contrast to softer popular mathematics, which is more related to solving problems and contest questions. One of the things I've noted about pre-university students passionate about mathematics is that they assume that the subject is only about problem-solving and fail to take into mind the level of technical knowledge that must be learnt and memorized to be a mathematician.

If you're simply looking for problems to solve, try The Art and Craft of Problem Solving by Zeitz or Problem Solving Strategies by Engel. Generally any book geared to the Olympiad or regional competitions will be alright. Here, you're not looking for a specific body of knowledge, but rather an approach to thinking and persevering when handling tough problems.

But if you're looking to learn more about 'technical' mathematics, you'll need to know the basics of numbers and sets. Numbers & Proofs by Allenby is a good introduction, using an approach that gets you to actively solve problems. Once you get past that, then you can try your hand on analysis or group theory or linear algebra or even basic graph theory. But keep in mind that with 'technical' mathematics, all knowledge is built on understanding of previous fields, so don't rush through it or you'll get discouraged by any difficulty or unfamiliarity you'll encounter.

u/iamktothed · 6 pointsr/Design

An Essential Reading List For Designers


All books have been linked to Amazon for review and possible purchase. Remember to support the authors by purchasing their books. If there are any issues with this listing let me know via comments or pm.


u/CoolCole · 6 pointsr/tableau

Here's an "Intro to Tableau" Evernote link that has the detail below, but this is what I've put together for our teams when new folks join and want to know more about it.

What is Tableau?

u/l0gr1thm1k · 5 pointsr/options

Surprised no one has mentioned Tversky & Kahneman yet. Kahneman was awarded the Nobel prize in economics for his pioneering work in behavioral economics .

Their most famous/accessible work is probably Thinking, Fast and Slow

u/UMich22 · 5 pointsr/investing

Check out Thinking, Fast and Slow by the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman. It may not be what you're looking for since the investing/markets aspect is not the entire focus of the book. However, I think it would definitely be worth your time.

u/Kakuz · 5 pointsr/books

I would go with Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow". It can be rather tedious at times, but it's such a great summary of recent work in social and cognitive psychology that it's worth it.

Oliver Sacks, as mentioned before, is another great author. Very approachable, very interesting, yet quite informative.

I have heard that Dan Ariely is a great author. Predictably Irrational might be a great read.

Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works is also great, but I would recommend Kahneman over him.

Finally, I would recommend a classic: William James - The Principles of Psychology. It's old, and some stuff is dated, but the guy had amazing insight nonetheless. It'd be a great intro reading just to see where psychology came from.

I would stay away from Jonah Lehrer, since he was accused of academic dishonesty. His book "How we Decide" was an extremely easy read, and a bit watered down. On that tangent, I would also avoid Malcolm Gladwell. Sacks does a better job at explaining psychology and neuroscience to a general audience.

Hope that helps!

u/noahpocalypse · 5 pointsr/HPMOR

Also more complex than just telling people to read Thinking: Fast and Slow.

u/kleinbl00 · 5 pointsr/skeptic

Uh oh! People who aren't holding the same informed beliefs as we are! Well, we know what to do:


When will "skeptics" figure out that this approach never works? You all act as if this data is hard to find, or as if anti-vax proponents that have somehow never considered the FDA to be at all reliable will suddenly experience a complete change of heart if you insist that they wade through a bunch of PDFs published in government-ese. I know! Let's make them read a scientific paper on Wiley - that'll learn'em!

All it does is piss them off and make them hate you, which pisses you off and makes you hate them, and then you retreat to your respective corners, angry at the infidels and their blind adherence to faith/science/pseudoscience/dogma/doctrine/canon/whatever-ideas-you-yourself-don't-hold.

Swap shoes with them real quick. From a comparative standpoint, you're saying "read the Old Testament, idiot" and then seeing it as a failing when they say "I reject the mumblings of cave-dwellers three thousand years dead." And yes, Margaret, I know that "science" is evidence-based and repeatable and "The Old Testament" is the mixed and muddled oral histories of scattered Abrahamic tribes edited, redacted and expanded over two millennia of history to further various and sundry agendas. But don't you see? That's the whole problem:

In order for science to be convincing, one must accept "Science" as truth... and THEY DON'T.

Give an anti-vax "skeptic" a fact sheet from the CDC and they'll give you the Robert Kennedy Rolling Stone article. You'll say it was retracted, they'll say it wasn't. Tell them that Andrew Wakefield's study has been withdrawn and his medical license revoked and they'll bring up [Semmelweis]( "who invented germ theory and died penniless in an insane asylum for his troubles"). Neither one of you will learn a thing, despite the erudite and varied knowledge being thrown about.

[Jonah Lehrer]( "read books, not tables") pointed out that "climate skepticism" on the Right is the equivalent of "vaccine skepticism" on the left - despite mountains of data, arguing the evidence only further entrenches the skeptic because they have a worldview at stake and mentally, we re-trench and re-configure like crazy to avoid cognitive dissonance. No amount of "evidence" will ever convince someone that their closely-held beliefs are in error, because their beliefs are primarily emotional. In order to make headway against the beliefs, you start by making headway against the emotions.

NOT by saying "look it up, dipshit."

My wife gives about 5 vaccine workshops a year, to about 20 couples at a time, right here in Hollywood: ground zero for vaccine denialism. And she doesn't start with "y'all are full of shit." She starts with "here's the schedule. Here's what the schedule used to be. Here's the evidence that vaccines are bad for you, as well as the criticism of that evidence; here's the lack-of-evidence that vaccines aren't necessarily good for you, as well as some of the criticism. Here's what you risk by not vaccinating your children, here's what you'll have to do in order to protect them from the diseases they are now risking. Here are some easy-to-read resources to educate yourself on what each vaccine does, here are the consequences you will face by delaying or foregoing vaccination. Finally, here's a list of pediatricians who will accept and treat children who follow a delayed or curtailed vaccination schedule; you should talk to them because a child that isn't vaccinated is, above and beyond the secondary effects of vaccines, a child at increased risk for serious illness."

Know what? Every single person who has ever taken that class has had "evidence" like yours thrown in their face, and it has increased their "skepticism" without moving them an inch towards vaccinating their kids. And you know what? After taking the class, most parents who were going to skip vaccinations entirely end up doing most or all vaccinations, and some parents who were going to skip some vaccinations end up following the FDA schedule.

You are doing no favors to anyone by throwing the American Academy of Pediatrics at someone who doesn't trust vaccines. It's like throwing Deuteronomy at someone who doesn't think same sex marriage is a sin. Meet them in the middle. Ask what their concerns are. Ask why those are their concerns. Ask what would allay their concerns, and then help them find their own way to their own truths. If you come at them with an agenda, however, they'll smell you from a mile away.

      • Yeah, yeah, yeah. You still want to give them something. Start with a cartoon. if nothing else, it exposes that Wakefield had a financial motive for shitting on vaccines.
u/StrafeReddit · 5 pointsr/excel

The best advice I can give you is to start with this book by Steven Few: Excel CAN make professional looking charts and graphs. It just doesn't always by default. Steven Few is the authority on this.

u/RobMagus · 5 pointsr/statistics

This is a fairly useful review that I believe is available via google scholar for free: Wainer, H., & Thissen, D. (1981). Graphical data analysis. Annual review of psychology, 32, 191–241.

Tufte is useful for a historical overview and for inspiration, but he has a particular style that doesn't necessarily match up with the way that you or your audience think.

Hadley Wickham developed ggplot2 and his site is a good place to start browsing for guides to using it.

There's a pretty good o'reilly book on visualization as well, and Stephen Few's book does a really good job of enumerating the various ways you can express trends in data.

u/MetaCanvas · 5 pointsr/Entrepreneur

Besides Lean startup, I would go for:

Business Model Generation - to layout your ideas first and have a feeling of your to be business model (on their site you can get a sneak peek for free

The startup owner's manual, from Steve Blank (

Disciplined Entrepreneurship: (

good luck

u/nfmangano · 5 pointsr/startups

Have you guys validated your idea? Do you have hundreds or thousands of people who already gave you feedback that they would put down money for your idea?

If you don't have validation yet, that is the number one thing I would say you need to get. If I had to recommend three books for you to hold close by your side, they would be:

u/johgo · 5 pointsr/startups

Here are my top three:

  1. Running Lean (

  2. The Lean Startup (

  3. The Startup Owner's Manual (

    You may want to read them in reverse order (3, 2, 1) as Steve Blank influenced Eric Reis who influenced Ash Maurya -- but I really think Running Lean has more practical / applicable insights.
u/rafaelspecta · 5 pointsr/smallbusiness

If you are going for a internet business or any product-oriented business here a are the best books


"The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses" (Eric Reis) - 2011

"Running Lean: Iterate from Plan A to a Plan That Works" (Ash Maurya) - 2010

"Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days" (Jake Knapp - Google Ventures) - 2016


ALSO GO FOR (these are the ones that started organizing the Startup world)

"The Four Steps to the Epiphany" (Steve Blank) - 2005

"Business Model Generation" (Alexander Osterwalder) - 2008

u/AlbertFortknight · 5 pointsr/smallbusiness

It's a tad geared towards software and B2B SaaS, but it can apply to anyone: Four Steps to the Epiphany

It focuses on finding your customers and developing products for them. Reads like a textbook from college somewhat, but my #1 go-to business book by far.

u/zb0t1 · 5 pointsr/pics

It's bullshit, in France it's much more complicated. Nobody but the racist and far-right are making everything they can to link and make a causality relation between the rise of rape reports and refugee crisis.

  • France has always welcomed refugees for DECADES. But somehow right now it's a problem? Careful when people jump to conclusion to further their sick agendas.

  • The reports can be explained using other "metrics", for instance the feminist and all social movements that occurred not only in France but worldwide too, making it easier for people to report rape, for instance within a couple, something that too many people never dared doing (and there are reasons for that).

    Right wingers love to interpret and use statistics as much as they can to make everyone believe their sick views on the world.

    Even though, in general we are progressing, but that's thanks to the majority of humankind. There is a book I read that one of my old geopolitics teachers recommended us via email: check it out it's called "Factfulness : Ten Reasons We're Wrong About The World - And Why Things Are Better Than You Think".

    While this won't reply to the rape questions, at least in France I can provide more links, if you're willing to right click > translate to English but it won't be perfect sadly. For a starter this is a decent article:

    As you will see it's complex, and whoever tries to come here and say otherwise is 100% bullshitting.

    Also notice how the people who always push these views act like we should take their word for it, never trying to back up their arguments.
u/whys_wise · 5 pointsr/userexperience

I've talked with more than 100 companies (startups, dev/design shops, and enterprise cos) about how they do user research/testing (even started working on a startup related to it). There are 2 types of companies:

  • Those with someone mostly dedicated to doing testing and user research (usually a startup founder)
  • Those who think its too much of a hassle, which is the vast majority of those I spoke to
    The companies who do it best right now have week long sprints where the last couple of days (or early days the following week) are dedicated to testing with users. Jake Knapp at Google Ventures wrote an awesome how-to (
    Basically the summary of my research is this: either dedicate a day or two exclusively to talking to users, or its not going to be a part of the process.
u/karabeckian · 5 pointsr/occupywallstreet

I read Coercion back in college and it was good. Rushkoff has done a couple of Nova specials too.

u/Sanders0492 · 5 pointsr/ShittyLifeProTips

It’s also an implementation of optimal stopping! It’s the first chapter in a book I’m reading called Algorithms To Live By.

The book is pretty neat so far, so I’d say it’s $12 worth spending, even if you hate to read and only skim through a few pages every other week (like me). It’s an easy-reading type of book, and doesn’t really go in to technical jargon.

u/AmaDaden · 5 pointsr/compsci

It depends on what I'm reading. 20 for the average book is about what I can read. I've had things like What Every Programmer Should Know About Memory that I could only do 5 pages at best and things like Head First Design Patterns where I could do 40 or 50

An interesting side note is that I've also been reading books like Thinking, Fast and Slow that basically say that we have a finite amount of mental will power. We can only focus on a difficult task for so long before we run out of steam. The only way we know to improve focus this is by maintaining decent glucose levels. So you might be able to improve your limit by having a snack or breaking for something to eat.

I've also been reading Seach inside yourself. It's book on meditation written by a programmer at Google. I'm hoping to improve my focus with meditation. It might also let you bump up your number number of pages per-day or at least let you settle in to reading faster

u/Alivia_Madrigal · 5 pointsr/LSD

Sorry to derail your post. It's Thinking Fast and Slow. The author won a noble prize for his discovery on how the mind works and this book summarizes his thought experiments. A fair warning however, I have never seen the world the same way again after that book.

>In the international bestseller, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, the renowned psychologist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, takes us on a groundbreaking tour of the mind and explains the two systems that drive the way we think. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and emotional; System 2 is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. The impact of overconfidence on corporate strategies, the difficulties of predicting what will make us happy in the future, the profound effect of cognitive biases on everything from playing the stock market to planning our next vacation—each of these can be understood only by knowing how the two systems shape our judgments and decisions.

>Engaging the reader in a lively conversation about how we think, Kahneman reveals where we can and cannot trust our intuitions and how we can tap into the benefits of slow thinking. He offers practical and enlightening insights into how choices are made in both our business and our personal lives—and how we can use different techniques to guard against the mental glitches that often get us into trouble.

u/themadscribe · 5 pointsr/booksuggestions

Currently about 100 pages into Thinking Fast and Slow and it covers the psychology of how we think and learn.

u/daniu · 5 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

The advice to "sleep on it" is not to be able to think about it at night, but to give yourself time to calm down from short term emotions that might be connected with a decision.

There is a book about decision making called ["Thinking Fast and Slow"] ( with an explanation of how decisions can be made in those two ways, fast - intuitively, pretty much - and slow - using rational thought.

Both those approaches have their advantages and drawbacks, so you often can make a correct "fast" decision, but doing so will prevent you from checking back with the other thought process. So allowing you to do that is pretty much the value of "sleep on it".

u/scornucopia · 5 pointsr/CAguns

If you haven't already, have a look at Thinking, Fast and Slow. The basic problem (AFAICT) is that, in practice, people judge risk based on how easy it is to recall an example, rather than statistical likelihood. With the media constantly harping on about a "mass shooting epidemic", this leads people to massively overestimate the risk of being a victim of a mass shooting, and because it's (what Kahneman calls) a "System 1" process (basically his term for "intuitive"), and because "System 2" processes (basically his term for "analytical") are very strongly predisposed toward concurrence with System 1 conclusions, it is almost impossible for data and reason to displace the intuitive presumption that mass shootings are a significant threat.

u/RockyMcNuts · 5 pointsr/Economics

These are not finance books, but popular books on behavioral economics by leading academics

Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast And Slow (a classic, I think)

Richard Thaler, Cass Sunstein - Nudge

Dan Ariely - Predictably Irrational

u/Gazzellebeats · 5 pointsr/LetsGetLaid

>I don’t regret having one, just extremely ashamed of being sexual and communicating it to girls and also showing it to the world. Attracting girls’ attention and whatnot isn’t very hard but progressing things to dating, holding hands and eventually sex is impossible. I can’t even call them or message them on Facebook or Whatsapp because I just feel like an idiot for doing so. Making a move in clubs and bars is also difficult although I once got close to leaving with a girl but she didn't want to. I got made fun of a lot growing up for not having a girlfriend and this made me feel like i do not deserve one. It doesn't matter if I've got the green light to go ahead I just feel really ashamed do it. Even something like looking at a fit girl wearing a short skirt makes me feel bad for checking her out and that I shouldn’t be doing it.

I know what you mean. I've been there myself, but even when I was there I was entirely self-aware of my shame and I was skeptical of the validity of my emotional reactions; I realized they were ingrained. Being aware of your emotional reactions allows you to be emotionally proactive. Your sex-negative problem is mostly an emotional issue, and not much else, right? I've been there. I wouldn't doubt that you are also decent looking and have both latent and actualized social skills. Most intelligent introverts have a lot of potential to be who they want to be because they know themselves more deeply than others. You must use your introverted nature to your advantage and recognize the differences in others and yourself. In all honesty, there are an infinite number of unwritten rules; everyone's abstract/emotional logic is different. Many of them are foundational and predictable, however; including yours and mine. Like anything else, being emotionally predictable is not a black/white issue. It is a grey area, and you have to balance your reliability with creativity.

Being made fun of for not having a girlfriend is just as sexist as being made fun of for not having a boyfriend; gender equal too. Were you ever shamed for not having a boyfriend? It's clearly a matter of groupthink and extroverted style; not for everyone. Dating relationships, for extroverts especially, are often attention-getting and showy. They wear their relationships like trophies won. Usually introverts prefer a more private relationship because they have less social desire and are often shamed because of it. Introverts are “themselves” more often in private. Extroverts are “themselves” more often in public. There is no shame deserved either way, regardless of popular opinion. Both styles have their strengths and weaknesses, and you should try to introject some of the traits that you enjoy in others; regardless of type. That is how you become balanced.

>I’m receiving counselling from a pastor who advocates the whole “no sex before marriage” thing and believes that people should only date to get married and sex is only for making kids which is stupid IMO because I do not plan on getting married anytime soon.

Counseling from a Catholic pastor? Watch out, that is one of the most notorious sex-negative societies out there. They own the abstinence-only charade while they parade horribles. Marriage is not the answer to anything; it is an institution of the state. Anything else attached is sentimental.

If you haven't already, I recommend doing an in-depth study of animal sexual behaviors; especially the most intelligent animals. All animals have sex for pleasure, but some animals are only driven to have sex at certain times of the year; humans are on a 24/7 system.

>I’ve tried the no fap route and gotten very high days counts but that hasn’t really helped me at all.

Sexual frustration doesn't help anyone. If you are mindful, then you can use your libido to further your goals, but it is not an all-cure.

>Got any sources to help overcome sex-negative perspectives? I’m interested in recreational sex not baby making sex.

Absolutely. I recommend starting with actual sex science and learning about male and female psychology and neurology. Then work your way into reading about sex culture. You should also study developmental psychology as you will probably need the clinical context in order to objectively self-evaluate your childhood influences; it is necessary for self-therapy. The best therapy will always be self-therapy; no one will ever know you better than yourself.

Evolutionary Science and Morals Philosophy:

The Selfish Gene

The Moral Landscape

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?

Sex Psychology, Science, and Neurology:

Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex

The Female Brain

The Male Brain

Why Men Want Sex and Women Need Love

What Do Women Want

Why Women Have Sex: Understanding Sexual Motivations from Adventure to Revenge (and Everything in Between)

Sex: The world's favorite pastime fully revealed

Behavioral Psychology and Abstract Economics:

How Pleasure Works


Quiet: The Power of Introverts In A World That Can't Stop Talking

Thinking Fast And Slow

We Are All Weird

Developmental Psychology:

Nurture Shock

Hauntings: Dispelling The Ghosts That Run Our Lives

Empathy Building:

Half The Sky

The House On Mango Street

Me Before You

The Fault In Our Stars

Also check out James Hollis' Understanding The Psychology of Men lecture if you can find it.

Movies: XXY, Tom Boy, Dogtooth, Shame, Secretary, Nymphomaniac, Juno, Beautiful Creatures, and The Man From Earth.

All of these things are related, but it is up to you to make the connections; pick and choose which material suits your interests best. These are the things that came to mind first, and they have all influenced my perspectives.

u/andrewff · 5 pointsr/boardgames

I do for two reasons. First, for the competition and challenge of it. I love developing a strategy and seeing how well I can execute it.

Second, its to improve my ways of thinking about problems. Board games are very fixed problems with strong rules. In particular, board games are helpful in identifying cognitive biases in ways I think about problems.

One direct application of this is what is known as the Gambler's Fallacy. I think this obviously shows up in social deduction games. For instance, he can't be a werewolf three games in a row.

A second application of this way of thought is Anchoring. In Anchoring we get fixed on the first line of thinking we see. This comes up in games all the time, but I think its most obvious in word games. We find one word we like and we build off of that, we rarely consider other words. If you've ever played Paperback, you have probably seen your group do this as you open up the table for assistance.

Selective perception is another example. In this case we see a strategy that worked for us in the past and we fixate on moves related to that strategy. We don't think outside the box.

I'm going to write up a full article on this, but if anyone is interested, Thinking Fast and Slow is a fantastic book on this topic.

u/CuriousGrugg · 5 pointsr/psychology

>A lot of modern psychology and neuroscience appears to be neglecting the concept of the unconscious mind.... Psychology is so determined to get religion out of science that it cannot allow for the concept of the unconscious

I honestly cannot imagine how you came to this conclusion. There is no question at all among psychologists that unconscious processes play an important role in cognition. Every single popular cognitive psychology book I can think of (e.g. 1 2 3 4) discusses the importance of unconscious processes.

u/michaelmacmanus · 4 pointsr/economy

> Common sense tells us that if you're so poor that you can't afford $0.80 condoms, you probably shouldn't be having sex at all and risking getting some woman pregnant.

Common sense tells us that if you're in the econ sub you should have at least an econ101 understanding of how the world works.

Start with this and work your way forward. It might be challenging for you because its an actual book written by an educator and scientist. Not an angry conspiratorial youtube video, Brietbart article, or Twitch stream. But I believe in you!

u/Dypa4ek · 4 pointsr/UXResearch

Not a course, though I heard this is a good one (the book is about cognitive biases). The author is an economist and psychologist at the same time, even got Nobel Prize in economics.

Don't really know if this is type of thing you are looking for.

u/BenDSover · 4 pointsr/politics

Well said. I would just like to take your point about how poorly informed people are a bit further to one about psychology and decision making: One of the best books I know for understanding the thinking of Republican conservatives and Trump supporters is the book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman (who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his research).

Namely, they have only developed their "fast" thinking abilities: i.e. prejudices, and emotional, 2-valued (Yes/No, Good/Evil) gut-reaction decision making. And they are terribly poor at "slow" thinking: i.e. complex, abstract, critical and lengthy calculations in a multi-valued space of uncertainty (e.g. probabilities and statistics, etc.).

And this has created a nasty game of Hawks vs Doves (i.e. Assholes vs Cooperators) that the political left needs to develop a better, broad political strategy in playing.

u/MattDotZeb · 4 pointsr/smashbros

It's very difficult to get around it.

You have to stay very focused on a goal. For me, since ROM7, it's been to finish every match I play. Has that happened? No, but I understand the situations it has not and I'm very pleased with how things have been going.

It also helps if you read autobiographies or books on sports psychology (or psychology in general) to get ideas & techniques on how to better your mentality.

Here are some that have helped me immensely.

  • Golf Is Not A Game Of Perfect

    • Currently reading this. It's obviously about golf, but it's about the mental game of golf. It's applicable to Smash, or basketball, or most competitive subjects. One of my favorite take-aways thus far is to look at an error such as an SD or a missed tech and think of it like "Well, there was a percentage chance that this would happen. Odds are it wont happen again. Just gotta trust my tech skill and stay sharp."

  • Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength
    • This goes into exactly what the title states. It gives a history of research into willpower, or ego, and describes how people can behave different based off their current situation. Sleep deprivation, poor diet, getting a burst of motivation and deciding to change everything (think January 1st) can all be detrimental to your mental state. It also discusses methods of improving your willpower which can be related to habitual actions.

  • The Power of Habit
    • This is a book that goes into habitual responses and how one can better understand them/change them. Useful information across all parts of life.

  • Thinking, Fast and Slow
    • This is one I've revisited multiple times. It's quite a long read, but there's much to learn. Specifically it goes into two systems of thought. Your system 1 is your implicit (unconscious) system. It's what tells you the answer to 2+2 as you read it even though I didn't ask you to solve it. System 2 is the system that takes over when I tell you to give me the answer to 72 x 103. (Mathematical examples are great for conveying the ideas of these systems) It later goes into more economic psychology and decision making.

      PS. I'm not telling you where, but if you don't want to create a book collection PDFs of each of these may or may not be online.
u/Sams_Big_Balls_Dance · 4 pointsr/bodybuilding

Some ideas from self-help books might resonate with certain people, so in that sense, they're not a scam. Personally, I've gotten more from books that aren't specifically "self-help," but focus more on a certain topic and help shine a light on why we think the way we do and some potential ways to change that way of thinking. A few examples:

The Power of Habit

Thinking Fast and Slow

The Like Switch

I also read The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck and got nothing out of it, but I see lots of glowing reviews for it, so some people must have enjoyed it.

u/owenshen24 · 4 pointsr/rational

Good and Real by Gary Drescher. Covers a similar philosophical stance to that of Yudkowsky in the Sequences, but with more academic rigor. A fun read that goes over computation, decision theory, morality, and Newcomb's Problem (among other things.)

Thinking Fast and Slow Daniel Kahneman's lifetime of research in heuristics and cognitive biases condensed into one epic volume. Highly engaging and 100% recommended if you aren't well-versed in this area.

A Mind for Numbers by Barbara Oakley. A scientific approach to studying, looking at good memory tricks, ways to learn better, and some interesting ideas on procrastination (including characterizing it as a malign reward loop).

u/1see2eat · 4 pointsr/weightroom

There is a great book called Thinking, Fast and Slow by Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman that lays out a description of the brain as having two systems.

Sytem one is fast and automatic, operating below the level of what we think of as 'consciousness.' This is what sets your walking pace, or interprets the facial expressions of others, or plays out a movement from muscle-memory. The type of information it deals in is things like 'really hard effort.'

System Two is slow, deliberate, and reflective. It's what you use to do complicated math problems, or cue a part of a lift you aren't automatic at yet. (Spread the floor!) It's also how your brain reflects on what it's doing. (I shouldn't be rude to my Mom.)

You have a finite amount of bandwidth and these systems are trading it back and forth all the time. What's likely happening when you 'blank out' during a tough set of DL is that your system one is so over-taxed that it's recruiting all the power from your system 2. When you 'came to' your System 2 turned back on.

The same thing happens when you're hiking on a trail, see a bear, run away, and only then 'feel scared' and have a chance to reflect and realize what happened. System 1 became the boss for a while during a period of extreme stress. Same as with deadlifting.

tl;dr - You are going full instinct.

u/BigglesB · 4 pointsr/LibDem

I think:

  1. Different messages appeal to different people.
  2. Cool-headed arguments will appeal to some voters, but emotionally engaging & snappy communication will appeal to others more strongly.
  3. You're right that we need to be careful to ensure that any messages we make can't backfire now or in the future.

    In particular, I'd encourage you to read a book called "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Nobel-prize-winning-psychologist Daniel Kahneman. In it he goes into great depth about the way that our brains often substitute difficult decisions (like "who should I vote for") subconsciously with easier ones (like "who do I have a better general impression of") and I feel that's the playground we should be operating in.
u/brikis98 · 4 pointsr/programming

Supply and demand works if we are perfectly rational actors. But there is considerable evidence that we're not: see Predictably Irrational and Thinking, Fast and Slow. Salary in particular is known for irrational behavior. See the discussion of motivation in Drive or the short version in Daniel Pink's TED talk. Programmers are already fairly well paid and while I would certainly love to be paid more, I'm not convinced that alone would significantly increase the supply of developers.

The evidence for the talent gap is both anecdotal--every company I've worked at and many others I've interacted with complained extensively about lack of good developers--and some limited data (example 1, example 2), though it's not clear how to properly measure something like this.

Finally, I'm not sure that merely having 10x skill is enough to guarantee 10x pay. Perhaps in a perfect market with perfect knowledge and perfectly rational actors, it might be, but that's not how the real world works. You need not only 10x skill at your job, but also at turning that into money, which may be a completely different set of talents. For example, a 10x writer might make less money than an average writer if that average writer had their book turned into a popular teen movie. Similarly, the way for a programmer to make 10x the money is usually not to focus on salary (although there were some stories of Google and FB offering millions to retain some developers), but equity. And there, an exec-level programmer can get 10x the equity of a normal dev, though there is obviously a lot of luck as to whether the equity ends up paying off.

u/bserum · 4 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

My political opposition isn't along a left/right axis but people who are dogmatic in their thinking. Left, right, middle; I don't care so long as you can recognize and temper your own biases. (I'm such a "neutron.")

Therefore, I like You Are Not So Smart by David McRaney. It's written (appropriately) for the general audience and is affably conversational in tone.

If they're hungry for more, the next book would be Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman for the way it breaks down fast and slow systems of thinking.

Either book should be part of a Neutral Politics recommended reading.

u/divsky · 4 pointsr/cringepics

It's an interesting question and I think for a lot of people they can just take a glance at it and "know". As unscientific as it sounds, it can be more accurate than you think. There's a book called Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman that explains this phenomenon quite well.

u/tiddlywinksnfinks · 4 pointsr/askpsychology

This isn't exactly what you are asking, but a good psychology-related book that is written for the layman would be Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow

It is an interesting read that provides a lot of information about thinking.

u/Timwi · 4 pointsr/WDP

I'm by no means a neuroscientist, but Veritasium made an interesting video based on the popular science book Thinking fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman.

u/Reddit4Play · 4 pointsr/truegaming

> I've noticed the dotalikes(let's call the genre that for the sake of neutrality) get a lot of hate outside this sub.

I have three theories.

The first theory is that the opinion of the majority is not the same as the opinion of the overly visible gaming literati. I know that this is a fact based on smaller gaming genres, like tabletop roleplaying games, where recently a relatively popular thread indicated that too many people were talking about games like Fate and Dungeon World. Many people agreed.

However, looking at large community surveys and statistics released by the most popular online place to play tabletop roleplaying games we see that Fate only represents 1.65% of games and only 4.30% of all players are in those games, while Dungeon World only represents 1.84% of games with 4.55% of all players in Dungeon World games in the latter source (more comprehensive) and 4% of respondents playing Dungeon World and 5% of non-fantasy setting players and 4% of fantasy setting players playing Fate in the former source.

In other words, a lot of people really thought everyone was devoting way too much time to two games whose market shares are each less than 5%. Meanwhile, the two largest games - D&D and Pathfinder - combined are well over 50% market share.

This leads us to a probable analogous conclusion: the MOBA-haters are much louder online than simple demographics would suggest. This gels with most of what we know about online product reviews generally: only those who really hate or really love a product are likely to take the time out of their day to write up how much they love/hate the product, which leads to a polarization of online viewpoints.

Theory two is an extension, in some respects, of theory one: because MOBAs are so incredibly popular, while their proportion of haters remains about the same as most games (except for the addition of some hipsters who always hate popular things), their absolute number of haters is astronomically high.

Let's imagine for a minute that 1% of all people who play or hear about a game are driven to hate it online. A game with few players, like /r/totalwar of the Total War series, has persistent but relatively isolated griping as a result. If 1% of their subs complain about the game regularly, that would make for ~350 people: a significant portion in the Total War subreddit, where you would notice complaining on account of our earlier-established "haters are loud" theory above, but not a significant enough number to seriously bleed across to other more general subreddits.

In contrast, if 1% of /r/leagueoflegends, the League of Legends subreddit, complained about League, then that makes for 6,500 people. If "the 1% of League subscribers that complain about League" was a subreddit, it would be in the top 3200.

Other extremely popular games, like Call of Duty, seem to act in evidence of this theory: they receive a huge absolute degree of hate.

Theory three is that there is something about MOBAs that leads to direct competition and animosity. MOBAs are notoriously hardcore competitive games, being not just the most popular video games on earth, but also the ones with the largest tournaments. The two largest ones are also notoriously nearly identical.

We know that the brain tends to cook facts to retrospectively justify its choices, focusing on the benefits of your choice while downplaying the detriments, especially when that choice is largely irreversible and largely important (for more about how people react to making choices see Daniel Gilbert Stumbling on Happiness and Barry Schwartz The Paradox of Choice). MOBAs, by being so competitive, are naturally time intensive, especially among the gaming literati who tend to discuss games online and be part of the core gamer demographic. This makes the decision to play, say, League of Legends rather than DotA 2 subject to a host of natural heuristics that lead us to become "stuck" with our choice: the sunken cost heuristic, for instance. (For more about decision making heuristics see Daniel Kahneman Thinking, Fast and Slow).

When you combine these effects, you get a set of people who are:

  • More likely than others to talk about their experiences, good or bad, online.

  • While perhaps not disproportionate compared to the haters in other games, so large in absolute number that they bleed into more general discussions easily.

  • "Stuck" with their choice of MOBA, which leads to them biasing to facts in favor of their decision and against facts detrimental to their decision.

  • Often playing one of two nearly identical games, which leads to vaguer, more overly-specific reasoning for why one is better than the other (which makes the reasoning particularly difficult to refute, as it is more opinion than factually driven). This reasoning is nonetheless biased, per the previous point, which leads to disagreements that are difficult to resolve.

    Combined, I believe these three theories lead to this demographic, described above, displaying what appears to be a larger-than-normal degree of hate online.
u/Jackpot777 · 4 pointsr/todayilearned

I found out about this in The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives by Leonard Mlodinow. The lawyer hedged his bets on statistical probability ...and in 99 other parallel universes he would have come out on top. Just the luck of the draw.

If anyone has a passing interest in probability, or mathematics, or just general weirdness, I can't recommend this book enough.

u/nikoma · 4 pointsr/math

Hi, here I will post some great books, some free (by Santos), some not (others).

Junior problem seminar: Santos

Number Theory for Mathematical contests: Santos

The Art and Craft of Problem solving: Zeitz

Problem-Solving Strategies: Engel

Mathematical Olympiad Treasures: Andreescu, Enescu

Mathematical Olympiad challenges: Andreescu, Gelca

Problems from the book: Andreescu

Those are more or less the "general" books, they always contain the main topics of mathematical olympiads, they usually aren't focused on just one topic, for one-topic books see here:

u/Bewtstraps · 4 pointsr/Entrepreneur

Steve Blank's The Startup Owner's Manual is pretty darn good in my opinion.

Soon though I hope you'll be able to use our product at

If you want to sign up to get a notification when we go live we would love to hear how your experience is trying to make this happen. Our primary goal is to try to help lower the barriers to entry for others into entrepreneurship.

u/s1e · 4 pointsr/userexperience

I'm sorry if the reply turned out a bit too general, but the individual steps depend a lot on the specifics :)

As I said before, it's crucial that you understand the problem domain as good, or better than your customers. I like to think of it as the Fog of War in strategy game maps. I can only effectively perform once I have explored enough territory to see the big picture. Here's roughly how I would try to wrap my head around such a challenge, if the company hired me to help:


Who are the customers? It's actually possible to think of the customers just in terms of their needs and desires. But it's useful to know their demographic attributes, so you can choose whether your solution is going to be a lateral or a niche one. For instance.. Trello is a lateral solution, because the kan-ban methodology can be applied to many different types of problems. On the other hand, It could be argued that 500px is a niche solution, because it caters to photographers more than meme authors. It's very easy for 500px to figure out where photographers hang out online and in the real world, should they choose to reach out to them in any way.

The job (Problems / Desires)

The customers usually have some sort of job to be done. That job is driven by their desire for a benefit, or a lingering problem that needs solving. Those benefits can range from monetary to peace of mind or social status. And problems can range in severity. Furthermore, different customer segments can rate some problems and benefits as more important than others. This is the combinatorial explosion of stakeholders and their points of view, that informs a strategy of a good product designer, and causes an uninformed designer to arrive at an optimal solution only through brute force or sheer luck.


Sometimes the solution has to be drawn up from scratch, optimized or entirely re-imagined. So what is the existing solution? What would an utopian solution look like? A complex problem might require a solution in the form of a toolkit of multiple core activities (Like Google, HubSpot or Moz). A focused solution though, can be embodied in a single product ( keeps your mac from going to sleep). If a solution is complex behind the curtains, but you make it simple and gratifying from the user's point of view, it may seem like magic to them.


The things that you do behind the curtains are some core activities, that might require some key resources. That's how the business makes sure it spends less than it earns on a customer (unit economics). It's easy to paint a picture where the world is split between sociopathic capitalists with a greedy agenda & empathic designers, who champion the user's priorities. But a similar solution with a sound business foundation will always be better for the customer, because it stands a better chance of outperforming the economically inferiour solution in the long run. It's the job of a designer to balance between the two aspects. So much so, that the Elements of User Experience places big emphasis on both Business Objectives & User Needs.


Once you love your people, and you have a way to show it to them, you'll have to start and maintain some sort of relationship. You can identify Touch Points or Channels. If, for instance, your customers are tourists looking for a place to grab a meal before boarding the next train, you can administer your solution right then and there, at the train station. But most of the time you'll be reaching out to your potential users somewhere between you and them, probably through a third party (online publication, app or ad network). It may take multiple exposures in different contexts, before somebody decides to give your solution a try. So a customer might bump into your message at certain touch points, open a communication channel like a newsletter or notification subscription, and only then decide to commit. There's often talk about a multiple stage funnel, through which we try to shove as much of our target market. But you can also look at customer lifetime stages as vertebrae in the cohort spine. For instance.. Slicing out customer segments by lifetime lets SoundCloud identify differences between a newcoming podcaster & a long-time podcaster, and communicate with each of them appropriately, even though most of the people that care about SoundCloud are producers and record labels. Staying on top of communication also helps you avoid conversion attribution mistakes, so you can communicate more effectively.

Here are some resources related to those subjects:

  • Value Proposition Design, Alexander Osterwalder: How to map the Customer, their Problems and Desires to a Solution.
  • The Innovator's Dillema, Clayton Christensen: Describes how disruptive innovators solve existing problems in novel ways.
  • Minto Pyramid Principle, Barbara Minto: How to communicate the value propositions to a rationally minded customer.

    A bit more business related:

  • Four Steps To The Epiphany, Steve Blank: A user-focused methodology for efficiently finding a viable business model, called Customer Development.
  • Business Model Generation, Alexander Osterwalder: His first book takes a broader look, dealing with booth the business and customer side of things.
  • Lean Startup, Eric Ries: What Steve Blank said.

    Once I have a good understanding, I would focus on Information Architecture, Experience Design, Production & Iteration. I can't spare the time to write about those now, but here are some related resources:

  • Elements of User Experience, Jesse James Garret: What a typical experience design process is made up of.
  • About Face, Alan Cooper: Another take on the whole process, dives a bit deeper into every stage than Garret's book.
  • Don't Make Me Think, Steve Krug: One of the first books to gave the issues of IA and UX design a human, customer point of view.

    I might write more about the specific subjects of IA and UX later, when I find the time. In the meanwhile, check any of the three books with italicized titles, if you haven't already.

    Peace o/
u/IAmHasSentMeToYou · 4 pointsr/exjw
u/bandofgypsies · 4 pointsr/worldnews

You're not wrong. The timeframes vary based on what societal dimension you're discussing at a given point, but many aspects of global society are significantly better today than in the recent and distant past. Education levels, equality, access to food, mortality rates, life expectancies, literacy, and so on.

I'd you're not familiar with it, I'd recommend the book Factfulness. Pretty good book on this topic of perspective vs reality.

(Edit - fixed link)

u/ugghitsyou · 4 pointsr/AskWomen
u/lungsoftheocean_ · 4 pointsr/videos

There is a fascinating book called "Sprint" that was written by two of the heads of Google Ventures that talks about this little robot and how they worked with this startup to come up with the cute "yaye" noise. It's a really cool read.

u/Tabarnouche · 4 pointsr/latterdaysaints

A great book on the topic of improvement in the world is Factfulness by Hans Rosling. He gave a several talks which inspired the book, which was his last contribution before passing away from cancer. The book is entertaining, thought-provoking, and optimistic. One of the main points he makes is that not acknowledging world progress is more than a mistake; it has real, negative repercussions--because when we don't acknowledge progress, we are in danger of stopping the actions that made the progress possible. He argues acknowledging the good is paramount if we are to eradicate the bad. I like that argument. It is a rationale reason to be optimistic.

If you get down about the state of the world, and I agree it is easy to do, read that book.

u/stillnobrakes · 3 pointsr/flying

Nah people said this about every technology sector ever.

BUT! OP, you'll have to talk with hundreds (read again, 100s) of potential pilot customers before you even start to have a clue about what might be useful. Read this:

u/ticktocktoe · 3 pointsr/bikecommuting

Getting a bit off topic here - but despite the many things that are wrong with the US, its still a pretty great place to live - far from a dystopia. Highly recommend the book Factfulness, which although is really about the world as a whole - it can certainly be scaled to ones views of the US.

u/Lars_lars_lars · 3 pointsr/news

You should read the book Factfullness.

You are overly pessimistic and you make an assumption that “Mother Nature is all about balance”. Where is there proof of this? There is no such thing as Mother Nature.

u/hey_look_its_shiny · 3 pointsr/userexperience

I'm not a UX designer, but I have a psych background and have dabbled in UX as a business owner/developer.

As others have mentioned, it can definitely be a good fit. A psych education will help you more intuitively understand the cognitive and emotional processes that users go through when interacting with a product, and it also gives you a leg up on the research side.

A UX designer that I worked with recommended reading up on Google's design methodology. Specifically, he recommended the book Sprint which outlines their framework in detail.

u/darksim905 · 3 pointsr/Locksmith

Well, thankfully I don't ask why as I can see the perspective pretty easily. I don't know why some ccw people get butthurt about the question, though: "Oh it's a tool! I carry it what's it to you?! Because of the neighborhod!" Someone in /r/edc once linked me to this video which explained it beautifully. I've since stopped asking. In addition I've read large chunks of this book which go into a lot about self defense (physical) which need to be taught in classes. I do my best to mentally prepare myself for any sort of conflict I might encounter. I'm an easy going guy & don't really deal with a lot of people to be honest, but it helps to understand the reality of the situations out there.

Going on a rant here: My other problem is everyone is against ccw for some reason. Those people don't know what it's like to walk down a street in fear of something. They don't realize that ccw people are usually the fucking nicest people you'll meet because of the things they learn through experience & that if you draw, you better be willing to use it mentality.

u/mevn · 3 pointsr/cscareerquestions
u/Ohthere530 · 3 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

Humans have two processing systems.

The one we like to think about is "careful thinking". You rationally and logically think through a problem. This is an amazing skill, but it is tiring and slow.

In addition, we have "instant thinking", which is also known as emotion. Scary: Run away! Disgusting: Don't eat that! Love: Make babies with him/her!

For certain types of decisions we can use "careful thinking", but most of our life runs on "instant thinking" because it is so much faster and easier.

(For more details see Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.)

u/rhythmtastic · 3 pointsr/nonmonogamy

The answer to the first question is yes. I/we are non-monogomous which means I have had many experiences with women other than my wife. Sometimes these experiences are with my wife in the room with us getting in on the fun. ;)

As to the second part of your statement about women being more irrational than men. I don't know how to put this any more plainly than to just say that you are stereotyping. What you said is the definition of stereotyping. I appreciate that you're trying to look out for me but you probably want to get over that idea if you want to be with women who are into non-monogamy. Human beings are irrational all the time regardless of gender. If you're noticing irrationality in women more than you are noticing it in men then it's likely a result of your lack of self awareness. Read up on irrationality and you'll see what I mean. We're meat computers driving a hairless ape-robot that evolved through a haphazard and inefficient process. None of us are capable of being truly rational. That said Juno is a pretty thoughtful person and it's clear to me what her motivations are.

here's a couple of great books on human irrationality to get you started if you're interested in wiping out your biased viewpoint:

Start with You are not so smart

Then move on to Thinking fast and slow

u/iplaymage · 3 pointsr/fiaustralia

Haven't read the above book, but along the same lines have a read of this:

Not just finance related, but life generally.

u/vim_all_day · 3 pointsr/SeattleWA

I'm about to finish up reading Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. I plan on reading Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions by Brian Christian.

However, I'm looking for an nice fictional book to read alongside it. Any suggestions?

u/Zephryl · 3 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Thinking, Fast and Slow, by cognitive psychologist and Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, is wonderful.

u/EternalArchon · 3 pointsr/nottheonion

If you think so, I'd suggest reading Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow or another text on cognitive biases. Because if you're building safe rooms in a classroom for an event that has E(X) value of essentially nil, you're beyond irrational. Its akin to people selling parachutes for highrises after 9-11.

u/lmward10 · 3 pointsr/WhitePeopleTwitter

Some of you need to read Factfulness by Hans Rosling. It is a great book talking about how this exact moment in human history is the safest, most transformative, most peaceful, time period we have ever had. The news profits off of negative articles by appealing to the natural fears that we all have inside of us. No one wants to watch a news segment about how child mortality has fallen from 18.2% in 1960 to 4.3% in 2015 because it’s a slow decline over decades of diligent work by governments and health organizations, and it simply does not get as many views as say a Hurricane. Instead the news organizations post murder stories, hate crimes, premeditated violence to ignite that biological fear and to get a reaction, despite violent violent crime rate falling 49% between 1993 and 2017

Tl/dr - the world is a lot better than the news shows. Take 5 minutes to do some research, and you will feel much more comfortable and optimistic about the world you live in.

u/Sands43 · 3 pointsr/politics

Humans are terrible as risk mitigation and (real) risk avoidance (I mean in the technically correct sense of the word).

One of my favorite business books is "The Logic of Failure"

u/Palmsiepoo · 3 pointsr/AskSocialScience

I think you're going to have to find a balance between accuracy and ease. most academic books are dense because 50 years of theoretical work went into understanding a very minute phenomenon. For example, there are books (Locke & Latham, 1990) written on just goal setting and how important it is to set a difficult goal. On the other hand, you have books written by folks like Malcolm Gladwell, while easy to read, are often incorrect because they omit many important nuances in academic literature.

Your best bet is to find books written by academics but made for laymen, two I recommend are:

You are not so smart

Thinking fast and slow

u/Dudge · 3 pointsr/audiobooks

While not strictly about Statistics Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman looks into the science of decision making and how people aren't good at statistical thinking. It's a fascinating book and does have some basic discussions on statistics.

u/MrLawliet · 3 pointsr/DebateReligion

>Otherwise how do you explain the selectivity of oxytocin production to different visual stimulus?

Because the signals passing through the visual cortex are what activate the oxytocin releases, no person controls the feelings they feel, they simply surface automatically through your automated identification system.

This is all from:

You don't decide when your oxytocin is released, the systems which schedule its release are automated processes that are part of System 1.

u/smekas · 3 pointsr/TrueReddit

This is my issue with Gladwell and Lehrer:

>In works of less than 500 pages, Gladwell and Lehrer attempt to enlighten the reader on How the World Works, What People are Really Like, and How Greatness Happens without getting into any of the technical details that would absolutely overwhelm the majority of the readers traipsing through airport book shop before grabbing their flight home.

They set out to achieve something that's nearly impossible and people are willing to suspend disbelief just because they don't want to expend the energy required to become truly informed on a given subject.

Also this:
>More than actionable insights, this kind of popular analysis gives the reader something far more immediately valuable – the feeling that they have a sophisticated view of the world.

I'm still reading the article, but I fell in love with the following sentence:
>America splits its valuable time between blowing an enormously obvious housing bubble, demanding Master’s degrees for entry-level positions, and badly managing the bloodbaths of Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is an excellent article. If I may suggest a couple of anti-dotes to the Gladwell/Lehrer pop-science oversimplification, two books with excellent science and research on how we think, decide and react to stress are Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow and Choke, by Sian Beilock.

u/Sentient545 · 3 pointsr/booksuggestions

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman is a great read.

Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence by David Keirsey is also a classic.

u/lastshot · 3 pointsr/wikipedia

Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow is like an orgy-fest of careful demonstrations of many of these effects. Good read.

u/hillsonghoods · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

From a psychological perspective, there are a whole set of systematic biases in how we think (e.g., those catalogued in Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow). And the existence of visual illusions and so forth (e.g., The Dress) tends to suggest that our perceptual faculties are designed for efficiency rather than accuracy - they wouldn't fool us if we saw the world entirely accurately. It's clearly accurate to say that our minds are not entirely reliable, and you don't need to be an evolutionist or a philosophical naturalist to believe this (there are traditions in Christianity that would argue R is low, too). Thus believing that the probability that R is low is not contingent on believing N&E.

However, there is a big stretch between saying that our minds are not reliable and saying that our scientific theories about evolution are not reliable. Plantinga here effectively paints scientific beliefs as being the same as any beliefs, yes? But there's reason to believe that scientific beliefs are more likely to be true than other beliefs.

Much of science tries to use quantitative measurement instruments (e.g., rulers) to reduce human bias, and technology (microscopes, for example) to go beyond human perceptual limits; similarly, scientists replicate studies in order to reduce the likelihood of the original findings being in error. The general aim of science is to increase the likelihood that our theories about the world are correct. And in general, observed experience suggests that science has utility in terms of our ability to base functional technology on scientific theories - a whole swathe of scientific principles underlie the ability for you to read this text on the computer screen you're looking at, for example. This suggests that while our current scientific beliefs might still be inaccurate, they're still more likely to be accurate than other beliefs.

And so if you are trying to argue about the probability of a scientific theory from a Bayesian perspective, as Plantinga is doing in the EAAN, you therefore need to take into account a markedly increased probability of scientific theories being correct compared to other beliefs.

If a Plantingan then asserts that P(R|N&E) is still very low, even with science's error correction processes, then someone who believes N&E could argue that P(R|AG) - where AG stands for the idea that the Abrahamic God created us - is even more improbable.

u/Kavec · 3 pointsr/worldnews

I read your comment. Then I look at the username of the comment above you. My head explodes.

Seriously though: you are 100% right in what you are saying, but I hope people is not thinking "yeah exactly people are dumb... they just need to be told off, they will wake up, and everything will be fixed". This is as efficient as "fixing" mass shootings by giving weapons to the teacher.

It is all about how the human brain rewards our actions, and how that influences how we act and think. We are designed to prioritize an easy chuckle (low effort, high reward) over a "computationally expensive" thought (source: Thinking Fast And Slow).

You want to convince someone? Be short, be precise, know how the human brain works and don't fight against it.

u/vendorsi · 3 pointsr/AskMarketing
  • Start with pretty much anything Seth Godin has written. Especially Purple Cow.

  • I'm a big fan of understanding cognitive issues, so Thinking Fast and Slow can help you understand how minds work.

  • to understand what CRM was really intended to be, read The One to One Future

  • Given your interest in digital check out these books on lean methodology: The Lean Startup and Ash Maurya's brilliant compliment, Running Lean

    In general, when it comes to things like SEO, SEM, etc you are better off sticking with blogs and content sites like SEOMoz, Marketing Sherpa, and Danny Sullivan/Search Engine World. By the time a book is written it's usually out of date in these fields.
u/Ojisan1 · 3 pointsr/RedPillWomen

>Our fighting hasn't stopped because I haven't stopped fighting for control.

>I don't trust my fiance. There, I said it. I want to. I'm working on it. But I don't, right now.

I am not sure that I believe this, actually. I think you do trust him. The issue is, I think, the difference between an unconscious response (what you've trained yourself to do your whole life) and your conscious response (what you desire your reaction to be).

The unconscious responses are created in a part of the brain that is more instinctual - some people call it the "lizard brain". This response, to fight your fiance, or to act in a way that is mistrustful, happens in milliseconds. It is not under conscious control, it is by force of habit.

The conscious response, which happens in the parts of the brain that evolved later, takes longer to happen. The key is you have to re-train yourself, and it takes time and effort. You only have milliseconds to intercept the unconscious mind's response (mistrust) and replace it with your conscious mind's desire (trust).

So the first step is to recognize the unconscious response, be more aware of it, and at least try to stop yourself from reacting that way outwardly, or realize when it's happening and stop as soon as you realize that's what you're doing (which is sort of what happened with the airport story - you realized it, but after a few minutes, not in milliseconds.) Then you replace the instinctual response with your desired conscious response - instead of not trusting him you act as though you do trust him.

After you do this enough, your instinctual, unconscious reaction will change, and trust will become your new default.

An excellent book on this subject, if you're interested, is "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Kahneman.

edit: typo

u/darthrevan · 3 pointsr/ABCDesis

As someone with a bit of formal background in psychology: if only it were as easy as you make it sound. Unfortunately research has shown that most people can't just "logic" their way out of deeply held associations, because many of those associations operate in a totally different system of the brain than the conscious, rational one.

I strongly recommend you read this book to better inform yourself about how our minds work before proposing how to "fix" them.

u/wildBlueWanderer · 3 pointsr/AskALiberal

Enforcing the law is a start. I'm not being flippant, that genuinely seems like a reasonable and broadly agreeable place to start. The CFPB alone has already returned $11 billion to consumers from fraudulent and illegal action by existing bad actors breaking existing laws.

Conversations with people we don't generally identify with (for whatever reason) is a good technique to reduce polarization.

Cognitive and critical thinking skills should probably be taught in schools, in my opinion. For example, we're all aware of what stereotypes are, but we aren't every really told how they work, why they exist, and in what ways internalizing them frequently fails us in daily life. They backfire when we misunderstand or misapply the statistics that even a valid stereotype represents.

This is an excellent book by a winner of the nobel prize for economics. It isn't at all about stereotypes or racism, but I see how a lot of the cognitive heuristics and biases he discovered and explored are key to how racism works (or, doesn't work).

u/AthertonWing · 3 pointsr/summonerschool

Never let another player dictate your play to you. If they're pinging for something, take a moment and think for yourself about whether or not it's a good play - Don't automatically go for it because they're pinging, but also don't automatically dismiss it because they're being annoying about it. Deep breath, make a call.

After the game, take time to re-watch that moment in the replay, and try to see it from their perspective - what are they losing for you not being there, and what are you gaining for being where you decided to go? Did you make the right call? If you think so after looking at it for a few minutes, don't worry about it. Tons of people make emotional pings because they don't know what to do and they feel trapped and pressured. But, you can't change the likelihood of the play to succeed just because one of your teammates wants it to work.

Making the right play - the one that you know you can make, the one that feels right - is going to net you a better result over time, because the frequency of people actually afking when you don't camp for them is actually quite low - negativity bias will have you having an easier time remembering the ones that do because it's such a stand-out moment, and availability heuristic will have you overestimating the frequency of them because you can remember them happening more recently, but if you actually collect some data about how often it happens, over a large sample size, like say a month or two, you'll see that it's not that big of a deal. (For more information on the biases mentioned, check out "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman)

In short, make your own decisions, but consider other people's opinions while making them. Don't sweat the small stuff, because focusing on your own play (which you have control over) is much more effective than focusing on external factors like teammates (which you can't). The difference between you and a pro-player isn't your teammates. Learn, grow, win, climb.

u/Redrot · 3 pointsr/math

Read How Not to be Wrong a bit ago and am currently reading Thinking Fast and Slow. Both lighter reads, Thinking Fast and Slow is a bit thicker, but both cover ways of using basic logic, quantitative reasoning, and probability.

Thinking Fast and Slow does an incredible job of explaining how the mind can work both for and against you without getting too technical, definitely recommend that. How Not to be Wrong is a bit lighter.

edit: lol both of the recommendations have already showed up in the thread

u/peterprograms · 3 pointsr/webdev

"Thinking fast and slow" by Daniel kahneman is a good book for metacognition and how to start thinking properly to solve problems.

Thinking, Fast and Slow

u/TychoCelchuuu · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

I think it's important to acquire the skills to evaluate various positions before worrying about what random yahoos on the Internet think about those positions. The impulse to run an opinion poll before you fully understand the issues you're polling people about is pretty much just an impulse to acquire a dataset that you can feed into the sorts of heuristics that (for instance) Kahneman has made a career out of evaluating, and as Kahneman has pointed out, some of these heuristics are not particularly good at getting the right answer. Rather than relying on these heuristics, I think it's better to make up one's own mind on the basis of careful consideration untainted by what others have to say, apart from what they have to say by way of giving you more information about what the various positions are committed to.

u/LeyonLecoq · 3 pointsr/samharris

>Why does it matter - in daily life that is - whether people are the way they are because of nature or nurture?

It informs how you should go about achieving your goals. If a property is intrinsic and cannot be changed then you need to construct your systems of behaviour around accommodating that property.

For example, hobbes' leviathan. We know that when left to our own devices, humans aren't very fair to each other. Not even necessarily because of maliciousness, but because of a bunch of intrinsic cognitive biases, that among other things predisposes everyone to perceiveing losses they experience as far worse than gains they (and others) receive, which means that any time two parties take from each other they will both perceive the other party as horribly injust and themselves as perfectly reasonable, leading to ever-increasing escalations of reciprocation that rarely lead anywhere good. But you can mitigate all that by taking the enforcement of justice out of the people directly involved's hands and giving it to an (ideally unbiased) third-party.

Of course this is a lot more complicated than my simple explanation here, but hopefully you get the point I was making. When we know what parts of human nature can't be changed (at least not yet, eh), we have a much better chance of building an environment that leads us to the results we want to have. The same goes for interacting with others in daily life. You are much better equipped to interacting with people when you really understand why they do the things they do (and why you do the things you do!) than when you're not.

Incidentally, if you want to read a good book about a lot of these intrinsic cognitive biases then I recommend Thinking, Fast and Slow. It summarizes a lot of often surprising intrinsic cognitive biases - and outright cognitive illusions - that our brains fall prey to, which we have to be aware of when we design our systems in order to get those systems to do what we want them to do.

u/Private_Mandella · 3 pointsr/exchristian

Thinking Fast and Slow. Starting reading it and I love it. Written by a Nobel Prize winner, he actually includes the papers in the back that much of the book is based on. He goes over the cognitive biases of humans. Definitely worth a look.

u/liatris · 3 pointsr/news

People are not rational as a general rule. They believe things that support their bias and disbelieve things that don't. Thinking, Fast and Slow is a good book on the topic of how irrational humans are.

u/SanityInAnarchy · 3 pointsr/answers

The way I think of it is, it has to do with any one event, versus taking a sequence of events as a whole... but I'm not sure that helps.

I'm going to use numbers, but I'm going to use the simplest possible numbers. If you can count to four, this should be fine. All probability problems are, at their heart, just counting problems.

Let's say you flip a coin. Let's say it's a "fair" coin, and the odds are always 50% that you get heads -- but even percentages are a bit much. Let's just say the odds of heads (or tails) is 1/2, because there's an equal probability of heads or tails, so you can just count them:

Heads is 1 outcome, out of 2 possible outcomes. So the probability you got heads is 1/2. That's the only equation I'm going to make you understand.

This doesn't change if you've flipped the coin before. Using H for Heads and T for Tails, here are all the possible outcomes:

  1. HH
  2. HT
  3. TH
  4. TT

    So if you flipped the coin once already, and it came up heads, then the probability that the first flip is heads is 1/1, because it already came up heads, and it's not possible that you'll go back in time and make it come up tails now. (The probability that it would come up heads is 1/2, but the probability that it already has come up heads is 1/1, because it can't now come up anything else.)

    So you have two possible outcomes -- HH and HT. So the probability that you'll get heads again (HH) is 1 outcome out of 2 possible -- 1/2 again. Doesn't matter how many times the coin has been flipped already, it's still 1/2. Those other two possibilities don't matter, because TH and TT didn't happen.

    But, if you're about to flip the coin twice, the probability that you'll get heads twice in a row is clearly 1/4. Since you haven't flipped it yet, the first coin flip could come up tails, so you could have any of those outcomes -- HH, HT, TH, or TT.

    I'm going to skip your question about cards, and instead address this:

    > I guess I'm just too simple.

    If you can do high school maths -- just multiplication and division, and maybe a tiny bit of algebra -- then you can work your way through all of this.

    It's not hard because of the math. It's hard because human brains are not wired to understand probability. (And it's not just you.)

    Just look up the Monty Hall problem. Plenty of people, including professional scientists, get tripped up by this one all the time, even though it doesn't involve any numbers larger than 3. Or look up regression to the mean. That's even worse -- I could explain it in detail, with the airplanes and everything, and you would think you understand. But then, without even realizing it, you'd fall for very similar, real-life examples.

    I've been reading through this book lately, and that's been the most depressing thing I've learned -- there are some things that we know to be true because we've worked out the statistics, but we also know that people just don't learn them, not really. Here's one depressing thought: If I showed you a video of a person who seems nice, who tells you a little about who they are and their hobbies and such, and then ask if they'd be likely to call 911 in an emergency, you'd probably say "yes". And whether or not you think they'd call 911 has absolutely no relationship to whether I teach you about the bystander effect first. (Or, in fact, whether or not those very people froze in an emergency.) Which means you probably don't, in your heart of hearts, believe that you'd freeze in an emergency and not even be able to dial 911, just because you were in a crowd of other people who could make that call -- even if you believe the Bystander Effect, you probably at least subconsciously believe it doesn't apply to you.

    So it's depressing enough that there's a Bystander Effect, but what's more depressing is that people have such a hard time actually understanding it and applying that understanding to the way they see the world, instead of just filing it away in the part of their brains reserved for "depressing statistical facts."

    So... you're not really more simple than the rest of us. People are stupid about statistics. And when I say that, I mean myself, too.
u/jdkj · 3 pointsr/boardgames

It's been long time since anybody asked me that. I love this kind of question!

Here are some key books that somehow represent how I think:

Something everybody should read (not about game theory, but about thinking and decision making):

u/confusedneuron · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

As far as the book recommendations go, it would be good if you could qualify what kind of books you're interested in (e.g. philosophy, psychology, history, science, etc.).

Books I recommend:

Psychology (or: On Human Nature)

The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime

Thinking, Fast and Slow (my personal favorite)

The Undiscovered Self

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature


Strategy: A History

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism


Economics in One Lesson

Basic Economics


Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

As always, the list of books to read is too long, so I'll stop here.

u/skafi · 3 pointsr/books

I second /u/mbocchini's recommendation. Thinking, Fast and Slow is a fantastic overview of the growing (both in size and influence) field of behavioral economics from one of the most prominent psychologists of the past half century. It's written in a very accessible manner with little technical discussion, although the footnotes will source you to the academic papers and articles should you decide to dig deeper.

u/TurboTex · 3 pointsr/IWantToLearn

I personally think the most important step is learning what prevents you from critically analyzing events, situations and people. In order to objectively analyze something, we must learn what biases to avoid. In learning these biases, you'll learn how to develop a framework for approaching new information in a manner that will mitigate our innate biases.

I'm inherently biased with this recommendation, as I only recently finished the book, but I really enjoyed Thinking Fast & Slow by Daniel Kahneman. It's all based on academic studies, but I thought that it was written at an accessible level.

u/null000 · 3 pointsr/urbanplanning

> Peoples lives are made best by being allowed to make their own decisions and decide what they want themselves

Holy shit no they aren't. Example: If the "donate my organs on death" checkbox is an opt-out affair, most people will opt out. If it's an opt-in affair, many many more people will opt-in. In this case, a relatively minor barrier to "making their own decisions" results in a huge quality of life improvement for anyone on a wait list for organs.

Read this for citation

For other examples of where the government desperately needs to intervene in markets, see forced arbitration clauses between companies and citizens, non-compete clauses in fast food workers' employment agreements, the fiduciary rule for financial advisers, the hole in the ozone, literally every false advertisement law, multi-level marketing schemes, copyright/trademark/patent law (although maybe not as much as is currently exhibited in the US), Dumping laws (e.g. don't throw sofas on the side of the highway), public intoxication laws, anti-trespassing laws, (the lack of) vaccination laws, literally all of public education, FDA drug safety regulations, global warming (and, honestly, most environmental causes), and the list goes on.

I'd argue that the government should be in charge of making sure that consumer expectations actually reflect reality and normally externalized costs are felt by the individual[s] inflicting them, as well as ensuring that life is mostly pleasant for most people and at least tolerable for the lowest rungs of society. People expect that traffic won't be shit, but suburbia inflicts traffic on city centers, thus increasing commute times and lowering standard of living for those who live furthest from city centers, so maybe suburbia should be discouraged.

> Are you actually comparing workplace safety regulations to you deciding that no one actually really likes suburbia and thus you should run their lives.


  1. Not being able to live in suburbia does not ruin lives. That's just silly. You're not entitled as a human to being able to live in a 1 acre lot with a 4bed, 3 bath home and a 10 minute drive to the nearest grocery store. Be realistic - disincentivizing a decision != running your life, especially in a democratic society.

  2. Sure, there's a difference of scale, but it's still the same basic idea. The employee is "choosing" to be employed by the corporation that may end their life early, usually due to lack of other realistic employment opportunities (e.g. coal-based company town in this situation) or a lack of education limiting employment opportunities. The government manipulates the decisions available to the worker and the company to make the world a better place. If you don't agree with me, where's the line? Social security? Workplace safety? Minimum wage? Anti-discrimination laws? I acknowledge that there is a line, but saying that people should be disbarred from public office for putting that line somewhere you disagree with is pretty extreme.

    If you don't want to have such arguments levied against you, don't make such absolutist statements like "If you think that the government should be setting the objective of reducing suburbia you should not be involved in government"
u/rebelrob0t · 3 pointsr/REDDITORSINRECOVERY

I went to one AA meeting when I first got clean and never went back. I understand people have found support and success in it but to me, personally, I felt it only increased the stigma of drug addicts as these broken hopeless people barely hanging on by a thread. It's an outdated system that relies on little science or attempting to progress the participants and relies more on holding people in place and focusing on the past. Instead I just worked towards becoming a normal person. Here are some of the resources I used:

r/Fitness - Getting Started: Exercise is probably the #1 thing that will aid you in recovering. It can help your brain learn to produce normal quantities of dopamine again as well as improve your heath, mood, well being and confidence.

Meetup: You can use this site to find people in your area with similar interests. I found a hiking group and a D&D group on here which I still regularly join.

Craigslist: Same as above - look for groups, activities, volunteer work, whatever.


This will be the other major player in your recovery. Understanding your diet will allow you to improve your health,mood, energy, and help recover whatever damage the drugs may have done to your body.

How Not To Die Cookbook

Life Changing Foods

The Plant Paradox

Power Foods For The Brain

Mental Health

Understand whats going on inside your head and how to deal with it is also an important step to not only recovery but enjoying life as a whole.

Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy

The Emotional Life Of Your Brain

Furiously Happy

The Science of Enlightenment: How Meditation Works


If you are like me you probably felt like a dumbass when you first got clean. I think retraining your brain on learning, relearning things you may have forgot after long term drug use, and just learning new things in general will all help you in recovery. Knowledge is power and the more you learn the more confident in yourself and future learning tasks you become.

Illegal Drugs: A Complete Guide to their History, Chemistry, Use, and Abuse

Why Nations Fails

Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud

The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 20th Century

Thinking, Fast and Slow

The Financial Peace Planner: A Step-by-Step Guide to Restoring Your Family's Financial Health

Continued Education / Skills Development

EdX: Take tons of free college courses.

Udemy: Tons of onine courses ranging from writing to marketing to design, all kinds of stuff.

Cybrary: Teach yourself everything from IT to Network Security skills

Khan Academy: Refresh on pretty much anything from highschool/early college.

There are many more resources available these are just ones I myself have used over the past couple years of fixing my life. Remember you don't have to let your past be a monkey on your back throughout the future. There are plenty of resources available now-a-days to take matters into your own hands.

*Disclaimer: I am not here to argue about anyone's personal feelings on AA**

u/Caplooey · 3 pointsr/ADHD

for learning/cognitive related i recommend checking out:
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman,

Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise by Anders Ericsson

and the various Cal Newport books (he also has a blog),

Thomas Frank from College Info Geek is also cool.

i personally prefer actionable coaching over talk therapy as it helps me get shit done rather than sit around and introspect which i already do enough of.

there is a /r/Stoicism

The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of Decluttering and Organizing by Marie Kondo, check it out

Brene Brown for self compassion, talks on Youtube, you could check out.

The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life by Mark Manson is another good one.

u/doedskalle · 3 pointsr/coolguides

For anyone who is interested in learning more about this, I recommend the book Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman, who won the Swedish national banks prize in economics in memory of Alfred Nobel.

u/TheMaskBeckons · 3 pointsr/BehavioralEconomics

If you're just starting to dive into it, I think it'd be best to read a book that walks you through the main themes and concepts, or listen to podcasts such as EconTalk (you'd have to look for the interviews of behavioral economists). I think it's always good to have an introduction before going into the weeds. I agree with SbShula, Thinking Fast & Slow and Misbehaving are great for starting off.

In any case, here are some of the key papers. I used's "Introduction to Behavioral Economics" as an outline, and found links to the main papers (and books) that are freely available so you can download them. Of course, I recommend reading the website before starting to read the hundreds (thousands?) of pages in papers.

Prospect Theory

Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk - Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky

Bounded Rationality

A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice - Herbert A. Simon (On the bounds of rationality)

Maps of Bounded Rationality - Daniel Kahneman

Mental Accounting Matters - Richard H. Thaler

Nudge - Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (Technically not a paper, but papers tend to focus on specific examples intead of the general idea that people's decisions are affected by "nudges")

Dual System Theory

Thinking, Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman (Again, not a paper, but sums up a body of research in the same vein)

Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases - Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman

The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits - Finucane, Alhakami, Slovic, and Johnson

The Psychology of Preference - Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman

Status Quo Bias in Decision Making - William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser

Temporal Dimensions

Diversification bias: Explaining the discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separated choices - Daniel Read and George Loewenstein

Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision-making - George Loewenstein

Exploring the causes of comparative optimism - James A. Shepperd, Patrick Carroll, Jodi Grace and Meredith Terry

Social Dimensions

Dishonesty in Everyday Life and Its Policy Implications - Nina Mazar and Dan Ariely

A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation - Ernst Fehr And Klaus Schmidt

Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity - Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter

MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy - Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, and Vlaev

Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. - James March

Thanks for the opportunity to look into all this. I just added a bunch of these to my bucket list.

u/MVNTE · 3 pointsr/INTP

If you're interested in this subject, I cannot recommend reading "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Israeli psychologist Daniel Kahneman enough. It is a very informative yet not overly technical summary of his over 30-year-long research on cognitive biases and the mechanisms of our decision-making processes.

u/Dawn_Coyote · 3 pointsr/bestofthefray

The Stuff of Thought is the first and only book I've read of his, and I thought it was terrible. Really grindingly awful. It goes over old ground, told me nothing I didn't already know, and did it in the meandering, banal style of someone used to having people genuflect at his every proclamation.

I want to read Better Angels, but I'm having a hard time getting past Stuff. I did enjoy his AMA, though.

I just added this to my kindle library. It looks promising.

Edit: The lack of editorial reviews for Stuff (can we count Saletan?) should have made me hesitate before buying, but the subject interests me so much that I let my enthusiasm get ahead of my usual vetting process.

u/Major_Major_Major · 3 pointsr/HPMOR

Amazon Link

I bought this a few months ago, and I recommend it.

u/malthrin · 3 pointsr/spikes

If you enjoy these sorts of things, check out this book. Kahneman is the father of behavioral economics, which is basically the study of how our brains cleverly avoid doing any actual work.

u/freireib · 3 pointsr/math

Disclaimer: I'm an engineer, not a mathematician, so take my advice with a grain of salt.

Early in my grad degree I wanted to master probability and improve my understanding of statistics. The books I used, and loved, are

DeGroot, Probability and Statistics

Rozanov, Probability Theory: A Concise Course

The first is organized very well, with ever increasing difficulty and a good number of solved problems. I also appreciate that as things start to get complicated, he also always bridges everything back to earlier concepts. The books also basically does everything Bayesian and Frequentist side by side, so you get a really good idea of the comparison and arbitraryness.

The second is a good cheap short book basically full of examples. It has just enough math flavor to be mathier, without proofing me to death.

Also, if you're really just jumping into the subject, I would recommend some pop culture math books too, e.g.,

Paulos, Innumeracy

Mlodinow, The Drunkards Walk

Have fun!

u/qualmick · 3 pointsr/TryingForABaby

Oof, no. Not really. I stuck around TFAB for a reason - out there is colder, and even stranger. Some FAM people are very concerned about period consistency. Babycenter is ancient and overly optimistic. "Taking Charge of Your Fertility" is the lengthier, rantier, guide to learning all the fertility awareness method basics, but the fertility friend charting course is free, convenient, and teaches you all you really need to know.

I did eventually get lucky and am now a parent myself, but there is a veritable cacophony of advice for new parents and most of it is stressful garbage or smug asshattery. Everybody is still trying to sell you stuff, whether it is predatory sleep consultants or organic premade baby food delivery. Shoot me.

The humor on the ugly volvo resonates with me, particularly this one. I also occasionally link people who are on the fence about kids to this gem.

McSweeney's has some great breastfeeding... tips? Advice? Unsure.

Emily Oster is everybody's favourite economist because of "Expecting Better", and she recently published a book on baby stuff.

I've been looking for the mom version of this column, but from what I can tell it does not exist. Haha.

It's also not rocket science. If you are looking after yourself, and doing your best to be the best person you can be... that is really huge. Yes, it's good modelling for children down the line, but looking out for yourself through medical problems (as you probably know) is really tough! Cultivating patience, kindness, gratitude - these things deserve their own mention, since they do generally improve quality of life.

If you find anything you really like, let me know! I'm curious. :)

u/molotovmimi · 3 pointsr/Fencesitter

They're two different books of hers that she talked about in a podcast I love.

Cribsheet is about raising a healthy human puppy and Expecting Better is about the actual pregnancy itself and all the conventional wisdom that doesn't seem to be backed up by any hard data.

u/tunabuttons · 3 pointsr/BabyBumps

Another vote for both of the Emily Oster books, and the best practical book I've read is Heading Home with Your Newborn. Also this one's not a pregnancy book but I would strongly recommend How to Talk so Little Kids Will Listen if you're at all scared of the toddler through kinder stage. It's an entertaining read that aligns well with developmental psychology and has all these really funny real life examples of using the strategies from the book.

If I had to only pick a handful, I'd pick those.

I also liked the Ina May book which people will recommend a lot, but keep in mind it really is exclusively about childbirth and it's a bit crunchier than the average (though this pertains to the birth stories included more than Ina May's actual writing IMO). There's a good interview with her on the Longest Shortest Time podcast that addresses some of the things I felt the book could have benefited from stating outright to avoid sounding a little preachy at times.

If you're looking for like a detailed read that starts with absolute basics that would be especially good for anyone who hasn't researched much on pregnancy before, I would recommend Pregnancy, Childbirth, and the Newborn: The Complete Guide. It's as thick as a textbook but it doesn't read like one. They have a page in most sections directly speaking to partners as well, which is neat.

u/rbathplatinum · 3 pointsr/InteriorDesign

Definitely look into bussiness management books as well. if you are going down this road, there is a chance you will want to start doing it on your own and having proper business skills will help tremendously in securing work, and balancing costs, and making money doing it! I am sure some people on this sub can recommend some great books on this topic as well.

Here are a couple books,

u/windchaser89 · 3 pointsr/startups

Hello, I'm an entrepreneur too and I code things for myself and for friends' projects. There is no "good rule of thumb", it depends on how willing are you to accept that the more you share about the idea, the better the feedback you get. Better feedback = faster iteration from a crap idea to one that works. I advice you to read this book called the startup owner's manual. It has helped me understand this idea better -

Regarding the developer... A potential hire can't understand what you want to build, and won't bother dropping everything he is doing (most likely exciting projects too) to help you if you can't share the intimate details of how you are going to change the world. Just go ahead and tell him what you are trying to do and how he can help. Show him why you two can make good money together.

u/probably_apocryphal · 2 pointsr/premed

There are a lot of pop psychology books that cover at least the social psychological parts of what I learned:

The Person and Situation by Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

What Makes Love Last by John Gottman

Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein

(Caveat: I've only read Thinking, Fast and Slow and Nudge, but the others are from well-respected authors/leaders in their fields.)

u/SomeGuy58439 · 2 pointsr/FeMRADebates

> I think I've come to the realization that there's a severe disconnect within me between my emotional self ... and my intellectual self

Welcome to dual process theory - I'd totally recommend reading Thinking, Fast and Slow.

> And then the doubt starts. What if I'm wrong? What if I'm basically full of shit and I'm hurting a whole lot of people with my views? But if I change them, what if I'm THEN wrong?

Been there; done that. I'd say that I've just gotten reasonably comfortable with the idea that I'm probably often wrong, but then again I'd probably be lying to myself.

> And then put on top of that the feeling that maybe I should just go with the tribe so I don't even have to worry about this sort of thing.

I personally found reading The Righteous Mind pretty therapeutic - helpful in reducing your hostility to those in other groups as well as I think helping be less self-critical of the idea that you might later opt to switch groups.

u/flabcannon · 2 pointsr/ForeverAlone

Have you tried reading non-fiction books? They usually stay pretty focused on the title topic. That's what I do, anyway.

Here's one if you need a recommendation -

u/TYIP · 2 pointsr/CadenMoranDairy

15 and College? What country? Do you have a note from your mom?

Read this book and learn how your mind operates.

Thinking, Fast and Slow

u/Rmanolescu · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

A good book on the matter The same is true if you ommit letters or words. A lot of road signs actually this to allow you to read at fast speeds.

u/heethin · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

\> I'm open to suggestion about how to "demonstrate" to your satisfaction that I'm acting rationally,

I hardly have an idea what you claim. How could I know what would demonstrate proof of it?

\> Given the available evidence, I've concluded that Christianity best fits what we know about the world.

Ok, what evidence?

\> the most persuasive part is the ethical system laid out in the Gospels, which best expresses a super-human morality.

This expresses why you like it, not why it's Right.

\> I have some personal experience of God as well, and a strong sense of the numinous in general

More detail on that would be helpful.

\> when I first started having these discussions online it was hard to believe that not everyone has that same feeling.

There's a good chance that with training in meditation, most people can. Certainly, what little you've offered so far is similar to the description offered across many religions around the world... and that gets us back to the question of how you know that yours is the Right one.

\> I won't ask you to demonstrate that you come by your conclusions rationally, because I assume that anyone going onto a debate subreddit has done their homework until proven otherwise.

Which of my conclusions? Evidence suggests that people don't come to their conclusions rationally. See Daniel Kahneman's work.

u/HappyAssassin · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

The mind loves cognitive ease. Thinking requires energy from the body -- your heart rate increases, pupils dilate, etc.

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman covers this in depth in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow

u/DancingEngie · 2 pointsr/books

Thinking Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman



A beautiful, sightful summery of Kahneman's research about the way we think, which led to him and his partner, Amos, to win a Nobel Prize in economics in 2002.


u/garblz · 2 pointsr/IWantToLearn

Very Special Relativity a simple explanation of a complex phenomena

Thinking, Fast and Slow explains why we actually do live in a Matrix, and how, focusing on statistics instead what your guts tell you, to be able to break the veil of lies sometimes.

Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid how music is connected with art and mathematics? Exploration of symmetries, where none are expected to be found.

Watch everything Richard P. Feynman related on YouTube, start with interviews and the rest will probably follow.

I seriously think you should start with science. Getting a glimpse of how world works at the quantum levels can surprisingly enlighten someone on topics one thought were philosophical. E.g. recent Reddit post asked whether true randomness exists, and the answer to read almost pointless kilograms of philosophy made me cringe. Quantum physics has tonnes more to say, and it's actually verifiable by experiment. So I guess my advice is, before going the way of philosophical banter about the existence of coffee shop around the corner, you can just walk the few steps and take a look yourself. Hence, science as a first suggestion.

u/therealdrag0 · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

"Thinking: Fast and Slow". It's not about religion at all. But when you see how full of pitfalls (cognitive biases) human thought is, you will, be more inclined to seek more robust metrics to what you determine as "truth".

u/BronaldMcDonald · 2 pointsr/gaybros

Just started reading "Thinking Fast and Slow" - Kahneman - My brain is beginning to realize exactly how much of a mind-f*** this is about to be. :) No I'm not reading this because it's a Winner of anything or on any list, but because I love these kind of sociological trips, or books that just speak to you on the shelf about "the human condition" , otherwise I won't read it.

u/inawordno · 2 pointsr/ukpolitics

100% the starting point should be Kahneman's book. Here. Thinking Fast and Slow. Amazingly insightful guy.

u/frobnic8 · 2 pointsr/SRSGaming

I have good news. They aren't. Well, that implies there are worse people which isn't awesome but that's not the real point, wait here...let me try again:

I've been reading Thinking Fast and Slow which talks about a theory of how our brains are structured in terms of their thinking processes.

In particular, it focuses on how that affects the way we decided how probably things are.

The good news is that while it works pretty darn well, this is probably partly a spot where (among other stuff) it's more a question of what's easy to recall or What You See Is All There Is and other ideas it presents.

Basically, because it's EASY to remember gamers being assholes we sort of automatically default to thinking it's also really common. This works pretty well, except when you get things like global news and unpleasant things being more memorable.

So it's probably SOMEWHAT that we just more easily remember all the jerks than the no-impact-non-jerks and then we default to seeing them everywhere. (Like when you get a new car and then see that model EVERYWHERE a bit.)

C. G. P. Gray has a nice bit on how pissy things spread faster, as well, which makes it worse.

TL;DR: I don't understand rhetorical or purely emotive questions which weren't expecting an actual response.

Also, I don't know but they really are and I'm sick of all the assholes, too. It wears me out. :/

u/baleenonme · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

If you think that's interesting, you might like The Drunkard's Walk.

u/mariox19 · 2 pointsr/science

You're absolutely right that Reginault is wrong. I first came across this probability brain teaser in The Drunkard's Walk. I could not wrap my head around it after reading it, and so finally I wrote a little program in Python to brute force its way through 10,000 iterations of this game and report the results of sticking with one's gut and then always switching. I ran it over and over, because the results initially shocked me -- even though the book had tried to convince me of what I saw on my computer's screen.

You should always switch. For some reason, after I saw it with my own two eyes, I began to be able to reason through the problem and grasp it intellectually. (That's probably an issue for another book!)

The same way everyone above a certain age takes for granted that we experience optical illusions, we have to realize that we also experience things that could perhaps be called cognitive illusions. Our brains are built a certain way, and we have to work very hard in some cases to go against our brain's gut.

u/syslinkdown · 2 pointsr/books

Leonard Mlodinow's The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives is all about probability, chance, and our flawed human perceptions of them. It also touches on causality and how we pick out patterns in the world around us that may or may not be there. It's very well-written and entertaining and has bits of the history of probability mixed in.

u/DashingLeech · 2 pointsr/technology

See, this to me is the wrong way to think about business.

RIM was leader in enterprise systems until late last year and is still second. They have huge market share. They also hold niche markets like secure smart phones and tablets. From a business perspective, they are in an enviable position.

The problem isn't with their position; it is with their trend. If they had been on an upward trend to the position they are currently in, everyone would be screaming about how great they are. In business it is position that matters more than trend. A trend can change, and effort can be put in to change the trend if you understand it. Many companies have done this. Apple is a prime example of a failed company that turned it around and became a market leader. Twelve years ago everyone thought of Apple the way people think of RIM today.

RIM is in a good position right now, and if they make the right moves they can reverse that trend. iPhones/iPads are fine, but they aren't perfect. They became fashionable and trendy and possibly overhyped. Steve Jobs was part of that trendiness. With him gone, and iPhone losing its "newness", it seems to me the time is ripe to move to change those trends.

I don't know what the right moves are. The question is whether RIM can figure it out, or gamble correctly, to change those trends. They definitely have the makings for it with top notch hardware and OS software, key differentiators and niches, and potential (such as Android apps working on PlayBook and soon phones).

The over-reliance of investors (and "trendy" consumers) on trends is fairly well documented. (My favorite book on the subject right now is The Drunkards Walk, though a A Random Walk Down Wall Street is probably the better known classic.) It's what causes bubbles on the upswing, and undervalued stocks on the downswing. It's also why investors who ignore those trends and invest via risk management principles tend to do much better than trend followers.

I'm keeping an eye on RIM to see what they do. I certainly won't write them off yet.

u/McCourt · 2 pointsr/DnD

"The Drunkards Walk: how randomness rules our lives" by Leonard Mlodinow : ... Stephen Hawking calls the book "a wonderfully readable guide to how the laws of randomness affect our lives."

Are you going to argue AGAINST Stephen Hawking? Me neither...

From the Amazon review:

"In this irreverent and illuminating book, acclaimed writer and scientist Leonard Mlodinow shows us how randomness, change, and probability reveal a tremendous amount about our daily lives, and how we misunderstand the significance of everything from a casual conversation to a major financial setback. As a result, successes and failures in life are often attributed to clear and obvious cases, when in actuality they are more profoundly influenced by chance.

The rise and fall of your favorite movie star of the most reviled CEO--in fact, of all our destinies--reflects as much as planning and innate abilities. Even the legendary Roger Maris, who beat Babe Ruth's single-season home run record, was in all likelihood not great but just lucky. And it might be shocking to realize that you are twice as likely to be killed in a car accident on your way to buying a lottery ticket than you are to win the lottery.

How could it have happened that a wine was given five out of five stars, the highest rating, in one journal and in another it was called the worst wine of the decade? Mlodinow vividly demonstrates how wine ratings, school grades, political polls, and many other things in daily life are less reliable than we believe. By showing us the true nature of change and revealing the psychological illusions that cause us to misjudge the world around us, Mlodinow gives fresh insight into what is really meaningful and how we can make decisions based on a deeper truth. From the classroom to the courtroom, from financial markets to supermarkets, from the doctor's office to the Oval Office, Mlodinow's insights will intrigue, awe, and inspire.

Offering readers not only a tour of randomness, chance, and probability but also a new way of looking at the world, this original, unexpected journey reminds us that much in our lives is about as predictable as the steps of a stumbling man fresh from a night at the bar."

u/Kandoore · 2 pointsr/math

This is good, with respect to learning tips and tricks for competitions, I think you're best off getting a book.

Is good

u/ArthurAutomaton · 2 pointsr/math

It's a good question that's hard to answer exhaustively. Here are some pointers. Maybe they can help to start a discussion.

  1. Paul Zeitz writes the following advice in The Art and Craft of Problem Solving (emphasis added):

    > It isn't hard to acquire a modest amount of mental toughness. As a beginner, you most likely lack some confidence and powers of concentration, but you can increase both simultaneously. You may think that building up confidence is a difficult and subtle thing, but we are not talking here about self-esteem or sexuality or anything very deep in your psyche. Math problems are easier to deal with. You are already pretty confident about your math ability or you would not be reading this. You build upon your preexisting confidence by working at first on "easy" problems, where "easy" means that you can solve it after expending a modest effort. As long as you work on problems rather than exercises, your brain gets a workout, and your subconscious gets used to success. Your confidence automatically rises.

  2. A useful term to know is self-efficacy, which means "one's belief in one's ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task". The Wikipedia article mentions four factors affecting self-efficacy, which are worth looking at. "The experience of mastery is the most important factor determining a person's self-efficacy. Success raises self-efficacy, while failure lowers it." This is consistent with Zeitz' advice to start with easy problems and then gradually increase the level of difficulty.

  3. Another factor affecting self-efficacy is "vicarious experience". This is "most effectual when we see ourselves as similar to the model", but I still think it helps to know that many eminent mathematicians have experienced feelings of self-doubt at some points in their careers. Here are some quotes that illustrate this; they're from Advice to a Young Mathematician, which is well worth reading.

    > One struggles unsuccessfully with small problems and one has serious doubts about one's ability to prove anything interesting. I went through such a period in my second year of research, and Jean-Pierre Serre, perhaps the outstanding mathematician of my generation, told me that he too had contemplated giving up at one stage. Only the mediocre are supremely confident of their ability. The better you are, the higher the standards you set yourself — you can see beyond your immediate reach. — Michael Atiyah

    > When I arrived in Moscow in my last year of graduate study, Gel’fand gave me a paper to read on the cohomology of the Lie algebra of vector fields on a manifold, and I did not know what cohomology was, what a manifold was, what a vector field was, or what a Lie algebra was. — Dusa McDuff

  4. Finally, in my opinion there's nothing wrong with getting nervous in office hours and fumbling with easy questions. I've done this myself several times. It's just the nerves talking. As one gets more comfortable and relaxed with the situation (the fourth factor affecting self-efficacy), one gets better at keeping calm and tackling the questions one piece at a time.
u/lewisje · 2 pointsr/learnmath

This passage appears to come from page 72, problem section 3.1, of The Art and Craft of Problem Solving by Paul Zeitz, which does not claim to be a rigorous book; most descriptions of elementary symmetric polynomials do specify that the terms are products of distinct factors, while this book just lists the three-variable and four-variable elementary symmetric polynomials and then describes some of their characteristics.

u/sillygillygumbull · 2 pointsr/ShitMomGroupsSay

Of course!!!! That’s how it is with most of the data on what to do/not do during pregnancy. I recommend Crib Sheet by Emily Oster

u/Chocobean · 2 pointsr/Parenting

>I'd love to hear your thoughts and experiences on prepping elementary kids for intelligence tests

Do you have friends that speak Chinese? Get them to bring you every kind of "exercise booklets" in English. They are usually very very widely available and very cheap.

I wouldn't bother with the expensive stuff. Get past exams, sample questions for whatever school he/she is testing for. Befriend parents with kids already there. Study, drill, do it until it's second nature and there is no nervousness with the problems. Keep bugging the school staff for the kinds of tests they use, obtain tests, and drill.

Intelligence is a skill that's learned; repetition, drilling, perfect practice and prep will get your kid in any school.

source: raised though the gifted programs and cut-throat Asian education system. You didn't ask for my thoughts, but I'll give it to you anyway: don't.

u/Wolander · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

I agree with you 100%, because soft skills or "non-cognitive skills" are often more indicative of future success rather than intelligence. See Walter Mischel's research. He is most famous for the Marsmellow Test:

Also, I highly recommend:

I am glad your wife could help you despite your upbringing.

u/ponie · 2 pointsr/52book

Reading How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character. I am finding the arguments convincing and the writing enjoyable so far.

u/BlueLightSpcl · 2 pointsr/education

Her work is featured in the book How Children Succeed. I highly recommend it.

u/comeUndon · 2 pointsr/tableau
u/elbekay · 2 pointsr/tableau

I personally like Learning Tableau as a great primer and refresher on understanding how Tableau works: -- follow along with the book where you can.

If you haven't already walk through the videos here: -- and by walk-through I mean use Tableau and follow along.

Visualisation in general I need to do more reading but I like:
Stephen Few : Show me the Numbers
Accidental Analyst:

There's a few more books recommended here:

edit: and for blogs I currently like

u/herkyjerkybill · 2 pointsr/DataVizRequests

there are a few really great resources that were mentioned already.

I found Tufte books a little bit abstract and more geared toward data visualization philosophy and not as practical as some of the other resources out there in terms of creating interactive, business-focused data visualizations. While I really like them, it may not be the first ones you grab.

I highly recommend books and blogs by these people---all but Stephen Few are active on Twitter (bolding the highest 3 recommendations):

Stephen Few:

u/marcus___aurelius · 2 pointsr/excel

Excel is a program/tool that should service our sense of design and aesthetics; that is, we shouldn't constrict ourselves to it. Here are my recommendations on learning how to better graph information:

u/barraymian · 2 pointsr/pakistan

I wish you best of luck with the endeavour. A few suggestions

  • Please quality control your product
  • If it's cheap material and going to go bad after two washes than your business is not going anywhere. I can already buy extremely cheap shirts online
  • Figure out what differentiates you from your competitors
  • Take a look at These guys (founders are a guy and girl) are doing an excellent job of product messaging and marketing, market differentiation, quality control and customer service. They way I found out about them was thru a blog talking about how they are trying to be a sustainable and a humane business who looks after their workers. They did a crowd funding for raising funds and message that worked for me personally was their desire (genuine or not) to pay their workers well and to support them.
  • check out a book called ["The startup owner's manual"](The Startup Owner's Manual: The Step-By-Step Guide for Building a Great Company
  • See if you can incorporate US pricing on the website of you hope to sell overseas and you should be planning to see oversees.

    Starting your own thing is hard but is well worth the effort. Again, wish you best of luck!
u/codepreneur · 2 pointsr/startups

I'd recommend you spend a small portion of that $40k on:

Then get creative and figure out how to validate your idea without writing a single line of code (validation = get customers willing to sign up and/or pre-purchase).

My favorite example of getting 70k users without building a thing:

If you could generate that kind of buzz without a line of code written, you could get the investment required to build your MVP.

Feel free to PM me, btw. I love the SaaS space and I have 17 years software development experience.

u/akassover · 2 pointsr/startups
u/organizedfellow · 2 pointsr/Entrepreneur

Here are all the books with amazon links, Alphabetical order :)


u/gresquare · 2 pointsr/startups
u/craig5005 · 2 pointsr/startups

Read this book. Four Steps to the Epiphany. It focuses on customer development and making sure you build what customers want.

u/bubblecowgary · 2 pointsr/Entrepreneur

Forget the LeanStartUp stuff to begin with, this book is the perfect blueprint for creating and/or growing a business. I've used the ideas in the book to build my business. (

u/texansfan · 2 pointsr/pics

There’s a great book about this if anyone is interested in also hearing about how much better life is for most of the world. Factfulness

The truth is, so much of what we see in the news, on social, etc. is geared towards fear because it’s such a powerful emotion. Nothing is perfect, nor will it ever be, but if you look at the problems we have today vs those of even 50 years ago, it’s amazing how far we have come

There is still more to be done, don’t get me wrong. But feeling hopeless is a great way to demotivate yourself and a simple way for those in power to stay there, especially while fucking over “their” people.

u/Booty_Poppin · 2 pointsr/AskWomen

You should read the book Factfulness.

Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think

Bill Gates bought it for all graduating college seniors in the US. It's basically about how we have antiquated views of the world, and things are generally much better than we think. In other words, it's worth it to make the world a better place because it's actually helping.

u/259tim · 2 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

This stuff is not easy, I'm not expecting to change your way of thinking with this one comment.
But maybe it could help you with exploring a different angle and realising that not all things are bad and that there's also a lot of good in the world.

I'd say:

Yes there is a lot of dumb and awful things in the world, but it is easier to focus on the bad than the good, there's also many amazing advancements humans are making every day by working at it diligently:

Worldwide poverty is lower than it has ever been in history and keeps dropping.

People are finding cures for awful diseases all the time.

Nations are becoming more and more developed, child deaths and births are dropping, there's no endless growth happening, it's all dropping off to a stable level.

Companies have always done shady shit, but we are getting better at calling them out and improving people's lives.

More people have the right to live happily, to marry who they love.

There's no widespread slavery anymore, there's not even a real war between nation states, just some terrorist dudes in a desert somewhere, and yes that is in the news all the time but compared to even the balkan wars in the 90s there's nowhere near as much suffering in today's world.

For every "bought" artist there's lots of people and groups making their own music and having success with it, it's easy to look at most listened to lists on youtube or spotify and dismiss all of those artists but take a look at smaller artists, browse bandcamp or something to find people that do what they love and support them with it.

There's a great book that puts a lot of these fallacies of thinking the world is getting worse to the test but I forgot the name of it, you'll have to take my word until I can find it again.

Edit: found it, check it out for another perspective on things if you wish:


u/rangeDSP · 2 pointsr/TooAfraidToAsk

Extreme poverty is actually the lowest than it has ever been, and it's getting better everyday.

We are not perfect yet, and there's still a lot to be done, but I do have a lot of hope for the future.

This book will possibly change how you view the world:

u/IamMotherDuck · 2 pointsr/MorbidReality

it's frustrating people are down voting you when your suspicion is correct. anyone who feels the urge to down vote would hopefully get a lot from reading a book like Factfulness.

u/themolidor · 2 pointsr/brasil

Recomendo fortemente pra você o livro Factfulness

u/mud_god · 2 pointsr/books

Coercion by Douglas Rushkoff

u/Tangurena · 2 pointsr/AskMen

Usually dreams like that are about some sense of helplessness in your life. At earlier ages, they're the dreams about going to school totally naked. Or it is finals week and you have to go to a final for a course you forgot to go to all semester long. Or you get to that final and the exam is written in a language you don't understand.

When I was younger (and in high school), we lived in Ireland back when the IRA was actually doing home invasion murder/kidnapping, so this was something our family's friends actually had to plan and prepare for. Some of them worked for the British Embassy, so their homes were fortified. Each home had a bulletproof "safe room" (substantially similar to FEMA's tornado shelters except these were lockable from the inside) where the family could retreat into and lock until the police (actually the "special branch" at that time since the regular police force was not and still is not armed with firearms) could arrive. Other friends of my parents had fled Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe) during that civil war and others fled Apartheid South Africa. Both countries had armed guerrillas and death squads, which we don't have in the US yet.

In any case, I strongly recommend reading the book The Gift of Fear (wikipedia summary). Many times your intuition (or gut feeling) is picking up signals that you are uncomfortable with. Or that you can't express verbally. And those dreams might just be warning signals that you're ignoring. Or they might just be you showing up to the final exam naked and unprepared (because you left your #2 pencil in your pants, wherever they are).

Other books that may help you to start to understand how violence my happen and what you can do to protect yourself (mostly it is never getting into such a situation, but sometime you can defuse it verbally) are Facing Violence (this book is focused on the onset of violence and dealing with the first few seconds) and Scaling Force: Dynamic Decision Making Under Threat of Violence (this book does show how voice and "presence" can prevent an ugly situation from escalating into violence). I recommend reading them before you sign up for self defense classes.

u/Black6x · 2 pointsr/martialarts

>First you'd have to prove that you didn't start it. If the court doesn't know how it started (which in most cases they won't), but know you finished by striking a downed opponent, you are likely to be judged retroactively guilty of the whole incident.

I have no idea where you are getting this, because the first stage would be for a prosecutor to go forward in pressing charges and bringing you to trial, which is highly unlikely, because they're not going to indict such a loose case. Since you are apparetly arguing a situation with no witnesses and no cameras, I don't know how you expect them to get proof of murder. Prior to all of this, your statement would be taken which would probably begin with "I was walking down the street they attacked me," and end with I defended myself wand was able to escape and call 911."

> Arguing down that line requires first admitting that you committed homicide.

Making words bold and big doesn't magically make your misunderstanding of the law correct. Any type of killing in self defense is an argument in justifiable homicide. Rory Miller actually covers this point heavily in Scaling Force. Literally any act of self-defense is the act of committing a crime, but with legally justifiable reasons. Guy tried to rape you and you kicked him in the groin? You committed assault, however you are justifying it based on the situation. Guy broke into your house and you shot him? You committed homicide and are arguing that it was legal based on the situation.

>The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice.

I don't know where the hell you are getting this. Are you confusing that with varying degrees of murder? Because that would still require that you had the mens rea. Premeditation is only a requirement on first degree murder, so unless that has somehow changed (it hasn't), you must be arguing second degree murder, but that has a requirement of having been done without just cause or legal excuse, which is what you are arguing if you argue self-defense.

>Those standards are not the same as for civilians. A civilian who acts like they're in a warzone is likely to end up in prison.

My point was that as a society, we have created rules that revolve around common sense and societal norms. Which is one of the reasons that when you stand trial (assuming a prosecutor wanted to go that far), you generally do so before a jury, who must judge your actions based upon the knowledge and actions taken at the time, and not in hindsight based on new information. So, if you knocked a person to the ground and he sustained an injury that would have prevented him form chasing you, but you would not know that, and so you delivered additional strikes to facilitate your escape, you could not be judged based upon later medical knowledge that you didn't have at the time. Furthermore, you must be judged based upon your knowledge of the situation and the reasonableness of the actions taken at the time. Striking a downed attacker to prevent chase and facilitate escape has and still does fall within the scope of reasonableness given the nature of the situation.

u/PM_ME_QUOTE · 2 pointsr/CasualConversation

I would also recommend this book Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions

It talks about how our mind work when comes to decision making and it can actually helps you make a better decision.

u/imVINCE · 2 pointsr/MachineLearning

I read a lot of these as a neurophysiologist on my way to transitioning into an ML career! My favorites (which aren’t already listed by others here) are Algorithms to Live By by Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths and How to Make a Mind by Ray Kurzweil. While it’s a bit tangential, I also loved The Smarter Screen by Jonah Lehrer and Shlomo Benartzi, which deals with human-computer interaction.

u/Dota2HelpBot · 2 pointsr/pcmasterrace

Can check my previous answers on this topic (just answered one a few comments ago) and I work in the field high and long enough to lead and hire teams.

> What are some of the best jobs in hardware engineering ?

Completely depends on your option on 'best'. But in terms of pay it is military hardware R&D and R&D for a company like Intel, but again it depends on a ton of factors.

> What type of hardware engineers work on processors ?

What part? What is takes to make a modern processor is actually very complicated and has a ton of different engineering to it from material science to computer engineering and computer science.

> What type of hardware engineers work with medical technology?

I actually use to work on medical tech and I also have a Biomedical engineering degree, you don't "need" to if you have a solid other engineering degree but it drastically helps.

> Should I go for my masters in hardware engineering ?

Completely depends on what all you want to do, in engineering a masters isn't nearly as required to make a jump in the field as other majors but if you want to get into the deep R&D field then yes.

> I want to start on the management side of the technology field what degrees would help me get at the top of management after college ?

Define "management" because if you just mean things like 'lead developer' and so on then just your the same major with some years of experience.

> Are there any classes that I could watch for free to get ahead in my courses ?

Code academy and various tech talks are good. CMU, MIT, and a few others put up various resources for their programming and computer science classes online.

> What are important coding languages I must learn ?

OH BOY, people fixate WAY to hard on this and honestly one of the biggest ways to "tank". There are for sure 'useful' programming languages that many companies are hiring for but it is much more important to know HOW and WHY programming languages work because it makes it easier to pick up a ton on the fly.

Beyond that one of the "best" starting programming languages to learn is Python. Once you comfortable with that then work with C/C++ and then brush up on how assembly works.

> Are there any math courses that will prep me for the field?

Discrete mathematics is the foundation of modern computer science and one of the biggest things that differentiate candidates I interview.

> Any books that I could read on a daily basses regarding the field ?

This is my 'default' starting book for those interested in the field but might not fully know enough for higher level topics.

Short answer: DO NOT expect to be instantly jumping in to working with some 'really cool shit'. Heck you shouldn't even be really thinking of actual computers and hardware for awhile and learn just how important and how deep the "True Math" we had was.

u/WilliamKiely · 2 pointsr/Rational_Liberty

I'm reading Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow right now. (It's only $2.99 on Kindle.) It's an enjoyable read on a significant topic.

u/Adito99 · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Look into the literature on heuristics and biases. There are all kinds of irrational habits we build up without noticing. Kahneman is a great place to start with this kind of thing. If you can get past the cultish atmosphere less wrong is good too.

u/Thoughtful_Mouse · 2 pointsr/whatstheword

This book is about this phenomena.

I think both intuition or instinct are used to describe the intuitive leap born of experience that can lead to the right answer without a chain of reasoned thought to connect the stimulus and the response.

u/Liebo · 2 pointsr/books

I have always found Malcolm Gladwell's books to be immensely entertaining. He can be a bit repetitive in pounding his major theses home and I wouldn't advocate for treating any of his theories as the gospel but he is a gifted storyteller and many of his stories regard psychological research.

The Psychopath Test Fascinating look at psychopaths by one of my favorite journalists. Well researched as has some scientific depth but is certainly geared towards the layman.

The Invisible Gorilla Very readable tour through some of our cognitive flaws and blind spots by two psychologists.

Thinking, Fast and Slow Very comprehensive account of how people make decisions by the father of behavioral economics.

u/18randomcharacters · 2 pointsr/videos

You should really read Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think!

Basically, population growth is one thing we're all instinctually terrible at getting right. He explains it very well in the book (Page 76 begins the section "The Mega Misconception that 'The World Population is just increasing and increasing'") but here's a short overview:

We are currently in a population boom because more babies are surviving into adulthood.

As more babies in a culture survive, the mean number of births per family decreases.

Right now, we have 7 billion people. 2b are children. 4b are adults. and 1b are elderly.

By the end of the century, we will have 11b people. However, still only 2b of them will be children. 6b now will be adults (these are today's children and their children). And 3b will be elderly.

The key concept is that the number of children in 50 or 75 years will be the same number as today. The population boom will have stabilized.



u/zajhein · 2 pointsr/news

Obviously people's changing perspective affects their behavior along with cultural and social norms, from views on slavery to civil rights or from war to types of government over the ages, but all of that and our reactions to it are based on human nature. We all have biases, complex motivations, and evolved tendencies which can make us get jealous, angry, and so on resulting in horrible mistakes, while also causing us to fall in love, express gratitude, and feel empathy with others, along with the unintended consequences and unexpected results which can always haunt us.

That doesn't mean we can't temper unwanted behavior through laws criminalizing violence, shunning bigotry in media, or removing incentives to cheat, while supporting desirable behavior by promoting education, rewarding cooperation, and building helpful institutions, which people have been attempting to do for millennia. Sometimes these attempts succeed in addressing one problem yet cause other issues we didn't expect, such as the rise of globalism. Other times they fail miserably and hurt even more people than they were meant to help, like the war on drugs.

Our perspectives on the world motivate or discourage us from implementing the changes we think it needs, yet through it all we are still bound by human nature and the consequences of trying to apply our lofty ideals onto the slippery nature of reality. Meaning that no matter what perfectly moral laws we create, people will still react with violence in times of stress. That however much we condemn racism, people are prone to categorizing others as different. And while we can educate people better than anyone else in the past, ignorance will always cause problems.

This doesn't mean the world hasn't been getting better than the past, it truly has in many ways, but that unless we start changing our DNA, some humans will continue to make the same old mistakes we've made for millennia, only with fewer and fewer people making those mistakes as progress marches on.

(I realize this was less an answer to your question and more of a concept I wanted to express to anyone willing to read it. And for anyone wanting to know more on how things are actually getting better, The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker, and Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think by Hans Rosling explain things much better than I could.)

u/M4rtingale · 2 pointsr/Economics

Yes! Everyone should read this book! Very important message!

u/kimchibear · 2 pointsr/OkCupid

I think the natural human instinct when granted more choices is to obsess more. There's a body of research out there that indicates more often than not, more choices leads to paralysis by analysis Book or TED talk. That's not an absolute obviously, but I think it is the case for many if ot most. Speaking from personal experience, the more options I have on the table, the less likely I am to seriously invest in any given one of them.

u/jay76 · 2 pointsr/apple

> The less-is-more world is here. Get used to it.

It's been with us since the start, manufacturers just lost sight of it for a while.

u/JxE · 2 pointsr/IAmA

Check out this book:

It talks about how we can become frozen by the amount of choices we have and how indecisive we are as a culture. Always afraid to make a decision because something better might be out there.

u/SnappyCrunch · 2 pointsr/ifyoulikeblank

The Logic of Failure

From the synopsis: "Dietrich Dörner identifies what he calls the “logic of failure”—certain tendencies in our patterns of thought that, while appropriate to an older, simpler world, prove disastrous for the complex world we live in now."

I find the book both entertaining and informative

u/Gusfoo · 2 pointsr/wikipedia

If you're interested in this sort of thing, then the book "The Logic of Failure - Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations" is a superb, and useful, read.

u/contrarianism · 2 pointsr/psychology

Check out this book for another perspective on why men (and women) will have judgement lapses with the opposite sex. Authored by recent Nobel winner in Economics.

u/this_won · 2 pointsr/RandomKindness

This Book

It's written by a Nobel Economist and has been on the buzz on many radio stations. As a potential Econ major, I would love to read this as soon as possible to talk about it with others. One of my econ professors asked if I had read this when we were talking, but I didn't and that was the end of the convo. Likewise, I was having an interview, and the guy asked me if I had read it, when I said I was interested in Econ, and again the convo ended there.

I'm trying to borrow, but the library's copy is on a waitlist system... and I have been number 50 something... for the past 2 months...

u/ALeapAtTheWheel · 2 pointsr/casualiama

>If we are smarter and more informed, why doesn't it appear that way?

Probably because you are comparing reality to your idealized world. Probably because you are suffering from what is called "Availability heuristic." If someone hangs out in r/bad_cop_no_donut, they are going to see a lot of stories about alleged bad behavior of cops gathered from all over the country. (pulling a number out of the air) Let's say 5% of cops are like that, and 95% are reasonable. Is that person going to go read 19 stories about cops doing normal things for every story you read there? probably not. Do you think that this will probably skew their perception of the police? Science says yes.

>How is the media allowed to so rampantly present belligerent lies? We (internet, Reddit etc.) are informed because we choose to be, the mass American public buys into the bullshit and further perpetuates the madness. We are raping the planet.

What are rampantly presented belligerent lies? These? Ignore the politics of the publication. They have citations if you want to verify the historical sources.

I'll give you a rampant bullshit lie believed by lots of people who use Reddit and the internet and who think they are informed. The earth is not anthropomorphic. It does not care for us. It cannot be "raped" without mutating the term in a way that both harms our ability to communicate and that is also callously insulting people who are the victims of rape. Getting this wrong isn't just lazy language. It fundamentally misstates the issues.

I don't see you as arguing, and I'm working under the assumption that you understand I'm not arguing either. That doesn't mean that I agree with you. I do, however, recognize the epiphany you are having. I had one too. Do you want to feel better about the world? Learn and practice some engineering and discover just how fast we are solving our human problems. Learn some history and find out just how different it is today than even 100 years ago. Learn some economics, psychology, and game theory and learn how and why people respond to incentives and just how little an 'informed' person knows. These things have really changed my outlook on life.

Like I said, we've never had so much information at our fingertips. Here's a list of book recommendations. They are all written for a popular audience. None require much in the way of math or previous understanding of the subject matter.

u/Manny_Bothans · 2 pointsr/TrueReddit

You should read the article author's book called thinking fast and slow.

u/derpstar_ · 2 pointsr/books
u/mathent · 2 pointsr/atheism

Consciousness is...tricky. From what I've studied, all we are really confident in saying about it now is that it's entirely dependent on the brain. If you change the brain, it directly effects consciousness. How consciousness, a non-physical entity, can arise from exclusively physical attributes is still under discussion. What Dennett is offering in the video is a re-characterization of the entire discussion. People seem to be looking for a "real" magic trick to explain consciousness. Dennett is making the case that just as there really is no "real" magic, there's only illusions to make you believe there's magic, that there's no "real" magic to consciousness. It's an illusion, in a non-deceptive sense. Consciousness is what happens when the extremely complex systems in your brain interact in the way they do.

If you want some books to read about the mind and brain, check out Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman (NY Times Bestseller List 2011) and Connectome by Sebastian Seung. Kaheman will change the way you think about the way you think. He outlines the to "systems" that operated the way you think, and then outlines the biases he's discovered that causes the way you think to be wrong. Connectome outlines the processes of the brain and how the brain is wired to give a somewhat speculative look into Connectome science (mapping all the neurons in the brain and their connections to eachother) and makes claims that once we do this we will better understand the brain and consciousness because the physical structure of the brain is hypothesized to matter a great deal.

As a moderately related point to consciousness, you may want to ask that if consciousness is dependent on the brain, what does that mean for free-will. You should check out Free Will by Sam Harris. It's extremly short--more of an essay. Then look at what Dennett says about free-will. They very strongly disagree, and Sam has said that he hopes to sit down with Dennett and discuss it. When that happens it will be really interesting, and worth having at least a small background on the issue.

u/mschley2 · 2 pointsr/nfl

You're putting value on memories and emotions. That's fine from a personal aspect, but as far as winning a football game, they're the same.

I took a behavioral economics class which is basically focused around all the reasons and ways we don't think logically/rationally/statistically. This book is really good if you're interested in that.

The first day of class, my professor asked us, "You need a new alarm clock. The campus bookstore has one for $40. Walmart (a few miles away) has the same alarm clock for $20. How many of you would go to WalMart?" About 90% of the class raised their hands. He followed it up with this: "You need a new computer. The campus bookstore has one for $350. WalMart has the same one for $330. How many of you would go to WalMart?" Only about 20% of the class raised their hands.... Why? You're saving $20 each way. It's illogical to go to WalMart for one of those things but not the other. But people think it's better to do it for the alarm clock because they're saving a larger percentage, even though that's irrelevant. You're doing the same thing. Early game, late game, it doesn't matter, it's still the same amount of points, but it feels better if it happens at the end of the game just like it feels better to get a bigger percentage off.

u/ike_the_strangetamer · 2 pointsr/theydidthemath

I'm right now in the middle of this book Thinking, Fast and Slow that breaks down exactly what is going on in our minds here.

Basically, there's two different systems at work, the fast one and the slow one, and we're the arbiter between. The fast one is lazy. It reads that the store owner gave up $100 and then gave back $30 and lazily reports the loss of $130 (or maybe some other number).

The brain is very accepting of the fast answer. The slow system needs to not only blow a whistle and let us know something is off but then has the job of isolating the numbers, doing the math and figuring out not only where the problem is, but what the right answer is. Making things worse, the slow part is very fragile. If we are tired, sick, or in a bad mood, we're even less likely to bother with the slow thinking.

So it is a riddle because it's trying to get you to trust your fast system over anything else.

u/hunnensturm · 2 pointsr/TrueAtheism

Sure. If I can view your brain with fMRI, I can predict with complete confidence when you will consciously "choose" to do something, in advance of you being aware you've made a choice.

The "choice" is made subconsciously. Subsequently, your conscious self invents a comforting illusion of "choice" or "free will" to justify the decision.

This is an older article, but it'll get you started:

Also, read Thinking, Fast and Slow.

u/JohnKog · 2 pointsr/Meditation

I've just started reading the preceding article. For people who are interested in this kind of stuff, I highly recommend Thinking Fast and Slow. It talks about largely the same stuff but in different terms, and also goes into much more detail about the ways in which "mindless thinking", or what it refers to as System 1, biases us and affects our lives, citing an abundance of related psychological studies.

u/vonGlick · 2 pointsr/Polska

Już nie chciałem wnikać w szczegóły bo kolega padlina by mnie zlinczował , ale ja tak naprawdę to głównie słucham książek. Do tego słucham sporo tzw pop science , ale z ostatnich ciekawych pozycji to mogę polecić :

Trust me, I'm Lying - Ryan Holiday

Never Split the Difference - Chris Voss

Influence - Robert Cialdini

Thinking fast and slow - Daniel Kahneman

Daj znać jeśli coś z tego Cię zainteresuje.

u/EnderWiggin1984 · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

I imagine it's something like the book, "Thinking Fast and Slow."

Or "Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind."

Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind: How Intelligence Increases When You Think Less

u/redct · 2 pointsr/RedditDayOf

Hey, cool, this is what I study (shoutout to the social and decision sciences at Carnegie Mellon). Kahneman and Tversky were insanely prolific researchers (and Kahneman still is to an extent) and their findings practically invented the fields of behavioral economics and decision science. Crazy cool people.

For a good read and an "outsider's" introduction, I'd recommend Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahneman. If you're more comfortable reading academic texts, their papers are pretty widely available too.

u/RedVinca · 2 pointsr/books

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.

u/thedarkerside · 2 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Interesting. I may look into it. Though I am not American, so for me American politics is more something I follow casually and from far away.

I have another book you may enjoy, and it may also rob you of a lot of your hope about human beings.

u/Mablun · 2 pointsr/exmormon

This is a great point--and I think most of us miss at first, or at least I did. See, I had a little taste of "anti-Mormon" material a few years before I finally understood it.

What got me though was understanding how and why so many people believe wrong things. I studied a lot about biases and probability theory and how to actually change your mind and got a firm desire to believe something if and only if it is true. But also, I looked into about a dozen different things from astrology to homeopathy and saw how committed people can get to false ideas and how elaborately they can perceive 'evidence' that supports their view.

And then I looked at the church stuff again. From that perspective, it's easy. If you're willing to change your mind about the church, you will because the evidence is so overwhelming.

But then I rushed to show family members this overwhelming evidence against the church. Predictably, it doesn't work. Because they didn't go through those priors steps that I hadn't realized were so important.

So anyways TLDR: Get people to understand biases and that people can be very very wrong and yet still think they have truth on their side before exposing them to the evidences against the church.

u/-t-o-n-y- · 2 pointsr/userexperience

If she's interacting with a lot of users I would suggest reading Practical Empathy. Observing the User Experience is another great resource for learning about user research. User experience is all about people so it's always a good idea to read up on human behavior, psychology, cognition, perception, learning and memory etc. e.g. books like Hooked, Bottlenecks, Design for the mind, Designing with the mind in mind, 100 things every designer needs to know about people, 100 more things every designer needs to know about people, Thinking fast and slow, Predictably Irrational and I would also recommend Articulating design decisions and Friction.

u/JollyGreenJesus · 2 pointsr/politics

Someone changed that person's mind to begin with, to get them to vote the way they did.

I don't think that it's as hard as people suggest. I think that there are many, many people that are bad at persuasion. They never practice that skill. They assume that their beliefs are superior, and get irritated when people are hesitant to change their mindset. And I can guarantee you, the second you start to get irritated when trying to persuade someone of something, that person shuts down. (Your body language and minor changes in tone will make you give yourself away.) Once you go on the offense, people go on the defense. That's human nature.

Most people do not have it in them to remove emotion and snap judgments from decision making. It's seriously part of human biology. It takes a shit load of education to get over that, to really change our lizard brains from the defaults of running on fear and short-sightedness, to what you might imagine the ideal to be.

This is a great book, that goes into great length about how people think:

Edit: It's not super technical either, it's written for the layman.

It's a fantastic read, and you will learn a lot from it. I really believe that this is the kind of stuff we need to make mandatory teaching in schools. Psychology and Sociology should be mandatory. Then again, high school kids are just high school kids, so who knows how much that would help.

Sorry, this went a bit off topic.

u/brain_overclocked · 2 pointsr/politics

No prob. The article seems to suggest the quality of question is important during meditating/reflecting. Also, meditation can sometimes feel silly when doing alone; perhaps you could meditate along with your mom.

If you're interested in additional reading material might I suggest: Thinking Fast and Slow, and Skeptical Inquirer.

u/PantherHeel93 · 2 pointsr/Android

No, I'm saying they're ignorant in the word's truest sense. As in, if they knew better, they would know that replaceable batteries are a huge pro (battery will never be an issue) with a miniscule con (phone is not as rigid).

Unfortunately, people make decisions primarily based on emotion, so what looks slightly better and feels slightly more solid wins when it's competing with something that looks less good but functions significantly better.

u/IAMABIASEDSCIENTIST · 2 pointsr/DanLeBatardShow

Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow is a really important book that discusses many of heuristics and phenomena from the interview.

u/ShaktiAmarantha · 2 pointsr/sexover30

I'm 52 & I've been on hormonal BC since I was a teen because of severe dysmenorrhea. So I've had the same conversations with my GYN. Copper IUD is out, because it would make the dysmenorrhea worse. There are no cancer risks in my medical history or my family history and the hormone work suggests that menopause is still at least 2-3 years away. So we considered a variety of alternatives, including rhythm/FA, condoms, vasectomy, and more, and decided on the implant for the next three years, and then re-evaluate at 55.

What it came down is that the medical danger to my health from getting pregnant is so high compared to the other risks that it makes the very small increases in the risk of stroke, blood clots, and cancer seem trivial.

There is no choice that is 100% safe for both of us except abstinence, and we're not willing to do that. So the safest answer is the most effective method of BC, namely the implant. It's safer than IUDs, vasectomies, pills, condoms, or anything else.

Often people talk about the risk of X and the risk of Y in terms that are really misleading. You'll see a stat that says that something increases the risk of a particular type of cancer by 75%, and your immediate reaction is that that's unacceptable. But often we're talking about the difference between 4 cases per 100,000 and 7 cases per 100,000, a microscopic real risk. You take a far, far bigger risk by choosing to drive instead of taking public transit.

In my case, the danger to my life and health from pregnancy was a large multiple of the increased morbidity and mortality from having an implant, so the decision was easy.

Humans are geared by evolution to use intuition and emotion to do risk analysis, because in the wild a fast approximation beats a slow but mathematically perfect answer almost every time. But that means we're often really bad at doing these sorts of subtle calculations with tiny risks. Read Thinking Fast and Slow by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman for a brilliant discussion of how our brains trick us and make us bad at it, routinely accepting large risks and panicking about tiny ones.

Most doctors have neither the time, nor the training, nor the resources needed to do real risk analysis, so they make the same mistakes that normal people do. In addition, they know that juries are likely to rule against them for failing to advise you of a risk, no matter how small it is, but no one is going to attack them for giving you a recommendation that is foolishly cautious. So they have good reason to err on the side of not getting sued, whether it's good advice for you or not.

u/username10983 · 2 pointsr/PersonalFinanceCanada

William Bernstein Four Pillars of Investing

Burton Malkiel Random Walk down wall street

I've thought some of the books by Rick Ferri (power of passive investing), Larry Swedroe, and John Bogle (common sense on investing) were good. I also recommend a book The Big Investment Lie by Michael Edesess.

I also enjoyed some books on money/behaviour:

u/Hart_Attack · 2 pointsr/TagProIRL

I'm really bad at reading through just one book at a time, so I'm in the middle of a few at the moment.

-A Walk in the Woods by Bill Bryson

-Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman (admittedly, it's been a while since I've picked this one up)

-Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov

I just finished a great book called The Other Wes Moore, also. It was super interesting.

I'm a big fan of non-fiction books, in case that wasn't immediately apparent by the list.

u/IRodeAnR-2000 · 2 pointsr/AskEngineers

All decisions have an emotional component, and research has shown that people who claim to care exclusively about 'the facts' are often more driven by emotion than the people they see as 'emotional.'

Daniel Kahneman actually won a Nobel Prize in Economics for the research and application of what he discusses (at lenght) in the book below.

It's an absolutely awesome read, and I recommend every engineer and especially project managers read it at least every couple of years.

u/CogSciProfessor · 2 pointsr/IAmA

Perhaps this book by Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow might be a good start in answering your question:

u/drinkallthecoffee · 2 pointsr/gifs

Like I said in another comment, most of my work was on reading comprehension and assessment. My work on automatic behavior was actually much more low-level than stuff like leaving a child in the car. My automatic behaviors would be changing how people perceive distances, and then in turn whether this could change how quickly people walk when they don't know they are being observed.

That being said, Thinking Fast and Slow is a pop psychology book written by a leading psychologist on these topics. It's more broad than what we're talking about here and is more focused on thinking than doing, but it's a great read.

The article I linked above, The Unbearable Automaticity of Being is a great summary of how automatic behaviors affect our daily lives. My unpublished research on automatic behaviors was largely inspired by this article. I read it as an undergrad and designed an experiment with my professor, and then started running it and replicating the experiments in grad school.

u/MoreAccurate · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

I mostly have a lot of books that helped me, but here are the most influential ones that I've read recently:

u/savemejebus0 · 2 pointsr/politics

There is nothing shocking in this what so ever. People are not behaving ignorantly, they are acting quite reasonably to the norms of human psychology. On the social media front, it is a fraction of a hair or a fraction of a hair in the timeline of our communication with one another. We need to adapt to it. I use it as a tool. If we are more aware of our tendencies, then we an adapt to the pressures that our outside environment has. I only use Twitter for politics and make sure half of the people I follow I disagree with.

So you value your opinion? Do you think you think things through and don't let nonsense influence your opinion? Read "Thinking Fast and Slow". You wont trust yourself for shit anymore. You will be more cautious on quick opinions and try very hard to reserve judgement and rely on the "thinking slow" part of your brain". Sad part is, even when you know about your brains tendencies, you are still victim to them 80% of the time.

u/PhallusGreen · 1 pointr/Frugal

>If our only option is to fight the system and bring in new options then it looks like it's working in many areas, and needs to be applied to others.

This only works when there is a clearer argument and hopefully a "this or that" dichotomy. Once you add more ideas than just a question of black or white, then the vast majority of people stop caring. If enough stop caring then the few enlightened folks aren't going to be able to fix the world.

If you want some reference for this just look at something related about global warming and a book about too many choices

The world is not getting better, it's getting more apathetic with people just doing whatever they feel they can do to fix problems with as little effort as possible. Hell, I can't even be bothered to sign a petition or donate money for various horrific things I've heard about or been witness to because there is just too many things happening for me to give up all my time no matter how important they are. Instead I've been doing less and less as I've been aware of more and more. The studies and books I've read about these issues and the little I understand about psychology supports this as a mass movement and not an anecdotal support of limited data.

I'd love to think the world is moving in a better direction, but it's stagnating or slipping into woeful agony as people take cell phone pictures to post of facebook telling others to fix it while we all stand idle. A world full of everyone living vicariously is what we are approaching...someday soon everyone will just watch syndicated news because there is no new news - nothing new is happening.

u/zackmorgs · 1 pointr/audiophile

I'm digging spotify's player lately, but I dislike how unwell my local files are integrated into my music. For instance, when I search for a song in the search tab, it only searches for spotify-hosted music. In order to get my local music, I have to go to the local music tab and then search there. This is frustrating as I have put a lot of time into my library before I was in Spotify and it is all lossless and I never get to use it.

Also, when it does display both my local copy of the file and the spotify version, it not only displays both (I shouldn't have to look at a duplicate) but I can't tell which one is which because there are no identifiers that I know of.

Something I like about Spotify is the way they integrate All I have to do is check it in preferences and I don't have to have the application up in order to scrobble. This is how it should be.

A way to get all my album art and song information, even for my illegitimate copies of my music, would be wonderful. A while back I was looking for a program that did this, the only one I was able to find that worked (it barely does work) was FetchArt. At least on my 2010 MBPro with Snow Leopard, this program is a piece of crap that barely works, please integrate a better way into your player and I will be sold.

I really like spotify's one star system. See: The paradox of choice.

TL;DR: Spotify capabilities, seamless album art/metadata collection and spotify-like capabilties.

u/Endemoniada · 1 pointr/Android

>As I had stated before, I wasn't familiar with your phone specifically and I didn't know that it had hardware buttons. Most Android devices have the touch buttons so thats where my assumption came from.

That's fine, but I did state the specific device I used for that exact reason, so that you didn't have to assume anything :)

>That's a fair point, and it seems that's just something crappy with your phone unfortunately =[


Another, admittedly minor, problem is HTC's decision to have the lock screen be unlocked by a vertical swipe, instead of horizontal. Where I never, ever, ever unlock my iPhone 4 by mistake, I find myself doing this quite frequently on the Legend. Picking it up from my pocket, it's hard not to touch the screen, and for some reason, even though we've established that the power button is the only button that can unlock it, it's apparently very, very easy to press, resulting in some minor, non-deliberate movement unlocking the screen and managing to press quite a lot of screen buttons before I get it up to my face. I can't say exactly where the problem is, but I can say that this issue is entirely non-existent on the iPhone.

The only lock screen replacements I've found either don't work at all, or look like utter crap :/

>Here though you seem to be pulling things from thin air. You mentioned how Android phones sacrificed visuals specifically, so I'm still curious what your point was there.

I'm hardly the only one to comment on the overall greater visual quality of iPhone apps compared to Android apps.

>Again, I've never seen the functionality of the Menu button matched at all in any iPhone app, nor the Back button in the same capacity.

I guess we'll have to take this down as a matter of preference, because I can't get over how inconsistent the Back button is on Android phones, and I've never had any iPhone app be harder to configure or access settings from than any Android app I've tried.

>I'll give you an example here: browsing. Unless mobile Safari has changed drastically, it can be a bit of a pain to get the address bar back without scrolling back up. On every Android browser, I just hit menu, and there it is.

True, but at least this is specifically designed behavior that is entirely consistent. Why would you need to access the address bar, or the search bar, unless you intended to leave the page? Also, there's no "bit of pain". The functionality is clear: tap the status bar at the top to bring up the address bar (with the added function of scrolling the page to the top). Input-wise, it's the exact same action, but in two different places. Neither is harder than the other to perform.

>It just isn't vastly superior to Android as it once was, and in general the Android platform as a whole isn't so restricting.

While I agree, I have to mention that psychologically, I think of the Android platform as more restrictive. See, Android promises me that it's open, and by doing that, I assume I get to do whatever I want with it. Naturally, then, any time I can't (requires root to change built-in apps, can't switch carrier if it's locked, can't use this, can't do that, etc...) it bothers me much more than if I knew from the start it came with restrictions. I know there aren't any porn apps in the App Store, so I don't even have to bother looking for them (I'll just get my porn from the internet, like everyone else, without any restrictions whatsoever). I know I can't change the theme on my phone, so I don't have to bother finding one I like. And so on. I fully realize why some people take offense to this, in principle, but I think that practically, it's actually a benefit. This is actually a very interesting book on the subject, if you're interested.

Personally, I end up using my iPhone almost all of the time for surfing, apps, music, etc... even though if I break it I have to pay for it, and I have to pay for data. I have every incentive to use my Android phone instead, but my iPhone is simply that much more convenient, easy, fast and, frankly, open. Every app I can think of wanting is already allowed and in the App Store. It syncs to my Mac at home in a way an HTC phone never would. Safari works so well, even though I admit the dynamic text resize on Android is really cool, that I never bother with my Legend, and my bookmarks are synced from my Mac. Mail works better (I actually think the Android Gmail client sucks, it renders html emails horribly), the screen is brighter and sharper, and the battery life is better.

I chose the HTC Legend specifically, because I wanted an Android phone to try out. Now I have, and I can't think of any reason it's supposedly better than iOS. I'm sure others can, if they have vastly different needs than I do, but that's where I get philosophical and question whether those needs are genuine, or only arise from the possibilities promised by Google.

u/cradlesong · 1 pointr/Transhuman

Perhaps books like The Art of Memory, The Logic Of Failure, Prometheus Rising, Finite and Infinite Games could offer some new perspectives.

Edward De Bono's work on lateral thinking might also be of interest.

u/wmblathers · 1 pointr/sysadmin

The Logic Of Failure: Recognizing And Avoiding Error In Complex Situations. It's not a large book, but it has many worthwhile lessons. In particular, sometimes the worst catastrophes are caused by the very people who write the procedures to avoid disaster — because they think they're too smart to need to follow their own rules. (At work we have "Vince's Law," named after a co-worker who shared it with us: if you find yourself thinking "I'll just be very careful," stop immediately!)

Systemantics. The Systems Bible. Probably satirical, and he's writing about human organizational systems, but almost all of it applies equally well to larger IT systems (both organizationally and technically).

u/manvote2 · 1 pointr/politics

>> Moreover, the right likes to call the left Utopian, but it also has a vision of a "better world" which it would like to see come about

Tu Quoque fallacy.

Just because the right does something hypocritical, doesn't invalidate the idea that the left can't do it either.

>> And if you want to go on and claim ... "blah blah blah I'm projecting my biases onto you"

ok whatever, you think I'm right wing. See below.

>> There is nothing wrong at all with a vision of a better world.

Tell that to the victims of the holocaust and the peasants in Soviet Russia. Both were victims of the deluded masses that believed they knew with certainty what was good for mankind. Go read Dorner's 'The Logic of Failure'. Individuals with good intentions will do anything to reach their goals, including the most questionable acts. The thing that makes good intended people highly dangerous, is that they rarely learn their lesson when they completely fuck it up.

>> There is nothing necessarily religious about such a vision

Yes there is. It's called millenarianism. Look it up.

>> And it's definitely not just a characteristic of the left

No fucking shit. Where did I say it wasn't? Can you even read? Or are you just typing for the point of typing?

>> although conservatives don't like to admit it.

Sounds like your biases are showing through again. I don't think you can separate criticism of the left from the idea that 'if someone criticizes the left, then they must be right wing'. It's plainly false and the basis of logic 101. Someone can not be right wing, and still criticize the left.

Nearly the entire of your argument is based around a crude character of, "BUT THE RIGHT WING DID IT TOO." It is completely tu quoque fallacy. The fact that the right does something bad doesn't invalidate bad stuff that the left does. Do you understand that? Have you done any informal logic or logic?

Here I'll lay out your argument in an analogy: If I said to you that Bruce lives in New York, and then you replied, "but Gerald lives in New York too," that doesn't invalidate the fact that Bruce STILL LIVES IN NEW YORK. Do you see the argument you are making? I am saying both Bruce and Gerald live in New York, while you seem to be the one that is ignoring and downplaying Bruce's part, while highlighting Gerald's position.

u/uncleosbert · 1 pointr/

>I like to think that even a complex issue can be reduced to a simple concept. Maybe thats a human thing or maybe thats just an ignorant american thing, but there have been times we have made simple things overly complex. So its hard to assuredly claim that this issue is a complex one and not a simple one we have made complex in our approach.

hmmm, i don't think it is an ignorant american thing. nor do i think all issues are necessarily complex. i think it is human to have faith in our perceptions. and that's the infuriating thing about all of this... we're all victims of our own perceptions.

that's why i come to forums like this to be knocked out of mine :) i'd be magic if i knew when i was wrong without help. but that also means i'm very demanding about what y'all are over there perceiving without me.

u/Atheist10 · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

You may want to check out this book excellent read about decision making and intuition and basically how we should not trust intuition in many cases... maybe intuition is not the right word for what you are looking for.

u/Skyblacker · 1 pointr/AskReddit

5; I don't think I comprehend it as well as my husband did.

u/LeonardNemoysHead · 1 pointr/gaming
u/steelypip · 1 pointr/DebateAnAtheist

Everyone is subject to cognitive biases - not just Confirmation Bias but all the others too.

The only defence is to be aware of them and try and spot them early. Unfortunately they are much easier to spot in other people that oneself, even for psychology researchers working in this field. I highly recommend reading Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman if you are interested in the subject. He has several stories in there about how he has been suckered by his own biases.

u/Eratyx · 1 pointr/atheism

Today I was reading Thinking, Fast and Slow, a book about recent findings in cognitive science, at work during lunch break. I have a reputation as the quiet guy. A guy wearing a rosary asks me about it, and I explain that we have two thinking modes, intuitive and rational. He immediately cuts me off with "I think rational stuff gets in the way of spirituality." I ask if he's religious. He looks proud and says yes. I nod and ignore him for the rest of the break, reading my book. He was pretty put out for the rest of the day.

u/KAL_WHSPhysics · 1 pointr/PhascinatingPhysics

This video has some great brain teasers that were quite revealing and informative! The manner in which these two distinct brain systems interact and shape our worldly perceptions is quite astounding. It goes to show that reaction time and immediate judgement are mere results of our brain doing its job. I wonder how harnessing these two systems for good (i.e. putting more focus on System 2 when making logical decisions) could benefit us all. That book the video mentions is of particular interest...

u/xxtoejamfootballxx · 1 pointr/politics

No problem man, if you like stuff like this I'd recommend these books:

Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely

Thinking Fast And Slow by Daniel Kahneman

The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg

The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz

Behavior Economics is one of my favorite subject and these books are all enjoyable, informative on the subject and relatable. Def worth a read.

u/bokabo · 1 pointr/Economics

Decades of research psychology. Most fameously Taversky and Kahneman.

Also, if we were roughly rational we wouldn't need behavioral economics. And advertising wouldn't be effective.

u/Redegar · 1 pointr/italy

A chi è interessato consiglio questo libro, se non sbaglio contiene anche il quesito proposto nell'articolo!

u/RippinNTearin · 1 pointr/videos

Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman is a fantastic book about the two systems of thinking if you are interested in learning more.

u/Mosetsfire84 · 1 pointr/AdviceAnimals

I recommend reading to all of you.

"The Nobel economist points out that “in a predictable world, the stronger CEO would be found to lead the more successful firm 100% of the time.” In a world in which random external factors determine success, the more successful firms would be led by stronger CEOs only 50% of the time. In other words, the effect of top talent might be said to be random. In reality, stronger CEOs lead stronger companies only 60% of the time."

u/Beanyurza · 1 pointr/ZenHabits

Not sure if I agree with everything this article is saying or even if it is possible to "know" your subconscious. Biases "bubble up" from your subconscious that your conscious hardly ever notices. Unless your spending a gigantic amount of time rooting out and finding biases, your subconscious runs you and your conscious doesn't even notice. Source: Thinking Fast and Slow.

u/pastanomics · 1 pointr/books

Free your tastes from the cage of other people's opinions and pretensions. Try young adult fiction like Harry Potter and trashy romance novels. Try anything by E.L. Doctorow. Or try some nonfiction. Anything by Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker...

u/Ethereum_dapps · 1 pointr/Bitcoin

I'll add it to my list. Might have to read it after

which seems pretty similar as well.

u/honeybadger-IAN · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Daniel Kahneman wrote an excellent book called Thinking, Fast and Slow, which deals with this very issue.

Kahneman purports that the human mind operates according to two distinct systems. One is fast: instinctive, automatic, habitual, subconscious. The other is slow: deliberate, takes effort, concentrated. Some things we do instinctively or subconsciously because that is what it means to be a living human: breathing, for example. Some things we do instinctively because we have done them so many times that concentrated effort, though possible, is deemed unnecessary by our minds. When our minds determines that concentrated effort is not required, we begin to operate without thinking. This is the difference between driving home, which you've done many times, and driving to an unfamiliar destination.

These are the basics of what Kahneman explains far more brilliantly in his book, which I highly recommend.

Please correct any contextual errors :)

u/hydrox24 · 1 pointr/YouShouldKnow

A Link to the Amazon page for the book.

u/anthonynagid · 1 pointr/piano

People will adjust their expectations for your level which they will intuitively sense right away. What ever extreme judgements exist among the audience the majority statistcally will be of the moderate range with the base line being derived from that immediate intuition of your level.

This is my opinion after reading Thinking Fast and Slow.

u/doodhmaester · 1 pointr/Futurology

Sports + tracking could be a big one. Companies like Opta employ huge amounts of labor to track and monitor soccer games, where trackers manually inspect games to curate a set of statistics (touches, passes etc.) Of course, this would need a complimentary device (not a phone) to establish the relationship between a player and a ball (sensor would be inside), but that somewhat depends on how this device is implemented; does it use Bluetooth, NFC or RFID?

Another use could be to detect absence/presence for events, offices and classrooms. And then if you can sync it up with Apple/Android pay, and if these sensors become really cheap, then people could buy things by simply picking them up and tapping a button on the sensor. And once the sensor on the item syncs with the device to confirm payment, you could detach the sensor and put it in a discard box to make these sensors reusable!

Personally, just having a log of things/objects you use each day would be incredible -- similar to Google's timeline feature, it can allow us to relive memories in a richer way as our memory fetching models are very context-heavy (Thinking, Fast and Slow). This log could also potentially be incorporated in an AI model (like Siri's or Google's), so that your home could be more intelligently automated, as you'll probably have patterns to things you do everyday.

u/mbrezu · 1 pointr/socialskills

I can relate to your problem, I have it too.

Let me describe what I'm trying these days: remind yourself that you don't really perceive reality, you live in a story that's partly based on what you experience and partly based on what you imagine or infer (and it's not always obvious which is which, and everything is seasoned with a lot of bias). This is true for everyone, actually. So any conversation is actually an intersection of the stories we live in. Everyone thinks their story is 'real', and if people with diverging 'stories' meet they have to work a little in order to avoid a fight. Remembering that your story is just a story, not the ultimate reality and the other person also lives in a story that's different helps. Trying to understand the other person's story and how absolute their belief in it is also helps.

Sorry if this little rant is unclear/obvious/generic/useless.

Take a look at to get a feel of how biased we are if you don't believe me :-)

u/WalksOnLego · 1 pointr/Bitcoin

Short answer:

> "People want an authority to tell them how to value things, but they choose this authority not based on facts or results, they choose it because it seems authoritative and familiar." - Michael Burry; The Big Short.

> Why don't any of the people around us understand bitcoin? Why do they ignore it? Why do they refuse to look below the surface?

Because critical thinking consumes energy, and is not pleasant. Whenever we learn new things we have to fire up parts of the brain that we don't use as often.

For example: Learning to drive a car is a stressful and unpleasant time because your brain is fired up learning all the new skills, at once. After a few years you can drive without even thinking.

It's called Fast Thinking and Slow Thinking, slow thinking being when you are learning new skills, material, ideas etc., and fast thinking when you can do things automatically.

In short: People, all of us, don't like to think slow.

Long answer:

There's a book on the subject Thinking, Fast and Slow by Deniel Kahneman

> Major New York Times bestseller
> Winner of the National Academy of Sciences Best Book Award in 2012
> Selected by the New York Times Book Review as one of the ten best books of 2011
> A Globe and Mail Best Books of the Year 2011 Title
> One of The Economist's 2011 Books of the Year
> One of The Wall Street Journal's Best Nonfiction Books of the Year 2011
> 2013 Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient
> Kahneman's work with Amos Tversky is the subject of Michael Lewis's The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds

> In the international bestseller, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, the renowned psychologist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, takes us on a groundbreaking tour of the mind and explains the two systems that drive the way we think. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and emotional; System 2 is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. The impact of overconfidence on corporate strategies, the difficulties of predicting what will make us happy in the future, the profound effect of cognitive biases on everything from playing the stock market to planning our next vacation―each of these can be understood only by knowing how the two systems shape our judgments and decisions.

> Engaging the reader in a lively conversation about how we think, Kahneman reveals where we can and cannot trust our intuitions and how we can tap into the benefits of slow thinking. He offers practical and enlightening insights into how choices are made in both our business and our personal lives―and how we can use different techniques to guard against the mental glitches that often get us into trouble. Winner of the National Academy of Sciences Best Book Award and the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and selected by The New York Times Book Review as one of the ten best books of 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow is destined to be a classic.

u/joejance · 1 pointr/snowboarding

I recently read The Rise of Superman: Decoding the Science of Ultimate Human Performance, which covers a lot of the neuroscience around this type of flow state. It also has a number of awesome stories about 'extreme' athletes including a number of names you will probably recognize.

Edit: Also you might finding Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow interesting. It talks about how flow state happens in what is often referred to as System 1, which is your intuitive, 'non-thinking' state.

I highly recommend both books.

Edit 2: Here is the Wikipedia article about Dual process theory. The idea is that flow mostly happens in process or system 1, which is stuff you are good at. In snowboarding speak, if you already have a ton of experience making turns and handling steep terrain then you may head into flow state when you head down a chute, when you 'quit thinking and start doing'.

u/rms_is_god · 1 pointr/tifu
  1. The "scars are like criminal records" argument is Cart Before Horse logic, you get a scar from having an accident, you don't get drunk from having an accident. I believe there are laws that prevent people with a history of violence with dangerous weapons from getting those weapons.

  2. The police should not be following known drunks around, and it is not a paltry fine/mandated rehab, the first offense is calculated to be $24,265 before your attorney, loss of vehicle, and other ripple effects on your life.

  3. The courts have very strict limits in applying this law, and would not be able to use it to ban other products from being sold to individuals. They may institute a similar requirement for the new marijuana regulations, but that will have to be a separate matter.

  4. Comparing US Courts to Nazi's is bad, but not as bad as comparing people with a criminal record to Jewish people. If you have evidence other than "the people made a law, the courts enforced it, and now we're in Nazi Germany" please present it.

  5. If your BAC is over the limit you shouldn't be driving. Period. It doesn't matter if it was from last night, if your BAC is 0.08 the next morning after a night of drinking, you should not be driving. It's the same as any other chemical affect on your body, if you are "tipsy" or "buzzed" or "drunkover" you should not be driving. Seriously dude, don't get on the road, people get in accidents completely sober, why even introduce the possibility for injuring/killing yourself/others.

  6. It does not affect the relatives of the person with the red-stripe, outside of maybe needing to bum a ride. This argument is getting stretched. Those arguments sound like bullshit, because they are, and have no bearing on the reality and limits of this law. I'll take your line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion: we shouldn't have laws against crime because the people who commit those crimes might get offended.

  7. You are paranoid, they also didn't regulate airbags, seatbelts, or any of the thousands of safety devices we have put in place since the 60's that have saved countless lives.

  8. It requires 2 DUI's and if you're driving with alcohol on your breath and they find you have a BAC above 0.08 you SHOULD NOT BE ON THE ROAD. It doesn't matter if "you're driving totally safe" because it's about more than just all the times you didn't get into a fatal accident.

  9. You should really read Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. He does a great job of showing how our ability to intuitively predict statistics is completely flawed. This is highlighted by your lack of understanding that driving drunk/buzzed means you are unlikely to be in an accident, or that if you've been in an accident while drunk driving, that you're unlikely to be in another while drunk driving.
u/toadgoader · 1 pointr/INTP

Thinking, Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman

Major New York Times bestseller
Winner of the National Academy of Sciences Best Book Award in 2012
Selected by the New York Times Book Review as one of the ten best books of 2011
A Globe and Mail Best Books of the Year 2011 Title
One of The Economist's 2011 Books of the Year
One of The Wall Street Journal's Best Nonfiction Books of the Year 2011
2013 Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient
Kahneman's work with Amos Tversky is the subject of Michael Lewis's The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds

In the international bestseller, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, the renowned psychologist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, takes us on a groundbreaking tour of the mind and explains the two systems that drive the way we think. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and emotional; System 2 is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. The impact of overconfidence on corporate strategies, the difficulties of predicting what will make us happy in the future, the profound effect of cognitive biases on everything from playing the stock market to planning our next vacation―each of these can be understood only by knowing how the two systems shape our judgments and decisions.

Engaging the reader in a lively conversation about how we think, Kahneman reveals where we can and cannot trust our intuitions and how we can tap into the benefits of slow thinking. He offers practical and enlightening insights into how choices are made in both our business and our personal lives―and how we can use different techniques to guard against the mental glitches that often get us into trouble. Winner of the National Academy of Sciences Best Book Award and the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and selected by The New York Times Book Review as one of the ten best books of 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow is destined to be a classic.,_Fast_and_Slow

u/Astamir · 1 pointr/writing

Alright, I'll expand. Hope you bear with me, this might be long and slightly tangential.

Basically, most of our strong beliefs are not something that we inspect regularly in our conscious mind. They are rather part of a general worldview that seems natural to us and are not given much thought ever. These beliefs more or less fit the worldview of our surrounding social environment, and that makes them relatively invisible to us. Not only that, but they often get boxed with what we perceive to be an objective perspective on reality. It's not a belief if it's reality, right? The beliefs that we do notice tend to be marginal beliefs that are more centered around our own experience of reality versus that of those surrounding us.

So for example, an American (typing with broad strokes here) middle manager may have a very different view of how one should build a career in a productive manner than an American retail worker playing music with his band on the weekends. This perspective on careers will appear to be a strong belief they both have because it may clash when they interact with each other, and the intense interactions may end up crystallizing these beliefs into what you'd call "strong beliefs", which then become an important part of a person's ideas when evaluating potential social relationships. But these beliefs about professional undertakings are actually very marginal compared to topics such as whether or not everyone can or should be happy, or whether or not people are generally trustworthy due to their nature. Human nature is perceived (wrongly) as something static by many, many people (especially in the US) and it affects policy-making, charity-giving, business practices, etc. The idea that human nature is static will change how we see redemption, how we see economic policies, how we even see intimate relationships. The belief that people hold free will will affect how we judge criminals, how we judge people who wronged us (I won't start on the topic of betrayal but god that word irks me), etc.

Now how we build our personal worldview and beliefs (strong or otherwise) is complex, so might as well take the time to suggest further reading on the matter:

Conrad Phillip Kottak's introductory book on Anthropology is well-respected, and I would recommend it to have a better overview of how different societies view the world quite differently, and how the local culture's worldview easily becomes one's own without actually realizing that it's happening. It's called enculturation - the learning of one's culture by living through it and interacting with others in it - and tends to be invisible to most people, despite its impact on a large amount of our beliefs.

As a small example of this but one I find rather valuable, there is a documentary on India's Ladakh region, called Ancient Futures - Learning from Ladakh, in which you can see the anthropologist interacting with women from the local communiy, and talking about how she can't really sew. And the women are just surprised because to them, you learn by practice, simply. There's no acceptance that someone can't learn to use the techniques they're using because they literally don't know anyone who can't sew. As long as you practice and sit with someone who knows how, you'll learn. And it's fascinating because in our culture, there is a prevalent belief that some people just can't learn functional understanding of certain things. Seems obvious, right? Not everyone can be an astrophysicist, not everyone can be a competent engineer. But what if that was wrong? And there's actually ridiculously interesting research on how this worldview can affect women in math classes, as well as young blacks in academic grading. People take all of this for granted but it is a massive component in how we view social policies.

Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett's researches in social epidemiology have done wonders in exploring the impacts of socioeconomic inequality on a massive amount of social factors, such as criminality, self-esteem, academic performance, etc. And this is only for one (albeit an important) factor in societies; how unequal the distribution of income is. 400 scientific articles later, one finds a clear trend; socioeconomic inequality has massive impact on things that you would never think of. They affect how people trust each other within a given society, because larger differences in socioeconomic circumstances lead to more conflict and different subcultures having trouble interacting with each other because their reality is so different. This seems beside the point but it really isn't; it strongly affects how the average person thinks others around him/her are worthy of trust. It has consequences on how we relate to each other and how we see the average stranger. This is not something we can inspect easily without knowing about it firsthand, so it's a "hidden" belief that is crazy in its impact on our lives.

And these factors all relate to general beliefs about others and the world, in an external manner. We also have trouble understanding a lot of what goes on inside our own decision-making process, which most people think does belong to them. Some researches have shown that you can impact someone's perspective on a stranger they just met by priming them with negative words or unpleasant experiences prior to the meeting, or by making them suffer through prolonged mental problem-solving. A paper studying the chances of getting paroled by parole judges observed that you had the most chance right after they had eaten, and the least before noon because they became more impatient towards inmates when their blood sugar was low. Other studies have shown that if you test cognitive reflexes for racism, most people who do not think that they are indeed racist will find that they have a ton more prejudice than they originally thought. This doesn't register as much when thinking about how you consciously view the world but it shows when writing or interacting with others without being focused on your own thoughts. This is probably one of the biggest reasons why you see minorities struggling so much to be represented in mainstream culture, except for the token black guy or the "faire-valoir" woman.

I'm written too much already but I strongly recommend Daniel Kahnemann's book Thinking, Fast and Slow to better understand what cognitive sciences have taught us about how our thoughts are affected by our brain's physiology and our prior experiences. I am serious in saying this; there is no way this book will not be useful to you in some way, no matter what kind of life you lead. If you have limited time or money, he gives this lecture which is kind of alright to summarize his book. I stress this man particularly because he is a legend. The man is reasonable, intelligent, and has more than three decades of solid research to back what he says.

I wanted to mention questions of free will more because they kinda relate to this whole thing but I'm gonna stop here and just recommend you check out Sam Harris' lecture on Free Will on youtube. I don't agree with much of what the guy says on other topics but he summarizes things well in that specific lecture.

Sorry again for writing such a wall of text. I hope that was worth the time to read it.

u/a_filthy_casul · 1 pointr/anime

Thinking, fast and slow is a must-read if you haven't read it.

u/ejpusa · 1 pointr/politics

We're talking "Framing." If it does not fit into ones own "Frame" it is rejected. No matter what the logic.

People are NOT logical. You can see that happening dozens of times a day. We all create our own reality, for survival. You see a blue sky, I see a lion charging at us.

You see Trump going bonkers, his base sees him as being attacked by Fake News. Their brains are permanently wired, not sure what it would take to convince them.

This is why everyone goes for the independent voters, they are "swayable", the other two sides, impossible to convince one way or the other.

Actually, let me repeat this, it's pretty important to understand. Based on the latest in understanding the brain, the how that all works.

"You see a blue sky, I see a lion charging at us."


u/hebermagalhaes · 1 pointr/exmormon

Cognitive certainty is a function of the amount of information available. The less you know, the easier to feel certain. Accept that you won't ever be certain of anything again, and that's exactly how it is supposed to be.

Only dumb people are sure because it's so easy to slide into certainty. Sustaining doubt is hard work and it's very uncomfortable, as you probably already know.

Nobel laureate cognitive psychologist Daniel Kahneman has an amazing book on this exact subject. -

u/adelaide091 · 1 pointr/Feminism

> but you're sexist and need to learn about your bias.

There are tons of books on business/decision-making out there which focus on the idea of how unconscious biases can lead to worse outcomes/poor management/lost money. I feel like getting someone to buy into the idea that biases lead to worse outcomes can be a good path to helping them identify biases which may be more uncomfortable to confront initially.


u/christianonce · 1 pointr/StreetEpistemology

I think we may agree then. I agree that there is a ton of unrecognized bias and it's important to help people understand their own biases and how they affect their decisions.

Have you read the book Thinking Fast and Slow? I enjoyed it a lot.

u/cazique · 1 pointr/Conservative

Sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about. I think you romanticize the physical sciences. Medical research is messy... is that pseudoscience based on feelings? Political scientists apply statistical tools to support their positions. Read literally any journal of political science. I would suggest looking into articles discussing the effect of media bias on voting patterns, which would alarm you (if you believed in stats and political science).

Since you brought up psychology just to disparage it, I would recommend reading Thinking, Fast and Slow.

u/brinnswf · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

out of 2,827 amazon reviews over 2,500 are 4 star+. I am very intrigued.

"Modern wheat, in particular, is responsible for destroying more brains in this country than all the strokes, car accidents, and head trauma combined. Dr. Perlmutter makes a persuasive case for this wheat-free approach to preserve brain health and functioning, or to begin the process of reversal." --William Davis, MD

My response to this, is literally, wtf.

I am currently reading another book, Thinking fast and slow, I'm only 30 pages in and love it. It's more of a less diet focus, more psychology. This book is legit.

But if I finish it I might pick this up, though I'm not going to lie. I am a very discerning reader. Whole grains destroying your brain..? Wtf are they getting at... Let's all just eat a bunch of salami + cream cheese while avoiding oatmeal and bam! healthy diet! yeah, right...

But I am open minded. Forward motion! At the same time, give me your best shot! Bet I could run a 24 mile marathon faster then almost everyone who reviewed that book... >:)

u/Gordon_ramaswamy · 1 pointr/CGPGrey

I think the explanation Grey is looking for is something that a lot of people are grappling with today. One of the best explanations I have found for the same is in the book Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. I am sure Grey has probably already read this book before though it is beneficial to look at it in the context of social media and our brains today. For example, the book talks about Systems 1 and 2 of thinking. While system 1 primarily involves our instinctive reaction, system 2 tries to invoke our brain to try to think. The social media today, including reddit etc are all examples of systems trying exploit our system 1 just to get a visceral reaction without us really using our critical thinking. The fact that there are so many podcasts out there can mean that sometimes even long podcasts can be analysed by our system 1s. I most definitely have been guilty of the same in the past.

One of the reasons Facebook is being blamed for elections today can also come out to this. Its not like people haven't had access to information in the past. Nonetheless, the fact that news today is much more instant and dependent on getting us to click or grab our attention means we really don't critically analyse it as much as we should, leading to the rise of fake news and headlines. Another helpful albeit short book about the same which I can recommend is The People VS Tech which is much more recent and gives a much better context to the ideas of system 1 and 2. This is probably one of the context that can help people think about what Grey is doing in a better manner.


Clearly, using more of System 1 can deeply affect the way we think, as that is most definitely more comfortable and doesn't easily challenge our brains.

u/Marmun-King · 1 pointr/videos

I initially followed the principles of Stoicism, which is a philosophy that's very close to the principles of CBT. So my first resource was /r/Stoicism, where you can find things like this and this that have direct correlation with CBT principles. Greek and Roman literature might be hard to get into, but there are very readable translations and the principles are applicable.

Of course, not everyone is interested in philosophy, so my recommendation would be to find something along the lines of Judith Beck's Cognitive Therapy, or other similar resources that are based on research. I can't really recommend else because I haven't read much from other authors.

But in general I would recommend reading about cognitive biases in general, along the lines of this, this, this, or this. Being conscious of how everybody thinks might help you see some negative spirals in your life, and can help you change the environment that might lead you to that negativity.

But again, professional help can be very useful, so definitely consult a professional who is maybe better for you. Good luck!

u/BearlyBreathing · 1 pointr/worldnews

Like I said, weird psychology. I know it sounds crazy, but it happens, and, actually, people are capable of even more counterintuitive behavior than that.

If you're interested, I highly recommend this book. The human brain is not really wired to be all that rational or consistent. As long as things are coherent at a given moment in time, the brain is just fine with that.

This is why stuff like the big lie work.

u/slutwalkr · 1 pointr/india

The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference - Malcolm Gladwell

The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business - Charles Duhigg

Thinking, Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman

------------ On my list -----------------

Think Like a Freak - Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner

u/elgosu · 1 pointr/EDH

Yup, the framing effect as described by Daniel Kahneman in

u/tacoman359 · 1 pointr/philosophy

Where are the premises of your arguments?

>If we are not rational actors, what sense does it make to allow some of them to rule others?

Where is this coming from? Who are you talking about ruling who?

Personally, I don't think that anyone should be ruling over anyone else. I think all people should be involved in their own governance, but it's obviously tricky to implement in practice.

Please stop saying "if we are not rational actors". This is not an unanswered question. We are not rational actors (not by any definition of rational worth using, at least). For my favorite book on the subject, check out Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow. There's a lot more research out there though.

u/timrosenblatt · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Check out a book called “Thinking fast and slow” by Daniel Kahneman. It goes into this type of stuff, and how we have two types of systems in our brain that do what you’re describing.


u/piet-piet · 1 pointr/propaganda
  • No, because active thinking requires a lot of energy on the brain part (fast thinking in Daniel Kahneman's terminology or "sobering" as Bible puts), so most of the time we think on autopilot; and propaganda memes are essentially prefabricated / "fast food" thoughts which without critical analysis can easily become our own; our own autopilot. Few people care to train themselves through daily meditation to slow down their train of thought to release enough energy to be able to think more soberly and concentrated.

  • No, because in societies which are, as you vaguely put it, "healthy", people tend to be more conceited and self-congratulatory about their politics, hence less critical.

  • The term "healthy society" is too abstract and imprecise that it can be easily defeated, and at the same time self-glorified enough that for this reason can be justly labeled as propaganda. So, you're already affected.
u/Broskidoski · 1 pointr/PurplePillDebate

> For me, RP is like economics. It's a model of human behavior that is built on predictions and patterns.
> TRPers are like economists. There are many "schools" that are built around RP, some of which are more closely aligned with the model (from my perspective) and some of which are not. And just because someone says they are an economist does make them an expert in economics.
> Trying to understand RP just from reading what various TRPers write is as ridiculous as trying to understand economics from what various self-proclaimed economists write.

Actually, I'm mostly referring to the sidebar when I discuss TRP concepts. And comparing TRP to economics is a great example.

Remember why the financial crisis happened in 2008? That's right - flawed ideas of economics. There's tons of literature on how applied neoclassical economics quickly can become a self-fulfilling prophecy which apparently produces results in the short term, but in the long term spells doom.

Same thing applies to TRP. Compare the average TRPer to an investor during the pre-crisis area. The investor buys MBS-funds which seem to pay off infinitely. So he puts more and more money into it, after a while he has invested everything he owns. Sometimes people warn him that his assets are based on mortages that will immediately default, and thus are worthless in the long run. But he points at his current net worth: Can't people see that this is working? Suddenly the entire market crashes do to the innate rotten nature of his MBS funds, and he is left with no assets and a whole lot of debt.

Same thing for the TRP guy. Spends years acting in line with TRP philosophy. It ostensibly works at first, but people are telling him that his behavior will not allow him to reach his goals in the long term. He ignores them and continues his TRP lifestyle. 5 years down the line the woman of his dreams leaves him. She's tired of him dissmissing her and walking away at the slightest hint of anger from her ("Holding frame"), she's tired of him not taking her seriously ("Amused mastery") and she has grown aware of how fragile and insecure his ego is as he seems to interpret anything she says as an insult ("Passing shit tests"). Now the man is fucked.

> Ugh. I hate the direct comparison to PUA. I know little about PUA as a whole (though some of their actions do seem to line up with what I would recommend), but I know I'm not the only RPer who bemoans RP turning into something like "PUA 2.0". RP, to my mind, is not just a new form of PUA. It goes way beyond what I understand of PUA, which really seems to only focus on short-term hookups.

Every single TRP idea existed in the PUA community. The most famous part of the community (popularly seen in "The Game" By Neil Strauss) involved tips and tricks for short-term hookups. The "Inner game" part of the community is pretty much identical to TRP. Just look at videos from RSD (Real Social Dynamics) and you'll find pretty much every TRP concept there.

> Again, you are focusing on the doing and not on the being (which isn't surprising, given that many TRPers make the same mistake). It's back to the old "fake it until you make it" idea. If you know who you need to be (like, say, confident), it can be useful to emulate that quality until you actually express it naturally, but to assume that the faking it is the making it is completely off-base.

I disagree. This is a flawed way of thinking. You cannot emulate confidence until it appears. Confidence is a feeling that makes you act and feel a certain way. We know from psychology that confidence is the result of your experiences within a given field and your interpretation of that. The only thing you accomplish by acting confident is that you get better at... acting like a confident person. Most people see through that easily.

> The end goal of RP is not to "do alpha", it's to "be alpha." If you are being alpha, all the rest of the shit will fall into place.

I understand the differences her between being and doing. But if you are actively (as is promoted in the sidebar) doing "Alpha male stuff" like "Holding frame" or "Amused mastery", then you are actually just teaching yourself a set behavior. You are not actually being authentic and acting in line with your own values - which would be what the idealized "Alpha male" would do.

> I can always tell that someone just attended a class or training by the fact that their actions are so out of alignment with their being.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about! Would that leader "Be" a leader by faking it until he made it?

> My understanding of the "hypergamy" dynamic and how men and women express and feel love differently comes from years of both reading various experts and studies on the subject of human sexuality and from my countless conversations (and relationships) with other people from all walks of life, so it's hard for me to reference something off-hand. I would say that the work of David Buss goes a long way towards validating the idea of hypergamy/polygyny as base sexual drives in humans, so I would check him out for that. Not included in this discussion, but I found that Esther Parel advocates a view of sexuality that confirms the idea of AF/BB, so that's another non-RP source.

I'm familiar with David Buss and evolutionary psychology. And yes, it describes why the impulses men and women have when it comes to sex have evolved. Women have evolved to be more selective because they risk pregnancy, while for men no such mechanism has been adaptive. However, men are also strongly attracted to visual cues of genetic fitness, just like women. There is nothing gender specific about the idea of "Hypergamy" if it is merely defined as the desire for an attractive partner.

> Why is that so hard to believe?

There are plenty of reasons for this in an evo psych perspective. The most important one being that the high SMV man has other opportunities. Unless the woman is equally high in SMV, there's no way for her to know that he won't just pump and dump her, then leave her for a prettier woman. Then she's stuck with a baby and no man to protect her. Bad idea.

But in terms of real life applications, I was referring to the "Branch jumping" idea. Let's say you have a girlfriend. She meets a guy who has a better job than you, is more confident, looks better than you - he is a higher SMV male.

Does she immediately leave you if he hits on her? According to the idea of branch jumping : Yes.

> What people ideally want and what people can realistically get are two totally different animals.

Of course. I mean, If everyone got what they wanted, I'd be a space cowboy. But I'm not, and I'm still quite happy with my career. And just like I'm happy with my career, a woman can be happy with her man even though he's not the perfect man. And a man can be the same.

> Most of life requires trade-offs that result from a cost benefit analysis.

Are you applying classical economical assumptions to human behavior? Because it seems you're talking of humans as rational actors. I recommend this book by Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize winner in economics, which describes why humans do not fall in line with the assumption of the classical "Economic man".

> And it's interesting that you perceive polygamy as the result of patriarchal societies. I would maybe conjecture that you think that, conversely, monogamy is not a result of patriarchal societies? If so, there are many anthropologists who would disagree with you. They see enforced monogamy as something instituted by men for men and not for the benefit of women.

The old-fashioned form of monogamy is patriarchal because women had to marry. They couldn't work or go to school. Modern monogamy is not a patriarchal construct. And since we've already covered evolutionary psychology, it's worth mentioning that humans have an evolved pair-bonding mechanism which includes emotions aimed at keeping the relationship exclusive (Jealousy).

> The assertion that "women wouldn't want to share" presumes a modern setting for mating, which would be a mistake. I guarantee you that, at a time when resources were scarce and survival was a daily question, the concern over "sharing" becomes far less important than the concern over "how do I ensure the survival of my child and myself? How will I ensure that sufficient resources are available for accomplishing that?"

We agree here. If nuclear war ravaged the world tomorrow this would definately be the case.

> Additionally, it must be noted that the whole notion of humans being naturally monogamous, especially for life, doesn't really hold up in either an academic or a real world sense. Clearly, monogamy, especially life-long monogamy, is not the natural order of things for humans (otherwise, we wouldn't have all the conversations about n-counts and cheating and divorce and...). Humans have found that lifetime monogamy can work well for both parties in certain settings, but that does not mean that's what we are wired to do.

We have a drive for pair bonding, that's about it. It doesn't really make sense to talk about a "Natural order of things" with humans, the entire success of our species is contingent on us being adaptive. For a lot of people. life long monogamy will work. For a lot of people, it won't. The reasons why and why not are unique to each case and infinitely complex.

> I could write a book on this. Many authors already have. I don't have time now, but maybe we can get into it at some point. In the meantime, this is probably one of the most explored topics in human sexuality.

Sure, I'm interested.

u/MASerra · 1 pointr/technology

That is what I'm thinking. The minute the board learns that an AI can run the company for $100,000 a year rather than a CEO at $21 million, the CEO will be irrelevant.

As it is, CEO are irrelevant in most cases. There is a whole chapter here about how useless they are:

Kahneam basically says that flipping a coin yields as good of results as a CEO's choices.

u/ziddina · 1 pointr/exjw

This link allows one to preview a bit of that book:

I did notice that his Nobel prize was in economics, not psychology...

[edit to add] I've just skimmed the first few pages of the book. The exercise of looking at the photo on the first page of the first chapter is interesting, but the conclusions which the author then tells the reader that they "knew" and "sensed", are both closed assumptions rather than open questions, & are more a reflection of his responses to the photo, than any receptive mindset to the many conclusions that various readers might draw.

u/Salmagundi77 · 1 pointr/psychology

The opposite of black and white thinking (I guess you mean reflexive decision-making) isn't indecision, it's informed and reflective decision.

This resource might help you:

u/groundshop · 1 pointr/TwoXChromosomes

I completely agree. There are two topics the whole:
>The most important part is not a conviction but staying alive.

thing reminds me of.

1 - Daniel Khaneman in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow discusses the differences between the experiencing self and the remembering self. Briefly, the way we experience an event is very (very) disconnected from the way we remember and event.

Prioritizing survival of rape suggests that the memory of rape is less painful than the experience of rape itself. Arguments to the contrary get into territory of suicide, which is just as hard to discuss as the topic of rape.

2 - Atul Gawande in his book Being Mortal talks a lot about people diagnosed with terminal illness. For some, the focus of their lives becomes less about survival and more about controlling the narrative of their story, and how they're remembered.

At the point of diagnosis, many people will opt for painful chemo/radiation even for an extremely slim chance of a few extra years/months. Others disregard treatment and focus on controlling the parts of their lives they value the most - friends, family, unfinished projects. The latter group understands they're possibly shortening their lives, but choose to do so in order to retain control of their life story.

>We can say -I'd do this or I'd do that, but we don't know.

You're 100% right. I have no real idea what I'd actually do in the situations this thread talks about. I know what I hope I'd do.

>Let's hope none of us ever find out!!

I concur!

u/JamesNoff · 1 pointr/DebateAChristian

I say we must choose because that's what our brain is going to do anyways. Our brain, with it's fast, automatic, gut reactions always takes a stance. We can intellectually say that we don't have a high enough certainty of knowledge to form a belief, but on a lower level we've already taken a stance.^1

Now that doesn't mean we need to be closed minded to the alternative or pretend that we have knowledge we don't. A belief is what we think is true based on the knowledge we have, so our beliefs can change just as quickly as we get new knowledge or perspectives.

^1 This is taken from reading Thinking Fast and Slow, a fantastic book on how our brain works and how the shortcuts our brain takes can lead to things like optical illusions, biases, and cognitive illusions. Highly recommend.


Consider this: Would you be surprised to find out that God exists? We are surprised when reality doesn't match our expectations. If we expect to never find out that God exists, that indicates that we already believe that He doesn't.

u/mythealias · 1 pointr/Frugal

Knowing the trick is definitely a big step forward but I wonder if it is all that easy.

Our mind is much easier to fool than we imagine.
I recommend reading Thinking Fast and Slow (wiki). It is a slow read but highlights how easily our judgements can lead us astray.

u/xbhaskarx · 1 pointr/MLS

Seems like a lot of effort to show something that should be completely obvious to anyone with half a brain...

>Wikipedia cites this famous logical illusion as the best illustration of what cognitive scientists call "The Conjunction Fallacy."

> 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?

> Linda is a bank teller.
> Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

This is from Thinking, Fast and Slow

u/Hau-oli · 1 pointr/infj

Gut feeling, intuition, rationality, biases, decision making and the mental processes behind them is a fascinating study and has served me well in my professional career and my private life. If interested in learning more , then look at this chapter "A Model of Heuristic Judgement" (PDF) ^((1)) by Daniel Kahnerman. He also wrote a very accessible, New York Times bestseller book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" ^((2)) (Amazon link)

Kahneman expands on "dual process theories" - namely, that we rely on both intuition and reason, where one process, intuition, is quick and the other, reason, is slow. There can be troubles at the speed of processing or when one system is wrong. When I was in the military my commander chastised my speed of decision making during a critical situation saying "Major, I need you to function, not compute!". Slow vs fast thinking.

Another interesting look at this topic is this article (PDF) ^((3)) who suggests that "people at least implicitly detect that their heuristic response conflicts with traditional normative considerations. I propose that this conflict sensitivity calls for the postulation of logical and probabilistic knowledge that is intuitive and that is activated automatically when people engage in a reasoning task."

^((1) Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge University Press.)

^((2) Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.)

^((3) De Neys, W. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 28-38)

u/Cherubaal · 1 pointr/books

No More Mr Nice Guy by Robert Glover. Also: Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

u/ctolsen · 1 pointr/ZenHabits

While I may agree with her conclusion – taking time with things is definitely healthy – her premise is flawed.

> One flight was around 65$ at that time. I simply felt the urge to procrastinate with that task, so I chose to wait. [...] Some weeks later, I remembered I should buy those tickets after all. So I went online and found that the prices were close to 30$ per flight. I felt a very strong urge to buy them and I did.

Confirmation bias all the way. If you do this over and over, statistically, you will lose money. No way around it. I'm betting she's lost money herself this way, but that's not what she subjectively remembers.

> Because if the timing is wrong, then all efforts are in vain. He gives the example with agriculture: if you plant the seeds in winter, then you will get absolutely no crop, even though you may do the most amazing job at planting them.

This is not intuition. This is logic. You're quite stupid if you plant seeds in the winter, because it doesn't work. However, taking time with decisions, "sleeping on it", lets your intuition get a stab at things. That doesn't necessarily mean that now is never the right time, that you should always feel motivation when you work, or that just waiting will improve your results – as opposed to gaining more knowledge, for instance. Your intuition, or whatever we should call it, can work while you browse reddit, but only with what you already know. It definitely does not magically find cheap plane tickets or know when to plant seeds without looking outside.

Procrastinate all you want, and let your subconscious do the job for you. There's no reason to be voodoo about it, it actually works and it's well proven scientifically. But proper literature like Thinking Fast and Slow gives you a much better understanding of it.

u/random_guy_11235 · 1 pointr/worldnews

Everyone thinks this. Everyone. That they are above being influenced by something as minor as free things. The problem is that everyone IS influenced by it, in subtle and hard-to-detect ways.

Thinking: Fast and Slow has a great section on this, particularly on why lobbying works so well even though individual politicians tend to think it has no effect on their decisions.

u/oblique63 · 1 pointr/INTP

That reminds me, there's a similar video summary of the Brain Rules book over here:

(and more info here)

Totally forgot about that one. It's cool, but you can pretty much get the whole gist of it just from those links.

And if anybody's craving more psych-y books, Subliminal is also pretty cool (it's like the diet version of Thinking Fast and Slow, which is good but long), though, the Willpower Instinct one already kinda touches on a bit of material from both those anyway.

u/Aoe330 · 1 pointr/atheism

>you don't need to pretend that dreams are 100% scientifically understood

I never said that. I simply stated that there is no evidence that dreams are anything other than brain activity. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that it is only brain activity, and doesn't come from any outside force at all.

>a "drunkard walk" is not sufficient for any scientist

Drunkard's Walk is a term used to express a type of statistical theory. It's fine if you didn't know that.

>I do not discount the possibility that there are non-corporeal entities that are undetectable through current scientific means or organic sensation, which can somehow affect our perceptions or otherwise interact with our unconscious brain.

I discount it because there is no evidence to support it. You may as well believe there is a teapot halfway between here and Mars, or a flying spaghetti monster for that matter.

I believe in evidence. I will follow where that evidence leads. The evidence that dreams are some sort of cosmic vision and not just the brain playing out scenarios is incredibly lacking.

You seem to think I'm arrogant for dismissing your idea in favor of one with greater evidence in it's favor. Try to see it from my perspective; you are claiming that you are party to some secret or greater knowledge of a paranormal or supernatural world, and have at best anecdotal evidence to back up your claim. I on the other hand can go to any campus book store and pick up at least one book about neuroscience that is infinitely more verifiable than any of your anecdotal evidence. Can you really blame me for laughing at your idea?

u/AmishHomicide · 1 pointr/AskReddit

The Drunkard's Walk is a great one. Granted you have to enjoy statistics and discussions on probability and randomness.

u/bapp · 1 pointr/nfl

Good read right here.

It doesn't fulfill the title but it's still interesting basic statistics.

u/NoTimeForInfinity · 1 pointr/math

This is mostly what I wanted to explore after reading about him in The Drunkard's Walk. I'm very interested in other cases like his. It fascinates me.

u/idelovski · 1 pointr/croatia

Koja je šansa da upravo čitam The Drunkard's Walk?

Isto tako molio bih izračun koja je šansa da sam upravo jutros pročitao poglavlje koje završava ovako:

> So in this case the chances that a positive test meant I was infected...

A sljedeće počinje ovako:

> Baye's theory shows that a probability...

u/switchcase · 1 pointr/AskReddit

> The law of large numbers has literally no implications here.

Then you don't understand it, because it has everything to do with gambling. It's even right there in the Wikipedia article on the Law of Large Numbers:

> For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game.

So obviously each spin is independent of the last spin's result, however, when you average out the results (which does include past results, that's where your mistake is), you get a percentage carefully calculated to give a house edge.

Now, what this statistics relies on is that all the money is being gambled with. So this winner, if he's clever, can bank most of the money and only gamble with a small subset of it or, even better, quit entirely.

That's why it makes sense for the casino to be giving him free stuff. The more of it he gambles with, the more likely the casino is to win it back.

If you're still not understanding, I recommend you pick up a book on statistics. It's not very intuitive stuff. The Drunkard's Walk is a nice non-technical book that explores just how bad human brains are at dealing with probabilities; it's one of my favourites.

u/ReliableSource · 1 pointr/atheism

While not specifically about atheism, I think The Drunkard's Walk is a good read that most atheists would appreciate.

u/rioter · 1 pointr/AskReddit

It is not truly random. this book will explain everything you ever wanted to know about random!

u/U747 · 1 pointr/science

If you find people's reactions to the Monty Hall problem fascinating, you should check out The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives.

I'm in the process of reading it now, and the author mentions this very encounter between vos Savant and the PhDs.
It's a fun, freakonomics-type read with some good anecdotes.

u/spyder4 · 1 pointr/IAmA

Have you read this book??

I am reading it at the moment, and it is a fantastic read, with a lot of great real life examples. Someone such as yourself is probably at, or above, this level, but I recommend it for others who are interested in the topic!

u/Yserbius · 1 pointr/IAmA

What did you think of the book The Drunkard's Walk?

u/archarios · 1 pointr/books

Maybe he could dig The Drunkard's Walk.

u/another_user_name · 1 pointr/science

Other books that I found really useful, informative, motivating and accessible in high school include Feynman's QED -- a really cool introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics that I read my senior year -- and Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe. I think somebody mentioned it already.

Mathematics, the Loss of Certainty is a really good discussion on the history of math. Also quite accessible. I read it my freshman year of college.

More tangential books that I've enjoyed include The Drunkard's Walk and Chances Are. They cover similar ground, though, and I like the latter better.

There's also some pretty good fiction that gives you the flavor of some of the mindbending concepts that can arise from physics. Robert Heinlein's Time for the Stars is a good "juvenile" book that takes a step into the Twin's Paradox. Time dilation pops up in Larry Niven's A World Out of Time as well. For solar system level astrophysics, Niven's The Integral Trees postulates a really cool alternative to planets.

I read most the fiction around the time I was in high school, with the exception of Time for the Stars. Ironically, it's the only one that I can guarantee doesn't have "adult themes." I don't know what sort of restraints your parents put on your reading, though. They're all good books.

The other thing, other than books I mean, you can do is find a mentor or club in your area that could help put you on your way. An astronomy club would be a good idea, but there may also be physics or chemistry styled mentors in your area. They're likely to act out of a local university or research center (I live in Huntsville, Alabama, where Marshall Spaceflight Center is located. I know they have outreach/mentoring programs).

Oh, and I know I'm going on, one last thing that I found really useful and fun was my involvement in summer programs. In my case, the big one was Mississippi Governor's School, a three week summer program. It was an awakening from a social standpoint. (Ten years later, a large proportion of my friends either attended it or I know via some connection to it, still.) And it had an astrophysics class, which was awesome. I know other states have programs like it (assuming you're in the US), and MGS at least is easier to get into than commonly believed. People think a counselor's recommendation is required, but it's not and you get two opportunities to attend, between sophmore and junior and junior and senior years. It's unlikely you're in MS, of course, but other places have similar programs.

Good luck with things and keep us posted. :)

u/imo_ · 1 pointr/cscareerquestions

I can't answer your question directly since I haven't fully read CTCI, but I'm going to throw another recommendation out there. I started doing Codility problems but wasn't happy with my ability solve them.

I could arrive at the correct solutions, but it took me a long time and always felt messy, like I was going in circles or down more dead ends than I should be. Maybe you don't have that problem. Anyway, finally I found this book, The Art and Craft of Problem Solving. It's aimed a little more at mathematics, but, damn was it helpful for me. The difference in my solutions before and after reading this book is huge.

u/nura2011 · 1 pointr/cscareerquestions

Here are a couple of suggestions:

  • Take up competitive programming. Go to and do the problems from there (they have a few book suggestions as well). Aim to participate one day in ACM-ICPC or Google CodeJam.

  • Go deeper into Mathematical areas relevant to programming such as graph theory, number theory, combinatorics, etc. Rudiments of most of these can be picked up at your level. Go through a book like The Art and Craft of Problem Solving

  • Explore functional programming languages (read this: Advanced Programming Languages ) to improve your programming range.

    I am not an especially good problem solver, but I have done fairly OK financially. These are suggestions that I wish someone had given me when I was your age - it would have made my career slightly more fun!
u/formulate · 1 pointr/math

Doing math is all about problem solving and this is a really terrific book for building your intuition and confidence in problem solving.

u/groundhogcakeday · 1 pointr/Parenting

12-13 is a major time of transition. It is too early to know who and what he will be when he comes out on the other side of it, but it is certainly not too early to worry about it. And there is still room for parental guidance. Teens are complicated, so it's a good time to refresh your parenting library.

The first book that your post brought to my mind was this one by Paul Tough: "How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character" I'll haven't finished it, however; it didn't seem relevant to my kids. But it's popular and may be worth checking out. I also like Madeline Levine's books, which are along similar lines but fit my family a bit better.

The book that influenced my parenting the most is Alfie Kohn's "Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes" But I read this when my kids were very young, and I suspect it is why we didn't need Paul Tough's book at 12.

u/zlozlozlozlozlozlo · 1 pointr/AskReddit

No. It's from a book (How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer), the patient was of one António Damásio. You could probably look up his writing too, in particular read about the case of Phineas Gage.

u/arpie · 1 pointr/politics

Yes, it's unfortunate, but that's they way it is. It's part of how our brain works to rely on emotions/ feelings/ gut to make important decisions -- in part because we need to do that for survival, we need quick reactions in some situations so our brain uses these emotional shortcuts. However, there are plenty of times (like in the cases we're talking about) where this emotional reaction is wrong and misguided, but it still happens. A good book on the subject is "How we Decide" by J. Lehrer.

u/eroq · 1 pointr/science

Just read How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer. This is all in there.

u/soupydreck · 1 pointr/statistics

Aside from Tufte, you might find Cleveland's Visualizing Data worthwhile. I'm reading Stephen Few's Now You See It: Simple Visualization Techniques for Quantitative Analysis now.

Also, try following some related blogs, like Nathan Yau's Flowing Data or Kaiser Fung's Junk Charts. You can get a sense of some appropriate and/or inappropriate ways of visualizing data from these.

Finally, once you get more familiar, get something like Murrell's R Graphics. This will help you understand the basics of the base R graphics capabilities so you can make what you want, exactly how you want. ggplot2 is awesome, too, but understanding the basics is really helpful. Hope that helps.

u/1stchairlastcall · 1 pointr/userexperience

Read some work by Stephen Few and Edward Tufte on info viz. A lot of pointers and design claims/tips to be found there.

u/humble_braggart · 1 pointr/dataisbeautiful

Stephen Few has some pretty decent, up-to-date books that make healthy reference to the past half-century's well-known sources such as Tufte, Bertin and others. It uses well-made examples produced with fairly modern tools.

I have enjoyed Show Me the Numbers and Now You See It and would say they are worth the read.

u/trobrock · 1 pointr/Entrepreneur

Upwork is a great place to start to sell your CAD skills as a freelancer, either to get cash flow to support your future plans or to be your primary source of income.

As far as resources goes on the how to start something. I found "The Startup Owner's Manual" ( and "Business Model Generation" ( both have very boring titles, but great content and guided both myself and my co-founder down the road of finding our business idea and launching it. We are now a $5M a year business.

u/kishi · 1 pointr/startups

My friend, you really need to buy a book.

u/strazor · 1 pointr/startups

Good questions.

1 - What is the importance of a cofounder? The answer depends on a lot of things, mostly the value that a cofounder could bring. The challenge is finding someone who will invest a lot of time and is willing to see a 16 year old as an equal. I am 34 years old and I would have a hard time personally with that. When it comes to startups, founders don't spend a lot of time helping each other develop skills. Usually you have pretty distinct areas of responsibility and have to train yourself in whatever those areas are. Said differently, a cofounder is more about what skills they bring to the table that they can execute somewhat independently rather than their ability to personally help or train you. If you are able to develop what you envision yourself, a cofounder might not be necessary. But to be clear, a great cofounder is worth a whole lot. You just have to overcome unique challenges because of your age and background. My personal recommendation to you would be that you should at least learn enough to develop the MVP yourself. I think it is unlikely you would find a skilled developer to act as a cofounder for free for you (equity is still free until it is paid out, and it usually isn't).

2 - Should you use kickstarter? Hard to make any recommendation without a good understanding of your product and potential audience. Have you done any market research? Have you looked at what makes a product successful on kickstarter vs not? Is your product physical or software (what it sounds like)? How has that type of product performed before on kickstarter?

A good book I would recommend if you get serious is The Startup Owner's Manual by Blank and Dorf.

u/SunRaAndHisArkestra · 1 pointr/startups

There is product development, and there is customer development. You get the second one. Read Four Steps to the Epiphany.

u/wellover30 · 1 pointr/sexover30

If you want to cheer yourself up a little you could have a look at this book:

For example, two-thirds of US citizens believe the global proportion of people living in extreme poverty has doubled in the past couple of decades; it has halved. The world is not as gloomy as you may think.

u/onefootin · 1 pointr/videos

Before you believe random youtube videos on global statistics. I recommend you read 'factfullness' by Hans Rosling


He passed in 2017 but was a health specialist to the UN and He was the Professor of International Health at Karolinska Institute:


u/sp668 · 1 pointr/Denmark

Jeg er ved at læse Hans roslings sidste bog.

Den er rigtig god, masser af input om hvordan man kan se på verden hvis man tænker på fakta og ikke så meget på mediernes fokus på katastrofer og drama.

Det er ham der har ret og hvor journalisten tager fejl.

u/IemandZwaaitEnRoept · 1 pointr/worldnews

If you look at the image, above "China" you see a vague text: "data doubts", so they know this data has issues. All data is from the UN btw. You can download this app and play around. And if you're interested, but book Factfulness is a great read, about the state of the world and mostly how the western view is often very wrong about it.

u/Yelesa · 1 pointr/geopolitics

> also many people don't understand or exaggerate that developed and undeveloped part, years ago i was with a friend of mine and we were talking to some girl from germany for fun, and she asked us "do you in syria have cars and phones like us?"

That just means 'developed' and 'underdeveloped' are poor labels, or that 'underdeveloped' contains a much wider group than the other one. Factfulness separated people in 4 income groups, perhaps this is better with you?:

> Level 1: People live on less than $2 a day. Rosling estimates that one billion people are living at or below this threshold. They get around on their own two barefoot feet, cook over an open flame like a cookfire, fetch water in a bucket, and sleep on the ground.

This is what most people understand if they hear the word underdeveloped/developing. Basically, tribes and very conservative lifestyles.

> Level 2: This is the income group where the majority of the world's people live. They get by on between $2 and $8 a day and might have some possessions like a bicycle, a mattress, or a gas canister for cooking at home.

This is the stereotypical view of Eastern Europe, India, Southeast Asia, and Latin America in movies, and while this might be true in those regions for rural areas, most of the people living there are level 3 and 4.

> Level 3: This is the second most populous category on Rosling's list, after level 2. People in level 3 live on anywhere from $8 a day to $32. They have running water, might own a motorbike or car, and their meals are a rich and colorful mix of foods from day to day. They also probably have electricity and a fridge, which makes things like studying and eating enough varied nutrients easier.

What you were talking about are countries in Level 3.

> Level 4: Like level 1, roughly one billion of the world's people live on this level. They make $32 a day or more and have things like running water (both hot and cold) at home, a vehicle in the driveway, and plenty of nutrients on their plate. They've also likely had the chance to finish twelve years of school, or more.

Basically, the people who want to help.

u/floydflanderson · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

Factfulness will really open your eyes to the amazing improvements humanity has made over the last generation. A refreshing perspective that typically gets overshadowed by the doom and gloom of today's reporting

u/ProctoKopf · 1 pointr/The_Mueller

I know it's easy to feel poorly about the world, and our own lives, but the reality is quite positive. I recommend the book Factfulness. The times we live in are actually quite spectacular...and they're getting better.,204,203,200_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

u/kiruthik · 1 pointr/IAmA
u/DelfinoLoco · 1 pointr/Entrepreneur

I'd recommend reading the book Sprint by Jake Knapp. He developed a super cost and time efficient method for startups to see if there is in fact a demand for their product before dumping tons of money into it. Check it out -> Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days

u/sleeppastbreakfast · 1 pointr/mildlyinteresting

The robot is very similar to the one mentioned in Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas which was backed by Google Ventures

u/carlh999 · 1 pointr/Entrepreneur

Check out;

  • Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days" by Jake Knapp

    This book really is great and helped me to create a startup in 24 hours. Below is my startup;

  • Desert Storm

    It really gets you to think of speed and tests your idea without investing too much into something that might not work.

    Ideally, management will be learnt on the way and shouldn't be too much of the focus when starting up a business. You need to focus on getting your product out to the market asap and prove your business model works. From this point, everything else will follow.

    I hope this book helps you out and wish you all the best of luck! Let me know if you need any other advise.
u/redgears · 1 pointr/AskParents

You are providing no specifics. None. Just what you aspire to your toy to do. I can't give you feedback on your aspirations, half the toys on the market spout aspirations about teaching children valuable things.


\>Since most adults are clueless on what profession, career, calling to pursue. Your children will have a taste of it when they are young so they'll be able to figure out which one is for them.

This is utter BS. Playing with a toy focused around a career teaches you nothing about what that career is like.

Build a prototype, go test it with potential customers. Check out Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days.

u/AFX_Has_No_Meme · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

> But how can we be manipulated so easily?

Read this, then read this, and then read this. None of these books can be condensed in to an ELI5 answer, and the third book has some dated examples (although they are just as relevant as ever), but they are well worth your time and have the answers you seek.

u/platotld · 1 pointr/atheism

Without getting to deep, there was a great book on coercion, basically mentions faith slightly, but really is about marketing. One of the key elements of getting into a persons mind and making them do what you want, to think the way you want them to is through utter WTF confusion. A great example was most malls are designed to get you lost and be bright and full of lights to get you to feel out of your element and buy buy buy.
The point I make here is perhaps this story was just so WTF the Dad's mind just took it in and this is what he tried to pass on to you. Like a mind virus ..... anyways below is a plug to the book. I thought it was great stuff.

u/MrSparkle666 · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Coercion: Why We Listen to What "They" Say by Douglas Rushkoff

Before I read it, I thought I knew how advertising and consumerism had invaded every aspect of our culture. Now I realize I had no idea. I can no longer look at anything without skepticism.

u/GrumpyFromHell · 1 pointr/italy

>In quel 0,1% dei casi cosa bisogna fare?

Quello 0,1% di casi comprende un'infinità di situazioni diverse, dalle semplici parole grosse alle pistole.

Purtroppo non è così semplice generalizzare, proprio perchè si tratta di casi molto, ma molto diversi.

Giusto per darti un'idea di cosa significhi, a livello teorico, "difesa personale" consiglio questo : molti dubbi e preconcetti sul "cosa" e sul "come" lì vengono spiegati (bene) e approfonditi.

Detto questo.... Wall of text incoming.


>raramente si allena il contatto pieno (per ovvie ragioni sul Krav Maga) ergo non ci si prepara, imho, a un vero scontro.

Il "contatto pieno" ha senso solo sul ring. I professionisti della violenza non ti prendono a ceffoni, usano attrezzi atti a offendere comunemente noti come "armi", quindi c'è un'unica strategia valida in questi casi: se puoi, non farti prendere.

Detta così sembra un'ovvietà da bacio Perugina, ma l'essenza della difesa personale sta tutta lì: imparare a riconoscere e prevenire le situazioni di pericolo ed evitarle (leggi il libro che ti ho consigliato e capirai un po' meglio cosa intendo).

Se e solo se tutte le tue strategie di evasione non funzionano, e se e solo se riesci a prevedere con sufficiente anticipo il rischio (spoiler: i predatori migliori cacciano all'agguato o in branco, or inclusivo), allora è il momento di menar le mani.

Dal punto di vista legale la strategia migliore è deescalare il livello di violenza dell'incontro (che significa ? Miller lo spiega bene), sapere come farlo richiede anni di pratica (e non si può spiegare in un post, per quanto lungo).

Pratica di cosa ? Tenendo conto della situazione italiana, dove la maggior parte delle aggressioni avvengono con lame corte o equivalenti e armi contundenti improvvisate, consiglio di tenere d'occhio tre stili in particolare: Kali, Jujitsu tradizionale (non Brazilian e per carità, niente metodo Bianchi...) e Kenjutsu

Il kali per un motivo molto semplice: ti mette in mano fin da subito lame corte e bastoni. E ti insegna fin da subito cosa NON fare quando ti trovi davanti qualcuno armato di coltello o bastone (occhio che non insegna tutto, in particolare non insegna a scappare....)

Il Jujitsu tradizionale ti mette a disposizione un vastissimo arsenale tecnico le cui armi principali (proiezioni e leve) sono perfette per deescalare situazioni rognose.

Il kenjutsu, invece, è utile non tanto per cosa insegna ad usare, ma per l'enfasi che pone sul controllo e sulla valutazione del maai (concetto un po' rognoso da tradurre... diciamo gittata ma è un pelo più complesso di così). Sapere dove mettersi per essere (relativamente) al sicuro rispetto ad un avversario armato è un'abilità che fa molto molto comodo in qualsiasi scontro.

Dove sta la difficoltà in tutto questo ? Principalmente in due punti.

Il primo è che se non pratichi sotto pressione, tutto quello che farai sarà perfettamente inutile in una situazione di stress. La paura vincerà, l'adrenalina prenderà il comando, e tu prenderai (se va bene) calci nel culo a due a due finchè non diventan dispari.

Il secondo punto è il tempo. Chiunque ti prometta di diventare competente in pochi mesi mente. Che sia per ignoranza, arroganza o avidità non importa: mente e da lui non potrai imparare niente di utile.

L'unica e sola strada per acquisire un minimo di competenza è la pratica, costante e per molti anni.

Spero di aver risposto in maniera almeno comprensibile.....

u/tor921 · 1 pointr/AskWomen

I don't have any links about it but it's a pretty well known thing: the stopping problem. A quick google will give you lots of resources!

The book is on amazon! book link

u/xoxide · 1 pointr/learnprogramming

I really liked the algorithms to live by book. Not heavy on the math, very approachable. I personally think it should be required reading for any CS50.

u/owen800q · 1 pointr/learnjava

You are wrong, the only books to learn Java foundation is core Java..
Of course, you should read some books about algorithms but not necessarily related to Java,
I recommend
Algorithms to live

Also I don't think the book effective Java should be read at the beginning.. because this book is used to tidying up your knowledge....
The value of studying a CS program is they are not only programming, the more they are doing problem solving by building large project rather than continually doing exercises in books.

The books you have read are quite enough, just start building something..

u/cjrun · 1 pointr/cscareerquestions

Algorithms to Live By is a new 2017 book, but it explains data structures that even a kindergartener could understand. It isn't a thorough deep-dive into computer science, but it compares real life problems to computer science problems. The author speaks in plain english and some of the scenarios he brings up are damn interesting.

u/tiglionabbit · 1 pointr/Music

You have discovered the explore/exploit dilemma, also known as the multi-armed bandit problem. Should you search for new things you on the chance you will like them, or continue to listen to the things you know you like?

I do the same thing with Spotify. I have a large list of "saved" music on there that I often come back to and shuffle when I need something familiar. But every so often I like to branch out and find something new, either with the weekly discover playlists, or by going to a song I like and playing the rest of that artist's songs or switching to radio mode so it will suggest more. With this method I gradually build up more songs for my list. Also every so often I remember a song I like and search for it, and then I can explore that artist's other songs. But the vast majority of the time I want the sure thing, so I go to my saved songs list and hit shuffle.

Btw, I learned about the multi-armed bandit problem from the book Algorithms to Live By.

u/Vetches1 · 1 pointr/cscareerquestions

No worries, just making sure it's the right book. This one, right?

Nevertheless, thanks for the recommendation!

u/c0xb0x · 1 pointr/videos

> They were on auto-pilot

The most instinctual thing for a person to do when inside something that's on fire is to get out as soon as possible - finding and bringing your physical possessions with you as well is what requires higher-order thinking. Especially when these people had several minutes while in the air to plan out their actions once they land. The explanation is simply a combination of a lack of judgment and selfishness.

> It does not exist in the body of popular media

What? Every other self-help book (examples: 1, 2) out there makes the contrast between the limbic system and the neocortex.

u/tonymet · 1 pointr/changemyview

The House I Live In is a recent documentary about the war on drugs and it's impact on poor, especially black communties. It helps explain why blacks are predominantly targeted for drug crimes, even though research shows that drug abuse affects black & white communities at the same rate.

When you couple the imbalanced law enforcement rates with the way blacks are portrayed on the evening news, a very unjust portrait of the black community results. And since most people stay within their clique (Asians hang with asians, whites with whites, blacks with blacks), people form biases about other races without obtaining first-hand experiences by working with people of another race. Moreover, our "confirmation biases" compel us to focus on information that confirms our beliefs instead of considering all of the information fairly (See Thinking Fast & Slow )

So when you look at the facts in context, and understand all of the pressures making you believe that "all blacks are thugs", you'll realize that it's far from the truth.

u/Jeffbx · 1 pointr/ITCareerQuestions


Write: Your 1, 3 and 5-year plans. Write plans for achieving them


The Big Short

The Smartest Guys in the Room

Go to: Industry events, user groups, technical meetups. But also museums, great restaurants, national parks and crowded cities

Connect with: Peers, leaders, teachers, innovators - not just people in your business niche.

Travel: As far & wide as you can. Nationally & internationally. Don't forget the local things around you that you've never seen

Exercise: You're taking care of your brain - take care of your body, too

u/OddJackdaw · 1 pointr/skeptic

In any normal time, I would say "What does Google have to say about your sources?"

Unfortunately, our present culture is such that everything is regarded as a completely untrustworthy source by a very vocal minority on one side or the other. So there is not necessarily a simple answer to that question.

One important thing to remember: No source is 100% right. All sources have a bias. The first thing you can do is try to be aware of what biases your preferred sources have. If you are aware that your preferred sources lean [direction], you can try to be aware of any spin they are applying.

There is a great new book called Factfulness that helps you learn how to read the news and spot the facts underlying reporting. Things that the articles might state, but -- intentionally or not-- they might obfuscate for one reason or another. Bill Gates reviewed it here, and in fact he liked it so much that he gave a free copy away to any person graduating from college this year. It's well worth reading if you can find the time. It's a short and quite interesting book, so I recommend it highly.

u/SaltyFoam · 0 pointsr/nottheonion

Please read this book to educate yourself on why this is incorrect:

u/mammothfriend · 0 pointsr/ChoosingBeggars

You may want to check out Algorithms to Live by.

It goes into practical examples of complex problems that mathematicians and programmers have solved. It reads somewhat like a philosophy book if that will help you.

u/adelie42 · 0 pointsr/changemyview

> Logic and facts

Something else you may like in this journey: Thinking Fast and Slow

My impression is that as much as we idealize rationality, "reasoning" in practice always takes place within some emotional context; there is always a reason or objective for why we are trying to make a rational argument, and such context will always influence the shape of our rationality in some way.

That may just sound like "bias", but the idea is presented in a more thought-provoking and humanist way.

u/ShannonOh · 0 pointsr/skeptic

And another note...I often just read /r/skeptic rather than participate, because participation (IMHO) should include links, sources, and well-reasoned arguments. That's cognitive processing, or "system 2" thinking, in Kahneman's language. Confirmation bias is less likely when we are using system 2 over system 1.

There are a variety of sources, but the first that comes to mind is Kahneman's recently published popular press book:

u/MrSabuhudo · 0 pointsr/changemyview

It seems you asked the right questions, since my answer turned out longer than expected. I actually had to split it up, because of the character limitation. So I hope my effort is of benefit to you. In any case, you should probably get a hot chocolate or something. :-D

Question 1

I think there are several reasons, why people might make these arguments (Note that these are not refutations of the arguments themselves, but speculations about their psychological roots / motivations):

  • Far-leftists see capitalism as an evil system that produces exploitation. Therefore, anarcho-capitalism would logically result in a maximum of exploitation, since it's like regular capitalism on steroids. It goes without saying that ancaps like me don't agree with anti-capitalist exploitation theory.

  • Most people just have a very strong status-quo-bias (basically what you suggested by referring to it as alien). As psychologists have believably suggested, it's very exhausting and unpleasant to change one's world view in any way. Since ancapism proposes such a radically different world view as the mainstream one, most people understandably don't want to consider it, because that poses the risk of exhaustion and discomfort. That applies especially to people who are not very interested in politics anyway, so the vast majority.

  • Moderate but politically active people might like the thought that they can improve society by wisely participating in its leadership. Ancapism basically tells those people: It doesn't matter how wise you are, you are not wise enough to rule over other people. That might be damaging to some people's ego.

  • And then there are the minarchist-libertarians, who are very close to ancaps. These people make the best arguments against ancapism, because they would actually like it if ancapism did work and they understand our arguments the best, since we think so similarly.

    As for the validity of the arguments themselves, I don't think the criticisms of the first three groups are quite easily refuted. But the minarchists make some points about the nature of defense services that definitely need to be considered. (E.g. positive externalities lead to an underproduction of defense services, making an anarchist society vulnerable to conquest.) The only possibility of ancapism turning south is basically the emergence of new states and a resulting regression to statism. That process would obviously involve a lot of bloodshed and ancapism should therefore be avoided if a violent return to statism is inevitable. I'll provide some of my own thoughts why I consider that unlikely.

    I think several factors play a role in the sustainability of "Ancapistan":

  • The anarchist territory should be as large as possible, so private property insurance companies can pool enough funds for efficient defense against neighbouring statist societies.

  • The surrounding statist populations should be as civilised and enlightened as possible, so it's harder for their respective states to justify war against the anarchist territory to their populations. (Lichtenstein probably has a good shot, Israel not so much.)

  • The population of the anarchist territory should be as armed and educated about property rights / libertarian ethics as possible, so any neighbouring state considering invasion would have to expect very high costs of keeping the invaded population under control.

    The education and enlightenment factor is likely to improve with time, so I do think the anarcho-capistalist society is inevitable. (Basically like marxists think communism is inevitable. I do see the irony there, lol.)

    Once the whole world is anarchist, I see little reason to worry about the emergence of a new state. That being said, going back to statism would be the worst case scenario. So we're in the worst case scenario right now... and hence, it can only get better if we try.

    If you want me to elaborate more, I'll gladly do that, but you can probably learn more from people smarter than me. I'll provide a book list further below and here is a great lecture on the specific topic. It's still a good idea to ask me any specific questions though.

    Question 2

    I haven't read anything by Ayn Rand. Her books are extremely long, so that's a turn-off. From what I've heard about her: I think her objectivist approach to ethics is both weird and wrong. However, her novels probably convey a good "sense" of capitalism. I have that already though, so I don't think I'm missing much. She might have been influencial in the sense that she has made many people familiar with ideas ancaps share. But her own ideology is statist in the sense that it actively supports a minarchist state and rejects ancapism on ethical grounds (as stated by Yaron Brook, the most prominent objectivist / follwer of Ayn Rand I know). I myself am much more of a fan of Murray Rothbard, which is basically the "founder" of anarcho-capitalism anyway. He's surely the most influencal person in the movement, Hans-Hermann Hoppe taking the controversial second place.

u/allz · 0 pointsr/Suomi

> Totesin vain että uskova ei ole täysin rationaalinen ihminen, joten hänen rationaalisuutensa kokonaisuutena on hyvä kyseenalaistaa.

On varmaan ihan hyvä kyseenalaistaa ihan kenen tahansa rationaalisuus, jos haetaan tyyppiä jonka ajatukset perustuvat ainoastaan kovaan päättelyyn ja faktoihin, sillä aikamoisilla arvailuilla tämä meidän pääkoppa toimii. Kirjallisuudeksi aiheesta suosittelen Daniel Kahnemanin kirjaa Thinkin, Fast and Slow, se on rahan ja ajan arvoinen teos.

> En tosin ymmärrä miten epärationaalisuus auttaa ymmärtämään muita ja itseään.

Ei usko näitä kahta poiskaan sulje. Toisten ymmärtämiseen riittää mullaisille ajatuksille altistuminen, mikä Suomessa kyllä tapahtuu luonnostaan kunhan ei eristäydy muusta maailmasta (mitä kyllä esiintyy, mutta ei ole yleistettävissä valtaosaan uskovista).

Toisaalta itsensä ymmärtämiseen ja yhtenäiseen maailmankuvaan juuri oman maailmankatsomuksen työstäminen ja opiskelu on hyödyllistä. Jos esimerkiksi tuon jutun nainen olisi ollut johdonmukainen ja oppinut kristitty, ei ennustajaeukko olisi voinut likaisuudella ihan kauheana pelotella saati myydä puhdistusta korkeaan hintaan. Tässä eräs tutkimus aiheen tiimoilta.

u/ucstruct · 0 pointsr/science

A really great book describing essentially these two systems is Thinking fast and slow by the psychologist Daniel Kahneman.

u/tkms · 0 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

> (very logical intuitive) conclusions

FTFY. This is not to discount the rest of your post (I'm not addressing it), but just because something feels correct intuitively doesn't mean it is, and in this case I seriously doubt the people who came to this conclusion applied any strenuous mental arithmetic (logic/reason) to arrive at it. Rather, they applied some general heuristic and drew a conclusion from associations they'd previously made. This is why pieces of legislation are cleverly named with hard-to-oppose or hard-to-discuss names -- because such names cause people to make intuitive conclusions about it before applying any reason, and make opposition to it sound awful.

The Patriot Act, Affordable Care Act, No Child Left Behind -- opposition to any of these things, whatever the basis, triggers an intuitive conclusion in others based on the name and stated purpose of the piece of legislation. Someone opposing The Patriot Act for whatever reasons would just be seen as "wanting the terrorists to win". Someone opposing No Child Left Behind, for whatever issues they have with it, would be seen as "hating child education".

Someone opposing Affirmative Action would be seen as "being racist", but that's an intuitive conclusion which comes before you apply reasoning and investigate whether racial motivations have anything to do with it. And that's very much not logical.

I have to give thanks to Daniel Kahneman's research on human decision making for making me aware of these distinctions, and apologize to him for butchering it as I relay some of the concepts. He would call this intuitive, heuristic style of thinking "system 1 thinking", and slow mental arithmetic & reason "system 2 thinking".

u/zen_boy · 0 pointsr/AskReddit

Well, I have only ever read Freud, so I would recommend all of his books, he, after all, although he didn't invent the idea of the subconscious, seems to be the one who formalised the whole thing. His writing about the ego and the id, and the super-ego, is worth reading, I think.

Apart from that I haven't really read anything on this topic, although I've heard recently about a few books which seem to be related to it. I really can't say whether I'd recommend these books or not, though, but they might be worth a try:

Blink is pretty well-known and the other one was mentioned on the "Out of the Game" podcast though I haven't read either. Sorry if those aren't what you're looking for but I haven't really kept abreast with psychology or philosophy at all really, I find self-analysis more useful and would recommend that (and maybe meditation?) in addition to reading. I'm sure there's stuff out there though.

Actually, I've just remembered, I did read some Robert Anton Wilson and he seemed to have something to say. The Illuminatus Trilogy seemed to promise a lot but I didn't think it really lived up to its promise, or what I expected of it, although some things seemed to make sense. Also Philip K Dick had some pretty interesting stuff to say about how things work, particularly his later novels.

One issue is that, in my view, everyone is inherently mentally unstable due to the design of the brain. Our brains distort things so much, and fail to recognise things about ourselves and the way we behave, for whatever reason. There seems to be a mental blind spot which makes it difficult for us to see some things, because we have a vested emotional and subconscious interest in not seeing them, or seeing them wrongly. We rationalise things so much, it's no surprise that we find it difficult to figure ourselves out. I saw one experiment on TV where people were asked, as part of a psychological study, to interview some random person and decide whether or not they would give them a job, but they were primed beforehand by being asked to hold a hot or cold drink. The people given the cold drink turned down the interviewees, and then rationalised that decision. The people given the hot drink passed the interviewees, and rationalised that decision. The truth seemed to be that their decisions were dictated by whether they held a hot or cold drink just before conducting the interview. But they thought their conscious mind has made the decision, and fabricated a reason without knowing they were doing it. I think this shows how much influence the subconscious has, and how difficult it is to disentangle it from what is rational. I think it's because we experience everything the subconscious experiences second-hand. Its compulsions and feelings are relayed to us in such a way that we feel they are our own, we own them.

Another experiment studied people's brainwaves and asked them to move a finger at random. Their brainwaves spiked before the people were conscious of deciding to move the finger, indicating a sub-conscious thought process.

Sorry I don't know of any specific forums related to this topic, I only ever really post on general discussion sites like Reddit, Metafilter, and Kuro5hin. Maybe is a good site, but it's difficult to get an account there, I don't have one so I'm not quite sure. seems to have a forum now but I've never posted there but I used to read that site.

Yes I admit I'm an amateur, but honestly, I don't think professionals are making much progress on this issue. Most psychological studies seem to be related to other topics, like why we find people attractive etc. There only seem to be a few dealing with the subconscious, and the interesting results seem only to be beginning to appear. Also studying other people is always going to be less illuminating than studying oneself, since one can never have as much access to the thoughts of another person as to one's own thoughts. And furthermore, how can someone in a position of not understanding their own brain fully hope to understand another person's brain? The people doing the studies are surely subject to the same prejudices, preconceptions, psychological distortions, insecurities, fears and subconscious trickery as the people they are studying.

u/ColloquialInternet · 0 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

Ideas are damn near worth nothing unless they're in the pure areas like mathematics and such. Execution is everything.

Luckily for you, executing is arguably easier than it has ever been in human history. A few things come to mind.

  1. Start a Kickstarter. Or one of the many clones of Kickstarter such as LocalLift

  2. Pick up a copy of Even if you're not doing a startup, it has a lot of great advice. It isn't just another get-rich-quick book, but instead a book by professors and successful entrepreneurs on how to exploit the long tail of needs. It might be true that you're not Google, but with 6 billion people on the planet you don't have to be Google. (There are 10 million women aged 25 to 30 in the US alone. If you have a product that you can make $1 in revenue from 10% of those you have a a $1million revenue company)

  3. Hire folks to build prototypes if you can. Search and ask questions over at for places to build prototypes for cheap

  4. Don't be afraid to talk about your idea and don't worry about your competitors at first. Just try to grow the idea and with it grow your customers. Digg already existed when Reddit was made. The creators of Breaking Bad said they wouldn't have done it had they known about Weeds.

  5. If the idea has legs, like you could maybe see a company with 5->7% growth per week, then you're in "startup territory" and you should also consider taking on venture capital of some sorts. Something like maybe $20K (or more depending on where you live) in seed funding for 5-10% preferred stock. Is it the sort of idea that you could grow quickly and turn into a life-time thing? Would your competition find it easier to acquire your company than compete with you?

u/remembertosmilebot · 0 pointsr/startups

Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!

Here are your smile-ified links:

The Startup Owner's Manual by Blank and Dorf.


^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly bot

u/ethics · -1 pointsr/Conservative

My full quote was:
>why the media is using a picture of a 12 year old vs. a more recent picture.

No need to look, it's my own hypothesis as he looks 12 vs. what he looked like more recently. Pictures available side by side here.

Finally, effective propaganda, especially in press and television will never be anything grandiose where people will have a GOTCHA moment. It's always subtle, hinting, nudging and anchoring. If you are really interested in that topic an excellent (and recent) book I highly recommend.

u/MstClvrUsrnm · -1 pointsr/collapse
u/sweetspringchild · -1 pointsr/worldnews

Quality on life is, on average, increasing all over the world.

Some things are getting worse, and for certain people life is shit, but on average humanity is better off than ever.

I really recommend book called Factfullness.

u/lookez · -1 pointsr/brasil

Vamos escrever mais uma vez já que o camarada leu e não compreendeu: não há formas de determinar se este desenvolvimento seria superior ou inferior ao atual sem especulação. Você está fazendo exatamente o que tenta criticar ironicamente ao copiar minha frase, especulando à favor de seu posicionamento político, o que é natural, mas não deixa de ser um erro que deve ser reconhecido e corrigido por si mesmo.

Historicamente o ser humano é péssimo em fazer previsões para o futuro baseado em seu pequeno conhecimento de mundo, devido à predisposições e a nossa deficiência de pensar estatisticamente. Goste você ou não isso é um fato, se quiser aprender mais sugiro a leitura Thinking, Fast and Slow do Daniel Kahneman, psicólogo que ganhou um Nobel de economia.


Aguardando os downvotes da ignorância seletiva.

u/Hauptgefreiter_i_R · -2 pointsr/nottheonion

Textbook example of bad science. By that logic the underserved ethnic groups would have to be more prone to conspiracy theories than others. And that is obviously not the case. The example in the picture (Obama being Kenyan) is not a good example anyways, since there are real hints of problems with a 100% sure US citizenship. The Senate had invalidated those concerns, but they were there . (International student status at Harvard, problems with birth certificate, if I remember correctly.) The logic of Failure by Dietrich Doerner shows very convincingly that this type of thinking, conspiracy theories that is, is more rooted in a situation that is poorly understood and where the feeble mind tries to find a reason in an unreasonable situation. Only people that are aware of that process can try to avoid it.

u/TheESportsGuy · -60 pointsr/nfl

This sub is very hostile to opinions and information they disagree with. A general sign of low education/intelligence/strong system 1 control

I know you're kind of joking/light-hearted, which is why I've chosen to respond to you.

Winning a super bowl in your first year as a head coach is obviously a strong indication that you're going to be a good coach. However, there are coaches who have won Super Bowls and then been proven to be less than great coaches in the NFL. Barry Switzer, Don McCafferty, Jon Gruden, Pete Carroll (?), Mike Ditka...All won a single super bowl. None of them have an amazing coaching legacy. Pete Carroll's is still undecided. I guess Gruden's technically is too.

Doug Pederson seems like a really good coach to me. However, there's no way there's enough information on him yet to say that he's a net positive reflection on Andy Reid's coaching tree.