Daniel Kahneman: The Trouble with Confidence

http://bigthink.com

The trouble, says Nobel Laureate psychologist Daniel Kahneman, is that we're often confident in our intuitive judgments even when we have no idea what we're doing.

• Category

  People & Blogs

[infintiyward]

don't you LOVE it when comment responses are the top comment!

[dookiecheez]

5 seconds in and it deserves a like.

[xscenify]

Wooah!

[麗予 黃]

THANK YOU.

[Corbin Foster]

Go HD for nose hair. 

[ThatThought]

physically, there exist both a negative bias and a positive offset.

the positive offset enables organisms to 'get used' to new threats, and learn in this process. the negative bias is a relation between responses to threat\bonus - whereby the graph is steeper after exposure to threat, than to a gratification.

the latter is supposedly the cause (contributes) of the 'loss aversion' - yet no proof supports this argument in O'keefe & Jansen's meta-research.

feel free to comment on this discussion

[Ebvardh]

Well, I checked it, and what the paper discussed was that gain-framed messages were more effective in persuading subjects than loss-framed messages.

I think it would be necessary to do more studies on the subject to talk conclusively about this, but so far it seems you're right to say negative bias is not something that he'd be right to address.

[ThatThought]

please let me know about the fruit of your efforts :)

[Ebvardh]

Thanks. I will.

[ThatThought]

not only it has been statistically overruled, the physical negative bias which has been demonstrated widely (a physiological effect that avoids danger or discomfort) (Caccioppo et al, 1999 etc.) and was presumably the "physiological" explanation for the said aversion, was also insignificant. Moreover, even the assumptioin of the "kernel state" which is the incentive (loss\gain) was tested, and yielded no such effect.

btw. correction: check O'keefe, 2008 and not as i mentioned earlier 1999 :)

[Ebvardh]

It was?

[ThatThought]

professor, hasn't the negative bias (loss aversion) been proved wrong in meta-studies ? (o'keefe, 1999)