 So the title of your book is Thinking Fast and Slow, and you talk about two systems, system one and two. Can you give us an example or tell us a bit about the characters in the book? Well, the characters are indeed system one and system two, and system one is, you know, it corresponds to a distinction that everybody recognizes in their own thinking, that there are some thoughts that just happen to you, and there are some thoughts that you must generate. There is a lot of mental life that is completely effortless, and then there is some of mental life that feels like work. And so that distinction is obvious and people recognize it. You know, when I say the word mother, you have images probably of your mother and you certainly have an emotional reaction, and that's something that happens to you. When I say two plus two, a number comes to your mind, you didn't bring it there, it just came, it happened to you. So and there are many, you know, in fact most of mental life is like that. You know, the words that I utter when I say the sentence, they just come to me, you know, I don't, sometimes I will stop and choose which word, that system two. But most of the time, you know, when I speak, the words just come. So that's system one. And a system two is, well, there are really two types of operation that system two performs, and one is complex computations, and that is where the pupil dilates, and you know, there's, this is mental work. So mental work is involved in, you know, a short-term memory task. If I ask you what is your, what was your previous telephone number, you'll work, and your pupil will expand by about 30 or 40 percent of its area as you retrieve this. Then there is self-control, the inhibition of impulses, the, when you are indeed choosing your words carefully because you don't want to offend or those are situations in which system two is hard at work, and you feel it. So it corresponds, system one and system two really correspond to experiences that are readily available and that everybody recognizes, so that distinction between something happening and something that you do is, I think, pretty compelling to most people. The dichotomy that you've drawn between system one and two, how does that relate to the previous work you've done on heuristics and biases? Well, it turns out, you know, we had, Imstwoski and I, when we started our work, we had something in mind that was fairly similar to that. We were interested in intuitive statistics, so in, you know, the estimates that come to people's minds about probabilities and so on. Now in many of these cases, we were both teachers of statistics, so we were testing our own intuitions but we knew that we could compute. So in our very first paper, we distinguished intuition from computation and our point was that intuition is, in some cases, surprisingly error-prone and that people should rely on computation. That's fine, yeah. So that's, that was the beginning, but we never studied what I now call system two. Then our work became controversial and people attacked it and criticized it. And there was something that essentially all the criticisms and all the experimental criticisms of our work had in common in that they were created a situation in which people could figure out the answer by working on it and that was really the background. So Imstwoski and I in the very last paper that we wrote together, we answered one of our very persistent and well-known critics, Goetge-Grenzer. And we pointed out that in his experiments, typically people would see, so well how would I describe it, one of our most, our best known examples in heuristics and it's one of the best examples in the heuristics literature is the Linda example. So Linda is that young, not so young woman, she's about 30 years old now and but I'm telling you that when she was a student she was an activist, a feminist, marched in all the marches. I didn't say feminist actually. And then we asked people how likely it is that Linda now is a bank teller or how likely it is that she is now a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. Now there's no question that when you ask different people those two questions they will invariably say that it's more likely that she's a feminist bank teller rather than a bank teller. When you ask them the two questions to compare the two options, you're allowing system two to check logic and by priming logical reasoning and by creating some, you can sensitize people so that they will detect that obviously she is more likely to be a bank teller than a feminist bank teller but that seems to be a different process. When people see only one example they evaluate the fit of that example. When you show them two things together they can also compare them and you provide another cue and that was really the background to the distinction between the two systems with a controversy around our work. It was an attempt to resolve that controversy by pointing out if you do it between subjects you know if you do it the way the world is so you make judgments intuitively about things that they happen you get those effects and you can make them disappear by allowing logic to play. I've worked a lot with anchoring you know so that's a phenomenon somebody puts a number in your head and it looks plausible after a while I mean in fact this is the way our mind works we hear something strange we try to make sense of it trying to make sense of it it makes us more prone to believe it so anchoring is is a suggestion effect that's very powerful you can recognize when you're being anchored so you know if you are in a negotiation situation and the other side you know has an outrageous number you know there is you could become anchored and that is