Thinking, Fast and Slow

In the book's first section, Kahneman describes two different ways the brain forms thoughts:

• System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, unconscious. Examples (in order of complexity) of things system 1 can do:
• determine that an object is at a greater distance than another
• localize the source of a specific sound
• complete the phrase "war and ..."
• display disgust when seeing a gruesome image
• solve 2 + 2 = ?
• read text on a billboard
• drive a car on an empty road
• think of a good chess move (if you're a chess master)
• understand simple sentences
• System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious. Examples of things system 2 can do:
• prepare yourself for the start of a sprint
• direct your attention towards the clowns at the circus
• direct your attention towards someone at a loud party
• look for the woman with the grey hair
• try to recognize a sound
• sustain a faster-than-normal walking rate
• determine the appropriateness of a particular behavior in a social setting
• count the number of A's in a certain text
• give someone your telephone number
• park into a tight parking space
• determine the price/quality ratio of two washing machines
• determine the validity of a complex logical reasoning
• solve 17 × 24

Kahneman describes a number of experiments which purport to examine the differences between these two thought systems and how they arrive at different results even given the same inputs. Terms and concepts include coherence, attention, laziness, association, jumping to conclusions, WYSIATI (What you see is all there is), and how one forms judgments. The System 1 vs. System 2 debate includes the reasoning or lack thereof for human decision making, with big implications for many areas including law and market research.{{Cite web|url=http://www.upfrontanalytics.com/market-research-system-1-vs-system-2-decision-making/|title=Web Page Under Construction|website=www.upfrontanalytics.com}}

{{main|Heuristics in judgment and decision-making|Cognitive bias}}

The second section offers explanations for why humans struggle to think statistically. It begins by documenting a variety of situations in which we either arrive at binary decisions or fail to associate precisely reasonable probabilities with outcomes. Kahneman explains this phenomenon using the theory of heuristics. Kahneman and Tversky originally discussed this topic in their 1974 article titled Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.{{cite journal|title=Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases|journal=Science|volume=185|issue=4157|pages=1124–31|url=http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research/teaching/Tversky_Kahneman_1974.pdf|url-status=bot: unknown|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120318172022/http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research/teaching/Tversky_Kahneman_1974.pdf|archive-date=March 18, 2012|bibcode=1974Sci...185.1124T|last1=Tversky|first1=Amos|last2=Kahneman|first2=Daniel|year=1974|doi=10.1126/science.185.4157.1124|pmid=17835457|s2cid=143452957}}

Kahneman uses heuristics to assert that System 1 thinking involves associating new information with existing patterns, or thoughts, rather than creating new patterns for each new experience. For example, a child who has only seen shapes with straight edges might perceive an octagon when first viewing a circle. As a legal metaphor, a judge limited to heuristic thinking would only be able to think of similar historical cases when presented with a new dispute, rather than considering the unique aspects of that case. In addition to offering an explanation for the statistical problem, the theory also offers an explanation for human biases.

{{Main|Anchoring (cognitive bias)}}

The "anchoring effect" names a tendency to be influenced by irrelevant numbers. Shown greater/lesser numbers, experimental subjects gave greater/lesser responses. As an example, most people, when asked whether Gandhi was more than 114 years old when he died, will provide a much greater estimate of his age at death than others who were asked whether Gandhi was more or less than 35 years old. Experiments show that people's behavior is influenced, much more than they are aware, by irrelevant information.

{{Main|Availability heuristic}}

The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that occurs when people make judgments about the probability of events on the basis of how easy it is to think of examples. The availability heuristic operates on the notion that, "if you can think of it, it must be important". The availability of consequences associated with an action is related positively to perceptions of the magnitude of the consequences of that action. In other words, the easier it is to recall the consequences of something, the greater we perceive these consequences to be. Sometimes, this heuristic is beneficial, but the frequencies at which events come to mind are usually not accurate representations of the probabilities of such events in real life.{{cite book|editor1-last=Kahneman|editor1-first=Daniel|last1=Tversky|first1=Amos|title=Judgment under uncertainty : heuristics and biases|journal=Science|volume=185|issue=4157|pages=1124–31|date=1982|publisher=Cambridge Univ. Press|location=Cambridge [u.a.]|isbn=9780521240642|chapter=11 – Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability|chapter-url=http://people.umass.edu/biep540w/pdf/Tversky%20availability.pdf|pmid=17835457|doi=10.1126/science.185.4157.1124|bibcode=1974Sci...185.1124T |s2cid=143452957}}{{cite journal|last1=Tversky|first1=Amos|last2=Kahneman|first2=Daniel|title=Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability|journal=Cognitive Psychology|date=September 1973|volume=5|issue=2|pages=207–232|doi=10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9}}{{subscription required}}

System 1 is prone to substituting a simpler question for a difficult one. In what Kahneman terms their "best-known and most controversial" experiment, "the Linda problem", subjects were told about an imaginary Linda, young, single, outspoken, and intelligent, who, as a student, was very concerned with discrimination and social justice. They asked whether it was more probable that Linda is a bank teller or that she is a bank teller and an active feminist. The overwhelming response was that "feminist bank teller" was more likely than "bank teller", violating the laws of probability. (All feminist bank tellers are bank tellers, so the former can't be more likely). In this case System 1 substituted the easier question, "Is Linda a feminist?", neglecting the occupation qualifier. An alternative interpretation is that the subjects added an unstated cultural implicature to the effect that the other answer implied an exclusive or, that Linda was not a feminist.

Kahneman writes of a "pervasive optimistic bias", which "may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases." This bias generates the illusion of control: the illusion that we have substantial control of our lives.

A natural experiment reveals the prevalence of one kind of unwarranted optimism. The planning fallacy is the tendency to overestimate benefits and underestimate costs, impelling people to begin risky projects. In 2002, American kitchen remodeling was expected on average to cost $18,658, but actually cost $38,769.

To explain overconfidence, Kahneman introduces the concept he terms What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI). This theory states that when the mind makes decisions, it deals primarily with Known Knowns, phenomena it has observed already. It rarely considers Known Unknowns, phenomena that it knows to be relevant but about which it does not have information. Finally it appears oblivious to the possibility of Unknown Unknowns, unknown phenomena of unknown relevance.

He explains that humans fail to take into account complexity and that their understanding of the world consists of a small and necessarily un-representative set of observations. Furthermore, the mind generally does not account for the role of chance and therefore falsely assumes that a future event will be similar to a past event.

{{Main|Framing effect (psychology)}}

Framing is the context in which choices are presented. Experiment: subjects were asked whether they would opt for surgery if the "survival" rate is 90 percent, while others were told that the mortality rate is 10 percent. The first framing increased acceptance, even though the situation was no different.{{cite news|last1=Reprints|first1=Roger Lowenstein|title=Book Review: Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-10-27/book-review-thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman|website=Bloomberg.com|date= October 28, 2011|access-date=May 27, 2016}}

{{Main|Sunk cost fallacy}}

Rather than consider the odds that an incremental investment would produce a positive return, people tend to "throw good money after bad" and continue investing in projects with poor prospects that have already consumed significant resources. In part this is to avoid feelings of regret.

{{Main|Overconfidence effect}}

This part (part III, sections 19–24) of the book is dedicated to the undue confidence in what the mind believes it knows. It suggests that people often overestimate how much they understand about the world and underestimate the role of chance in particular. This is related to the excessive certainty of hindsight, when an event seems to be understood after it has occurred or developed. Kahneman's opinions concerning overconfidence are influenced by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.{{Cite book|title=Thinking, fast and slow|last=Kahneman|first=Daniel|publisher=Penguin Books|year=2011|isbn=9780141033570|location=London|pages=[https://archive.org/details/thinkingfastslow0000kahn/page/14 14]|oclc=781497062|url=https://archive.org/details/thinkingfastslow0000kahn/page/14}}

In this section Kahneman returns to economics and expands his seminal work on Prospect Theory. He discusses the tendency for problems to be addressed in isolation and how, when other reference points are considered, the choice of that reference point (called a frame) has a disproportionate effect on the outcome. This section also offers advice on how some of the shortcomings of System 1 thinking can be avoided.

{{Main|Prospect theory}}Kahneman developed prospect theory, the basis for his Nobel prize, to account for experimental errors he noticed in Daniel Bernoulli's traditional utility theory.{{cite journal|last1=Kahneman |first1=Daniel|author-link1=Daniel Kahneman |last2=Tversky |first2=Amos |author-link2=Amos Tversky|title=Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk |journal=Econometrica |date=March 1979 |volume=47 |issue=2 |pages=263–291 |doi=10.2307/1914185 |url=http://people.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/Ec101/ProspectTheory.pdf |url-status=unfit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141117055859/http://people.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/Ec101/ProspectTheory.pdf |archive-date=November 17, 2014 |jstor=1914185|citeseerx=10.1.1.407.1910}} According to Kahneman, Utility Theory makes logical assumptions of economic rationality that do not represent people's actual choices, and does not take into account cognitive biases.

One example is that people are loss-averse: they are more likely to act to avert a loss than to achieve a gain. Another example is that the value people place on a change in probability (e.g., of winning something) depends on the reference point: people seem to place greater value on a change from 0% to 10% (going from impossibility to possibility) than from, say, 45% to 55%, and they place the greatest value of all on a change from 90% to 100% (going from possibility to certainty). This occurs despite the fact that by traditional utility theory all three changes give the same increase in utility. Consistent with loss-aversion, the order of the first and third of those is reversed when the event is presented as losing rather than winning something: there, the greatest value is placed on eliminating the probability of a loss to 0.

After the book's publication, the Journal of Economic Literature published a discussion of its parts concerning prospect theory,{{cite book|url=http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shleifer/files/kahneman_review_jel_final.pdf|title=Psychologists at the Gate: A Review of Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow|date=2012}} as well as an analysis of the four fundamental factors on which it is based.{{cite book|url=http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shleifer/files/kahneman_review_jel_final.pdf|title=Psychologists at the Gate: A Review of Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow|date=2012|pages=7–9}}

The fifth part of the book describes recent evidence which introduces a distinction between two selves, the 'experiencing self' and 'remembering self'.{{cite book |last1=Lazari-Radek |first1=Katarzyna de |last2=Singer |first2=Peter |title=The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics |date=2014 |publisher=Oxford University Press |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/LAZTPO-7 |page=276}} Kahneman proposed an alternative measure that assessed pleasure or pain sampled from moment to moment, and then summed over time. Kahneman termed this "experienced" well-being and attached it to a separate "self". He distinguished this from the "remembered" well-being that the polls had attempted to measure. He found that these two measures of happiness diverged.{{cite book |last1=Kahneman |first1=Daniel |title=Thinking, Fast and Slow |date=2011 |publisher=New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/KAHTFA-2 |chapter=35. Two Selves}}

The author's significant discovery was that the remembering self does not care about the duration of a pleasant or unpleasant experience. Instead, it retrospectively rates an experience by the maximum or minimum of the experience, and by the way it ends. The remembering self dominated the patient's ultimate conclusion.

{{Blockquote|"Odd as it may seem," Kahneman writes, "I am my remembering self, and the experiencing self, who does my living, is like a stranger to me."|sign=|source=|}}

Kahneman first began the study of well-being in the 1990s. At the time most happiness research relied on polls about life satisfaction. Having previously studied unreliable memories, the author was doubtful that life satisfaction was a good indicator of happiness. He designed a question that emphasized instead the well-being of the experiencing self. The author proposed that "Helen was happy in the month of March" if she spent most of her time engaged in activities that she would rather continue than stop, little time in situations that she wished to escape, and not too much time in a neutral state that wouldn't prefer continuing or stopping the activity either way.

{{Main|Affective forecasting}}

Kahneman suggests that emphasizing a life event such as a marriage or a new car can provide a distorted illusion of its true value. This "focusing illusion" revisits earlier ideas of substituting difficult questions and WYSIATI.

• 2011 Los Angeles Times Book Prize (Current Interest){{cite web|title=2011 Los Angeles Times Book Prize Winners & Finalists|url=http://events.latimes.com/bookprizes/previous-winners/year-2011/|work=Los Angeles Times|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160416085331/http://events.latimes.com/bookprizes/previous-winners/year-2011/|archive-date=April 16, 2016}}
• National Academy of Sciences Best Book Award in 2012{{Cite web|url=http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=09132012|title=Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow Wins Best Book Award From Academies; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Slate Magazine, and WGBH/NOVA Also Take Top Prizes in Awards' 10th Year|language=en|access-date=March 10, 2018}}
• The New York Times Book Review, one of the best books of 2011{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/books/10-best-books-of-2011.html|title=10 Best Books of 2011|date=November 30, 2011|work=The New York Times|access-date=March 10, 2018|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}
• Globe and Mail Best Books of the Year 2011{{Cite news|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/the-globe-100-the-very-best-books-of-2011/article4179464/|title=The Globe 100: The very best books of 2011|last=Stein |display-authors=etal |first=Janice Gross|access-date=March 10, 2018}}
• One of The Economist's 2011 Books of the Year{{Cite web|url=https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/38441.The_Economist_Books_of_the_Year_2011|title=The Economist - Books of the Year 2011 (50 books)|website=www.goodreads.com}}
• One of The Wall Street Journal's Best Nonfiction Books of the Year 2011{{cite news|title=The Best Nonfiction of 2011|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203518404577097100562141244|newspaper=Wall Street Journal|date=December 17, 2011}}

As of 2012 the book had sold over one million copies.{{Cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/9397849/Thinking-Fast-and-Slow-the-landmark-in-social-thought-going-head-to-head-with-Fifty-Shades-of-Grey.html|title=Thinking, Fast and Slow: the 'landmark in social thought' going head to head with Fifty Shades of Grey|journal=Daily Telegraph|last=Cooper|first=Glenda|date=July 14, 2012|access-date=February 17, 2018|language=en-GB|issn=0307-1235}} On the year of its publication, it was on the New York Times Bestseller List. The book was reviewed in media including the Huffington Post,{{Cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-k-levine/thinking-fast-and-slow-an_b_1906061.html|title=Thinking Fast and Slow and Poorly and Well|last=Levine|first=David K.|date=September 22, 2012|website=Huffington Post|language=en-US|access-date=February 17, 2018}} The Guardian,{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/dec/13/thinking-fast-slow-daniel-kahneman|title=Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman – review|last=Strawson|first=Galen|date=December 13, 2011|website=the Guardian|language=en|access-date=February 17, 2018}} The New York Times, The Financial Times,{{Cite news|url=https://www.ft.com/content/15bb6522-04ac-11e1-91d9-00144feabdc0|title=Thinking, Fast and Slow|website=Financial Times|date=November 5, 2011|language=en-GB|access-date=February 17, 2018}} The Independent,{{Cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman-6263560.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220507/https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman-6263560.html |archive-date=May 7, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Thinking, Fast and Slow, By Daniel Kahneman|date=November 18, 2011|work=The Independent|access-date=February 17, 2018|language=en-GB}}{{cbignore}} Bloomberg and The New York Review of Books.{{Cite news|url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/12/22/how-dispel-your-illusions/|title=How to Dispel Your Illusions|last=Dyson|first=Freeman|date=December 22, 2011|work=The New York Review of Books|access-date=February 17, 2018|language=en|issn=0028-7504}}{{explain|reason=Were the reviews positive or negative?|date=March 2023}} On Book Marks, the book received a "rave" consensus, based on eight critic reviews: six "rave" and two "positive".{{Cite web |title=Thinking, Fast and Slow|url=https://bookmarks.reviews/reviews/thinking-fast-and-slow/|access-date=16 January 2024 |website=Book Marks}} Prosenotes gave it a "C" (72%) based on critic reviews with a consensus saying, "On the whole it is an important, readable, and interesting book about judgment and decision making, but even some of the author's diehard fans found small portions of this book hard to work through".{{Cite web |title='Thinking Fast and Slow' by Daniel Kahneman|url=http://www.prosenotes.com/tag/psychology|access-date=12 July 2024|website=Prosenotes|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120608020242/http://www.prosenotes.com/tag/psychology|archive-date=8 Jun 2012}} In March/April 2012 issue of Bookmarks, the book received a {{rating|4|5}} (4.00 out of 5) with the critical summary stating, "Either way, it's an enlightening tome on how--fast or slow--we make decisions".{{Cite web |title=Thinking, Fast and Slow By Daniel Kahneman|url=http://bookmarksmagazine.com/book-review/thinking-fast-and-slow/daniel-kahneman|access-date=14 January 2023 |website=Bookmarks|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905084553/http://bookmarksmagazine.com/book-review/thinking-fast-and-slow/daniel-kahneman|archive-date=5 Sep 2015}}

The book was also widely reviewed in academic journals, including the Journal of Economic Literature, American Journal of Education,{{Cite journal|last=Durr|first=Tony|date=February 1, 2014|title=Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman|journal=American Journal of Education|volume=120|issue=2|pages=287–291|doi=10.1086/674372|issn=0195-6744}} The American Journal of Psychology,{{Cite journal|last=Krueger|first=Joachim I.|date=2012|editor-last=Kahneman|editor-first=Daniel|title=Reviewing, Fast and Slow|jstor=10.5406/amerjpsyc.125.3.0382|journal=The American Journal of Psychology|volume=125|issue=3|pages=382–385|doi=10.5406/amerjpsyc.125.3.0382}} Planning Theory,{{Cite journal|last=Baum|first=Howell|date=2013|title=Review of Thinking, fast and slow|jstor=26166233|journal=Planning Theory|volume=12|issue=4|pages=442–446|doi=10.1177/1473095213486667|s2cid=149027956}} The American Economist,{{Cite journal|last=Brock|first=John R.|date=2012|title=Review of Thinking, Fast and Slow|jstor=43664727|journal=The American Economist|volume=57|issue=2|pages=259–261|doi=10.1177/056943451205700211|s2cid=149090700}} The Journal of Risk and Insurance,{{Cite journal|last=Gardner|first=Lisa A.|date=2012|title=Review of Thinking, Fast and Slow|jstor=23354961|journal=The Journal of Risk and Insurance|volume=79|issue=4|pages=1143–1145|doi=10.1111/j.1539-6975.2012.01494.x}} The Michigan Law Review,{{Cite journal|last=Stein|first=Alex|date=2013|jstor=23812713|journal=Michigan Law Review|volume=111|issue=6|pages=855–875|title=Are People Probabilistically Challenged?}} American Scientist,{{Cite journal|last=Sloman|first=Steven|date=2012|title=The Battle Between Intuition and Deliberation|jstor=23222820|journal=American Scientist|volume=100|issue=1|pages=73–75}} Contemporary Sociology,{{Cite journal|last=Etzioni|first=Amitai|date=2012|editor-last=Kahneman|editor-first=Daniel|title=The End of Rationality?|jstor=41722908|journal=Contemporary Sociology|volume=41|issue=5|pages=594–597|doi=10.1177/0094306112457657b|s2cid=143107781}} Science,{{Cite journal|last=Sherman|first=Steven J.|date=2011|title=Blink with Muscles|jstor=41351778|journal=Science|volume=334|issue=6059|pages=1062–1064|doi=10.1126/science.1214243|bibcode=2011Sci...334.1062S|s2cid=145337277}} Contexts,{{Cite journal|last=jasper|first=james m.|date=2012|title=thinking in context|jstor=41960818|journal=Contexts|volume=11|issue=2|pages=70–71|doi=10.1177/1536504212446467|doi-access=free}} The Wilson Quarterly,{{Cite journal|last=Akst|first=Daniel|date=2011|title=Rushing to Judgment|jstor=41484407|journal=The Wilson Quarterly|volume=35|issue=4|pages=97–98}} Technical Communication,{{Cite journal|last=Harrison|first=Kelly A.|date=2012|title=Review of Thinking, Fast and Slow|jstor=43093040|journal=Technical Communication|volume=59|issue=4|pages=342–343}} The University of Toronto Law Journal,{{Cite journal|last=Richardson|first=Megan Lloyd|date=2012|title=Review of Thinking, Fast and Slow [sic, included in a set of reviews]|jstor=23263811|journal=The University of Toronto Law Journal|volume=62|issue=3|pages=453–457|doi=10.1353/tlj.2012.0013|s2cid=144044453}} A Review of General Semantics{{Cite journal|last=Vassallo|first=Philip|date=2012|title=Review of Thinking, Fast and Slow|jstor=42579224|journal=ETC: A Review of General Semantics|volume=69|issue=4|pages=480}} and Scientific American Mind.{{Cite journal|last=Upson|first=Sandra|date=2012|jstor=24943506|journal=Scientific American Mind|volume=22|issue=6|pages=68–69|title=Cognitive Illusions}}

The book was also reviewed in a monthly magazine Observer, published by the Association for Psychological Science.{{Cite journal|last=Bazerman|first=Max H.|date=October 21, 2011|title=Review of Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman|url=https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/thinking-fast-and-slow|journal=APS Observer|language=en-US|volume=24|issue=10}}{{explain|reason=Were the reviews positive or negative?|date=March 2023}}

The book has achieved a large following among baseball scouts and baseball executives. The ways of thinking described in the book are believed to help scouts, who have to make major judgements off little information and can easily fall into prescriptive yet inaccurate patterns of analysis.{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/24/sports/baseball/thinking-fast-and-slow-book.html|title=This Book Is Not About Baseball. But Baseball Teams Swear by It.|first=Joe|last=Lemire|work=The New York Times |date=February 24, 2021|via=NYTimes.com}}

The last chapter of Paul Bloom's Against Empathy discusses concepts also touched in Daniel Kahneman's book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, that suggest people make a series of rational and irrational decisions.{{cite book|last=Bloom|first=Paul|title=Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion|publisher=Ecco|year=2016|isbn=978-0-06-233935-5|author-link=Paul Bloom (psychologist)}}{{r|Bloom2016|p=214}} He criticizes the argument that "regardless of reason's virtues, we just aren't any good at it." His point is that people are not as "stupid as scholars think they are."{{r|Bloom2016|p=216}} He explains that people are rational because they make thoughtful decisions in their everyday lives. For example, when someone has to make a big life decision they critically assess the outcomes, consequences, and alternative options.{{r|Bloom2016|p=230}}

Author Nicholas Taleb has equated the book's importance to that of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Sigmund Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams.{{Cite news |last=Jr |first=Robert D. Hershey |date=2024-03-27 |title=Daniel Kahneman, Who Plumbed the Psychology of Economics, Dies at 90 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/27/business/daniel-kahneman-dead.html |access-date=2024-03-29 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}

Part of the book has been swept up in the replication crisis facing psychology and the social sciences. It was discovered many prominent research findings were difficult or impossible for others to replicate, and thus the original findings were called into question. An analysis{{Cite web|url=https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/|title=Reconstruction of a Train Wreck: How Priming Research Went off the Rails|last=R|first=Dr|date=2017-02-02|website=Replicability-Index|language=en|access-date=2019-04-30}} of the studies cited in chapter 4, "The Associative Machine", found that their replicability index (R-index){{Cite web|url=https://replicationindex.com/2016/01/31/a-revised-introduction-to-the-r-index/|title=A Revised Introduction to the R-Index|last=R|first=Dr|date=2016-01-31|website=Replicability-Index|language=en|access-date=2019-04-30}} is 14, indicating essentially low to no reliability. Kahneman himself responded to the study in blog comments and acknowledged the chapter's shortcomings: "I placed too much faith in underpowered studies."{{Cite web|url=http://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-underpowered-studies-nobel-prize-winner-admits-mistakes/|title="I placed too much faith in underpowered studies:" Nobel Prize winner admits mistakes|last=McCook|first=Alison|date=2017-02-20|website=Retraction Watch|language=en-US|access-date=2019-04-30}} Others have noted the irony in the fact that Kahneman made a mistake in judgment similar to the ones he studied.{{Cite news|url=https://slate.com/technology/2016/12/kahneman-and-tversky-researched-the-science-of-error-and-still-made-errors.html|title=How a Pioneer in the Science of Mistakes Ended Up Mistaken|last=Engber|first=Daniel|date=2016-12-21|website=Slate Magazine|language=en|access-date=2019-04-30}}

A later analysis{{Cite web|last=Schimmack|first=Ulrich|date=2020-12-30|title=A Meta-Scientific Perspective on "Thinking: Fast and Slow|url=https://replicationindex.com/2020/12/30/a-meta-scientific-perspective-on-thinking-fast-and-slow/|access-date=2021-02-21|website=Replicability-Index|language=en}} made a bolder claim that, despite Kahneman's previous contributions to the field of decision making, most of the book's ideas are based on 'scientific literature with shaky foundations'. A general lack of replication in the empirical studies cited in the book was given as a justification.

• Behavioral economics
• Cognitive reflection test
• Decision theory
• Dual process theory
• List of cognitive biases
• Outline of thought
• Peak–end rule
• Joseph E. LeDoux
• Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment

{{Reflist}}

{{Wikiquote|Daniel Kahneman#Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011)|Thinking, Fast and Slow}}

• [https://www.penguin.com.au/products/9780141033570/thinking-fast-and-slow/19281722/how-think-fast-and-slow How To Think Fast & Slow], excerpt at Penguin Books Australia
• [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/16/daniel-kahneman-thinking-fast-and-slow-tributes Daniel Kahneman changed the way we think about thinking. But what do other thinkers think of him?] – Various interviews about Kahneman and Thinking, Fast and Slow in an article in The Guardian.

{{Portal bar|Philosophy|Psychology|Books}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:2011 non-fiction books

Category:2011 in economic history

Category:Books about bias

Category:Books about cognition

Category:Books about creativity

Category:Choice modelling

Category:Cognitive biases

Category:Cognition

Category:Decision-making

Category:Farrar, Straus and Giroux books

Category:Heuristics

Category:Prospect theory

Category:Psychology of learning

Category:Risk analysis

Category:Self

Category:Thought

Category:Thought experiments