Turned out Kahneman had some critics. Gary Klein was one of them. They agreed to work on a paper together to see if they could work out their differences. You may find the paper of some interest. Gladwell may have been focusing too much on one side of the bigger picture.
https://www.chrissnijders.com/eth2012/CaseFiles2012/Kahneman, Klein - 2009 - Conditions for intuitive expertise a failure to disagree.pdf
Martial arts is not an athletic. It is complex knowledge, like how human body work, how movement law, phycology, strategy, etc. I learn martial arts in middle school, but I'm lazy. My brother learn martial arts from middle school until now in his age of 57 year old. At his age of 50 year old, he hit wooden door (old door) and made a hole at that door. How can you know your attack is efficient if you don't know the weakness of human body? How can you create a movement effectively and efficient if you don't understand about Newton law? Etc.
Not all scientist can become a good engineer.
I have a friend in university that always received very good exams score, but he don't know how to design an amplifier with single transistor (like common emitter or common base). He don't know the relationship between theory and practice.
If you read the paper by Kahneman and Klein, they come to agreement about when intuition is likely to be reliable and when it isn't. In both cases they refer to it as intuition, a feeling of knowing something but without knowing the process that produced it.
In the literature and to the best of my recollection at the moment, impulse more often refers to people who act impulsively, more like acting on emotion without first thinking about possible consequences.
One difference is that having the feeling of just knowing something intuitively does not especially imply acting without considering consequences.
Last edited:
Yes Mark.
The quote:
'A machine for jumping to conclusions'
Has nothing to do with intuition and everything to do with impulse. You can offer any counterpoint you wish, but you'll be disagreeing alone.
The quote:
'A machine for jumping to conclusions'
Has nothing to do with intuition and everything to do with impulse. You can offer any counterpoint you wish, but you'll be disagreeing alone.
You may find the word choices offensive. You don't have to like Kahneman's choice of words, although he is known for choosing his words very carefully.
Here is more of what he has to say about intuition: https://fs.blog/daniel-kahneman-on-intuition/
Here is more of what he has to say about intuition: https://fs.blog/daniel-kahneman-on-intuition/
If someone wanted to understand what Kahneman was talking about, instead of taking words out of context, the following excerpt from Kahneman's book is some limited evidence out of a much greater body of evidence, which most people would probably not consider to be the making of impulsive choices:
"Mutual funds are run by highly experienced and hardworking professionals who buy and sell stocks to achieve the best possible results for their clients. Nevertheless, the evidence from more than fifty years of research is conclusive: for a large majority of fund managers, the selection of stocks is more like rolling dice than like playing poker. Typically at least two out of every three mutual funds underperform the overall market in any given year."
"More important, the year-to-year correlation between the outcomes of mutual funds is very small, barely higher than zero. The successful funds in any given year are mostly lucky; they have a good roll of the dice. There is general agreement among researchers that nearly all stock pickers, whether they know it or not—and few of them do—are playing a game of chance. The subjective experience of traders is that they are making sensible educated guesses in a situation of great uncertainty. In highly efficient markets, however, educated guesses are no more accurate than blind guesses."
.
.
.
"No one in the firm seemed to be aware of the nature of the game that its stock pickers were playing. The advisers themselves felt they were competent professionals doing a serious job, and their superiors agreed. On the evening before the seminar, Richard Thaler and I had dinner with some of the top executives of the firm, the people who decide on the size of bonuses. We asked them to guess the year-to-year correlation in the rankings of individual advisers. They thought they knew what was coming and smiled as they said “not very high” or “performance certainly fluctuates.” It quickly became clear, however, that no one expected the average correlation to be zero."
"Our message to the executives was that, at least when it came to building portfolios, the firm was rewarding luck as if it were skill. This should have been shocking news to them, but it was not. There was no sign that they disbelieved us. How could they? After all, we had analyzed their own results, and they were sophisticated enough to see the implications, which we politely refrained from spelling out. We all went on calmly with our dinner, and I have no doubt that both our findings and their implications were quickly swept under the rug and that life in the firm went on just as before. The illusion of skill is not only an individual aberration; it is deeply ingrained in the culture of the industry. Facts that challenge such basic assumptions—and thereby threaten people’s livelihood and selfesteem—are simply not absorbed. The mind does not digest them. This is particularly true of statistical studies of performance, which provide baserate information that people generally ignore when it clashes with their personal impressions from experience."
"Mutual funds are run by highly experienced and hardworking professionals who buy and sell stocks to achieve the best possible results for their clients. Nevertheless, the evidence from more than fifty years of research is conclusive: for a large majority of fund managers, the selection of stocks is more like rolling dice than like playing poker. Typically at least two out of every three mutual funds underperform the overall market in any given year."
"More important, the year-to-year correlation between the outcomes of mutual funds is very small, barely higher than zero. The successful funds in any given year are mostly lucky; they have a good roll of the dice. There is general agreement among researchers that nearly all stock pickers, whether they know it or not—and few of them do—are playing a game of chance. The subjective experience of traders is that they are making sensible educated guesses in a situation of great uncertainty. In highly efficient markets, however, educated guesses are no more accurate than blind guesses."
.
.
.
"No one in the firm seemed to be aware of the nature of the game that its stock pickers were playing. The advisers themselves felt they were competent professionals doing a serious job, and their superiors agreed. On the evening before the seminar, Richard Thaler and I had dinner with some of the top executives of the firm, the people who decide on the size of bonuses. We asked them to guess the year-to-year correlation in the rankings of individual advisers. They thought they knew what was coming and smiled as they said “not very high” or “performance certainly fluctuates.” It quickly became clear, however, that no one expected the average correlation to be zero."
"Our message to the executives was that, at least when it came to building portfolios, the firm was rewarding luck as if it were skill. This should have been shocking news to them, but it was not. There was no sign that they disbelieved us. How could they? After all, we had analyzed their own results, and they were sophisticated enough to see the implications, which we politely refrained from spelling out. We all went on calmly with our dinner, and I have no doubt that both our findings and their implications were quickly swept under the rug and that life in the firm went on just as before. The illusion of skill is not only an individual aberration; it is deeply ingrained in the culture of the industry. Facts that challenge such basic assumptions—and thereby threaten people’s livelihood and selfesteem—are simply not absorbed. The mind does not digest them. This is particularly true of statistical studies of performance, which provide baserate information that people generally ignore when it clashes with their personal impressions from experience."
Not everything about the human condition is easy to take. Does that mean we can't handle it, can't retain scientific detachment?
The mistake that I keep making is not to write down what it is that I just did for change. The inspiration comes as a 'what if' moment for me and then I may try it. Before I have taken note of the change, another what if thought may come and that is where the break down begins. Just basic discipline that I didn't receive from my fathers genes. I have about as much luck to change that fault as going on another diet.
One good thing that I have recently learned and it stuck is that if/when something fails, don't stop there and think that it is over. Do it again, watching for the mistake that was made. Simple? Yes, but a hard habit to break.
One good thing that I have recently learned and it stuck is that if/when something fails, don't stop there and think that it is over. Do it again, watching for the mistake that was made. Simple? Yes, but a hard habit to break.
Quote:
While our intuition is often right, it also leads us astray. Without consciously realizing it we place a high confidence in our intuition. And why wouldn’t we? It’s right far more often than it’s wrong.
That may be many things, but is not intuition.
While our intuition is often right, it also leads us astray. Without consciously realizing it we place a high confidence in our intuition. And why wouldn’t we? It’s right far more often than it’s wrong.
That may be many things, but is not intuition.
I don't disagree with what is being said, but it is he who is using the language incorrectly, or if you prefer, out of context. He appears to be speaking of knowledge, experience, heart felt beliefs, thoughts or what have you. Certainly not intuition.
Again, there seems to be a language barrier with you and your quoted material. The lines need not be smeared like this.
Maybe there is something I am missing here. If someone has an intuition, that by definition that means its correct? And if someone has an impulse, that by definition means its incorrect?
If so, then what was thought to be an intuition if later proven wrong would suddenly become an impulse?
Not being silly either. Seems like there is an implication that an intuition can't be wrong? And am impulse can't be right? Or else what is the difference?
If so, then what was thought to be an intuition if later proven wrong would suddenly become an impulse?
Not being silly either. Seems like there is an implication that an intuition can't be wrong? And am impulse can't be right? Or else what is the difference?
Last edited:
Context: unchangeable.
We would have to be able to change already changed, so that we could speak of "individual-related and environmental properties" e.g. creativity, action, knowledge, intelligence, intellect, intuition...
;-?
We would have to be able to change already changed, so that we could speak of "individual-related and environmental properties" e.g. creativity, action, knowledge, intelligence, intellect, intuition...
;-?
I completely agree.
Also agree that impulse and intuition are two completely different thing.
Just as an example, I don’t think I’m very smart, but I see myself being very intuitive.
I’m also very impulsive, and sometimes I make impulsive mistakes.
If I were a more reflective person maybe I would make fewer mistakes, but I'm just what I'm and sometimes thanks to my intuition and my impulsiveness I straightened out some very complicated situations.
Intuition is like an involuntary sudden flash, the impulse as well.
Both have nothing wrong.
Together make sparks! 😍
As ordinarily used in English intuition carries an implication of correct subconscious insight. The phrase "a woman's intuition" is generally used to illustrate a correct judgement not necessarily based on rational analysis. When we say a person is intuitive, that also connotes someone who tends to find the correct answer without needing analytical effort.
I believe this is the root of it. Intuition is not something you quantify. It's not an event. You have an idea or even an epiphany but you don't have an intuition.
There's different types of intelligence, different aptitudes, different talents, etc.
Scientists talk about "emotional intelligence" which in my opinion is the most important intelligence to have in society if you're going to be happy and popular.
People have considered me to be a virtual wizard at time. It is true that I am very technical minded, very mathematical, I think in numbers and graphs, I can conceive and design circuits right out of my head and do the math in my head as well. But emotional intelligence? I don't have that without effort. I can daydream about all kinds of technical subjects but emotionally I'm kind of black and white.
The smartest, most successful, and most level headed person I know (retired CEO of a food flavoring company) can't even hook up speakers to a receiver. For that he needs the geek squad (that's me).
Scientists talk about "emotional intelligence" which in my opinion is the most important intelligence to have in society if you're going to be happy and popular.
People have considered me to be a virtual wizard at time. It is true that I am very technical minded, very mathematical, I think in numbers and graphs, I can conceive and design circuits right out of my head and do the math in my head as well. But emotional intelligence? I don't have that without effort. I can daydream about all kinds of technical subjects but emotionally I'm kind of black and white.
The smartest, most successful, and most level headed person I know (retired CEO of a food flavoring company) can't even hook up speakers to a receiver. For that he needs the geek squad (that's me).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.