[HN Gopher] The Legacy of Daniel Kahneman: A Personal View (2025)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Legacy of Daniel Kahneman: A Personal View (2025)
        
       Author : cainxinth
       Score  : 54 points
       Date   : 2026-02-04 18:36 UTC (4 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (ejpe.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (ejpe.org)
        
       | nerdralph wrote:
       | I read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" and some of the other references
       | in the article. I found Kahneman's arguments persuasive, however
       | the article makes me re-evaluate those conclusions.
       | 
       | When asked what is more probable, I think in terms of statistical
       | probabilities. However the article makes an interesting argument
       | that most people don't define the term, "more probable" the same
       | way. I'm not convinced Kahneman was wrong, but I do see how
       | simple changes in the wording of a question can lead to a
       | material difference in answers. I also see that my own
       | interpretation regarding the "correct" meaning of words aligned
       | with Kahneman, and contributed to my general agreement with his
       | conclusions.
        
         | Tomte wrote:
         | Kahnemann had the intellectual honesty to accept that large
         | parts of his book are flawed, and he called on psychologists to
         | clean up their act by doing a systematic multiple reproduction
         | study program:
         | 
         | https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/7.6716.1349271308!/s...
        
           | BeetleB wrote:
           | Not "large parts". Just a few chapters.
        
           | lemonberry wrote:
           | "Kahnemann had the intellectual honesty"
           | 
           | I once heard an interviewer ask him if Kahneman was still
           | susceptible to cognitive biases after reading the book. He
           | said something to the effect of "absolutely, they're tough to
           | escape". I really appreciated that. People that recognize and
           | acknowledge the fallibility of their own minds are a breath
           | of fresh air.
        
             | okintheory wrote:
             | I don't think that's a great example. If Kahneman claimed
             | not to be susceptible, it would have greatly undermined his
             | claims about the universality of these phenomena: many
             | other people would presumably also not be susceptible.
        
               | lemonberry wrote:
               | If I remember correctly I took the interviewer's question
               | to mean "now that you're aware of these cognitive biases
               | are you still affected by them?" not "do you experience
               | cognitive biases?". I don't see the first question at
               | odds with the universality claim. The latter would be.
        
         | voidhorse wrote:
         | Probabilities are a philosophical rat's nest of sorts. When it
         | comes to statistics, it's generally agreed that we're working
         | with a frequentist interpretation of the meaning of
         | probabilities, but you are right that a person with no prior
         | background could well have a completely different understanding
         | here (subjectivist probability, degrees of belief).
         | 
         | I also think stating presuppositions and limitations around
         | observation and prior knowledge is monumentally important as
         | soon as you begin talking in terms of probabilities, if you
         | really want your statements to be clear, but most people don't
         | do this. There are some ways in which I think the casual use of
         | probabilities can actually be more harmful than encouraging a
         | simple binary boolean dichotomy of "I know" or "I don't know"
         | and need more information.
        
           | nerdralph wrote:
           | Isn't "I know" just a subjective threshold for the
           | probability of being true? A layman may put that probability
           | at 90%, while I scientist may put the probability at 99.999%
           | before saying, "I know".
        
       | svnt wrote:
       | Gigerenzer is a treasure and there is a reason he is more
       | accurate and less popular: statistics done right does not often
       | compose compelling narratives, and narrative is what sells books.
        
       | kayo_20211030 wrote:
       | I like the gracious way that Gigerenzer ends the piece,
       | acknowledging Kahneman's courage in continuing to engage both
       | civilly and respectfully with his critics - separating the
       | argument and the person.
       | 
       | It reflects well on both men.
        
       | jancsika wrote:
       | > Intelligent listeners then correctly infer what the doctor
       | recommends and act accordingly.
       | 
       | I feel like if the author were really committed to this position,
       | they would have stated it in the other direction. I.e., 6% to 20%
       | of these intelligent listeners _incorrectly_ infer that the
       | doctor is conveying information through the framing of the
       | question.
       | 
       | Something like the academic version of dogfooding. :)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-02-08 23:01 UTC)