fast and slow thinking? OR? Bourgeoise psychology??

I've been reading Daniel Kahneman's book "Fast and Slow Thinking".

Of course, it's a good book, worth reading.

But I have this doubt. Kahneman is discussing the danger of jumping to conclusions. That part of our mind/brain which works quickly is prone to make predictable mistakes. The book (though I've not finished reading it) gives a variety of examples.

But, so far---and I'm only into the early chapters--Kahneman seems to make a typical or characteristic USA fallacy: blaming the individual and ignoring social forces. Well, K. doesn't exactly "blame" anyone; however the book is aimed at the individual and ends with sentences that can be used to describe the problem as it arises. To be honest, I think the problem cannot be solved without more autonomy in the workplace than is currently imaginable. We need something like "participatory economics", or more democratic workplaces. And we need good public transport. Moreover, people should work fewer hours and be freed from the worry of paying for health insurance. If and only if all of those social changes are made, I predict, can the real message of K's book be put into force. If it is simply left up to individuals, that just won't be enough.

In other words, many people live lives burdened by too many demands, in the workplace, at home, in traffic. I wonder if Kahneman is going to discuss what we, as a society, can do

to prevent a tendency to rely upon quick and dirty but inaccurate and systematically prone

to error heuristics (intuitive thinking).......

I've discussed this before in the context of advertising, where I really was only developing some remarks made by Keith Stanovich....

I'll try to have a future post in which I tell you what I find out as I read further into this valuable book. It is important that I add and stress that: early on K. promised to discuss some more social issues in a later chapter. But even if there is a later chapter devoted to that, I wonder if the book is not individualistic in its orientation. (Quick Quip: Hell, Man! He's doing psychology not sociology! ---Yes, but, the problem I'm talking about is that the USA, as a society, is inclined to ignore the social; and to that extent, this book--no matter how valuable it really is----may be feeding into that tendency.)

Okay. Maybe; maybe not. These are just first thoughts. "teda uvidime..."