The Grouch tries to read......
Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman
Daniel Kahneman? (did he win the "real" Nobel Prize----or wasn't it the phony bank of Sweden's prize?--see note below)
I do believe, however, that I have identified two sources of irritation.
First, there is the style, the direct address of the reader---telling me what I will think.--That naked "you".....
Secondly, there is the language: Which of these two men do you think is a competent (or more competent) politician?--that sort of thing.....
Well, actually that does not compute. I don't talk about (or think about) politicians in that way at all. It is not part of my vocabulary to describe politicians as competent or not.
Moreover, given the corruption of every political system known to me, I don't think anyone should be eager or willing to do so.
So, the book strikes me as a rather smug thing....and I cannot bear to read it. It is not only that the author is telling me what I think, but he is also putting words in my mouth.
A further note about evaluating faces of politicians: We are supposed to decide which man is...well, I've forgotten which exact word was used: what is it "more trustworthy" or "more competent"----some such psychological predicate. But, once again, these are not words that I use in this manner.
So, I draw a blank. (I am too lazy to look at the original experiments/descriptions but this problem for me as a reader crops up on every other page. Perhaps, if I ever manage to read the book without puking I will be able to be more specific.)
In fact, the first time I came across this kind of research (about faces and quick character evaluations) I saw two men who were equally obnoxious looking (that in a book by Johnson-Laird).......So, when someone starts to tell me what I think and why I think it, well, I do get sort of annoyed. (I confess, if I stared at the faces for a long time, and thought about what they told me I was supposed to be seeing---but hey, wasn't it supposed to be 'fast' thinking?------then I sort of could see a difference, but not one that I would express with the words that the psychologists were telling me to use.)
I really would like to read this book someday because I do suspect there's a sort of error here in this popularization, and even if I am wrong about that, I could learn from Professor K. -----if I could manage to actually stop getting annoyed--- But I may have to restrict myself to more scholarly tomes to avoid throwing up.
Don't get me wrong. I think that the research which K. reports is important, although it tends to be summarized very briefly...... And the research which K. himself has done is also important. It's just this book! At this point I wish I hadn't purchased it.
NOTE
Brian Leiter has spoken of the "fake" Nobel Prize and he supplies this link:
No comments:
Post a Comment