Scan barcode
bluishgreen12's review
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.25
The book itself is repetitive both in examples and concepts. So repetitive that I scanned through the conclusion in search for something new that had not already been said 5+ times.
It makes a compelling argument that where there is noise there will be injustice and sometimes critical errors. What I thought was very unconvincing were the solutions which imply a monstrous bureaucracy. Even the writing style would seem to appeal to rule loving readers, as it is incredibly well structured and systematic. They exclude open minded people from being very likely to have biases. I would love it if the authors could undertake some studies to find out what happens when you introduce open minded, critical thinking people to mechanical rule based work environments, i wonder how many will still have a will to keep learning or live at the end of said hypothetical study. The best section of the book was the authors addressing criticism to the solutions for noise reduction, as in the critics pretty much winning at that debate. It was my impression that they undid the whole book with that part. Not as great as Thinking Fast and Slow.
It makes a compelling argument that where there is noise there will be injustice and sometimes critical errors. What I thought was very unconvincing were the solutions which imply a monstrous bureaucracy. Even the writing style would seem to appeal to rule loving readers, as it is incredibly well structured and systematic. They exclude open minded people from being very likely to have biases. I would love it if the authors could undertake some studies to find out what happens when you introduce open minded, critical thinking people to mechanical rule based work environments, i wonder how many will still have a will to keep learning or live at the end of said hypothetical study. The best section of the book was the authors addressing criticism to the solutions for noise reduction, as in the critics pretty much winning at that debate. It was my impression that they undid the whole book with that part. Not as great as Thinking Fast and Slow.
snommers's review
2.0
I'm normally a fan of Kahneman's books, but this fell flat. The premise of 'noise' affecting various decisions, diagnoses, forecasting, predictions, etc..., seems obvious (at least to me), but the book reads like a text book and bored me most of the time. When real examples of 'noise' were presented I was engaged, but there's a lot of manufactured examples of noise and use of statistics to prove the author's point.
tessaays's review
2.0
Really disappointing. While the central thesis is an interesting one, it absolutely did not need 400 pages to unravel. There was an unbelievable amount of extraneous, distracting information in here. The statistical stuff was half-baked and should have been put in an appendix (not detailed enough to actually help those with stats backgrounds and didn’t add any understanding for the layperson). About a third of the chapters could have been cut completely without impacting the flow of the book.
Additionally, I think a lot more time could have been spent teasing out various manifestations of noise, and providing a recommended strategy (or a few strategies) for each. Within about three chapters I was sick of hearing about the judge/legal example (it’s clear to anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention that the whole point of the legal system is that it’s opinion based.. otherwise we would set up a series of parameters and make an automated decision). The authors also never really provided an improvement/recommendation for the legal system, which annoyed me as it’s the example they spent by far the most time on. The hospital example was interesting and we were given some solutions. For me it would have been a far better use of time to provide lots more examples of where noise crops up and give clear recommendations on practical and cost-effective ways to reduce noise.
Finally - the algorithm part irritated me. It was completely half baked. The authors make passing mention of the fact that algorithms are biased by the humans that design them but basically go on to argue that they’re still better than humans at most things and we should make widespread use of them. They don’t seem to have considered issues like the fact that, surely, the choice of parameters used in an algorithm is also subject to bias/debate - eg to apply an algorithm to their pet example of legal decisions, how on earth would one choose which parameters to include and how to weight them? If you’re going to come down fiercely on the side of algorithms, fine, but at least give us a really solid example of how they could be implemented in a specific scenario (and do better than humans).
I guess this turned into a rant. Overall sentiment: interesting idea, EXTREMELY poorly executed. I really had higher expectations for this trio of authors.
Additionally, I think a lot more time could have been spent teasing out various manifestations of noise, and providing a recommended strategy (or a few strategies) for each. Within about three chapters I was sick of hearing about the judge/legal example (it’s clear to anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention that the whole point of the legal system is that it’s opinion based.. otherwise we would set up a series of parameters and make an automated decision). The authors also never really provided an improvement/recommendation for the legal system, which annoyed me as it’s the example they spent by far the most time on. The hospital example was interesting and we were given some solutions. For me it would have been a far better use of time to provide lots more examples of where noise crops up and give clear recommendations on practical and cost-effective ways to reduce noise.
Finally - the algorithm part irritated me. It was completely half baked. The authors make passing mention of the fact that algorithms are biased by the humans that design them but basically go on to argue that they’re still better than humans at most things and we should make widespread use of them. They don’t seem to have considered issues like the fact that, surely, the choice of parameters used in an algorithm is also subject to bias/debate - eg to apply an algorithm to their pet example of legal decisions, how on earth would one choose which parameters to include and how to weight them? If you’re going to come down fiercely on the side of algorithms, fine, but at least give us a really solid example of how they could be implemented in a specific scenario (and do better than humans).
I guess this turned into a rant. Overall sentiment: interesting idea, EXTREMELY poorly executed. I really had higher expectations for this trio of authors.
antoinedoinel's review against another edition
2.0
The thing is not about the idea of the book, it is the fact that it’s solely based on a very unnecessary new term to categorise something called irrational thinking and biased judgement. So as we want to make ourselves look smart, we go by inventing this new term called noise and it’s everywhere. This is the issue. It is mainly aimed for being a NYT bestseller without a lot of substantial research and reasoning that could support the sole 400 pages of this book. And by saying, you might think I’ve got a lot of noise in my review cause I’ve only managed to read a chapter or two and then skimming through a bit and reading other reviews to find out that…well, there is simply not much of a solution to solve the noise problem that roots from the very term bias. Maybe we could just group them altogether don’t you think so? Ah. Yes, Daniel Kahneman, I think you might just contribute the very idea. Thought Thinking fast and also was very liberating. But this one is more or less a book to be skipped. Cause the sole synopsis can sum up most of the content. Noise.
10_4tina's review
informative
slow-paced
2.5
I did not love this one, but it had good parts and interesting things to learn
6 interesting thoughts:
What is the main goal of sentencing? Incapacitation? Removing the criminal from society? Rehabilitation? Deterrence? - how a judge answers that question changes how they sentence - geographic influence too - judges in the south sentence much longer sentences than those in other parts of the country
"Bullshit receptivity"- seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful that are actually vacuous - people in good moods are less likely to detect deception or identify misleading information (more gullible)
Propensity to substitute an easy question for a hard one. 'how much should he be punished?' is replaced with 'how angry am I?'
Are your judgements verifiable or are you a respect expert? Perhaps we should pick the most thoughtful open-minded person rather than the smartest one. How people think is important, maybe more than their inteligence.
Rankings among multiple graders is a better metric than separate grades. Some graders might give 60, 65, & 70 while another may assign 75, 80, and 85. Averaging those graders scores is less helpful/meaningful than comparing their rankings if both graders ranked the 3 papers in the same order (best, second best, worst). Rankings mechanically eliminate level noise.
Rule vs. Standard. - Take a pill every night is a rule. Take a pill when you need it is a standard. Facebook standards could include not allowing posts that bully (standard) or not allowing posts with nudity (rule).
6 interesting thoughts:
What is the main goal of sentencing? Incapacitation? Removing the criminal from society? Rehabilitation? Deterrence? - how a judge answers that question changes how they sentence - geographic influence too - judges in the south sentence much longer sentences than those in other parts of the country
"Bullshit receptivity"- seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful that are actually vacuous - people in good moods are less likely to detect deception or identify misleading information (more gullible)
Propensity to substitute an easy question for a hard one. 'how much should he be punished?' is replaced with 'how angry am I?'
Are your judgements verifiable or are you a respect expert? Perhaps we should pick the most thoughtful open-minded person rather than the smartest one. How people think is important, maybe more than their inteligence.
Rankings among multiple graders is a better metric than separate grades. Some graders might give 60, 65, & 70 while another may assign 75, 80, and 85. Averaging those graders scores is less helpful/meaningful than comparing their rankings if both graders ranked the 3 papers in the same order (best, second best, worst). Rankings mechanically eliminate level noise.
Rule vs. Standard. - Take a pill every night is a rule. Take a pill when you need it is a standard. Facebook standards could include not allowing posts that bully (standard) or not allowing posts with nudity (rule).
sampreater's review
slow-paced
1.0
Kahneman’s pitch to be a consultant. Awful and slow paced book. After Thinking Fast and Slow this was a bitter disappointment.