Fergus, Weaver of Autistic Webs's Reviews > Thinking, Fast and Slow
Thinking, Fast and Slow
by
by

Daniel Kahneman is a Genius. But if you know his work, you know that already.
A Nobel Prize winner, his work is weighty and a bit recondite into the bargain.
But hasn't he ignored the CHRISTIAN worldview, the world of good and evil? For isn't this book SPIRITUALLY rather trite, being addressed only to those sharpies who only wanna learn how to PLAY THE GAME?
Even if that ends in emotional bankruptcy?
I think so. So here's my own, Christian take on it:
We all live in a postmodernist, secular world now. When we come of age into that scenario, many of us learn a bit of caution. Unless this brutal coming of age makes us hip and glib.
So there are two ways of thinking now. One is thinking fast (hip and glib) and the other is thinking slow (religiously cautious). Thinking fast, in this book, is Optimal.
But here’s a point Kahneman neglects...
The hip and glib guys get hurt by those postmodernistic sharp edges more easily than the cautious guys. So the hip side becomes cautious, and, of course as they age, the hard knocks confuse them. They end up more confused and conflicted than the cautious ones most of the time.
Such is the Moral Levelling of Age.
The cautious folks believe in true love, and often eternal verities, though. We’ll call them the sheep, cause they follow their hip friends as only sheep serve. The hip guys, the planners, believe in basically nothing - they’re all fast talk and action. We’ll call them the goats: they love to butt heads with you.
As I say, this sheep/goat take on Thinking Fast is my own. Kahneman never goes there. Where he DOES go is to the value of experience in thinking fast:
To think fast, he says, experience is key. Experience gives us heuristic benchmarks.
The more experienced folks think faster. And because they’re so sure of the facts, we often ill-advisedly trust them.
But now back to my own take: hip guys HAVE some of this experience, because they are hip. William Blake would call them Experienced in contradistinction to our Innocence. It’s an Experience that can’t discern. It has no wisdom.
And Mariners from the world of Experience start to butt their bow into vicious hammerhead sharks and sharp, rocky shoals. Agressive Experience runs out of motivation early, unlike the restful boat of Innocence. Innocence isn’t conflictual. It BENDS rather than confronts.
It lives longer and healthier. And learns discernment.
Remember Aesop’s fable of the Tortoise and the Hare? The lowly rabbit wins the race.
Just so, the meek inherit the Earth...
And a state of peaceful contentment.
Daniel Kahneman has his Nobel-winning theories -
But I have my own happy and elderly Discernment -
My Slow Thinking -
And my Peace of Mind.
Doesn't that count, too?
A Nobel Prize winner, his work is weighty and a bit recondite into the bargain.
But hasn't he ignored the CHRISTIAN worldview, the world of good and evil? For isn't this book SPIRITUALLY rather trite, being addressed only to those sharpies who only wanna learn how to PLAY THE GAME?
Even if that ends in emotional bankruptcy?
I think so. So here's my own, Christian take on it:
We all live in a postmodernist, secular world now. When we come of age into that scenario, many of us learn a bit of caution. Unless this brutal coming of age makes us hip and glib.
So there are two ways of thinking now. One is thinking fast (hip and glib) and the other is thinking slow (religiously cautious). Thinking fast, in this book, is Optimal.
But here’s a point Kahneman neglects...
The hip and glib guys get hurt by those postmodernistic sharp edges more easily than the cautious guys. So the hip side becomes cautious, and, of course as they age, the hard knocks confuse them. They end up more confused and conflicted than the cautious ones most of the time.
Such is the Moral Levelling of Age.
The cautious folks believe in true love, and often eternal verities, though. We’ll call them the sheep, cause they follow their hip friends as only sheep serve. The hip guys, the planners, believe in basically nothing - they’re all fast talk and action. We’ll call them the goats: they love to butt heads with you.
As I say, this sheep/goat take on Thinking Fast is my own. Kahneman never goes there. Where he DOES go is to the value of experience in thinking fast:
To think fast, he says, experience is key. Experience gives us heuristic benchmarks.
The more experienced folks think faster. And because they’re so sure of the facts, we often ill-advisedly trust them.
But now back to my own take: hip guys HAVE some of this experience, because they are hip. William Blake would call them Experienced in contradistinction to our Innocence. It’s an Experience that can’t discern. It has no wisdom.
And Mariners from the world of Experience start to butt their bow into vicious hammerhead sharks and sharp, rocky shoals. Agressive Experience runs out of motivation early, unlike the restful boat of Innocence. Innocence isn’t conflictual. It BENDS rather than confronts.
It lives longer and healthier. And learns discernment.
Remember Aesop’s fable of the Tortoise and the Hare? The lowly rabbit wins the race.
Just so, the meek inherit the Earth...
And a state of peaceful contentment.
Daniel Kahneman has his Nobel-winning theories -
But I have my own happy and elderly Discernment -
My Slow Thinking -
And my Peace of Mind.
Doesn't that count, too?
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
Thinking, Fast and Slow.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
September 28, 2019
– Shelved as:
to-read
September 28, 2019
– Shelved
September 30, 2019
–
Started Reading
November 26, 2020
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-24 of 24 (24 new)
date
newest »

message 1:
by
Luvtoread (Trying to catch up)
(new)
Nov 27, 2020 07:44AM

reply
|
flag







Listen, Michael - I'm not trying to prove anything - my credibility is too low. If I can truly say I've made folks smile - and see the big picture - that's all I want. My disability thereby becomes a Crown!

Here's where I'm coming from. I have published several books, including a bestseller. Writing a book, especially well, is super hard. So I tend to side with authors. My main thing is that they get a fair shake. There' s definitely room for fair criticism. And we all have different tastes. But I don't like to see folks easily dismiss a book and give it low ratings if it hasn't been given a chance.
![Terence M - [Quot libros, quam breve tempus!]](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1712357414p1/6658001.jpg)
Hah! I take 17 different prescription meds each day, a few of them twice a day, and I use the "Due to my meds ..." excuse for pretty much everything, Fergus! This includes "listening or not listening" to my audiobooks, "writing or not writing" my reviews and "dnf'ing books on a whim or at will"! My Beloved of 53 years assures me the "meds" excuse will wear thin one day, but she is hanging in there ...😄.








"Man is timid and apologetic he does not dare say "I think " but depends on the advice of some Saint or Sage--Trust thyself...speak your latent convictions in words as hard as cannonballs ..all hearts vibrate to this iron string.. "the Heroic cannot be common, nor the common Heroic " Emerson's Essays
"Your Hero is flawed, Congratulations so are you, for every Achilles there is an Achilles heel; Now go out and make your life Heroic in your own way " Greitens Resilience
