Kahneman makes a clear error

By -
In his chapter called "Two Selves," Kahneman deems it an error for people to judge and experience by their memory of it, rather than their experience of it. They should, per Kahneman, evaluate a painful experience by the integral of experienced pain, and not by their memory, which is likely to evaluate the end of the experience as more significant than the experience as a whole. I say Kahneman is simply using the wrong integral: The experience lasted 10 minutes, but the memory of it will last for my entire lifetime. Why shouldn't I count the latter as more important than the former?

(Anyone interested in co-authoring a paper on this?)

UPDATE: Hmm, not sure if this is a retraction: "Life satisfaction is not a flawed measure of their experienced well-being, as I thought some years ago. It is something else entirely." p. 397

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more