[whack]

I realize this is going to make me sound rather dull-minded, but despite the pdf sounding very interesting, I don't have much inclination to read 27 pages of it without knowing more. Can someone summarize the author's main thesis, and whether he's able to robustly justify that thesis with supporting evidence?

[dsjoerg]

Main thesis is that people's behavior is not rational in specific ways, and can be better understood through a list of various "Tendencies" that people are subject to. There's a list of them on the bottom of page 4.

Supporting anecdotes are provided, but they don't prove anything.

Best case, this paper will help you organize, crystallize and clarify things you yourself have always known or noticed, but never had a name for.

[0xdeadbeefbabe]

The anecdotes leave me feeling that a person simply needs to ask, "is my behavior going to become a good or bad anecdote?"

[egd]

I read a great comment once in response to a post about parental advice - roughly:

"When I was young, my father said to me, 'Son, don't be an asshole.' Since then, before doing anything, I ask myself, 'Would an asshole do this?' And if they would, I don't do it."

[tvchurch]

This is a collection of mental models Charlie uses to explain human behavior. It was basically behavioral psychology before the field exploded.

Definitely take the time to read it. While it isn't a peer reviewed piece of work, you'll agree with his justifications simply on the basis of agreeing that, Yup, that is indeed how people act.

[SyneRyder]

I wouldn't say that's dull-minded - one of the things I like about HN is checking the comments first and seeing whether people vouch for a link or not. The "Cliff Notes" version is never a substitute for reading the whole thing yourself, but it might be enough to help decide if it's worthy of your time or something you wouldn't be interested in.

[FT_intern]

I skimmed it. It's a condensed summary of cognitive bias concepts similar to those in Thinking Fast and Slow, explored and justified through practical reasoning.

[angersock]

Sure, they totally did!

(And because you didn't read it, you'll never know if I'm bullshitting you or not. Don't outsource your thinking.)

[0xdeadbeefbabe]

> Don't outsource your thinking

Should he believe you or not? I'm baffled.

[angersock]

:)

[euyyn]

That's like not reading reviews before going to a restaurant.

[athenot]

And there are good reasons to not read them, either.

I happen to like many ethnic foods and like exploring restaurants that I believe might be authentic. Those restaurants often have poor reviews because of customers who were there more for the dining experience than the food quality. Or they are expecting something that doesn't jive with the cuisine (eg. "that Filet Mignon was totally undercooked, and when they brought it back well done, it was so tough I couldn't eat it.").

So in many cases, restaurant reviews are useless to me.

Papers are similar in that I may be evaluating them under different criteria than those giving me the summary.

[euyyn]

I mean, that's why you read them reviews, instead of just looking at the overall score. For the cases when the thing reviewed is actually shitty according to criteria you share, saving you the time and money.