🔥 The Undoing Project - Wikipedia

Most Liked Casino Bonuses in the last 7 days 💰

Filter:
Sort:
BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds [Lewis, Michael] on Forty years ago, Israeli psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Michael Lewis with Malcolm Gladwell: The Undoing Project

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

After his book Moneyball became a best-seller, Michael Lewis learned that many of the ideas it presented to the general public had actually.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Michael Lewis explores decision-making in \

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds is a nonfiction book by American author Michael Lewis, published by W.W. Norton. The Undoing Project explores the close partnership of Israeli psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, whose work on.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Michael Lewis on new book, \

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

Michael Lewis wrote The Undoing Project about two psychologists that Starting in the late s, the Israeli psychologists Amos Tversky and.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Michael Lewis: 'The Undoing Project'

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds [Lewis, Michael] on Forty years ago, Israeli psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
How behavioral psychology explains Trump's surprise victory

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

Kahneman and Tversky, shows Michael Lewis, helped shape the world in which we now live – and may well have changed, for good, humankind's view of its.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Michael Lewis explains how he got started on his new book, The Undoing Project

BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

Michael Lewis. · Rating details · 42, ratings · 3, reviews. Forty years ago, Israeli psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky wrote a series of​.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Behavioral Economics Explained: One of the Greatest Partnerships in the History of Science

🍒

Software - MORE
BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

Michael Lewis. · Rating details · 42, ratings · 3, reviews. Forty years ago, Israeli psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky wrote a series of​.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Michael Lewis - The Undoing Project: A Friendship that Changed Our Minds

🍒

Software - MORE
BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

Michael Lewis wrote The Undoing Project about two psychologists that Starting in the late s, the Israeli psychologists Amos Tversky and.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Michael Lewis On How Behavioural Economics Changed The World

🍒

Software - MORE
BN55TO644
Bonus:
Free Spins
Players:
All
WR:
30 xB
Max cash out:
$ 1000

In “The Undoing Project,” Michael Lewis tells the story of the friendship and work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, and how they.


Enjoy!
Valid for casinos
Visits
Likes
Dislikes
Comments
Against the Rules: Michael Lewis in Conversation with Malcolm Gladwell

From the other side of the door you could sometimes hear them hollering at each other, but the most frequent sound to emerge was laughter. It was simply an illustration of ideas that had been floating around for decades and had yet to be fully appreciated by, among others, me. The writer Nate Silver for several years enjoyed breathtaking success predicting U. Both men were blessed with shockingly fertile minds. Once when you worry about it, and the second time when it happens. That summer Amos left for the United States, and Danny for England, to continue his study of human attention. What possessed two guys in the Middle East to sit down and figure out what the mind was doing when it tried to judge a baseball player, or an investment, or a presidential candidate? Both wanted to do science. Books everywhere. Danny never had guests: The seminar, called Applications of Psychology, was his show. But there was another story to be told, about how much Danny and Amos had in common. Israel had made him a warrior. When Danny looked back on that time, what he recalled mainly was the laughter—what people outside heard emanating from the seminar room. The students who once wondered why the two brightest stars of Hebrew University kept their distance from each other now wondered how two so radically different personalities could find common ground, much less become soulmates. On the one hand, it was a wildly impressive display of pure thought; on the other, the whole enterprise had a tree-fell-in-the-woods quality to it. Amos was then at work with a team of mathematically gifted American academics on what would become a three-volume, molasses-dense, axiom-filled textbook called Foundations of Measurement —more than a thousand pages of arguments and proofs of how to measure stuff. They decided, in essence, to invent an unusual statistics test, give it to the scientists, and see how they performed. By the fall of , Amos and Danny had both returned to Hebrew University. Danny was the sort of person who might be in possession of a lovely singing voice that he would never discover. When Hebrew University put Amos on its committee to evaluate all Ph. And how did you test it? This test was meant to explore how new information affects decision-making. With Amos you always just picked up where you left off, no matter how long it had been since you last saw him. Both wanted to search for simple, powerful truths. Mathematical psychologists, for their part, tended to view non-mathematical psychologists as simply too stupid to understand the importance of what they were saying. And yet he was willing to go along. Anyone who wanted time with Amos could secure it late at night. Which was amazing. Danny was now taking people into his research lab and piping one stream of digits into their left ear and another stream of digits into their right ear, to test how quickly they could switch their attention from one ear to the other, and also how well they blocked their minds to sounds they were meant to be ignoring. If you put your ear to the door, you could just make out that the conversation was occurring in both Hebrew and English. When you are a pessimist and the bad thing happens, you live it twice , Amos liked to say. In tank warfare, for instance. Amos himself seemed about as far removed from Danny as he could be. Amos then collected the completed tests and flew home with them to Jerusalem. And both were Jews, in Israel, who did not believe in God. How did this pair of Israeli psychologists come to have so much to say about these matters of the human mind that they more or less anticipated a book about American baseball written decades in the future? Danny was a morning person, and so anyone who wanted him alone could find him before lunch. Amos was always sure he was right. And now here he was spending all of his time with Danny, whose susceptibility to criticism was so extreme that a single remark from a misguided student sent him down a long, dark tunnel of self-doubt. They went back and forth—Amos, especially, always switched back to Hebrew when he became emotional. There he and Danny sat down to write together for the first time. In the intervening time, they might be glimpsed disappearing behind the closed door of a seminar room they had commandeered. And, for some reason, Amos had accepted. Two of the test takers had written statistics textbooks. When the data-driven approach to high-stakes decision-making did not lead to immediate success—and, occasionally, even when it did—it was open to attack in a way that the old approach to decision-making was not. What do you expect the mean I. But then Silver left the Times and failed to predict the rise of Donald Trump—and his data-driven approach to predicting elections was called into question. With Danny there was always a sense you were starting over, even if you had been with him just yesterday. Whatever they were talking about, people deduced, must be extremely funny. Amos was a one-man wrecking ball for illogical arguments; when Danny heard an illogical argument, he asked, What might that be true of? Because it makes him go deeper and deeper and deeper. Beyond that, Amos was the most terrifying mind most people had ever encountered. For the first time in memory, a newspaper seemed to have an edge in calling elections. And how on earth does a psychologist win a Nobel Prize in economics? Danny was deeply, painfully uncertain about himself. When the book appeared, some baseball experts—entrenched management, talent scouts, journalists—were upset and dismissive, but a lot of readers found the story as interesting as I had. That was an understatement. The first child tested has an I. That knowledge allowed them to run circles around the managements of other baseball teams. Amos was not merely an optimist; Amos willed himself to be optimistic, because he had decided pessimism was stupid. And yet whatever they were talking about also felt intensely private: Other people were distinctly not invited into their conversation. Using the same methods, they won it again in and But in , after three disappointing seasons, they announced that they were moving away from the data-based approach and back to one where they relied upon the judgment of baseball experts. If a fresh analytical approach had led to the discovery of new knowledge in baseball, was there any sphere of human activity in which it might not do the same? During their joint waking hours, they could usually be found together. He might use his test to identify which tank commanders could best orient their senses at high speed—who among them might most quickly detect the relevance of a signal, and focus his attention upon it, before he got blown to bits. Amos was tone-deaf but would nevertheless sing Hebrew folk songs with great gusto. He was irritable and short-tempered, but he wanted to please. Both were grandsons of Eastern European rabbis, for a start. Provided the student can divide fractions! But the enthusiasm for replacing old-school expertise with new-school data analysis was often shallow. Paper everywhere. But—they went on to say—the author of Moneyball did not seem to realize the deeper reason for the inefficiencies in the market for baseball players: they sprang directly from the inner workings of the human mind. But how did you sell that to an audience of professional social scientists who were more or less blinded by theory? After the seminar, Amos and Danny had a few lunches together but then headed off in separate directions. A Spartan. Danny had spent years of his childhood hiding in barns and chicken coops in France, from the Nazis who hunted him. They found value in players who had been discarded or overlooked, and folly in much of what passed for baseball wisdom. The mean I. He had all these ideas about the possible usefulness of this new interest of his. The most succinct physical manifestation of the deep difference between the two men was the state of their offices. Or, at least, uncritical of whatever came from Danny.{/INSERTKEYS}{/PARAGRAPH} {PARAGRAPH}{INSERTKEYS}The team had less money to spend on players than other teams did, and so its management, out of necessity, set about rethinking the game. Their offices were tiny, so they worked in a small seminar room. And yet all anyone saw were their differences. In both new and old baseball data—and the work of people outside the game who had analyzed that data—the Oakland front office discovered what amounted to new baseball knowledge. Danny was a pessimist. How important could the sound it made be, if no one was able to hear it? Danny was always sure he was wrong. And so, once the dust had settled on the responses to my book, one of them remained more alive and relevant than the others: a review by a pair of academics , then both at the University of Chicago—an economist named Richard Thaler and a law professor named Cass Sunstein. A pencil on a desk. Amos was loose and informal; even when Danny made a stab at informality, it felt as if he had descended from some formal place. He understood courtesy, but eager to please—why? Danny dreamed up most of the questions, such as:. Amos was born and raised in a society intent on making sure no Jewish child ever again would need to hide from those who wished to kill him. They went over each sentence time and again and wrote, at most, a paragraph or two each day. You have selected a random sample of 50 children for a study of educational achievement. There he gave the tests to roomfuls of people whose careers required fluency in statistics. It was as if you had dropped a white mouse into a cage with a python and come back later and found the mouse talking and the python curled in the corner, rapt.