Been reading Jon Haidts substack, he talks about how modern politic instills a "reverse CBT" that reinforces bad cognitive habits like catastrophizing and black/white thinking. Occurred to me that Resulting is in this same set, and in fact used to manipulate discussions, sometimes knowingly. Much modern discourse is structured around resulting.
I heard someone recently say something to the effect of “in uncertain times like these, rather than try to predict what will change, focus on what is likely to stay the same. “
Do some cognitive biases become more pronounced due to the human aging process? In other words, do people age 65 and older generally have a tendency toward certain kinds of decision-making biases? If yes, which? This might be helpful to know when designing choice nudges for older adults, or for family members who have to help support their older parents' decision making.
This is the example in Quit. Still not quitting. Sunk costs stress sunk. Are there useful quit criteria anyone might suggest? Do the monkeys know how to juggle yet?
Hi Annie, I enjoy your books and am using the ideas when I teach decision making and consult. I keep coming back to an issue I'd like your opinion on.
Whether we are philosophical materialists/realists or idealists seems to take us in very different directions when grounding our beliefs and decisions.
If I'm a materialist, then I believe that the universe/reality is comprised exclusively of matter, and that it is finite and knowable. I simply need to discover the natural laws of science to ground my beliefs, such as Newton's Laws, Einstein's theories, etc., and may rely on the scientific method or Aristotle's Laws of Thought as my primary methods for acquiring knowledge of the material and conceptual world.
Conversely, if I'm an idealist, I believe our universe is connected somehow to another plane of existence/reality, such as Plato's Theory of Forms, Heaven/Hell, etc.
If we sincerely believe that our world is influenced by some alternate plane of existence, where souls, gods, or "ideal" circles exist, and that we don't/can't have access to this world, then it seems that any decision or set of beliefs is justifiable, because someone can simply reference some unprovable, untestable source/entity as the basis for the decision..."God willed it so."
To me, it boils down to our understanding of subjective (mind-dependent) and objective (mind-independent). Can you offer your opinion? Thanks
How do you know when the path you’re on requires some tweaks and adjustments (changing apartments in the same city or shifting departments in your job) versus a bigger change such as moving to a brand new city or switching careers entirely? Should the processes be used for both?
Been reading Jon Haidts substack, he talks about how modern politic instills a "reverse CBT" that reinforces bad cognitive habits like catastrophizing and black/white thinking. Occurred to me that Resulting is in this same set, and in fact used to manipulate discussions, sometimes knowingly. Much modern discourse is structured around resulting.
I heard someone recently say something to the effect of “in uncertain times like these, rather than try to predict what will change, focus on what is likely to stay the same. “
What do you think of this approach?
Do some cognitive biases become more pronounced due to the human aging process? In other words, do people age 65 and older generally have a tendency toward certain kinds of decision-making biases? If yes, which? This might be helpful to know when designing choice nudges for older adults, or for family members who have to help support their older parents' decision making.
This is the example in Quit. Still not quitting. Sunk costs stress sunk. Are there useful quit criteria anyone might suggest? Do the monkeys know how to juggle yet?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-3-1-billion-train-ticket-to-nowhere-california-high-speed-rail-project-6e7045a1
Hi Annie, I enjoy your books and am using the ideas when I teach decision making and consult. I keep coming back to an issue I'd like your opinion on.
Whether we are philosophical materialists/realists or idealists seems to take us in very different directions when grounding our beliefs and decisions.
If I'm a materialist, then I believe that the universe/reality is comprised exclusively of matter, and that it is finite and knowable. I simply need to discover the natural laws of science to ground my beliefs, such as Newton's Laws, Einstein's theories, etc., and may rely on the scientific method or Aristotle's Laws of Thought as my primary methods for acquiring knowledge of the material and conceptual world.
Conversely, if I'm an idealist, I believe our universe is connected somehow to another plane of existence/reality, such as Plato's Theory of Forms, Heaven/Hell, etc.
If we sincerely believe that our world is influenced by some alternate plane of existence, where souls, gods, or "ideal" circles exist, and that we don't/can't have access to this world, then it seems that any decision or set of beliefs is justifiable, because someone can simply reference some unprovable, untestable source/entity as the basis for the decision..."God willed it so."
To me, it boils down to our understanding of subjective (mind-dependent) and objective (mind-independent). Can you offer your opinion? Thanks
How do you know when the path you’re on requires some tweaks and adjustments (changing apartments in the same city or shifting departments in your job) versus a bigger change such as moving to a brand new city or switching careers entirely? Should the processes be used for both?
What's the best way to introduce a 7 year old to poker / thinking in bets?