The King of Human Error: Michael Lewis on Daniel Kahneman (2011)
vanityfair.com
vanityfair.com
I remember thinking, while watching "The Mentalist[1]" that people who are practiced in that sort of deception that the character Patrick Jane used probably mainly understand how to execute exploits on the interface between System 1 and System 2 thinking.
The wheel of fortune story sort of confirms that for me now.
[1] That was a pretty good show for network, for a while.
It also makes me wonder if people who are mistrustful of System 1 or somehow depend more on System 2 are somehow perceived as obnoxious by people who are not. I would think that a very potent source of friction.
Btw, there's an upcoming Coursera course on Mathletics/Moneyball: https://www.coursera.org/course/mathletics
That being said, I'm a huge fan of many other sports, so that no doubt contributed to the enjoyment.
IMO, this is one book of a "trilogy" - the Kahneman book, "Moneyball" and "The Checklist Manifesto" by Atul Gawande. They all came out in roughly the same time and are three different views on this problem.
- checklists reduce error - surgical staff may or may not embrace checklists even when they know it reduces error. - they backslide and the error rate comes back.
Using "Fast and Slow" as a template, they have a weird and hard to understand balance between their System 1 and System 2 thinking.
I've used a basic "checklist" ( eg, the motor has to be at X RPM +/- Y RPM for X seconds before you disengage the clutch ) as the central element in some controls automation, and I've seen people be really confused by that. Machines people do not think in terms of "proofs" even though they embrace chunked operations.
_Moneyball_ isn't about baseball so much as it's about how easy it is for humans to be tricked by our intuitions and habits. Moneyball talks about baseball from the point of view of someone who everyone just assumed would be good -- and wasn't -- as he's trying to make more and more objective assessments of players, and wielding his conclusions against competing, more traditional managers.