Thinking, fast and slow

Introduction
This essay is written on the based of an incredible book “ Thinking, fast and slow”. Here, we tried to
explain some theories, heuristics and concepts present in the book with the implications on finance with
some examples. And while the phrase often carries a slightly negative meanings , financial implications
can be either improved or destroyed This essay is a dichotomy between two modes of thought: system 1
is illogical and fast while system 2 is logical and slow. This essay explains the cognitive biases associated
with each type of decision making and thing. It highlights the vary principle of human judgment that
people place too much confidence into certain things. It explains clarifications for why people battle to
think factually. It starts by reporting an assortment of circumstances in which we either show up at
parallel choices or neglect to correctly connect sensible probabilities with results. Kahneman clarifies this
wonder utilizing the hypothesis of heuristics.

Significant Concepts from the Book

We have a Two System perspective

 System 1 (Thinking Fast)

 System 2 (Thinking Slow).
Framework 1 is the instinctive, "gut response" perspective and deciding. Framework 2 is the explanatory,
"basic deduction" method for deciding. Framework 1 structures "initial introductions" and regularly is the
motivation behind why we form a hasty opinion. Framework 2 does reflection, critical thinking, and
examination.
A large portion of us relate to System 2 reasoning. We view ourselves as levelheaded, scientific
individuals. In this way, we think we invest the greater part of our energy occupied with System 2
reasoning. As a matter of fact, we spend practically the entirety of our day by day lives occupied with
System 1 (Thinking Fast). Just on the off chance that we experience something startling, or on the off
chance that we put forth cognizant attempt, do we draw in System 2 (Thinking Slow). Daniel Kahneman
(October 25, 2011). Kahneman composed: "Frameworks 1 and 2 are both dynamic at whatever point we
are conscious. Framework 1 runs naturally and System 2 is ordinarily in agreeable low-exertion mode, in
which just a small amount of its ability is locked in. Framework 1 ceaselessly produces proposals for
System 2: impressions, instincts, goals, and emotions. Whenever supported by System 2, impressions and
instincts transform into convictions, and motivations transform into willful activities. At the point when
all goes easily, which is more often than not, System 2 receives the proposals of System 1 with practically
no change. You for the most part accept your impressions and follow up on your wants, and that is fine — 
usually. Reprints, Roger Lowenstein (October 28, 2011).
"At the point when System 1 runs into trouble, it approaches System 2 to help increasingly nitty gritty and
explicit preparing that may take care of the issue existing apart from everything else. Framework 2 is
assembled when an inquiry emerges for which System 1 doesn't offer an answer… System 2 is actuated
when an occasion is recognized that disregards the model of the world that System 1 keeps up." So,
System 1 is ceaselessly making impressions, instincts, and decisions dependent on all that we are
detecting. As a rule, we simply go with the impression or instinct that System 1 creates. Framework 2
possibly gets included when we experience something unforeseen that System 1 can't naturally process.
Psychologists at the Gate: 2012.
Framework 1 reasoning looks for an intelligible story regardless of anything else, and regularly drives us
to form a hasty opinion. While System 1 is commonly extremely precise, there are circumstances where it
can make mistakes of inclination. Framework 1 in some cases responds to simpler inquiries than it was
posed, and it has little information on rationale and measurements. Durr, Tony (February 1, 2014).
Perhaps the most serious issue with System 1 is that it looks to rapidly make a sound, conceivable story 
— an clarification for what is happening — by depending on affiliations and recollections, design
coordinating, and suppositions. Strawson, Galen (December 13, 2011). Also, System 1 will default to that
conceivable, helpful story — even if that story depends on inaccurate data. "The proportion of
achievement for System 1 is the cognizance of the story it figures out how to make. The sum and nature
of the information on which the story is based are to a great extent insignificant. At the point when data is
rare, which is a typical event, System 1 works as a machine for making a hasty judgment." Krueger,
Joachim I. (2012).
Kahneman expounds widely on the marvel of how individuals form a hasty opinion based on restricted
data. He has a truncation for this marvel — WYSIATI — "what you see is everything that matters."
WYSIATI makes us "center around existing proof and disregard missing proof." because of WYSIATI,
System 1 frequently rapidly makes a cognizant and conceivable story dependent on constrained proof.
These impressions and instincts would then be able to be supported by System 2 and transform into
profound established qualities and convictions. WYSIATI can make System 1 "derive and imagine causes
and goals," regardless of whether those causes or aims are valid. Baum, Howell (2013).
"Framework 1 is exceptionally adroit in one type of reasoning — it naturally and easily distinguishes
causal associations between occasions, once in a while in any event, when the association is fake." This
is the motivation behind why individuals form a hasty opinion, accept awful aims, surrender to
preferences or predispositions, and become tied up with paranoid ideas. Brock, John R. (2012). They
center around restricted accessible proof and don't think about missing proof. They design a reasonable
story, causal connections, or hidden aims. And afterward their System 1 rapidly shapes a judgment or
impression, which thusly gets immediately embraced by System 2. Because of WYSIATI and System 1
reasoning, individuals may settle on wrong decisions and choices because of predispositions and
heuristics. Gardner, Lisa A. (2012).

Potential Mistakes
There are a few potential mistakes in judgment that individuals may make when they over-depend on
System 1 reasoning:
People don't comprehend measurements quite well. Thus, they may take a gander at the consequences of
a little example — for example 100 individuals reacting to a review — and infer that it's delegate of the
populace. This likewise discloses why individuals form a hasty opinion with only a couple of information
focuses or constrained proof. On the off chance that three individuals said something, at that point
possibly it's actual? In the event that you by and by watch one episode, you are bound to sum up this
event to the entire populace. Stein, Alex (2013).
As Kahneman expressed, "measurements produce numerous perceptions that seem to ask for causal
clarifications however don't loan themselves to such clarifications. Numerous realities of the world are
because of possibility, including mishaps of inspecting. Causal clarifications of chance occasions are
definitely off-base." People regularly make defective clarifications for past occasions, a wonder known as
account deception. These "logical stories that individuals find convincing are basic; are concrete instead
of conceptual; dole out a bigger job to ability, ineptitude, and aims than to karma; and spotlight on a
couple of striking occasions that happened as opposed to on the incalculable occasions that neglected to
occur. Sloman, Steven (2012). Good stories give a straightforward and intelligible record of individuals'
activities and goals. You are constantly prepared to decipher conduct as a sign of general affinities and
character attributes — causes that you can promptly match to impacts."
People will recreate a story around past occasions to think little of the degree to which they were
astonished by those occasions. This is an "I-knew-it-from the beginning" predisposition. On the off
chance that an occasion happens, individuals overstate the likelihood that they realized it would happen.
In the event that an occasion doesn't happen, individuals wrongly review that they thought it was
impossible. "Knowing the past predisposition affects the assessments of leaders. It drives onlookers to
survey the nature of a choice not by whether the procedure was sound, yet by whether its result was
fortunate or unfortunate… We are inclined to accuse chiefs for good choices that turned out gravely and
to give them too little kudos for fruitful moves that seem evident simply afterward… When the results are
awful, [people] frequently accuse [decision makers] for not recognizing what would be inevitable…
Actions that appeared to be reasonable in prescience can glance flippantly careless looking back." Etzioni,
Amitai (2012).
Due to the dream of comprehension and WYSIATI, individuals may get careless in their expectations,
decisions, and instincts. "We are sure when the story we disclose to ourselves comes effectively to mind,
with no logical inconsistency and no contending situation… A brain that follows WYSIATI will
accomplish high certainty far and away too effectively by disregarding what it doesn't have the foggiest
idea. On the off chance that is consequently to be expected that huge numbers of us are inclined to have
high trust in unwarranted instincts. Within WYSIATI, individuals will rush to seize on restricted proof
that affirms their current point of view. Furthermore, they will overlook or neglect to look for proof that
negates the cognizant story they have just made in their psyche. Sherman, Steven J. (2011).
People tend to make plans and conjectures that are "ridiculously near best-case situations." When
anticipating the results of dangerous undertakings, individuals will in general decide "dependent on
capricious confidence instead of on a judicious weighting of additions, misfortunes, and probabilities.
They overestimate advantages and think little of expenses. They turn situations of progress while
disregarding the potential for missteps and erroneous conclusions… In this view, individuals regularly
(yet not generally) take on dangerous tasks since they are excessively hopeful about the chances."

Heuristics and Predispositions

There are numerous different heuristics and predispositions that Kahneman portrays, including those
around assessing danger and misfortunes.
Perusing this book has profoundly affected my own perspective. Before, We have been shocked when We
saw that somebody was "accepting the most noticeably terrible expectations of others." We have likewise
attempted to see how somebody could make in their brain such an alternate story of past occasions, in
spite of seeing a similar proof that We had seen. Lastly, We have now and then been stunned by the
inclinations, partialities and "snap decisions" We have seen from others. Thinking Fast and Slow has
given me another viewpoint on these practices and decisions. We would now be able to apply a portion of
this information to circumstances where We see individuals (or when We get myself) depending a lot on
System 1 reasoning. We will always be unable to abstain from depending on System 1 speculation for the
greater part of our day by day lives. The significant thing is to perceive when We or when others are
depending on it excessively, and power more System 2 deduction into the circumstance. Harrison, Kelly
A. (2012).
Your Brain Has Two Systems: System 1 (quick, natural) and System 2 (slow, investigative). It's an odd
encounter understanding Thinking, Fast and Slow. All through the book, Kahneman asks you inquiries,
realizing you will commit an error while attempting to answer them.
Here's a model. Recollect your prompt reaction as you read it.
The Bat and Ball Problem
A bat and a ball cost $11 altogether. The bat costs $10 more than the ball. What amount the ball cost?
In case you're similar to a great many people, you will have addressed that the ball costs $1, which is
mistaken (the appropriate response is $0.5). What occurred here?
Framework 1 — the quick, reptilian piece of your cerebrum that takes a shot at intuition —  made a snap,
"adequate" answer. It was just when System 2 — the moderate, logical piece of your brain — was enacted
that you could comprehend why $0.5 is the right answer.
Did your mind stunt you? Is it accurate to say that you are terrible at math? No, this is your mind working
precisely as it should, and the purpose behind that is because of this idea of Cognitive Ease.

Intellectual Ease: Your Brain Wants To Take The Path of Least Resistance . Your cerebrum HATES
utilizing vitality. It needs to find a sense of contentment; it needs to feel loose. It prefers things that are
recognizable, it enjoys things that are easy to comprehend. It is attracted to things that cause it to feel like
it's in a sheltered situation. This is Cognitive Ease. A large number of years back, in the event that you
were in a recognizable situation, the chances of your endurance were a lot higher than if you were
wandering into another, unexplored wilderness.
Accordingly, your mind lean towards recognizable things. It lean towards things that are anything but
difficult to see, and easy to comprehend. This has immense ramifications especially with regards to
influence, promoting, and impact, since this implies Cognitive Ease can be actuated! Richardson, Megan
Lloyd (2012).
Here's Kahneman's interpretation of how to that functions:

Subjective Ease is a significant motivation behind why brand publicizing exists. It's the reason
organizations spend such a lot of cash on big name supports, promotion battles and jingles. It's likewise
significant for UX groups and CROs. By inciting Cognitive Ease, they are better ready to lead clients
down a planned way. Subjective Ease is fascinating on the grounds that it tends to be exploited by terrible
entertainers. Take a gander at the outline above. No place in there does it determine that the data sources
are precise or accurate.
To be sure, Kahneman insinuates this in the book:
A solid method to cause individuals to have confidence in deceptions is visit redundancy, since nature
isn't handily recognized from truth. Tyrant organizations and advertisers have constantly known this
reality. Be that as it may, it was clinicians who found that you don't need to rehash the whole articulation
of a reality or thought to cause it to show up obvious. R, Dr (February 2, 2017).

When Faced With a Difficult Question, We Answer a Cognitively-Easier One. I considered inquiry
replacement entrancing, on the grounds that after I read about it, I quickly discovered myself doing it
constantly. At the point when we're posed an inquiry that isn't Cognitively Easy, our minds quickly
substitute the inquiry to something that is simpler to parse. Here are a few models:

Original Question Substituted Questions

Should I invest in Tesla stock? Do I like Tesla products?

The woman is running for elections. Does her appearance match what a
How far will she go? political winner looks like?

How happy are you with your life? What is my mood right now?

The inquiries on the left require the initiation of System 2. With the end goal for you to give a mindful
answer that precisely speaks to your feeling, your cerebrum will require time and vitality. For extremely
significant inquiries (execution audits, migration interviews) we are probably going to deliberately initiate
System 2. Be that as it may, for most things, we'll momentarily trade the troublesome inquiry for a
simpler one that System 1 can unravel. As an advertiser, you ought to be careful about this whenever you
do client meetings or run reviews.
Envision a companion who has experienced childhood in a nation that has an issue with forceful homeless
mutts. Additionally, envision that companion has been pursued by these mutts, and has a few companions
who have been chomped by such pooches. Presently in any event, when you carry your companion to a
home that has the most amicable, cuddliest canines on the planet, all things considered, his System 1 will
quickly go into freeze, flight or (ideally not) battle. WYSIATI is one reason why present day
governmental issues is so polarizing. Individuals take the subjectively simple course of tuning in to others
on "their side", until in the long run the main data you're presented to is the ones that affirm your current
convictions. From an advertiser's point of view, WYSIATI legitimizes things like marking or mindfulness
crusades. In the event that your intended interest group is inquiring about the difficult you fathom, and
you've ensured that your image keeps springing up in Facebook gatherings, industry discussions, Quora
answers … then you're in an extraordinary position. R, Dr (January 31, 2016).
Base Rate Neglect: When Judging Likelihood, We Overvalue What "Feels" Right and Undervalue
Statistics. Consider "base rates" as the recurrence of some occasion happening, in view of verifiable and
recognizable information. It tends to be anything: possibly the "base rate" of downpour during a Saturday
is 8.5%. The base pace of clinical understudies who are still specialists at age 40 is 10%. The base pace of
cafés that nearby down in the principal year is 94%.
Ideally you will have understood that there are more individuals in (a) than there are in (b). In the event
that your mind continues revealing to you that the appropriate response is (b), at that point it just
demonstrates the quality of Base Rate Neglect.

Conclusion
Framework 1 (Thinking Fast) every now and again drives individuals to settle on the spot judgment calls,
structure a hurried conclusion, and choose mixed up decisions reliant on inclinations and heuristics.
Framework 1 is reliably on, and ceaselessly making snappy impressions, senses, and choices. Structure 2
is used for assessment, basic reasoning, and increasingly significant appraisals. More often than not, we
go with System 1 recommendations because of mental straightforwardness. Now and again, we bring out
System 2 when we see something abrupt, or we set forth a conscious endeavor to thwart our instinct to
take an essential view. Framework 1 attempts to convey a balanced and sensible story subject to available
information. This as often as possible drives us to WYSIATI — focusing on the obliged open evidence,
and ignoring noteworthy yet missing confirmation. WYSIATI can lead us to make a rushed judgment
about people's objectives, to assign causal associations when there were none, and to outline snap (yet
mistaken) choices and impressions. WYSIATI and System 1 thinking can provoke different judgment
inclinations, including The Law of Small Numbers, consigning cause to hazard, knowing the past
tendency, and pretentiousness.

Reference:
[1] Psychologists at the Gate: A Review of Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow (PDF).
2012.
[2] Krueger, Joachim I. (2012). Kahneman, Daniel (ed.). "Reviewing, Fast and Slow". The American
Journal of Psychology. 125 (3): 382–385.
[3] Baum, Howell (2013). "Review of Thinking, fast and slow". Planning Theory. 12 (4): 442–446.
[4] Brock, John R. (2012). "Review of Thinking, Fast and Slow". The American Economist. 57 (2):
259–261. doi:10.1177/056943451205700211. JSTOR 43664727.
[5] Gardner, Lisa A. (2012). "Review of Thinking, Fast and Slow". The Journal of Risk and
Insurance. 79 (4): 1143–1145. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6975.2012.01494.x. JSTOR 23354961
[6] Stein, Alex (2013). "Are People Probabilistically Challenged?". Michigan Law Review. 111 (6):
855–875.
[7] Sloman, Steven (2012). "The Battle Between Intuition and Deliberation". American Scientist. 100
(1): 73–75. JSTOR 23222820
[8] Etzioni, Amitai (2012). Kahneman, Daniel (ed.). "The End of Rationality?". Contemporary
Sociology. 41 (5): 594–597. doi:10.1177/0094306112457657b. JSTOR 41722908
[9] Sherman, Steven J. (2011). "Blink with Muscles". Science. 334 (6059): 1062–1064.
Bibcode:2011Sci...334.1062S. doi:10.1126/science.1214243. JSTOR 41351778
[10] jasper, james m. (2012). "thinking in context". Contexts. 11 (2): 70–71,
doi:10.1177/1536504212446467. JSTOR 41960818
[11] Harrison, Kelly A. (2012). "Review of Thinking, Fast and Slow". Technical
Communication. 59 (4): 342–343. JSTOR 43093040
[12] Richardson, Megan Lloyd (2012). "Review of Thinking, Fast and Slow [sic, included in
a set of reviews]". The University of Toronto Law Journal. 62 (3): 453–457.
doi:10.1353/tlj.2012.0013. JSTOR 23263811
[13] Daniel Kahneman (October 25, 2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-
4299-6935-2. Retrieved April 8, 2012.
[14] Reprints, Roger Lowenstein (October 28, 2011). "Book Review: Thinking, Fast and Slow
by Daniel Kahneman". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved May 27, 2016.
[15] Strawson, Galen (December 13, 2011). "Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman –
review". the Guardian. Retrieved February 17, 2018.
[16] Dyson, Freeman (December 22, 2011). "How to Dispel Your Illusions". The New York
Review of Books. ISSN 0028-7504. Retrieved February 17, 2018.
[17] Durr, Tony (February 1, 2014). "Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman".
American Journal of Education. 120 (2): 287–291. doi:10.1086/674372. ISSN 0195-6744.
[18] R, Dr (January 31, 2016). "A Revised Introduction to the R-Index". Replicability-Index.
Retrieved April 30, 2019.
[19] R, Dr (February 2, 2017). "Reconstruction of a Train Wreck: How Priming Research Went off
the Rails". Replicability-Index. Retrieved April 30, 2019.