The Legacy of Daniel Kahneman: A Personal View (2025)

I read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" and some of the other references in the article. I found Kahneman's arguments persuasive, however the article makes me re-evaluate those conclusions.

When asked what is more probable, I think in terms of statistical probabilities. However the article makes an interesting argument that most people don't define the term, "more probable" the same way. I'm not convinced Kahneman was wrong, but I do see how simple changes in the wording of a question can lead to a material difference in answers. I also see that my own interpretation regarding the "correct" meaning of words aligned with Kahneman, and contributed to my general agreement with his conclusions.

I like the gracious way that Gigerenzer ends the piece, acknowledging Kahneman's courage in continuing to engage both civilly and respectfully with his critics - separating the argument and the person.

It reflects well on both men.

Gigerenzer is a treasure and there is a reason he is more accurate and less popular: statistics done right does not often compose compelling narratives, and narrative is what sells books.

> Intelligent listeners then correctly infer what the doctor recommends and act accordingly.

I feel like if the author were really committed to this position, they would have stated it in the other direction. I.e., 6% to 20% of these intelligent listeners incorrectly infer that the doctor is conveying information through the framing of the question.

Something like the academic version of dogfooding. :)