kahneman

First, the demonstration Kahneman arranged is simply a demonstration of regression to the mean and is not evidence of the validity of his hypothesis.

Not really, Kahneman is talking about doing better or worse than expected, not about your best or worst performance.

Although Kahneman does not mention this tendency his hypothesis suggests he also believes this.

I supposed that Kahneman would recognize this fact and he his reference to regression to the mean was based on a more complicated but much more realistic model where the expectation is not always aligned with reality.

I should have been clearer that other mechanisms were possible and that I was only guessing which Kahneman meant.

I think this is the type of overconfidence that is most harmful and they type that Kahneman is referring to.

I think you are misunderstanding the word confidence in the sense that Kahneman is using it.

I think Daniel Kahneman is the wrong guy to start with this argument.

I tried to think of how this model would work and suggested Kahneman meant that expectations were adjusted based on previous best values.

> Not really, Kahneman is talking about doing better or worse than expected, not about your best or worst performance.

The questions in the article are only a taster of what Daniel Kahneman explored in his research -- and it's amazing such simple ideas took so long to be realized!

Daniel Kahneman is talking about a case where you could know forsure but because of a cognitive bias you are overconfident without relying on statistical evidence which may be to the contrary.

"Over a period of two days, Kahneman presided over six sessions lasting about eight hours." really?

Kahneman and Tversky spent a good deal of time trying to identify the major heuristics employed (and biases caused) by the more "intuitive" of the two systems used for thinking.

Another good one was "Influence" by Cialdini, but they gave you tips on trying to avoid those biases that, upon reading Kahneman, I don't think anymore that are very useful.

(From "Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment," by Tversky and Kahneman.) Maybe all those subjects had the unconventional goal of avoiding free money.

By your examples, you seem to be associating it with self-esteem, whereas in Kahneman's case it's more of an epistemological issue.

Daniel Kahneman, the only non-economist to be awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.

I am reading it right now and basically it seems that he proposes a three-level model as a refinement of Kahneman's two-level model.