"As we saw in figure 5..."

I have started and paused (a couple of times) in reading "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. He's a Nobel-winning economist who has mentioned he's a Nobel-winning economist at least ten times. In the first two chapters.

So far the book can be summarized in three words: "Practice makes perfect." People who are experts at something -- chess, playing the violin, airline pilots -- get good through lots of practice, to the point where they don't have to think about what they're doing anymore. If you have to think about it, you're not an expert yet.

Such a simple premise.

Unfortunately the author uses that pedantic style of padding out a simple premise with a lot of flowery puffery (did he mention he won a Nobel?). The prologue tells us what he's going to tell us. The first chapter tells us what he wants to tell us. The second chapter tells us what he told us in the first chapter, and he has a Nobel. He uses statements *he* made, and diagrams *he* presented, as proof that his premise is unshakable. I hate that style of writing.

All it takes is one doubt about the foundations of his assumptions and the whole argument collapses like a house of cards. Despite his 500-page book and his fucking Nobel prize in economics.

Ha ha ha I think that's funny when they reference their own work a lot like that. I've read some stuff by T Colin Campbell that does that - and it's not too bad- but it is a little egocentric. You just want to sit them down and say "dude, seriously?"

Gladwell said stuff like that too. That it takes about 10K hours to perfect a skill. which to me translated to "pick your subjects wisely because you don't have a long enough life span to perfect too many things."

Milton Friedman was a bit like that too. I don't think the Nobel for economics really means that much.

richard09 wrote:

I don't think the Nobel for economics really means that much.

Or Peace.