Talk:Daniel Kahneman

Comment from subpage
The link to "hedonic psychology" goes to "psychological egoism." This is misleading and incorrect. Someone probably mistakenly believed that the word "hedonic" in hedonic psychology refers to "hedonism" and thus to a psychology of selfish hedonism. Hedonic Psychology is actually a field of psychology that attempts to analyze and measure what brings people happiness/welfare, etc. and need not be related to egoist motives. It is basically an attempt to update utilitarian/economic ethics/welfare theory in light of modern empirical techniques, including various survey techniques. If I had the time and the expertise I would create a hedonic psychology page. But until someone creates such a page, or another more suitable page is found, this link should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.2.49 (talk • contribs).

The above post does a good job defining hedonic psychology. Since, as pointed out, there is currently no wikipedia page for hedonic psychology, I have inserted a brief definition given by Kahneman, Diener and Schwarz. It may be overlong - I leave that for others to decide. I would be happy to move the entire definition to a hedonic psychology page, if one is ever created (I might, but no promises). If anyone else would be supportive of such a page, let me know, and then if I do create a page, I'll be sure to bother you to help justify the new page's creation. Chicagoshim (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed that there is still no wikipedia page for hedonic psychology, and I would've liked to know more about it. I think a page about hedonic psychology would be great! I think this article does need a better explanation of what hedonic psychology is and why it was important to his research. Airplane Rat (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Books section format
would it not make more sense to lead with the book name rather than the author. Given this is his page I'm fairly sure most will know he's written them. 86.13.105.123 (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Management
— Assignment last updated by LFCochran (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

COI tag (March 2024)
COI acknowledged in by User:Mc8708  Isaidnoway (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for Removal of BLP and COI tags
Hello dedicated Wikipedia editors,

I am a new editor and was not aware of Wikipedia's COI clause when I first began implementing some new edits to Daniel Kahneman's page. I have since read and understood the protocol as an editor with a COI and will proceed accordingly. The edits I made before I was aware of all of this, however, have all been linked to external sources that verify their claims and do not impact the overall neutrality of the article. Would someone please review this and remove the BLP and COI tags?

Thank you, Mc8708 (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request to Judgments and Decision-Making
Hello, I would like to include the following sentence in the space after the second paragraph under 'Judgments and Decision-Making':

"They tossed a coin for authorship in their first article and alternated authorship in subsequent publications until 1980, but neglected to indicate that authorship was random." verified by this source: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/books/review/michael-lewis-undoing-project.html

Thank you!

Mc8708 (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Please use this template to make an edit request, and follow the instructions on how to use.
 * From a quick look at the source you supplied, the only content verified is: They flipped a coin to decide whose name would appear first on their initial paper and alternated thereafter. This part of your request – until 1980, but neglected to indicate that authorship was random – is not verified by the source.
 * Please also review WP:NPOV abd MOS:PUFFERY to avoid using "peacock terms" like prestigious journal – and – important summary – and – in the book, which received much press – and – significant economic journals. This kind of language primarily serves to praise or promote the subject and is discouraged. Additionally, in the interviews section, external links normally should not be placed in the body of an article. Wikipedia prefers independent reliable sources to verify and source this type of content, which helps us to demonstrate these interviews are notable and/or relevant and significant. Wikipedia is not meant for self-promotion, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. In order to provide encyclopedic value, content like this should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources to show it merits inclusion. And the same editing guidelines apply to the rest of the article, like the honorary degrees and notable contributions sections. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know about the template. However, I am not personally responsible for the "peacock terms" and issues in the Interview section that you mentioned. I would appreciate it if you could address only the sections I have edited and please direct your other concerns to the editors actually responsible or suggest your edits on the Talk page yourself. Thank you. Mc8708 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to include the following sentence in the space after the second paragraph under 'Judgments and Decision-Making':

"They tossed a coin for authorship in their first article and alternated authorship in subsequent publications." verified by this source: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/books/review/michael-lewis-undoing-project.html

Thank you! Mc8708 (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello dedicated Wikipedia editors,

I am a new editor and was not aware of Wikipedia's COI clause when I first began implementing some edits to Daniel Kahneman's page. I have since read and understood the protocol as an editor with a COI and will proceed accordingly. The edits I made before I was aware of all of this, however, have all been linked to external sources that verify their claims and do not impact the overall neutrality of the article. Furthermore, extensive edits have since been made by other non-COI editors, thus substantial portions of this article are now made up of the edits of non-COI editors. Would someone please review this and remove the BLP and COI tags?

Thank you, Mc8708 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * After reading carefully through this article, I see no reason not to remove the COI and BLP for the reasons you listed. I will wait to see what others think. And if there is no further discussion, I will remove them myself.
 * Coffeelilleby (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Coffeelilleby. I tend to agree, but I also see that you have been editing with an account only for the past 6 days. I wonder could you possibly clarify whether or not you have any connection with Mc8708 and/or with the subject of this article? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do hope you are not just the same editor using different accounts. I think it might be wise to await an input from Isaidnoway. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Martinevans123, I sincerely apologize. This was a poorly guided decision that was made only in the interest to spur discussion on the issue of the COI and BLP tags. As you mentioned, you also tend to agree that these tags are no longer needed, so I hope you can see that my efforts are made with truly honest intentions. Again, I apologize for this mishap and it will not happen again. If it is decided that action be taken against mine and Coffeelilleby's account that is fine. I would just like to insist that the integrity of the page and its contents have not been in any way compromised and hope that it can remain available to the public. Thank you. Mc8708 (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I commend you for your swift and sincere apology. Alas, I think your tenure at Wikipedia may now be somewhat short-lived. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely understand. Now that I may soon be out of the picture, if you feel comfortable I hope that the issue of the tags can continue to be discussed. Thank you. Mc8708 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , if you have reviewed the article for verifiability and NPOV, and are comfortable removing the tags, please do so. Since I was the one who placed the COI tag, I felt like another editor should do the review. My only lingering concern is the Honorary Degrees section. While it is not unusual for an academic to have honorary degrees, it's usually included in the prose of the article, rather than a dedicated section with no independent sources used to indicate they are significant and/or relevant to warrant a separate dedicated section. Just seemed kind of promotional and basically boosterism to me.
 * As far as the behavioral issue with Mc8708, I am disappointed to find out that they have engaged in sock-puppetry in order to influence this discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , many thanks for clarifying. The article now looks much improved. 24 honorary degrees is quite a collection and all are sourced, so I think they are best left alone in their own section. I will remove the COI tag from the too of the article. Is the one on this Talk page required to be kept? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , I marked the COI edit request as answered, since you removed the COI tag, if you also believe the article is adequately sourced, please feel free to remove that tag as well. Mc8708 is now blocked from editing the article directly, but I think they are still allowed to make COI edit requests here on the talk page, so the self-declared COI tag should probably remain here on the talk page. Thanks for taking the time to review the article, I appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling that I'm not as strict on COI as you, and probably not as familiar with the article history. If you spot anything that still looks a bit suspect, by all means raise it for discussion. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Open Science movement
I would like it if someone could add something about him embracing the open science movement. It was very import for us to have him as a voice. Also -- it was important that he repudiated the part of Thinking, Fast and Slow that extolled behavioral priming, acknowledging the huge failures to replicate many of those studies. (I could write that, we have a paper together, but not soon.) BobbieS78 (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, tricky to cite a paper that's not yet been published (COI notwithstanding)? Do you have any source(s) for Open Science? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Notable contributions section
We would need sources saying that he's contributed to these areas- if they're already in the article, could they also be added against the relevant links in that section? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I clicked through several of these and they all gave Kahneman as a relevant researcher with a source. So, this would just be busywork and WP:REFCLUTTER.  If the OP wants this done, they should do it themself per sofixit.  They could start by listing any cases which don't name check Kahneman.  Are there any? Andrew🐉(talk) 22:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But well done to Ktin for adding all those anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Collaboration / Friendship with Tversky
I would like to create a new section titled ‘Partnership with Amos Tversky’ after ‘Academic Career’, and before ‘Personal Life’. I realise that Kahnemann’s work with Tversky is itemised in the ‘Academic Career’ section, but believe the collaboration/friendship is significant enough to warrant its own section. For example, Nature magazine records how “They became almost inseparable for a few fervent years”; and in an interview in The Atlantic, Michael Lewis, author of ‘The Undoing Project - A Friendship That Changed Our Minds’, writes about how their relationship led to their Nobel winning work. The book records how “they are the Lennon and McCartney of social science…the relationship between Kahneman and Tversky was as intense as a marriage.” A review in the The New Yorker, records Kahnemann saying, “I wanted something from him, not from the world” and, as the relationship became splintered, “I sort of divorced him.”

In summary, I think the relationship with Tversky was so important to Kahnemann's life that it deserves its own section. Is the consensus that it is adequately covered in ‘Academic Career’, or is it worth drafting a new section? Spinifex&#38;Sand (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)