k_Kahneman

Within the scope of decision-making based on first-hand experiences, D Kahneman shared many insights about the PER [Peak-End rule. Global retrospective evaluation is well predicted by the average of the peak level of *pain* and the experience at the end]

• My evaluation of my overall sexual life shows peak-end effect + a bit of duration neglect. My evaluation of a single intercourse shows peak-end effect + serious duration neglect.
• My 2.5Y GS experience had a bad ending but I tend to brush aside the happy days (60%) .. DurationNeglect and PER
• My 12M Barcap experience had a happy ending but I tend to brush aside the stressful days .. PER and DurationNeglect
• each outing (with wife, or with any child) had better end on a high note (for the decision-making self…)
• At the end of intimacy, better (kiss and) get up before she had too much of it. Make the ending less boring and forgettable.
• UChicago is a good finale (ending on a high note) of my entire education journey. Without it, the entire journey would be remembered as downhill mostly because the NUS Y4 experience. The  FYP had a disproportionate lasting impact, casting a long shadow. The ending has a huge impact on my decision-making self.
• a delicious dessert ending in a distate or overfill .. can leave a bad memory. Duration neglect !

First impression often lasts a long time, iFF it is also the last impression.

In end-of-life evaluations, historicans, journalists often highlight the ending on a low note, promoting the PER rule. We the readers often forget the hedonimeter total [decades of experienced wellbeing] prior to the decline. Somehow, we assume the final 3 years of relative poverty (average affluence) wipes out the accumulated wellbeing of a lifetime?

— Limitations of PER and Duration Neglect:

• My MLP job (to a lesser extent, also Mvea, Citi jobs) had long months of comfort and peace. Duration neglect? I don’t think so. I do want to prolong the good periods.
• Duration of intimacy? No duration neglect!
• yoga experiences? I agree on the P but not the E in PER.
• AllianzHY investment? No PER , though the E was dismal

— System 1/2 .. Individual decision making is largely by System 1 and the remembering self. The experiencing self doesn’t have a voice in the decision, and is displaced by the remembering self. This System 1 in action is simplistic and often irrational. Decisions thus made could be regrettable to some extent because the “hedonimeter integral” is still important, not only to the experiencing self, but to my long-term satisfaction. D Kahneman is clear about the last point on P385 [[thinking fast and slow]]. He feels the remembering self is sometimes a lousy decision maker. To counter that error, System 2 can influence the decision so as to honor the future experiencing self. The remembering self would acknowledge the past experiencing self, and would not regret or object.