Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 8

So you think you think rationally. Think again

Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman published Thinking, Fast and Slow in 2011, and it shot to the top of bestseller lists. The reviewers often sounded as if Kahneman were reporting on new research or putting out a fresh idea, like a Michael Lewis or Malcolm Gladwell insight. But this did an injustice to Kahneman. His book was nothing less than a summary of a lifetime’s work. His Nobel Prize was awarded in 2002, and he traces his work back to 1969 at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, when he met Amos Tversky. Together, they would bring behavioural finance out of the margin and into the mainstream, such that over 40 years later, it is an accepted part of understanding how investors and markets behave.

But this article is not another review of his book. Rather, Kahneman reports on dozens of studies he and his colleagues have done on how we make decisions, and explains our irrational behaviour. The reader is drawn in to take the tests and judge their own weaknesses in logic, which is why this book can be so humbling to read.

Kahneman divides our thought processes into System 1, which is automatic, effortless and unconscious, but answers questions quickly and gullibly based on intuition. And System 2, which is controlled, deliberate and requiring effort, but often only engages when circumstances require it.

Try these quick questions

So here we go. I’ve taken 10 examples from Kahneman’s book, and I will give the questions first, followed by the answers and a brief explanation. Try not to peep.

  1. A bat and a ball cost $1.10. The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
  2. If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? Here’s a clue: is the answer 100 minutes or 5 minutes?
  3. How many animals of each kind did Moses take into the ark?
  4. A man has been described by a neighbour as follows: “Steve is very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful but with very little interest in people or in the world of reality. A meek and tidy soul, he has a need for order and structure, and a passion for detail.” Is Steve more likely to be a librarian or a farmer?
  5. Consider three possible sequences of boys and girls born in a hospital: BBBGGG, GGGGGG, BGBBGB. Which of these sequences is least likely?
  6. Is the height of the tallest redwood in the United States more or less than 1,200 feet? What’s your best guess about the height of the tallest redwood?
  7. It’s a fact that people with a PhD are more likely to subscribe to The New York Timesthan people who did not go to college. You see a lady reading The New York Times on a New York subway. Which of the following is more likely? a) She has a PhD  or  b) She does not have a college degree.
  8. The most famous and controversial experiment involves a lady called Linda. “Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations.”The question is, which alternative is more probable? a) Linda is a bank teller b) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
  9. What if you were given a choice between the following:a) A gamble with 80% chance to win $100 and 20% chance to win $10, or b) A sure payment of $80. Which would you choose based on your personal preferences? Which would you choose based on the expected value of the outcomes?
  10. Consider these two problems:
    Problem 1. Which do you choose? Get $900 for sure or 90% chance to get $1,000.
    Problem 2. Which do you choose? Lose $900 for sure or 90% chance to lose $1,000.

---------------------------------

What are the logical or rational answers and what is happening in your decision-making?

  1. It’s difficult to stop the answer 10 cents jumping into your mind. More than 80% of university students give this first intuitive answer. But it’s wrong, and Kahneman highlights our failure to check the answer as we simply follow the law of least effort. The correct answer is 5 cents.
  2. Again, there is an intuitive response, but the correct response is 5 minutes. Kahneman also reports that students are far more inclined to make a mistake if given the puzzle in normal font, but do better in a small, washed-out font. The cognitive effort of reading the question produces a better result.
  3. Very few people detect what is wrong with this question. Look again. Holy Moses! Oh Noah!
  4. Most people reply that Steve is more likely to be a librarian than a farmer. But there are at least five times more farmers than librarians in the United States, and the majority of the librarians are women. So it is far less likely that Steve is a librarian.
  5. Intuitively, we don’t expect a sequence of six girls, but since each event is independent of the one before it, they are all equally likely.
  6. When the question is asked like this, the mean estimate given by respondents was 844 feet. But when it is asked like this: “Is the height of the tallest redwood more or less than 180 feet? What’s your best guess about the height of the tallest redwood?” … the mean answer is 282 feet. This ‘anchoring’ effect has many examples in investing.
  7. It’s more likely to be the second because far more non graduates ride the subway than PhDs.
  8. People think Linda is a very good fit for an active feminist. But the set of feminist bank tellers must be wholly included in the set of bank tellers. Therefore, the probability that Linda is a feminist bank teller must be lower than the probability she is a bank teller. When a possible event is specified in increasingly greater detail, you only lower its probability. People are confusing intuition with the logic of probability. In tests of undergraduates at top universities, 85% to 90% chose the second, incorrect option.
  9. Most people dislike risk and almost everyone prefers the sure thing. The expected value of the gamble is $82 (0.8 X 100 + 0.2 X 10), which is more than the sure thing. But few people evaluate risks in this way. Most people would choose the sure thing even if it were only $50.
  10. You were probably risk-averse in problem 1, as for the great majority of people, a $900 gain is much better than a gamble. But then in problem 2, you probably chose the gamble. The thought of losing $900 encourages you to take the bet. People become risk-seeking when all their options are bad, and you probably dislike losing more than you like winning.

Kahneman hopes his examples improve our ability to identify and understand errors of judgement. If we make mistakes in these simple questions where the logic is obvious, we are likely to be missing critical information or focussing on the wrong issues in many of our investment decisions. Each day, we respond to problems quickly and automatically, giving undue attention to details that stand out easily. Critical information is often ignored. The best investors are those who can hear  through the noise.

 

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.