Slow thinking has the feeling of something you do. It's deliberate.
People's mood is really determined primarily by their genetic make-up and personality, and in the second place by their immediate context, and only in the third and fourth place by worries and concerns and other things like that.
The brains of humans contain a mechanism that is designed to give priority to bad news.
The effort invested in 'getting it right' should be commensurate with the importance of the decision.
People are really happier with friends than they are with their families or their spouse or their child.
Intuitive diagnosis is reliable when people have a lot of relevant feedback. But people are very often willing to make intuitive diagnoses even when they're very likely to be wrong.
If there is time to reflect, slowing down is likely to be a good idea.
It's very easy for trusted companies to mislead naive customers, and life insurance companies are trusted.
Nothing in life is as important as you think it is while you are thinking about it.
Suppose you like someone very much. Then, by a familiar halo effect, you will also be prone to believe many good things about that person - you will be biased in their favor. Most of us like ourselves very much, and that suffices to explain self-assessments that are biased in a particular direction.
It's nonsense to say money doesn't buy happiness, but people exaggerate the extent to which more money can buy more happiness.
Negotiations over a shrinking pie are especially difficult because they require an allocation of losses. People tend to be much more easygoing when they bargain over an expanding pie.
People talk of the new economy and of reinventing themselves in the workplace, and in that sense most of us are less secure.
There is a huge wave of interest in happiness among researchers. There is a lot of happiness coaching. Everybody would like to make people happier.
My interest in well-being evolved from my interest in decision making - from raising the question of whether people know what they will want in the future and whether the things that people want for themselves will make them happy.
Psychologists really aim to be scientists, white-coat stuff, with elaborate statistics, running experiments.
When people evaluate their life, they compare themselves to a standard of what a successful life is, and it turns out that standard tends to be universal: People in Togo and Denmark have the same idea of what a good life is, and a lot of that has to do with money and material prosperity.
Hindsight bias makes surprises vanish.
We think of our future as anticipated memories.
Through some combination of culture and biology, our minds are intuitively receptive to religion.
There are domains in which expertise is not possible. Stock picking is a good example. And in long-term political strategic forecasting, it's been shown that experts are just not better than a dice-throwing monkey.
The experiencing self lives in the moment; it is the one that answers the question, 'Does it hurt?' or 'What were you thinking about just now?' The remembering self is the one that answers questions about the overall evaluation of episodes or periods of one's life, such as a stay in the hospital or the years since one left college.
We have no reason to expect the quality of intuition to improve with the importance of the problem. Perhaps the contrary: high-stake problems are likely to involve powerful emotions and strong impulses to action.
We're beautiful devices. The devices work well; we're all experts in what we do. But when the mechanism fails, those failures can tell you a lot about how the mind works.
We have a very narrow view of what is going on.
I have always emphasized the willingness to discard.