Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label Nobel Prize

Just my thoughts #0723

Everyone is aware of their own shortcomings. Personal judgment based on individual experience can be either an advantage or a disadvantage. One’s experiences and circumstances influence how these advantages and disadvantages are perceived. As circumstances change, so do the benefits and drawbacks. For example, if the trait of being unable to form long-term relationships due to untrustworthy people is a disadvantage, it can become an advantage when dealing with a scammer. If you’re troubled by a shortcoming that’s difficult to fix, I suggest changing your perspective. Instead of trying to fix the shortcomings, consider changing how you interpret the situation. This way, disadvantages can actually turn into benefits. However, shifting your point of view on your own can be challenging. - Joseph’s “just my thoughts”

Just my thoughts #0719

Austrian psychiatrist Julius Wagner-Jauregg had a remarkable talent for recognizing patterns. When a common tendency appears, it’s called a pattern. Finding common ground also involves identifying problems or finding solutions. Before the discovery of penicillin, Julius was searching for a way to treat neurosyphilis but accidentally discovered that the condition was cured when the patient developed a severe fever from another disease. Julius intentionally infected a patient with malaria to induce a fever, and when the fever rose, he used quinine to treat malaria and saved the syphilis patient. Without treatment, syphilis had a 30% survival rate, but with malaria-induced fever, the survival rate increased to 60%. The survival rate was doubled. For this work, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1927. Although high fever causes pain in humans, it also signals that the immune system is active. Recognize patterns to solve problems. - Joseph’s “just my thoughts”

Just my thoughts #0112

In 2002, Nobel Prize-winning economist Daniel Kahneman conducted an experiment called the “Dictator Game”. It was 1986. One of the two subjects was given $20 to share with the other. The first condition was that the recipient could exercise his veto power if he did not like the distribution ratio, and then, the ruler ensured that the giver did not have the money. The second condition eliminated the veto. In the first condition, most people who gave money were divided in half. In the second condition, however, the giver had about 70% and shared only 30%. Most people think of fairness to vested interests between 50% and 70%. But, in some cases, even though the recipient had a veto, the giver had 90% and wanted to share only 10%. At that time, it was beneficial for the recipient to receive at least 10%, but by exercising the veto power, the giver did not have the money either. This is the moment of conflict between justice and rationality. People do not make decisions based on reason alon...