A Quote by Daniel Kahneman

If you think in terms of major losses, because losses loom much larger than gains - that's a very well-established finding - you tend to be very risk-averse. When you think in terms of wealth, you tend to be much less risk-averse.
As we get older, we tend to become more risk averse because we tend to find reasons why things won't work. When you are a kid, you think everything is possible, and I think with creativity it is so important to keep that naivety.
I don't think the government should touch art. Governments are risk averse. They encourage risk-averse personalities to be artists.
Increase your company's average talent with each hire - founders tend to be pretty smart but willing to take on risk. Employees should be a lot smarter and less risk averse.
When people think of the outcomes of their decisions, they think much more short term than that. They think in terms of gains and losses.
Justification, in terms of the broadening of freedom, for any particular form of institution of property must be argued in terms of whether the losses caused by the restrictions imposed are greater or less than the gains derived from the elimination of costly conflict.
When people believe that every move they make is going to affect their compensation, they tend to get risk averse.
Random distributions are not good things, because people are risk-averse, and this risk adversely affects their welfare. If you get too much price uncertainty, all kinds of long-term, mutually beneficial contracts can't be entered into.
Publishers are very risk-averse, so they lean towards licenses and sequels. But the fact is that even those are not guaranteed hits. So, if 'playing it safe' does not guarantee hits, they might as well leave it up to the really creative, risk-taking people, because they couldn't do any worse.
I think I was always writing books that had very clear scenic structures. I do tend to write in scenes. I do tend to have a fair amount of dialogue. And I do tend to use stories that don't sprawl all over the place, that have a very sharp focus in terms of how they unfold in time.
My family suffered very major losses during the Second World War, that's true. In my father's family, there were five brothers. I think four of them died. On my mother's side the picture was pretty much the same. Russia has suffered great losses. And of course we can't forget that.
Economists tend to think they are much, much smarter than historians, than everybody. And this is a bit too much because at the end of the day, we don't know very much in economics.
I think there's a danger in politics of being too risk-averse.
I pay higher premiums because my speeding points spell 'recklessness' to the insurance company, but you can't imagine how risk-averse I am at the wheel. I only go over 30 at all because it's dangerous to drive too much slower than everyone else.
The major challenge facing most foundations is that they are risk averse. This inhibits their ability to experiment and commit to the experimentation and innovation process.
I'm generally risk averse, and most great entrepreneurs I know are as well.
Term limits would make Congress bolder, more independent, and less risk-averse.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!