Danny and Amos had different personalities and different habits, but they became great friends. When they collaborated, they were flexible enough to accommodate all but one of their major differences (more on this, later). Danny was intuitive. He would settle for a quick solution, perhaps change his mind, or worry that it might be wrong—he was a natural pessimist, whereas Amos was an extreme perfectionist—his motto: “let’s get this right,” and he was justifiably optimistic about his ability to do so. Danny was an insomniac—he enjoyed flying because only then could he sleep—and he was an early bird. Amos was a nighthawk—he worked while others slept. They soon settled into a habitual routine. They lunched together and then worked together for the afternoon. They brought different characters and different aptitudes to the table, but above all sheer enjoyment in each other’s company. Work was talk. Like a duet of enthusiastic Quakers, they discussed everything about their research until they reached agreement. They clarified one another’s formulations, completed one another’s sentences, traded jokes with one another. They thought out loud, and had a tacit agreement not to debunk each other’s ideas. Danny thought the biggest benefit was that they could each draw out the implications of the other’s half-baked ideas.

 

— Johnson-Laird (2024), Kahneman, Tversky, and Kahneman-Tversky: Three ways of thinking