[PREV - ONE_FOOT_IN_ZION]    [TOP]

FIRE_MIND


                                               November 9, 2013
                                                   
                                                   FAST_SLOW_AND_SLOWER
Kahneman works his jargon hard,                    
talking constantly about "System 1"                
vs "System 2" to discuss human                     
capabilities that might be given           Perhaps:
different names.                           Intuition and Reason
                                                   
   He attributes the invention of this             
   jargon to Keith Stanovich and Richard           
   West (and remarks that they now prefer          
   "Type 1"/"Type 2" processes now).               
                                                   
                                                   
Kahneman conceeds early on that                    
there's an arbitrary quality to this,              
these names are a verbal shorthand to       Something on everyone's
get a story across easily, though           minds of late: how do you
they may lack a degree of precision.        get a message out to the
                                            masses?  What good is an
                                            insight that languishes
                                            in the brains of a very few?
                                                   
                                                             SYSTEM_3
                                                   
    "System 1 and System 2 are so central to the   
    story I tell in this book that I must make it  
    absolutely clear that they are fictitious      
    characters.  Systems 1 and 2 are not systems in
    the standard sense of entities with interacting
    aspects or parts.  And there is no one part of 
    the brain that either of the systems would call
    home.  You may well ask: What is the point of  
    introducing fictitious characters with ugly names
    into a serioius book?  The answer is that the  
    characters are useful because of some quirks of
    our minds, yours and mine. A sentence is       
    understood more easily if it describes what an 
    agent (System 2) does than if it describes what
    something is, what properties it has."         
                                                   
           -- Kahneman, "Thinking Fast and Slow",  
              p. 29 (hardcover)                    
                                                   
The names "System 1" and "System 2" are            
presumably intended to be more neutral      This neologism dodge is
than any existing terms, all of which       admittedly useful in
have many prexisting connotations:          many respects.
                                                   
   o  intuition/reason,                                   NEOLOOGIES
   o  the traditional               BLACKBOX
      unconscious/conscious,                       
   o  the psuedo-biological                        
      hind brain and forebrain                     
   o  ... or left brain/right brain                
   o  Stanovich & West's current usage:            
       "type 1 process"/"type 2 process"           
   o  Kahneman's own alternates:                   
      automatic system/effortful system                Kahneman claims that
                                                       "System 1/System 2" is
                                                       preferred to automatic/
     I would make the point that System 1/System 2     effortful simply
     are far from free of their own connotations,      for reasons of brevity,
     and that they may be deceptive.  Numbering        but this story does
     them suggests sequence, and suggests that         not play well on
     "system 1" is of primary importance.              my own System 1.
                                                   
     Further "System" has a touch                      Just typing up these
     of scientism about it, it                         notes, I find "System 2"
     implies a rigor that might     (I think both      to be an incredibly
     not really be justified by     implications       clumsy piece of
     this material.                 are intended       terminology: it may
                                    by Kahneman.)      only be three syllables,
                                                       but they're not easily
     For example: are System 1 and System 2            manageable ones.
     actually two separate complexes?  Any         
     serious study of the function of reason              If you want short
     has to hand a large role to the intuitive,           names, many others
     any study of "instinctive" behavior is               could be found...
     likely to find a large component of           
     learned aspects that might be associated                Fire Mind
     with System 2.                                          vs Ice Mind
                                                       
          Kahneman of course is aware of all           
          this, he just tries to frame his             
          stories as 2 talking to 1 and vice-versa.    
                                                       
                                                       
     What would happen if you called them              
     "system yin" and "system yang"?                   
                                                     
     Then instead of a story of a late-comer       
     trying to steal the show from the original,     
     you have a suggestion of complementarity,       
     a need for both aspects to form a functional    
     whole.                                          
                                                     
                                                     


                                                     
--------
[NEXT - EXPERIMENT_FAIL]