[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]