6 ms·

Yeah I wouldn't read too much into any single study. But what I would defend vigorously is System1 / System2 distinction as something so clear/fundamental that

Yeah I wouldn't read too much into any single study. But what I would defend vigorously is System1 / System2 distinction as something so clear/fundamental that you can see it constantly once you understand it.

disgruntledphd2 3y ago
That's not him though. Like, it was in all my cog psych textbooks more than twenty years ago, with cites back in the 80s (which weren't him). This is my favourite paper of theirs: http://stats.org.uk/statistical-inference/TverskyKahneman1971.pdf http://stats.org.uk/statistical-inference/TverskyKahneman197... I got into a bunch of trouble with some reviewers of my thesis for referencing this repeatedly.
gattilorenz 3y ago
It’s also very common in psychology theories, I haven’t read “Thinking, fast and slow” but I imagine there’s more than Kahneman’s own papers cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory
- zug_zug 3y ago
  wow, it looks like "dual process" theory is basically the same thing. I don't know if there's a better text on dual-process theory out there (perhaps by the original authors), but regardless of who originated it, I think it's something worth learning about for everyone (and if you don't have a better source then Thinking Fast and Slow is a very good one).
rileyphone 3y ago
It's just such a bad name though.
underdeserver 3y ago
In software we often call it fastpath and slowpath :)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lupire 3y ago
It's been called "emotion / intuition" and "logic" for centuries or millennia before the goofy System name was invented.
- raincole 3y ago
  Ironically people like System 1/2 more than intuition/logic because the terms sound more like they are coined by System 2.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    Maybe some people do. I have to keep checking which one is system 1 and which is system 2 every time I hear the terms, because they're not self-evident. Intuition/logic is.
  - arduanika 3y ago
    At least, they sound that way to your System 1!
derbOac 3y ago
... except the distinction was being made in various forms long before Kahneman, and does get questioned. When you start to poke at it, what's intuitive starts to seem less so. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691612460685 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17456916124606... (that's a link to a defense of dual process theories, but it makes clear there's increasing criticism of them)
- cjblomqvist 3y ago
  Does anyone have a link to a publicly accessible version of this paper?
  - derbOac 3y ago
    I think this should work: https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/dual-process-theory-Evans_Stanovich_PoPS13.pdf https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/dua... There's review paper coming from a more critical perspective in Psych Bulletin or Psych Review I was looking for, but I couldn't find it atm.

disgruntledphd2 3y ago

That's not him though. Like, it was in all my cog psych textbooks more than twenty years ago, with cites back in the 80s (which weren't him). This is my favourite paper of theirs: http://stats.org.uk/statistical-inference/TverskyKahneman1971.pdf http://stats.org.uk/statistical-inference/TverskyKahneman197... I got into a bunch of trouble with some reviewers of my thesis for referencing this repeatedly.

gattilorenz 3y ago

It’s also very common in psychology theories, I haven’t read “Thinking, fast and slow” but I imagine there’s more than Kahneman’s own papers cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory

zug_zug 3y ago
wow, it looks like "dual process" theory is basically the same thing. I don't know if there's a better text on dual-process theory out there (perhaps by the original authors), but regardless of who originated it, I think it's something worth learning about for everyone (and if you don't have a better source then Thinking Fast and Slow is a very good one).

rileyphone 3y ago

It's just such a bad name though.

underdeserver 3y ago

In software we often call it fastpath and slowpath :)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lupire 3y ago

It's been called "emotion / intuition" and "logic" for centuries or millennia before the goofy System name was invented.

raincole 3y ago
Ironically people like System 1/2 more than intuition/logic because the terms sound more like they are coined by System 2.
- adastra22 3y ago
  Maybe some people do. I have to keep checking which one is system 1 and which is system 2 every time I hear the terms, because they're not self-evident. Intuition/logic is.
- arduanika 3y ago
  At least, they sound that way to your System 1!

derbOac 3y ago

... except the distinction was being made in various forms long before Kahneman, and does get questioned. When you start to poke at it, what's intuitive starts to seem less so. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691612460685 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/17456916124606... (that's a link to a defense of dual process theories, but it makes clear there's increasing criticism of them)

cjblomqvist 3y ago
Does anyone have a link to a publicly accessible version of this paper?
- derbOac 3y ago
  I think this should work: https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/dual-process-theory-Evans_Stanovich_PoPS13.pdf https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/dua... There's review paper coming from a more critical perspective in Psych Bulletin or Psych Review I was looking for, but I couldn't find it atm.