Does it help to explore the annoyance using gap analysis? I think of it as heuristics. As with humans, it's the pragmatic "whatever seems to work" where "seem

Does it help to explore the annoyance using gap analysis? I think of it as heuristics. As with humans, it's the pragmatic "whatever seems to work" where "seems" is determined via training. It's neither reasoning from first principles (system 1) nor just selecting the most likely/prevalent answer (system 2). And chaining heuristics doesn't make it reasoning, either. But where there's evidence that it's working from a model, then it becomes interesting, and begins to comply with classical epistemology wrt "reasoning". Unfortunately, information theory seems to treat any compression as a model leading to some pretty subtle delusions.