4 ms·

Yes, but the overall framework - that our thinking can be broadly divided into habits/reaction and deliberation/forecasting - still holds, with a ton of support

• an0malous 1y ago
  I don’t think even that is true or particularly useful. Why does it need to be binary? Couldn’t it be a spectrum? Are “fast thoughts” always habits and reactions? Some people can calculate large numbers very quickly, some people describe their inspiration for complex ideas happening in a single moment like a muse delivered it to them. Some people process thoughts and feelings for decades until they suddenly snap. I don’t think this “fast vs slow thoughts” framework really has any value to it, and it excludes a lot of thought patterns.
  • glial 1y ago
    In terms of being useful, it depends on the field. In reinforcement learning, for example, the entire field is divided into 'model-free' and 'model-based' approaches. Model-free approaches are learning state-action mappings, which are like habits or 'fast' thinking. Model-based approaches try to build a world model that allows planning and forecasting. If you're looking for utility in terms of understanding cognition, here are some resources if you're interested - pop-sci books written by cognitive scientists: - https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-mind-within-the-brain-9780199891887?cc=us&lang=en& https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-mind-within-the-... - https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo3627517.html https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo362751... Is the division true? Of course not - to paraphrase Box, all models are wrong. But some are useful. This one is useful.