3 ms·
This is Dual Process Theory [0] otherwise known as Fast vs Slow thinking, or System 1 and System 2 thinking. Humans are the only known organism to do System 2
by marcus_holmes 11mo ago
This is Dual Process Theory [0] otherwise known as Fast vs Slow thinking, or System 1 and System 2 thinking.
Humans are the only known organism to do System 2 (which doesn't mean we're the only ones that do it, just that we don't know if whales do it), but System 2 is what the author is talking about when they refer to Chains of Thought.
System 1 is what they're referring to when they talk about Messi reacting to an unusual situation on the field.
Related anecdote: I tested myself for ADHD by taking amphetamines. I normally think by intuitive leaps from point to point, without doing the intermediate steps consciously. I found that during this experience my System 2 thinking was fast enough to follow and I actually experienced proper chains of thought. Or I was whizzing my tits off and hallucinated the whole thing. Not sure yet. I should repeat the experiment.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory
- protocolture 11mo agoDont know why you are getting the downvotes this is the best comment here.
- coldtea 11mo agoHaven't many of the fast/slow thinking claims, as popularized by the best-selling Daniel Kahneman's book, been debunked?
- protocolture 11mo agoSounds like great fodder for a just as informative reply.
- Libidinalecon 11mo agoThe irony is I am pretty sure you believe this because of some kind of heuristic, but I am not sure what that heuristic would be called. Priming has issues with repeatability in experiments. To believe that "debunks" the entirety of heuristics and bias is completely absurd. The author literally won a Nobel prize for Prospect Theory. I think that book sucks personally. Just an incredibly dull book to read. The online social contagion that it is a work of fiction might actually be more interesting.
- coldtea 11mo ago>The irony is I am pretty sure you believe this because of some kind of heuristic, but I am not sure what that heuristic would be called Maybe we could call it the "if a book bases it claims by citing a few papers, and those specific papers turn out to be bogus, then its claims are unsubstantiated" heuristic
- dns_snek 11mo ago> I tested myself for ADHD by taking amphetamines. [...] Or I was whizzing my tits off and hallucinated the whole thing. Not sure yet. You can't test yourself for ADHD by taking amphetamines because they have profound effects on everyone - there's a reason why stimulants are some of the most popular recreational drugs. They can make everyone feel smarter, more productive, like you're on top of the world, especially at recreational doses. When it comes to therapeutic doses for treating ADHD, the effects of the medication should be very subtle, you shouldn't "feel it working" like you've just taken that pill from Limitless. It can produce some euphoria or other recreational effects initially but they're supposed to disappear within a couple of days or weeks, otherwise your dosage is considered to be too high.
- runelk 11mo ago> I tested myself for ADHD by taking amphetamines. You cannot test yourself for ADHD - you need to do the actual work that is required for a proper diagnose. And you cannot test yourself for anything at all by taking amphetamines. Seriously. You were using it recreationally. When you post stuff like this online, people that believe what you write could get hurt.