'The Mythical Number Two' - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323998611_The_Mythical_Number_Two … - via @xuenay
Wish I'd found this paper before writing my bat and ball post! Splits out distinctions that have been lumped under 'System 1'/'System 2' (or more recently 'Type 1'/'Type 2')
-
Show this thread
-
E.g. bat and ball answer is intentional (a 'Type 2' trait) - you're trying to answer the question. But also uncontrollable ('Type 1') - you get the stupid 10 cents answer whether you like it or not.pic.twitter.com/j1yeEzpNBL
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Lots more interesting background on this paper and other recent criticism of the 'Type 1'/'Type 2' split in
@xuenay's post:https://www.lesswrong.com/s/ZbmRyDN8TCpBTZSip/p/HbXXd2givHBBLxr3d …1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @drossbucket @xuenay
In the "what on earth got the Berkeley rationalists so confused" department, _Thinking Fast And Slow_ plays a starring role. One of their dismissals of any critique of rationalism is "yes, we know System 1 is important and honor it!"
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
It will be interesting to see how/whether they assimilate the cogsci mainstream abandoning the story.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Tempted to say the question "why did the cogsci mainstream play along with this story, when it was a priori incoherent" is bigger, but maybe it isn't. Cogsci has been intellectually bankrupt for 30 years, no one takes it seriously, and it has all the standard academic pathologies
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.