'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 -
Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket
Nitpick: AFAIK, _Thinking_ didn't have that big of an impact on the LW crowd, because EY's writing had largely popularized much of the same research that "Thinking" did.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Ah, yes, now you mention it, I remember that. Thanks for the correction!
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.