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 …
-
Show 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 -
Replying to @xuenay @Meaningness
I was actually wondering about the history, as I wasn't around for LW 1.0. I thought the cognitive bias stuff was quite central to the LW project, after all it's called Less Wrong...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
... but was it actually all that popular a topic, or just what was in the air ~2008 (like atheism)? I certainly don't see that much of it there any more, just lots of AI.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I did read *Thinking* (without having read EY) around 2010, and swallowed it uncritically, so I'm in no position to crow at anyone else for doing that now :)
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @drossbucket @xuenay
FWIW I learned the original Kahneman & Tversky stuff in an intro cognitive psychology class in 1979. It’s a robust collection of effects, which is what cog psych needs (they realized already back then that a lot of results tend to evaporate if you push on them).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Would be interesting to understand of how the field moved from that into the System 1/2 delusion. It’s easy to see how they could just pick up the rational vs irrational folk theory that goes back to Ancient Greece, but why did no one call bs on it?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @xuenay
Sounds like people did call bs, including one of the authors of that paper (must be sick of it now if he started in 1989...) But not enough people, by the sound of it.pic.twitter.com/8xQxflsaDi
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I happened to see the other day that TF&S has been on NYT bestseller list for >200 weeks straight
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
David Chapman Retweeted David Chapman
There’s an unbounded market for simplistic psychological theorieshttps://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1079805367817625603 …
David Chapman added,
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @The_Lagrangian and
David Chapman Retweeted David Chapman
… although this theory of the appeal of dual process theory may only explain its appeal to LW, not the modal buyer sampled by the NYThttps://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1153336343642005504 …
David Chapman added,
David Chapman @MeaningnessDual process theory never made sense as science. Its appeal has to be understood psychoanalytically. It's a strategy for strengthening the goodself (ego ideal), identified with rationality, against the badself (id), identified as irrationality. https://meaningness.com/metablog/guru-papers-monism-control … pic.twitter.com/WwSN3au33rShow this thread1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
One of the mainstream appeals is for “unconscious bias” training- at least that was the focus of a recent book club reading TF&S at my job
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.