'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 -
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 -
I observed from ~2006 forward. The "geeks" of LW: aimed to popularize work by Danny et al aiming to create a community of smart "mops" aiming for communally navigating real issues. The book buying market created accidentally by '10-'12 was targeted by "sociopath" publishers.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
These are all goals I share and consider important... I wish they’d found better starting points.
-
-
Yeah. I mean... If I had been better at obsessing over bibliographies in late 2007, you might have been one of the starting points from somewhat near to the beginning? You were *so close* to being caught in the scholarship net :-P http://emergentepistemology.blogspot.com/2008/02/heideggerian-ai.html …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
That’s funny! Realistically there’s a huge amount of context missing that would have been needed to start near there... although Dreyfus was still teaching a mile from Rationalism Central, so maybe not impossible.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
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.