Lucy Keer on Twitter: "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.… https://t.co/3SlZMKpCxQ"

Country	Code	For customers of
United States	40404	(any)
Canada	21212	(any)
United Kingdom	86444	Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
Brazil	40404	Nextel, TIM
Haiti	40404	Digicel, Voila
Ireland	51210	Vodafone, O2
India	53000	Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
Indonesia	89887	AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
Italy	4880804	Wind
3424486444	Vodafone
» See SMS short codes for other countries

Report Tweet

'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')

2 replies 1 retweet 11 likes

Show this thread

Lucy Keer‏ @drossbucket Oct 11

Report Tweet

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 likes

Show this thread

Lucy Keer‏ @drossbucket Oct 11

Report Tweet

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 likes

Show this thread

David Chapman‏ @Meaningness Oct 11

Report Tweet

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

Kaj Sotala‏ @xuenay Oct 11

Report Tweet

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

Lucy Keer‏ @drossbucket Oct 11

Report Tweet

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

Lucy Keer‏ @drossbucket Oct 11

Report Tweet

Replying to @drossbucket @xuenay @Meaningness

... 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

Lucy Keer‏ @drossbucket Oct 11

Report Tweet

Replying to @drossbucket @xuenay @Meaningness

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

David Chapman‏ @Meaningness Oct 11

Report Tweet

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

David Chapman‏ @Meaningness Oct 11

Report Tweet

Replying to @Meaningness @drossbucket @xuenay

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

Lucy Keer‏ @drossbucket Oct 11

Report Tweet

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

11:47 AM - 11 Oct 2019

1 Like

2 replies 0 retweets 1 like

1. 4 more replies
1. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness Oct 11
  
  Report Tweet
  Replying to @drossbucket @xuenay
  
  Ahah! Very interesting... so then the question is “what incentives led most of the field to ignore the nay-sayers.” At a guess, dual process theory developed a reliable way of turning out publishable papers with minimal effort…
  
  3 likes
  Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo
  
  Undo

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.

Tweets

Lucy Keer

@drossbucket

Tweets

Loading seems to be taking a while.

false

Saved searches

Tweets

Lucy Keer

@drossbucket

Tweets

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

Promote this Tweet

Block

Tweet with a location

Your lists

Create a new list

Copy link to Tweet

Embed this Tweet

Embed this Video

Preview

Why you're seeing this ad

Log in to Twitter

Sign up for Twitter

Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

Confirmation

Welcome home!

Tweets not working for you?

Say a lot with a little

Spread the word

Join the conversation

Learn the latest

Get more of what you love

Find what's happening

Never miss a Moment

Loading seems to be taking a while.

Promoted Tweet

false