I confess I didn't read his book. But with respect to automatic processing: Expertise development relies heavily on shifting knowledge from controlled to automatic processing. Simple example: Learning to drive a car. Initially, you had to think about each component (e.g., check rear view mirror, check blind spot, slow down as you near the intersection, watch out for pedestrians, etc) and it took every bit of your conscious processing resources to drive a few blocks. It was difficult to drive and do other things--like carry on a conversation or listen to music.

As the skill became more practiced--you became an expert driver--many of these components became automated, requiring far fewer conscious processing resources. You executed movements as a seamless series, and you rapidly noticed things that a novice might miss. As a result, you could do other things while driving, like think and talk and listen to music.

All expertise is like that. Grandmaster chess players generally don't think ahead any more moves than intermediate players, but they are much more successful in choosing which moves to consider because their knowledge bases are full of chess board configurations (linked to optimal moves) that they immediately recognize when they view the board (or imagine it). That's how they can play many players simultaneously and rapidly in tournaments. Soccer and baseball players show the same kind of automaticity. Whereas a novice player looks at the ball (which is what our coaches told us to do), expert players look where the ball is going to be a second or less later. And that is where they put themselves or aim their bats.

So, yes, automatic processing can frequently outperform deliberative when the decision-maker is an expert. That's what all those hours and years of solving problems in a domain buys you.

Penelope wrote:

DWill wrote:

The material is very interesting, he keeps his chapters short, and he writes clearly.

Thanks DWill, I feel encouraged now. I thought he did give very clear examples right at the start in outlining our reactions to the lady's angry face and then that very appropriate piece of mental arithmetic, which I, of course, got wrong first try.

I'm only plodding because my ratio between fiction and non-fiction is skewed. I read far, far more fiction, and find that I can do so and watch TV, or sew etc....With non-fiction, I need to cover my ears and really concentrate...AND...I get cross if I'm interrupted.

I'm just the opposite, Penelope, when it comes to reading. NF outweighs fiction at least 4 to 1. But I'm not necessarily happy with that ratio. Maybe I'm too much in System 2 and should cultivate my System 1 more. Fiction does seem to reach that part of us, the part that is interested in human life, that NF generally leaves alone. Talk about poetry, and then we might be even deeper in to System 1. Or music, ditto.

I find it easy to assign characters to the two systems, just as Kahneman says is natural for us to do, even about geometric shapes in one experiment. I can't help thinking of 1 as naughty, hedonistic and not that bright, and 2 as mature, careful, and smart. I know that really isn't true, though. I think some people just naturally stay in system 1 more than some others, and what does that make them? Maybe they're more spontaneous and natural, even though they might not think about whether their intuitions are logical.

Gerd Gigerenzer, the director of the Adaptive Behavior program at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, has been highly critical of dual systems approaches and of the idea that rapid heuristic decision-making necessarily yields poor decisions. He has written dozens of papers on this, and shown how several heuristics do as well or better than more complex decision algorithms. Moreover, they do it in a fraction of the time and require far fewer resources than the complex algorithms.

Perhaps I'm not far enough into the book yet, but it doesn't seem to me that the author refers to System 1 as being inferior. He cites many situations where it does an excellent job. I see you cite some as well in your previous post.

DWill wrote: Talk about poetry, and then we might be even deeper in to System 1. Or usic, ditto.

Music is about vibration....and is very close to mathematics....so, System 1 and System 2 meet in music as far as I'm concerned, and I keep wondering if 'God', whatever that is; is in the gaps.

Poetry...for me anyway, is system 1, absolutely and completely.

I'm just watching a programme on BBC 1, and I'll post a link for you when it has finished if you think you might be interested.

It is the Jewish New Year: Rosh Hashanah: Science Versus Religion:-

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks debates with atheists Richard Dawkins, Susan Greenfield and Jim Al-Khalili.

It began with the Rabbi saying:

'Science takes things apart to see how they work,
Religion puts them together to see what they mean.'

It is perplexing to hear Jonathan Sacks debating with Richard Dawkins, they are both gentlemen, intelligent, and admirable.

Perplexing, but a joy.

Religion in the wrong hands is very dangerous, but also is Science. Religion has been mis-used, but also has Science.

Does Faith trump Reason? The answer to Bad Religion, is Good Religion, not No Religion.

Richard met Jonathan more than halfway. Hurrah! Hallelujah!!

Science tells us about the origins of life , but religion tells us about the reasons.

Interbane, for the past 30 years, Kahneman has published papers showing that human decision-making is fraught with biases and misleading heuristics.

Yes Denise, I'm aware of that and he speaks right off the bat of the negatives of "system 1". What I was hoping you'd clarify on is when you said that system 1 "necessarily" yields poor decisions. But a second read shows that you were framing Gerd's perspective(I think).

How much work to you do with the physical side of studying the mind? Are there any interesting insights into how the brain operates when you heavily engage system 2? I mean, pupil dilation during intense focus must have causal roots in the brain, and the fidelity of that reaction in indicating mental effort. What is "engaged" when we undertake a conscious effort to focus?

Is there a release of chemical? Are there supplemental cells like glia that act as the "control wiring" to the neuron's "communication wiring"? Understanding the whole shebang I know is nearly impossible, but I'm wondering only about the base mechanics.

This is my favorite subject(thus the purchase of this book amidst a busy schedule). I've always held introspection to be one of my greatest strengths, and the primary cause of much depression. Sometimes, I often think that in order to be so cognizant of what I'm thinking, there must be something of a second personality within me. Not only must the subject of thought be maintained, but the overview of 'how' the subject is being analyzed must be maintained as well. My introspection hits a red light when my blood sugar is low. Not enough energy?

It's frustrating trying to suss out the nuances of your own thinking. I want a gods eye view of my brain during operation.

I find it easy to assign characters to the two systems, just as Kahneman says is natural for us to do, even about geometric shapes in one experiment. I can't help thinking of 1 as naughty, hedonistic and not that bright, and 2 as mature, careful, and smart. I know that really isn't true, though. I think some people just naturally stay in system 1 more than some others, and what does that make them? Maybe they're more spontaneous and natural, even though they might not think about whether their intuitions are logical.

The systems approach I think needs something of an up front disclaimer. It's an abstract reference that 'cuts nature at the knees'. The usefulness in helping us to understand seems to outweigh the potential for conceptual hiccups, however, so it's justified. I would feel more comfortable if these abstractions could be tied to mechanisms, so the points of demarcation have an anchor in the actual workings of the brain. With that said, it's an effective and fun way to frame the concepts.

Interbane, that is a great question, and the answer is: Yes, there is a good deal of research (primarily from neuroimaging studies) showing separate processing pathways for System 1 and System 2. For example, Knutson and colleagues conducted an fMRI experiment in which both reward magnitude and probability were manipulated (Knutson, Taylor, Kaufman, Peterson, & Glover, 2005). Participants were presented with cues indicating both the likelihood and value of upcoming monetary rewards. They found that activity in the medial prefrontal cortex was related to the subjective probability of obtaining the reward, but activation in midbrain areas correlated with expected reward magnitude. Moreover, people’s verbal reports of their probability estimates correlated with prefrontal brain activity, whereas their reports of arousal correlated with midbrain activity. When people decide to make risky decisions, the reward areas of the brain become highly active just prior to making the decision. In other words, this neural signature shows that they are anticipating large payoffs and are not thinking about the probability of payoffs (Knuston & Bossaerts, 2007). This is one reason gambling can be so addictive; the act of placing the bet can feel as rewarding as winning.

I just reached the point where he mentions blood glucose levels correlate to how much executive control is allocated to difficult functions. I mentioned this exact thing two posts ago; the effect is pronounced enough that it can be felt.


I also find it very interesting that the economizing ability of our brain is unintentional, as if a difficult problem is required before we can concentrate fully. I wonder if being deep within a meditative trance would affect pupil size, and if neuroimaging would show greater activity in the areas of the brain that correspond to system 2.

Interbane wrote:

I just reached the point where he mentions blood glucose levels correlate to how much executive control is allocated to difficult functions.

Does that mean that type2 diabetes sufferers are more stupid?