BookTalk.org

Please talk about Part 1: Two Systems in this thread or feel free to create your own threads.

I get more depressed as I read more. Are any of our decisions really freely made and thought out? And another thing, are we really pre programmed to be afraid of spiders?

I just downloaded the book and am about to get started reading it. I take this stuff with a grain of salt. Do these scientists really have the evidence to say we're not really using free will?

i better re-read part 1 as i didn't quite get that from it. though i did find myself rebelling against the "all your decisions are belong to us" vibe so then again maybe i did.

i find it hard to keep my mind stayed on this sort of material.

second time lucky?

i def. relate to two systems tho, the intuitive and the rational, i think of them more as conscious and subconscious.

I believe free will is an illusion. Or at least, as most people define the concept. Where in any of your thoughts do neurons break the cycle of cause and effect? If nowhere, then your thoughts are determined. If any one of your thoughts are based on quantum indeteminacy, then such a random input would lead to a random output - seizures or turrets.

Good thinking is good because of good wiring, good knowledge. Not because of a good goblin turning some internal hamster wheel. Everything in your head is reliant on causality.

It's sort of like the weather, but far more complex. We understand the mechanisms well enough, but precision in predicting the entire system is far far away. That doesn't mean we consider the weather to have free will. It is a system with mechanisms too plentiful to put in your head all at once. But it seems that when some part of a system can't "fit" into people's heads, it turns to magic. Because we can't see how billions of neurons manifest in normal human behavior in all it's radiant complexity, we assume there is some magical buffer in there that allows freedom from causality. Lack of understanding is not a void to be filled with magical thinking.

And another thing, are we really pre programmed to be afraid of spiders?

It wouldn't surprise me. I find that I'm pre-programmed to enjoy looking at boobs. Looking at a spider tickles the same caveman part of my brain, but in a bad kind of way.

The 'two systems' of the chapter title are the fast thinking and slow thinking which give the whole book its title.

Fast thinking is intuitive and automatic.

Slow thinking is rational and systematic.

Fast thinking cannot be switched off while you are awake, and is part of your everyday conscious awareness of what is going on around you.

Slow thinking requires effort and concentration.

Fast thinking is used for things we are very familiar with, like how to drive a car in normal traffic for an experienced driver.

Slow thinking is for things that are new and require careful attention, like learning how to drive or doing complicated mental arithmetic.

This model of human psychology suggests that the assumptions we form through fast thinking routinely infect our rational faculties. For example, we like to pretend an opinion is logical when in fact it is sentimental. Kahneman gives the good example of an investment adviser who bought Ford shares based on sentiment, not on logic, but then pretended his decision was based on objective analysis.

Fast thinking is subjective, slow thinking is objective.

Rationalisation is the process whereby we pretend that fast intuitive sentimental emotional subjective conclusions are in fact slow, rational, logical, objective and evidence based. We jump to opinions on skimpy evidence or as a result of psychological manipulation such as propaganda, advertising and comments from family and friends. Using our routine irrational fast thinking, we then accept those views as articles of faith. We then try to justify our emotions after we have formed the conclusion by constructing a plausible explanation. But this explanation is often flawed because it is trying to justify a claim that is just based on intuitive emotion.

Is there any scanning/testing to show underlying mechanisms to these categories, or are they arbitrary? It sounds like a useful distinction, but only in the sense that it's one of many heuristics for understanding human thought. Simplify simplify simplify.

Robert, you sound as though you might agree with Jonathan Haidt after all. There isn't much real difference between rationalizing moral opinions and other types of opinions.

DWill wrote:Robert, you sound as though you might agree with Jonathan Haidt after all. There isn't much real difference between rationalizing moral opinions and other types of opinions.

There is a big difference between self-interested prejudice and objective knowledge, but both are types of opinion.

I haven't been able to find a copy of Haidt in any bookstores in Australia.. From your summaries he sounds like a curate's egg. I might agree with the good parts but disagree with the bad.