There was a Horizon on TV last night about the work of Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman. Horizon can be a bit hit and miss, but this was quite good.
He proposes two modes of thinking:
System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious
System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious
What was interesting was that he said that we tend to make decisions based on system 1, then if we have to justify it afterwards we will use system 2, but this is not how we made the original decision. This can be observed with someone for example being told that a ghost is nearby, and then attributing a strange noise to that ghost because it fits that pattern. It could also explain the strange justifications used by Christians on this forum!
Also when using system 1 we evaluate things based on past experience, rather than using a new pattern of thinking. We do this all the time, and make mistakes based on this. E.g. I've met 3 Australians and they were fat, therefore all Australians are fat. We need system 2 to take over and provide rational thinking. It seems that system 1 is very prone to fallacy. However using system 2 is costly and we may not use it out of laziness.
I found it interesting anyway, and I can think of times when I've made mistakes by using the wrong system.
He proposes two modes of thinking:
System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious
System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious
What was interesting was that he said that we tend to make decisions based on system 1, then if we have to justify it afterwards we will use system 2, but this is not how we made the original decision. This can be observed with someone for example being told that a ghost is nearby, and then attributing a strange noise to that ghost because it fits that pattern. It could also explain the strange justifications used by Christians on this forum!
Also when using system 1 we evaluate things based on past experience, rather than using a new pattern of thinking. We do this all the time, and make mistakes based on this. E.g. I've met 3 Australians and they were fat, therefore all Australians are fat. We need system 2 to take over and provide rational thinking. It seems that system 1 is very prone to fallacy. However using system 2 is costly and we may not use it out of laziness.
I found it interesting anyway, and I can think of times when I've made mistakes by using the wrong system.
