= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Sniffnoy comments on A Taxonomy of Bias: The Cognitive Miser - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (36)
Can we perhaps come up with some better names than "Type 1" and "Type 2"? Those aren't suggestive at all.
Where does that come from, anyway? I read this book and found it much easier to digest than this post - though I'm fairly new and have hardly read the other sequences.
EDIT: 'sequence' seemed a bit harsh; I liked What Cost for Irrationality?
Huh. I wondered why this post isn't getting any more upvotes. Is that because it's hard to understand? Am I trying to say too much in too few words?
More words would be a bad thing. Perhaps too much content and too many arbitrary new names for things for one post.
For my part I just hadn't had time to read the post until now so the vote just required patience. Another consideration is that people haven't had their attention constantly dragged back to the post, prompting them to read it and vote. There just isn't all that much that is controversial in the content to prompt extensive debate or analysis. I just read "a bunch of biases that I already know and categorizations that I'm neither for nor against."
It's a little dense and jargon-y.. I feel like I haven't loaded terms in my working memory and so need to re-look them up. But who knows? Maybe it's something trivial like formatting.
Then again, it's late here and I should take another crack when I'm well rested.
Rather than too much jargon, it seemed there were too many vague names given to existing concepts. These seem to be shortcomings of the text's author
I would have more confidence in the author's model if there was a failure mode given for each element of the cognitive model. Unfortunately the chart I created to display the lack of correspondence keeps collapsing when I post it...
The coupling of type 1 and 2 override failures seems weak; a logical failure is not the same as an ethical dispute except in the minds of pure utilitarians.
"Serial Associative Cognition with a Focal Bias, " which I might have referred to as mere "focal bias," might make use of this fun psych experiment {rot13 -spoiler}tbevyyn movie.
Once the next segment of the review comes along, it may be worthwhile to compare wikipedia's list of fallacies and cognitive distortions to do an initial check for completeness.
You are perhaps referring to short term memory there. Or "haven't kept the terms in my working memory". Trying to solve the problem with Jack, Anne and George would displace "Type 1 and 2" from working memory regardless and you would need them in short term memory to keep engaging with them once finished with that task.
I thought working memory had subsumed short term memory conceptually. Anyway, yes, I meant 'kept'.
It seems to vary (up to the extent of working memory being considered a part of long term memory which happens to be the subject of focus!). I suspect 'medium-term memory' is more what I am referring to but some just classify that is 'long term memory that you possibly will not bother consolidating all that much'. Whatever it is when we 'get' the thing we are reading but then fill our working memory with random numbers.
I think "System 1" is becoming standard, supplanting the old-fashioned "Type 1." I think the mnemonic is that "System 1" acts first and only sometimes falls back to "System 2."
That's true; it was a mistake to say they aren't suggestive at all. There does seem to be a natural ordering here. I guess it's not so bad in this context. "System 1/2" is a bit more distinctive, I agree.
Can we go further than this and declare a blanket moratorium on "1 and 2" or "a and b" taxonomies?
Talk to the statisticians. They've been using "Type I error" and "Type II error" instead of "false positive" and "false negative" for ages.
In this case, though, I had much less trouble than with the statistical errors. Possibly because those are essentially the same thing, differentiated only by which hypothesis is "null". Here, though, a Type 1 system and a Type 2 system are actually very different things. Plus as others have mentioned the ordering on the systems does make sense.
They're still bad names. It's like making new word processor documents and leaving them titled "Untitled 1" and "Untitled 2" instead of something descriptive.
I remember learning this and absolutely hating statisticians for it
Some people can not be saved. That is absolutely idiotic.
Yes please!
Type 1: Implicit reasoning
Type 2: Explicit reasoning
He uses "Autonomous" for Type 1. "Conscious" might work for Type 2.
You threw in an "Autonomous" instead of "Type 1" in the middle there. Apart from being a lousy name (just don't think the association is at all right) it made me assume that you were introducing a new type. Particularly because the previous sentence said you were moving to a 3-type classification!
Of course, if we think it's exhaustive, we can just name one and call the other "non-" that...
Oh, also: the OP refers to Type 1 as being "autonomous" and Type 2 as being "algorithmic", so another option would be to just stick with those words.