= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
realitygrill 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)
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?
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.