= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Elo comments on Common Misconceptions about Dual Process Theories of Human Reasoning - 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 (15)
quite a mouthful - can you simplify this maybe?
If I understand correctly, Gram_Stone is using input here to refer to the organism's short term memory, and reliable algorithm to refer to working memory (unreliable algorithm means no use of working memory), and output to refer to the organism's observable behavior. I'm not entirely certain of how he's distinguishing between input, algorithm, and output in this context, but that's my best guess.
The paragraph is a criticism of certain varieties of "thinking fast, thinking slow" sorts of arguments.
A common problem within psychology research is that researchers will conduct a study in which the independent variable is a stimulus in the external environment and the dependent variable is the organism's behavior, but then the researcher will make a claim about the underlying cognitive process without any evidence to make that claim. Without collecting data on the process, such studies are frequently not able to distinguish between different parts of the cognitive process.
So it is not possible to determine from examining an unreliable output whether that lack of reliability was due to an unreliable input or due to an unreliable algorithm.
The key thing to note is that the input in that sentence is not referring to the independent variable. The independent variable is being manipulated in a step before the input.
This was really helpful though. Dual-processing theory has always come across to me as being all over the map in terms of the definition of what is type 1 and what is type 2.
I do get what it means; (and you helped as well with your extended explanation) but I was more interested in encouraging him to word it in a way that was clearer and less of a mouthful (in the top post) to read over. In the hope that more people might engage with it if it can be explained more simply; which I think it can; (in this comment http://lesswrong.com/lw/nf5/common_misconceptions_about_dual_process_theories/d6oj)
It could be long-term memory too.
Thanks. This is because anyone can call their theory a dual process theory. And it's an even more general term in all of psychology, all LWers are secretly talking about the enormous subset of dual process theories of reasoning, which is why I made the title what it was. And about ten years ago they were in the 'listing common characteristics stage' instead of the 'finding neurological correlates' stage. Evans is one of the very authors who caused the confusion, but he also cleared it up later, and admitted his mistake. There are some especially virtuous scientists within the field of cognitive science.
The sentence immediately after it is a paraphrase of the sentence in your quotation:
Is that also too complex?
try this:
To make a judgment based on a not reliable feeling is a different mistake from experiencing a reliable feeling and drawing an incorrect conclusion through an error in judgment.
or presented like this:
the process of making a judgement on a feeling:
not reliable feeling -> judgement that ends up being wrong because of some unreliable feeling data
is not the same mistake as
reliable feeling -> judgement that is an incorrect judgement.