= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Crazy Ideas Thread, December 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (39)
System I and System II seem to be very unwidely terms because of the numbers. People like Gleb try to find alternatives to use to reach "the masses". There a common tradition of expressing new concepts with Greek and Latin roots. Can anybody think of good names for System I and System II based on Greek or Latin?
I did like Auto-pilot for System I. However it's relevance is diminishing as our understanding of <processes that can be done on auto> (like flying a plane) changes with new technologies being more able to automatic for us. but maybe that's a good thing? (also AutoConscious)
that leaves an opposite to Auto for System 2. Pro-Conscious. Deliberate-Conscious active-conscious... Manual-conscious (Auto/manual as it relates to cars/driving)
If System 1 is Autopilot, System 2 is Override.
There's already several pop-psychology terms that try to point to these two concepts albeit imperfectly:
Left Brain vs. Right Brain Lizard Brain vs. Mammal Brain Instinctual vs. Deliberate Subconscious vs. Conscious Thin slicing vs. planning
Subconscious and conscious cognition?
Subconscious and conscious are words that already have meaning assigned to them. That meaning differes from what System I and System II means. The point of calling them System I and System II was to not let people think of them in the existing notions but accept them as new concepts.
Fubar might not be too far off; close to what you are looking for is 'Conscious competence' and 'Unconscious competence', the final two stages of the Conscious Competence model.
That model does exist but the four stage model isn't about what System I and System II are describing. It's worth to have new words for new concepts to not get the concepts confused with the old meaning.
But as soon as you try to get these words into popular perception their meaning will shift to the simplest meaning regardless.
There's nothing inherently complex about the meaning of the terms System I and System II. They are just as simply as other binary distinction. The difference is that they slice reality elsewhere. The concepts in common usage aren't in common usage because they are simple.
New terms can teach people to slice reality in new ways.