240. Dual Process Theory & The Mythical Number Two

Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast & Slow" has become a popular reference in public discussions of cognition & the dangers of impulsive decision-making, but many researchers think it might be wrong, or even damaging to the field at large.

- Links for the Curious -

Noun Projects Sources

[Joeyjojoshabbadoo]

This is a good channel, first of all. It really is. Keep doing what you're doing. As they say, you definitely deserve more subscribers. And thank you for this video. I was immediately replied by Daniel Kahneman, when listening to him on NPR or somewhere like that. Didn't care for him personally or his unhumble tone, and I couldn't believe what I was hearing, as if I was supposed to somehow appreciate what this guy was saying on some profound level, and it was like it was the emperor had no clothes or something. And naturally all the critics and social media jockeys hailed it, and were only very cautiously skeptical here or there. Even the superficial 'System 1/System 2' schema was immediately rather off-putting and infantilizing and cheesy.  I was unaware of the more dignified-sounding 'Dual Processing Theory' title for this little school of thought. And I listened on in relative horror as he unfolded his spiel, which came off as more or less classic psychology snake oil. And this guy won the Nobel prize! But maybe it was for something else.

So it's nice that there are at least few others out there that were also unimpressed....

[ReynaSingh]

Always great to see another video on this channel. Keep it up

[benmusgrove]

I saw this framed in parallel to Ian McGilchrist's work recently and it struck me in McGilchrist's work that it was a very...arbitrary distinction to go "left or right brain" thinking. System 1 vs System 2 seemed somehow more sensible for just not bothering to root itself in a falsifiable bodily function.
Little did I realise only a day or so later I'd be watching a Thunkisode that basically pulled back the curtain on both as being arbitrary and worthy of skepticisim.
Well played sir, well played.

[PetersonSilva]

What I love about this video is that it allowed me to chill out more about not having read this book and possibly never doing so in the future

[hirtandtieler]

Like you proposed at the end, it’s an easy fix! The Trio Process Theory: System 1, System 2, and - in the middle - the “Wibbly Wobbly Mindy Windy” System

[TheBlueMuzzy]

I read this book. I was asked what I thought about it, and my response was that I'm new to this concept and don't really know any counter arguments or alternate theories. I also didn't really know where to go to find those things (you don't know what you don't know), so I just decided not to have discussions about the topic. This gave me some fun jumping off points to explore - Thanks! Moreeee videos pls :D

[markolivercarl]

Hi! I just stumbled upon this video, and it's really eye-opening (beside being funny) - awesome work!
I've come across references to Dual Processing Theory in equally dichotomist models by Empirical Aestheticists, and had a vague hunch that there was something wrong with the whole framework. This video pointed me towards Melnikoff and Bergh, for which I am very grateful, and also summed up in a nutshell what the problem might be. Thanks once again - very helpful!

[TheGemsbok]

Love to see the revisit on this topic. Last December I wrote and published a critical article about one of my own philosophy articles from a few years prior, and it's something I feel I may end up doing more as time goes on . . . unless I just delete the older article(s). Perhaps you feel you're in a similar spot on some topics? Anyway, nice video, Josh!

[anakimluke]

Thanks for the video Josh!! I've had Thinking Fast and Slow for a while now but I haven't finished reading it yet. I understood system 1/2 as more like classifying rough behaviour rather than a mechanism in the brain, and hope that it gives you some understanding of how the mind works. I guess the main argument against the theory is that even if you can, as you put it, neatly divide thought into two modules, that wouldn't really give you much insight into the brain's workings? And you'd have to show how that heuristic(thanks to the book for teaching me that word!) is better than the classic "think carefully about a decision"? Anyway, I find it interesting how I believed in the existence of system 1/2 and when presented evidence of the contrary(this video, in this case) I'm open to dropping the belief entirely.

[ferulebezel]

I read the blurbs on the back and determined it was caca del torro. Had the author never faced a problem that he struggled over for a long time, set aside for a while, and had the solution come to him while he was engaged in a seemingly unrelated activity?

[IanMacLeansnv]

I would love to see (but would be embarrassed if you already have created) a video on Marvin Minsky's Society of Mind. Great book for anyone paranoid about the development of artificial general intelligence. (It's not coming anytime soon).

[Autists-Guide]

I recall first stumbling across the System 1 and System 2 stuff and instinctively (system 1?) thinking (system 2?) that it was the wrong way around and we'd be better off using the idea of Systems of Engagement (front office, fast / easy to update, often inaccurate) and Systems of Record (back office, cumbersome / slow to update, highly accurate).
And obvs, a heightened sense of awareness / alertness (consciousness?) is required for the former.
Then add in a sprinkling of Systems of Reference and Systems of Communication etc. and we're getting closer to realising what the mind actually is... the body's navigation system.

[kidmilan]

Ti seguo con molto piacere dall'Italia 😊⚽❤

[Theraot]

What AI researchers are talking about is lack of feedback. If the AI plows forward without considering its prior output, and without the chance of fixing it, they say it only has system 1. They are not self aware by themselves.

In fact, in computers there is a clear distinction: Running code in the CPU is less parallel, and has a tight memory-access-process loop. But running code on the GPU is highly parallel, in exchange of restrictions on how it access memory. And, as it turns out, once we adapt code to run in the GPU, taking advantage of its parallelism, it is faster. And, you knew it, modern AI solutions are optimized to run on GPUs.

My mind is making a link between CPU vs GPU processing and laminar vs turbulent flow... It might not be of consequence, but still I want to express it. In laminar flow, the molecules are moving in parallel, and the outcome is easy to predict. On the other hand turbulent flow is hard to predict, because it is a chaotic system (i.e. it amplifies small initial conditions) because of the feedback between interacting molecules. And, of course, there is transition between laminar and turbulent flow. Thus, this is not a hard dichotomy. Instead it is that in some conditions we can disregard some aspects and have a simplified model.

[Jesselaj]

I have trouble with something that challenges dual processing. Thinking Fast and Slow was so formative for me. Still, not running away!

[Theraot]

Dichotomies are usually false. Sometimes we find that actually things exists in an spectrum, and then we find that it is an spectrum between three points and not two.

...

A favorite of mine is this: you can have a dichotomy of cartoon vs realistic graphics (you can find it in video game critics discourse), but that is actually an spectrum of how realistic the graphics are. In fact, you could argue that is the same scale on which the uncanny valley exists... But the book Understanding Comics argues that there is an abstract to realistic spectrum. So we actually have three points: realistic, cartoon, and abstract. That makes the picture space a plane, not a line, and we should be able to navigate around the uncanny valley... And apparently we can, or at least minimize it: approaching realism from anime aesthetics suffer less from the uncanny valley.

[fatgnome]

Wasn't the original research focused specifically on heuristics and how they can cause biases. E.g. A experienced doctor develops heuristics that dramatically speed up his diagnosing (system 1), but in some very low percentage of times they may lead him the wrong way, which wouldn't have happened if he thought slowly and deliberately (system 2). And that system 2 can be triggered by changing the situation so the heuristic can't be easily applied.

The pop sci exaggeration into this being a universal theory of how all thinking works is clear BS. Just another example of people trying to oversimplify the world into nice and neat categories.

[bthomson]

White light seems simple until you use a prism. And even that leaves out infra red and ultraviolet (and probably many others as well!) Our thinking is probably one of the most complex problems humans can imagine. Consciousness remains far from understood. The idea of such a simple binary division seems, as you imply, way to simplistic. Gradations upon further gradations seem much more likely.

[InShadowsLinger]

I am not sure that the typing example is a good one. I feel like while I make conscious decisions on what to type, the actual typing is delegated to subconscious. A lot of times even spelling is “outsourced”. I can especially feel the delineation when typing a password. I can either intent to type the password as a whole and let the fingers go, or take control and spell it out. So it feels to me that I can slide the control (in some discrete steps) back and forth between the systems. All this is of course anecdotal.

[elmerjeanpierrelopezramire]

Uhm, imo the theory besides the book recognizes biases in thought processes and try to debunking the conception of rational men that in that time predates economy. Clearly, sistems 1 and 2 are a simplification, but i don't really know if are exclusive to the pop sci book or try to became a theory