Does anyone here understand the exact relationship between near/far and system I/II? LessWrongers often seem to talk as if near is system I and far is system II, but Hanson says near is about logic and far is about intuition.
As one example, do you think that doing utilitarian calculations is near or far? Do you think that LessWrong thinks that doing utilitarian calculations is near or far?
Hm, it would seem to be neither; it’s like, ‘we can’t actually think about these (far) things in near mode, so we’ll use a mathematical approximation of near mode and see what that tells us’.
When you actually asked this, I came up with an answer similar to the below:
That seems to be a very Near sort of act, since it requires detail and concrete thought. I suspect Less Wrong has not thought about the question at all and would give an answer either similar to mine or not feasibly distinguishable from noise.
I kept thinking this answer was terrible, so I didn’t post it. Today I did for some reason.
Does anyone here understand the exact relationship between near/far and system I/II? LessWrongers often seem to talk as if near is system I and far is system II, but Hanson says near is about logic and far is about intuition.
What? I’ve never seen this. Anyway it’s wrong.
As one example, do you think that doing utilitarian calculations is near or far? Do you think that LessWrong thinks that doing utilitarian calculations is near or far?
Hm, it would seem to be neither; it’s like, ‘we can’t actually think about these (far) things in near mode, so we’ll use a mathematical approximation of near mode and see what that tells us’.
When you actually asked this, I came up with an answer similar to the below:
I kept thinking this answer was terrible, so I didn’t post it. Today I did for some reason.