I’m not questioning the qualifications of the source or the goodness of the concepts, just the method chosen to communicate them.
If the point of the system is to introduce an inferential gap on purpose, with the goal of leaving unintended associations behind, I can see the reasoning but disagree with it. I see a lot of attempts to do this, and a lot of discussion using such systems, and virtually nothing in the way of coming back down from the abstractions to object-level recommendations again.
This is likely the result of applying the system badly, but the ease with which a tool is misapplied an important factor in the goodness of the tool.
Would you say that Kahnman’s work of speaking about system I and system II doesn’t do anything to come to object-level recommendations and he should have used fast system and slow system instead of speaking about the numbers?
Kahneman’s work does an unusually excellent job of coming to object-level recommendations. That seems to be what he is doing with his time now.
I don’t think using fast and slow would have hurt those ideas at all, what with it being the title of the book. Further, I’ve seen plenty of cases of trying to wrangle the dichotomy by piling on additional words like the elephant-or-rider conversation.
I also note we don’t talk about system 1 and system II much anymore. Looking at the Curated list for the last three months, I see plenty of posts that are aiming squarely at system 1 or system II, applying one system to the other, or describing one specific technique that could be called system I or II...but virtually none of the posts say anything about either of them or mention Kahneman. We’ve moved past the point where a binary distinction is useful to our discussions, and broad familiarity with the underlying concepts is assumed without the need for additional terms.
This suggests some combination of system I/II being easy to apply correctly, or the community being unusually good at applying it, or both.
It looks to me like how powerful a system is and how difficult it is to apply correctly are very different questions, and it feels like they are rarely balanced well. I think this is probably very difficult to do, and have seen people failing to apply systems correctly way more often than I have seen them succeed, which gives me a very low prior for unfamiliar systems’ utility.
I’m not questioning the qualifications of the source or the goodness of the concepts, just the method chosen to communicate them.
If the point of the system is to introduce an inferential gap on purpose, with the goal of leaving unintended associations behind, I can see the reasoning but disagree with it. I see a lot of attempts to do this, and a lot of discussion using such systems, and virtually nothing in the way of coming back down from the abstractions to object-level recommendations again.
This is likely the result of applying the system badly, but the ease with which a tool is misapplied an important factor in the goodness of the tool.
Would you say that Kahnman’s work of speaking about system I and system II doesn’t do anything to come to object-level recommendations and he should have used fast system and slow system instead of speaking about the numbers?
Kahneman’s work does an unusually excellent job of coming to object-level recommendations. That seems to be what he is doing with his time now.
I don’t think using fast and slow would have hurt those ideas at all, what with it being the title of the book. Further, I’ve seen plenty of cases of trying to wrangle the dichotomy by piling on additional words like the elephant-or-rider conversation.
I also note we don’t talk about system 1 and system II much anymore. Looking at the Curated list for the last three months, I see plenty of posts that are aiming squarely at system 1 or system II, applying one system to the other, or describing one specific technique that could be called system I or II...but virtually none of the posts say anything about either of them or mention Kahneman. We’ve moved past the point where a binary distinction is useful to our discussions, and broad familiarity with the underlying concepts is assumed without the need for additional terms.
This suggests some combination of system I/II being easy to apply correctly, or the community being unusually good at applying it, or both.
It looks to me like how powerful a system is and how difficult it is to apply correctly are very different questions, and it feels like they are rarely balanced well. I think this is probably very difficult to do, and have seen people failing to apply systems correctly way more often than I have seen them succeed, which gives me a very low prior for unfamiliar systems’ utility.