I tried formalizing everything, ended up with a grotesque and incomplete flowchart, and decided to make the formalized procedure less precise, by hiding all that complexity behind the word “decide” in the last step. I believe the actual procedure which implements that process is hard wired, and is something like:
Generate reasons for and against an action, and a weight for each.
Compute the total weights of the reasons for and against
Compare the difference between the weights to a threshold. Compare the ratio between the weights to a different threshold. If both thresholds are met, decide in favor. If neither threshold is met, decide against. Otherwise go back to generating reasons.
The first step (generating reasons) is sort of like exemplar selection and sort of like memory lookup, and is therefore greatly influenced by priming certain concepts beforehand.
I’m quite impressed by the post. I think it’s potentially valuable for helping to decode about how we think about reading articles, and that using it sometimes would be a useful exercise. I’m just not convinced about forming a habit of keeping at the front of my mind such a script whenever one encounters a fallacy.
I tried formalizing everything, ended up with a grotesque and incomplete flowchart, and decided to make the formalized procedure less precise, by hiding all that complexity behind the word “decide” in the last step. I believe the actual procedure which implements that process is hard wired, and is something like:
Generate reasons for and against an action, and a weight for each.
Compute the total weights of the reasons for and against
Compare the difference between the weights to a threshold. Compare the ratio between the weights to a different threshold. If both thresholds are met, decide in favor. If neither threshold is met, decide against. Otherwise go back to generating reasons.
The first step (generating reasons) is sort of like exemplar selection and sort of like memory lookup, and is therefore greatly influenced by priming certain concepts beforehand.
I’m quite impressed by the post. I think it’s potentially valuable for helping to decode about how we think about reading articles, and that using it sometimes would be a useful exercise. I’m just not convinced about forming a habit of keeping at the front of my mind such a script whenever one encounters a fallacy.