Added: After read a large portion of it, I’m updating in favor of my original conclusion. The paper describes many other things besides the two-systems model, but when it mentions the model it mostly describes how to fit various results into this framework, not why the framework is valid. They talk about how slow, deliberative thinking is different from fast, intuitive thinking, but they don’t address what I consider to be the main contentious issue: weather these are natural categories. I conclude that talk of “System 1” and “System 2″ in Less Wrong is more shibboleth than insight.
Thanks. I’ll try to read that.
Added: After read a large portion of it, I’m updating in favor of my original conclusion. The paper describes many other things besides the two-systems model, but when it mentions the model it mostly describes how to fit various results into this framework, not why the framework is valid. They talk about how slow, deliberative thinking is different from fast, intuitive thinking, but they don’t address what I consider to be the main contentious issue: weather these are natural categories. I conclude that talk of “System 1” and “System 2″ in Less Wrong is more shibboleth than insight.