Basically the review would have been just as good if those paragraphs wouldn’t have been there, it seemed almost a non-sequitor to my eyes. Was he trying to say something silly and clever to signal intelligence, reach a certain word count or was he just reading about Freud recently and had an overwhelming desire to talk about him?
If I was Straussian I would almost argue he was trying to trick us by exploiting our system one for that nonsense (since our intuitions say our intuitions are reliable), hoping the clever ones remember the lesson! Heh. :)
I’m guessing the reviewer just had a particular axe to grind—he likes Freud and wanted to argue that Freudian ideas shouldn’t be seen as low-status.
I don’t think the article is nearly clever enough to exploit the reader like that, although it would certainly explain the, er, Freudian slip in the second paragraph.
Admirers of Freud and James may hope that the time may come when they will stand together with Kahneman as three great explorers of the human psyche, Freud and James as explorers of our deeper emotions, Kahneman as the explorer of our more humdrum cognitive processes. But that time has not yet come.
This is the meat of his conclusion. I think Tetronian is right that the author enjoys the literary thinkers more than the scientific ones, even though those literary thinkers are likely to be relying heavily on System One.
Before that, the superficial parallels he draws between James and Kahneman are vexing in their superficiality.
If I was Straussian I would almost argue he was trying to trick us by exploiting our system one for that nonsense (since our intuitions say our intuitions are reliable), hoping the clever ones remember the lesson! Heh. :)
Hmmm, that gave me an idea.
Intuitions say intuitions are reliable, reason disagrees. Reason says that reason is often unreliable, intuition agrees. So we see generally intuitions and reason agree on what the best course of action is.
Yes that part made me cringe too.
Basically the review would have been just as good if those paragraphs wouldn’t have been there, it seemed almost a non-sequitor to my eyes. Was he trying to say something silly and clever to signal intelligence, reach a certain word count or was he just reading about Freud recently and had an overwhelming desire to talk about him?
If I was Straussian I would almost argue he was trying to trick us by exploiting our system one for that nonsense (since our intuitions say our intuitions are reliable), hoping the clever ones remember the lesson! Heh. :)
I’m guessing the reviewer just had a particular axe to grind—he likes Freud and wanted to argue that Freudian ideas shouldn’t be seen as low-status.
I don’t think the article is nearly clever enough to exploit the reader like that, although it would certainly explain the, er, Freudian slip in the second paragraph.
This is the meat of his conclusion. I think Tetronian is right that the author enjoys the literary thinkers more than the scientific ones, even though those literary thinkers are likely to be relying heavily on System One.
Before that, the superficial parallels he draws between James and Kahneman are vexing in their superficiality.
Hmmm, that gave me an idea.
Intuitions say intuitions are reliable, reason disagrees. Reason says that reason is often unreliable, intuition agrees. So we see generally intuitions and reason agree on what the best course of action is.