The problem is that the folk psychology creeps into everything.
For example, abstracting the parallel system as serial one—the problem is that it is not always possible even though it feels very much that it must be possible. Consider two people trying to turn a steering wheel in different direction—one wants to turn left, other wants to turn right, nobody wants car to crash into a light pole in the middle, the car crashes into light pole. It seems to me that our decision making is much too often similar to this.
Yet we model such incorrect decision making as some sort of evaluation and comparison of options using some fallacious but nonetheless sensible-ish logical-ish rules; rather than the contest of inclination and brute signal strength.
The two people pulling steering wheel in opposite ways end up crashing into the obstacle in the middle not because they are an entity that for some fallacious reasons believes that middle path between two extremes will combine the best, or be a reasonable compromise. Nobody in that car thinks that the car is best off driving into a lightpole in the middle. Yet we address it as a middle ground fallacy and write long explanations why middle ground fallacy is a fallacy. Then it doesn’t really work because both sides always knew that driving in the middle is unsuitable and it was the reason why they were pulling so hard away from middle—but sadly in opposite directions.
Now, try to consider a single individual in that position. Given limited time, the brain being distributed system, there will be some disagreement between subsystems, and parts will be coming up with partial solutions to partial problems, which don’t work together.
The problem is that the folk psychology creeps into everything.
For example, abstracting the parallel system as serial one—the problem is that it is not always possible even though it feels very much that it must be possible. Consider two people trying to turn a steering wheel in different direction—one wants to turn left, other wants to turn right, nobody wants car to crash into a light pole in the middle, the car crashes into light pole. It seems to me that our decision making is much too often similar to this.
Yet we model such incorrect decision making as some sort of evaluation and comparison of options using some fallacious but nonetheless sensible-ish logical-ish rules; rather than the contest of inclination and brute signal strength.
The two people pulling steering wheel in opposite ways end up crashing into the obstacle in the middle not because they are an entity that for some fallacious reasons believes that middle path between two extremes will combine the best, or be a reasonable compromise. Nobody in that car thinks that the car is best off driving into a lightpole in the middle. Yet we address it as a middle ground fallacy and write long explanations why middle ground fallacy is a fallacy. Then it doesn’t really work because both sides always knew that driving in the middle is unsuitable and it was the reason why they were pulling so hard away from middle—but sadly in opposite directions.
Now, try to consider a single individual in that position. Given limited time, the brain being distributed system, there will be some disagreement between subsystems, and parts will be coming up with partial solutions to partial problems, which don’t work together.