Here's a good example of why Kahneman's system [12] irritates me:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141219-will-religion-ever-disappear“With education, exposure to science and critical thinking, people might
stop trusting their intuitions,” Norenzayan says. “But the intuitions
are there.”
There are so many hidden assumptions in a statement like that, it
absolutely drives me batty ... well, more batty than I was before I read
it anyway. At a recent presentation where the presenter was trying to
map psychology to neuroscience and neuroscience to network science, I
asked the question "Why isn't reason, rationality, conscious thinking a
programmed-in, intuitive, selected for thing?" I got lots of
non-answers from other audience members... the speaker was appropriately
conservative and stayed quiet. ;-)
And at the previous presentation (part 1 of this 2 part series), I asked
the following question, "Can you clarify the boundary between conscious,
expensive, system 2 thinking and the habitualized, easier, system 1
thinking?" As I've yapped about on this list before, I don't think
there really is a boundary between thought and action. That speaker (a
different one) proceeded to explain to me several things I think are
misguided, including explaining to me how feelings are (or can be) an
effect from thoughts.
I always stand in awe of the inability of people, especially men, to say
"I don't know."
--
⇔ glen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Locked
