They all seem to fundamentally misunderstand the core of Kahneman's theories. "Fast" thinking isn't bad; it's essential. "Slow" thinking is also a necessary part of human cognition. It's a matter of knowing when your "fast" (system 1) thinking ought to be booted to the gutter in order to pause and consider (system 2 or "slow" thinking) and challenge immediate intuition. For instance, if you're driving down a residential street and a child runs out into the road, the last thing you want to engage is system 2. "Hmmm. Well, how old is he? What is his socio-economic background? Am I following the traffic ordnance?" You need to make a decision immediately. Just because it's a system 1 process doesn't make it stupid, "low", thoughtless, or uninterogated.
@amante24433 жыл бұрын
@4:41, who is "he", the guy Skavlan is point and comparing in saying "he's more system 2?"
@upendasana78576 жыл бұрын
I don't agree with his analysis of Obama at all.
@chankom5 жыл бұрын
If you look at Obama thought, he typically has long pauses to formulate his thought rather than saying the first thing that came to his mind
@andreas-swe5 жыл бұрын
Who cares if you agree, did you or Daniel win a Nobel prize?
@benedikthell31664 жыл бұрын
I think it is not a 0/1 or 1/0 thing. Rather some people use system 2 more often or rely more on it.
@benjaminwiner62203 жыл бұрын
@@benedikthell3166 exactly
@amante24433 жыл бұрын
@@benedikthell3166 Wonderfully and succinctly said. Could I add to that and suggest it is something of a spectrum? I could add more so it's like a little (long) story. I think, view, and see it as a spectrum, using three parts of the video: 1. As Kahneman considered @2:34 "We (all) live on system 1... and that's the way it should be" 2. Skavlan, sorted of, said @2:50 "Do you have system 1 and system 2 personalities?" 3. Kahneman after a short explanation on people's thinking preference said @3:06 "there are large individual differences" Hence, not only do I believe @Benedikt Hell's hypothesis true. I am also attempting to add to his short and straight to the point (system 1) answer, by making it linguistically longer with and elaborate explanation (system 2) answer. Or as Newton noted about Leibniz, he (Leibniz and me in this case are alike) are standing on the shoulders of giants (Newton and in this case @Benedikt Hell & @Benjamin Winer). I'm not suggesting or saying anything bad or untoward to both. @Benedikt Hell got here first. @Benjamin Winer confirmed. So because I have nothing to do, I considered contributing. And hiding it in a 3 year old (at time of writing) comment considering Bush vs Obama. I do so because KZfaq comments were notoriously considered to be straight system 1 answers with curt comebacks. But looking and engaging them during lockdown has shown me people can produce a plethora of brilliant points against my answers. While I know I'm beating around the metaphorical bush here (warned you about a little long story), I believe in the current coronavirus climate of 2021, baby George Bush shows more system 2 than some others. Something no amount of system 2 thinking could have predicted in 2014. I haven't stating who, that's your system 1 making suggestions.