Im soo guilty!
I read that post but I didnt notice that "Yeah" underneath the link!
Thought it refers to some other post.
Didn't try to be offensive, more like playful!
Your posts are usually solid reads!
Haha I'm not offended. I've just made a hobby of going from serious to sarcastic in no time. If you have to wonder, and you know you weren't trying to piss me off, it's safe to assume I'm probably not. I don't think anyone online has managed to truly piss me off. Makes more sense to have fun with it, or just go offline. You'd definitely know. I'm one of those people who is generally agreeable... until a line is really, truly crossed, after which it is a very different kind of exchange. Very few people earn the chance to see that side of me
as for the rest of the post:
I soo agree there!
actually it seems fitting to mention a book im reading recently : "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" by Yuval Noah Harari.
"Imagination" plays a big role here like Harari writes in his book.
Thats how we operate as species and those behaviours are all connected, surfacing in every field.
Interesting... that actually reminds me of a nuero/cognitive science book called "Thinking: Fast and Slow"
It's a research and study driven examination of the many, many quirks in how people interact, problem-solve, and piece together reality. Daniel Kahnemen (what a name, right?) has been examining this stuff for a long time. The depth to and body behind his thoughts on it reflect that. He looks at everyone - from regular everyday people of the 1st world, to people under extraordinary conditions, and even to those working in more intellectually-driven fields. He shows the many predictable ways we can be wrong, and what being wrong about that means for the outcome, or what role that mechanism plays in actually making everything work. What I find especially interesting is that the way some of these systems work actually is not contingent on getting everything right.
The book ties all of these little traits together to demonstrably show, through interesting studies, as well as more relatable experiences, and anecdotes, two different primary modes that all people operate under, each with its own set of blind spots and caveats. I mean, he really lays it out and dives in and for some reason it just made so much sense to me - both when I look at myself and other people. It's a lot to digest, but pretty good food for thought.
Everyone in here (and really... everyone in general) is critical of these sorts of junk biases and use of low-quality information. So we're quick to jump on people we see making the wrong snap judgements, often with at least somewhat pessimistic assumptions regarding the other person's or whole group's intellect, but I can't be the only one who catches himself falling into the same traps. Most of the time, you wouldn't even know it. By the time you had the chance, your mind had shot completely past it. Only a more evocative experience relating to it can shock you out at that point - new information, easy to reach and fully comprehend quickly, that challenges the information you used before in a fundamental way. That has to happen first, and then the part of you that reflects and contemplates can get to work. We try to use simpler, but less accurate methods that work most times on the first go, hoping that's enough. And if that fails, our minds say its time to step back and make sure we get every detail right. It runs on an as-needed basis, and there is a clear set of requirements for that determination to be made.
My takeaway was that beneath our whole means of making sense of things are all of these singular, unflinching operations that actually get things wrong a lot of the time, but we don't even notice because a lot of times we are still able to function... in a sense, everything that we do and see is built up on complex interactions between different biases and fallacies, which just happen to be fundamental to how we figure anything out. They define so much of how things go for us in our endeavors and interactions. For better and worse, it makes us who we are. Pretty interesting book, though very dry, with a tendency to dwell too much on each study.
The overall presentation is pretty neutral. It made me realize that human interaction, or really, anything to do with gathering and using information, is inherently messy - and that it's actually not a terrible way for people to be. It's something that also leads to progress that wouldn't be possible if we were rationally combing through everything consciously. There are benefits to being able to parse a lot of thoughts, language-driven information, and sensory input in a VERY short time, even if it's a far less accurate way to go about things.
We couldn't have survived at all without being able to do that. It is the favored way of operating... much more efficient to set a bar for how much information you need and just stopping the moment you hit that point. The side that wants to figure things out doesn't ever want to kick in without enforced impetus - it's only when someone hits a wall or practices an active discipline (basically delaying gratification,) that the slower, more methodical side of their mind fully manifests. It takes much more time and energy, which are pretty finite. Our minds tire of things pretty easily, so we instinctively save the horsepower for those moments when we absolutely need it. Again, survival.
I can describe the two modes simply. The faster, primary one is characterized as a primitive filter, passing through a lot of info quickly before discarding most of it - there doesn't need to be a lot of support or justification for something so long as it is sufficient for the task and leads to the desired outcome. The slower, secondary one halts on and parses everything before determining what information is and is not valuable - it searches for the reasons behind the information available. If the first is intuition, the second is contemplation. Guess which one we all rely on 90% of the time.
This is probably why debate is a skill that many people consider pretty difficult to become versed in. We are not built or accustomed to holding ourselves in that "fine comb" state of being at a capcity beyond short bursts with "passive" recharge time between... it is not natural for us to bear down on figuring something out on that level and continually working out how to convey the information accurately. In most cases throughout any one person's day, they aren't any better served by it. The "just grab everything fast and quickly toss what doesn't immediately matter" method is far more favorable.
I said this before in a thread about IQ over in the lounge, I think: Humans simply are not very good at processing things beyond the realm of immediacy. We only do it when we have to.
It pays to be aware of how our thoughts and means of sorting information mislead. But I think it also pays to remember that simply knowing this to be true of yourself doesn't exclude you from the influence of those things. Nobody is safe from these weird snafus.
But mostly the point was to not interfere with either of them using it. Over time, I got it running much better and the questions kinda stopped being about 'what if' or 'I read that' and it became normal.
