Gaining Insight Into System One

¶ … gaining insight into System one and two will enhance the research process. Attention and effort are major factors that impact your performance especially when you think you are multitasking. Does being aware of your thinking behavior make you more self-aware? Cite examples of how your reactions align with the two systems and Kahneman's theories.

System One functions according to heuristics and intuitions that have a greater stake in our reasoning than we are aware of. These heuristics lead us to perpetuate many of our biases and prejudices as well as erroneous actions. Freud may refer to this as the subconscious. To Kahnamen, it is the crust of instinctive, intuitive and spontaneous mental judgments that is possibly evolutionary in origin and prompts us to evaluate, judge, and decide even without our realization of having done so.

System Two, on the other hand, is the more rational, deliberate way of thinking that goes into judgment and decision making. It is that which plays the chess game, deciding on every move, or which strategizes economic or political judgments etc. It is characterized by a slower more deliberate way of thinking that reflects before taking actions.

Gaining insight into System One and Two will certainly enhance the research process in various ways. Firstly, it makes me more aware of potential bias that I may even unintentionally harbor to others. This will make me all the more scrupulous in setting up preventives and controls so that my research will be as scientifically tight and objective as possible. Being aware of the insidiousness of System One will make me less smug about my imperviousness to subjectivity and will make me take more steps in subduing my bias.

Furthermore, I may involve a greater spectrum and range of voices in my research so as to ensure that I do not fall into the pits of my-confirmation or similar heuristics that will make me want to confirm the research rather than to question it. I will want to see the phenomena from as many different facets as possible and bringing in alternate perspectives (and consulting them) will help me do this.

Thirdly, and this is drawing on Kahnaman's illustration of the drawing of the woman who can be seen in two alternate ways (p.31), I will try to perceive every situation in more than one way, realizing that My experience -- instinctive judgments (System One) compels me to see it in a certain way. I will then reverse and attempt to see it from another's perspective.

Second and third Posts: A Reply to Palomas

Palomas sees System One as the 'carefree' one and System Two as the wise one that reins in System One implying, therefore, that System One may be foolish and reckless.

It is easy to see why Palomas thinks so; after all System One does often get us into trouble and does lead to many of the agonies and misfortunes of both private and public life. However, when we scrutinize some of the characteristics of some of the heuristics of System One in greater details, it seems to me to be wiser than we take it at first hand.

Stereotypes, for instance, are a characteristic -- or bundle (or product) of System One. Stereotypes essentially consist of clumping people who 'belong 'to us in 'in groups and people who are alien to us in 'out' groups. This in turn evokes our response to them. Although it can lead into prejudicial and non-ethical as well as possibly harmful behavior -- and harmful both to self and others -- stereotypes can also be useful. With the rapid, almost unknowing pockmarking of people into groups we are able to quickly formulate decisions and choose our friends as well as avoid our enemies. This comes in useful not only in times of war, but also during other times when we have to be on our guard.

It is not for naught that gurus of pop-psychology frequently recommend that we listen to our intuitions or that 'small, thin' voice', That small thin voice is System One. And sometimes it can help us.

Camilla's response;

Camilla is struck by Kahnaman's description of his method:

The introduction starts off with Kahneman describing himself as a water cooleru by aiming to improve the reader's ability to identify and understand errors of judgment by providing a richer and more precise language to discuss them. u (pg.4) & #8230; The way I perceived it is that flow for Kahneman is reaching perfection.

I thank Camilla for pointing this out. It made me contrast this with another philosopher's description of his attempt -- long, long ago -- to help other readers identify and understand their own errors of judgment. Socrates. And Socrates compared himself to a midwife. It was striking to me how each thinker, both classical and modern, used images that were evocative of their times. Ancient Greece was absorbed in giving birth. This was often done at home, the natural, tedious way. No epidurals or penicillin then. The midwife was the one who labored, hand in hand breath with the laboring woman. She helped the woman give birth. Socrates compared himself to laboriously helping people develop their thoughts.