Professional philosophers devote long books to this debate. I'm amazed you figured solved the issue with such absolute certainty.

But, maybe it's just your opinion.

My takeaway was it’s not really system two being lazy, it’s the whole brain trying to economize. System two is metabolically way more expensive than system one.

He admits in the book that the two systems don’t really exist independently of each other, but it’s a useful conceptual model for better understanding how our brains operate.

>In this literature, a rational strategy is one that's suited to your goals. So a rational belief is a belief the holding of which will tend to better position you to achieve your goals.

Is it then rational for an oil exec to downplay climate change?

It suits their conscious goals of expanding their business, but they presumably have subconscious goals like legacy, happiness and survival which they are adversely affecting.

>for a very long time, folks just assumed that true beliefs would further their goals, whereas false ones would not. "Rational," then took up a secondary definition something along the lines of "following truth-preserving rules."

By this definition I still don't know. It's true that denying climate change helps their business so in that sense it's rational, but it also depends upon believing in untruths and sacrificing their other goals.

But you could also lie to others while not lying to yourself?

Is it better to say it's rational to understand climate change but lie about it, but it's irrational to actually believe the things you say?

>So on that secondary definition, it's rational to hold a belief if that belief -- objectively -- follows from your previous beliefs.

So this is now implying it's rational to be irrational as long as being irrational serves your singularly important goal?

[deleted]

>The post seems to presume that morality is subjective.

Because it is, like all matters of personal preference.

>If morality is objective, a reviewer could censor false normative statements as well.

But they aren't, which is why the problem arises.

>While epistemically knowing whether certain moral statements are true or false may be difficult, it is not always difficult. I don't see why censoring, for example, "cannibalism is good" should be a tough call.

Because that is your particular opinion, but it is not objectively true. It's a value judgement, and like all value judgments it really depends on your goals and personal desires. You can argue that cannibalism is bad because it risks spreading prion diseases, for instance, but that will only be convincing to people below a certain threshold of risk tolerance.

Sounds similar to the idea that our brains are geared to survival and often pure reason can be a hindrance to that. So our senses are not necessarily geared to give us a completely accurate model of the world, but rather one that will keep us alive.

I think it would be interesting if an AI had a more accurate version of reality but we didn't believe it and considered it a failed experiment. Not that I think we're that far off of reality, just an idea for a novel maybe.

Many people. Their parents, their friends etc. In some cases, people perform for people they have have yet to know, people they aspire to be aquatinted with.

The “fake it til you make it” sentiment comes to mind. Many will construct an exterior image of the person they’d like to be and gradually apply more personalised touches to that image until it feels truly real to them.

I think a lot of people have issue with this. They persue a job that will ordained by a parent, they find a wife based on the wishes of their parent or the recommendations of someone else, they have a child and fashion their house as convention would dictate.

Something like the fountainhead led me to question the nature of originality and what , of the many things we take pride in and label as uniquely “us”, merely comes from the mind and governance of someone else

[deleted]

Pinker always takes some interesting angles. My simplified version of this that I use to explain to my rationality-obsessed friends how humanity works is that, if there is a behaviour that is common, there is a situation in which it's rewarding. We are extremely highly evolved both genetically and socially, and much of what people think to be a game of "Who has the highest stats" is much more like a very complex game of rock, paper, scissors.

Alternatively I'll use my anime reference where there's a card game with 7 cards: 5 commoners, 1 king and 1 fool. The commoners tie, they beat the fool and lose to the king. The king ties the king, beats the commoner, and the only one he can lose to is the fool. I think there is a lot of truth to this and I've seen it myself in the dynamics of some social circles. (It's also why I think being able to adapt different strategies socially is the best tactic).

He is what happens when you let a psychologist start talking about the thing they’re ironically least qualified to discuss — thinking.

Oh wow that sounds so hard, how do you cope?

An essential aspect of academia that I miss (having moved to industry) is the value of giving credit where due.

Yes, there are credit usurpers in academia too, but as a disciple, academia generally values citing your sources and giving credit where due, rather than taking credit for others' work (e.g., Elon)

Pair that book with "The Righteous Mind", which deals with morality as a framework for the "fast" system.

[deleted]

Kahneman was inspired by Stanovich:

>”Among the pioneers [of my field] are.. Keith Stanovich, and Richard West. I borrow the terms System 1 and System 2 from early writings of Stanovich and West that greatly influenced my thinking..” > >—‘Thinking Fast and Slow’ p. 450

He made sure to give Stanovich credit in his public talks too. just off the top I think there was a GoogleTalk Q&A when someone asked Kahneman if “the 2 systems are literal systems that map onto the brain,” and he said something like “no, and to make it even worse, the idea wasn’t even my idea, it was Stanovich’s. I just tweaked his metaphor by making it into an image of ‘2 entities inside you’, but they don’t exist! For some reason I thought it would just be easier to grasp these abstract metaphors about cognitive processes if we imagined these processes as 2 quasi-entities in ourselves”

Kahneman often makes himself seem like a mess in his public q&A’s but he’s just hilariously self-deprecating, he’s quite intelligent and accomplished lol 😆

How have you seen people treat life as a performance? Who are they performing for usually, their parents?

I had this conversation with friends that are less "philosophically" inclined. They believe I am a lunatic for seeing the world the way I do. I can only shrug my shoulders. They are my friends after all...

[removed]

An ownership isn't an action. It can be seen as an abstract relationship between a possession and a proprietor enforced by a law or consensus.

Not being an action means that an ownership isn't production. Goods and services are exclusively produced, excluding some very rare cases of natural goods like atmospheric oxygen. Human responsibility in production will be limited to the role of one's own personal human capital, such as his time availability, experience, acquired knowledge, skills, mental and physical capabilities, etc. Humans will thus not be responsible for automated production, for example, even if the owner of the automate is his producer. In essence, the producer isn't what he produces and can't claim responsibility of the role of what he produces in production.

We can thus say that wealth compensations can't be given for ownerships of any kind other than personal human capital. Since production for which humans are responsible for is limited, any such compensation will cause a reduction of the pool of wealth. This pool of wealth being used to compensate back producers, its reduction will prevent a compensation for participation in production for the equivalent amount of produced wealth, creating an unfairness or prejudice akin to wage theft.

Anyone can agree or disagree with what I'm saying?

Okay, so we have here multiple examples of irrational and rational approaches in equivalent situations. And that’s all. He finishes with the same as he starts.

The intersubjectivity collapse is a breakdown of social and cultural norms in civilization due to the proliferation of minds of varying levels of complexity or sophistication.

This can lead to unpredictability among agents, as the introduction of vastly new minds can disrupt the unspoken rules that hold civilization together based on the subjectivity of the minds that have created it. This collapse can be a merger of subjectivities, a breakdown of trust, or a dissolution of a shared reality.

In traumatic status subordination, intersubjective parity – the counterfactual presupposition of being treated as an equal human being – is so violently betrayed that a collapse of the intersubjective structure of identity can result. This can manifest in impaired intersubjectivity, which displays underlying problems of deficient relational benevolence, misattributing agency, and a failure of the imagination.

That's what I thought too. System 1 is dumb, System 2 is lazy. Take your pick!

He's an odd guy, but he's clearly still mourning the loss of his pal Jeffrey.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.