[calny]

I found Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow persuasive on this question. I don’t have a psych or neuro degree, but Crudely speaking and possibly butchering it: the mind reflects two types of thinking, which Kahneman terms System 1 (fast) and System 2 (slow). System 1 is closer to instinct and helps us respond quickly in, for example, fight or flight situations. System 2 requires significant mental effort to more thoroughly analyze things like complex math problems. It’s easier to coast on System 1 thinking. The book provides examples and much better and more in depth explanations. There was a replication controversy about some of it, but still very worth reading I think.

[wombatmobile]

Fair enough. I’ve read Kahnemann’s book, and hadn’t considered how to integrate it with TFA.

The sheer number of cognitive biases presented in TFA, and the overlap of the categorisations had me bamboozled.

But yeah, if these are System 1 staples then I can imagine how they might have made do for regular people for a long time. Some biases and prejudices affirm survival in a less civilised setting eg prehistoric tribes that compete for land and food with neighbouring tribes.

So perhaps it is the compact of civilisation that opens up the vistas for System 2 thinking to yield benefits.

[scns]

Check out this one on a large screen: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Cognitiv...

While still bamboozling, it brings some order and visual overview (in a beatiful way IMO), plus links for further study.

All credit for posting it belongs to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28168269

[wombatmobile]

Excellent. This diagram provides context and accessibility to the subject matter that was missing from TFA.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.