Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by WhiteNoiz3 285 days ago
Another way to look at it is parallel processing vs sequential processing.. our brains can make a judgement call about a thousand subtle variables and data points that we can't exactly put our fingers on unless we really dig into it, which we usually label as 'feelings', using the parallel part of our brain. The sequential (logical) part can only consider a limited number of variables at a time. I don't think either mode of thinking is inherently worse (we need both), but in our society the feelings part has traditionally been discounted as being 'illogical' by academics.. I think AI has shown us that parallel processing is actually incredibly important to thinking.

But back to the original post, I think 'having good taste' and knowing when something feels like the right solution is one of those hard to define qualities that can make the difference between average and great products (and has far reaching effects in any business).
1 comments
pixelready 285 days ago
I always like to say we aren’t rational, we _rationalize_. Much of our decision making process is subconscious / vibes / “system 2”, but we also have a strong need for a sensible narrative structure to our lives. So what hack did nature come up with? Let us make the gut decision based on a bunch of soft heuristics, then rationalize it and wrap it into a sensible narrative before it reaches our conscious mind. Lets us use our efficient system 2 thinking most of the time while avoiding all that messy cognitive dissonance that would arise from a conscious awareness of how chaotic such a system would be at the scale of… oh, say, a global civilization of such creatures ;)
link
TuringTest 284 days ago
Rationalism is overrated anyway.

All rational thought depends on its axioms/premises, and there's no rational way to define a new axiom - by definition they are asserted from scratch, so you need to depend on gut feeling to choose a good axiom over a bad one.

Rationalism "only" works to discard or modify some subset of your axioms when you discover that they lead to incompatible conclusions; which is a good outcome if you want to achieve a consistent theory, of course; but it doesn't help in selecting one consistent theory over a competing one. Again, those preferences are led by emotions.

link