@Robert. You are definitely on to something here. It is a matter of visual perception. Now I work my way through my database with relative simple problems, it becomes evident that I continuously miss simple themes for the simple reason that system 2 is too busy with its own concerns instead of looking around.
We must investigate what is needed here. Must system 2 simply shut up? Or are the concerns of system 2 retrieved by system 1? Is system 2 just busy with the wrong things caused by an ill educated system 1?
Temposchlucker poses some very intriguing questions:
(1) Must system 2 simply shut up? (2) Or are the concerns of system 2 retrieved by system 1? (3) Is system 2 just busy with the wrong things caused by an ill educated system 1?
Since we got to this point in our quest for the Holy Grail of adult chess improvement using the Kahneman “System1/System 2” paradigm, I’ll continue to use that terminology rather than “switching horses in mid-stream” to the Edwards “R-mode/L-mode” paradigm, or, worse for clarification, intermingling them. Please keep in mind that the correspondence is [1:1] between the two paradigms; only the terminology is different (a difference without a distinction, IMHO).
(1) My “gut feeling” (System 1) is that forcing or coercing System 2 to “shut up” is a big mistake. We need both Systems harmoniously and cooperatively working together to gain maximum benefit from “SEEing” things as they are [What You “See” Is All There Is – WYSIATI], i.e., the visual perspective in the mind’s eye.
(2) Unless we are in a situation which System 1 recognizes as dangerous (triggering the “fight or flight” response), System 1 operates from the shadows. It perceives holistically the “whole” AND the “parts” because it is a massively parallel processor, but it responds to System 2’s focus/attention by bringing into consciousness only ONE “story” (from what’s available in memory) that best “fits” whatever System 2 has focused attention on. System 1 does NOT consider all possible options (and definitely NOT a logically derived set of candidate moves à la Kotov) but only those options that seem most germane AND limited to the area of System 2’s focus. System 2 is responsible for making sure that the System 1 “suggestion(s)” actually work, by abstracting, verbalizing, evaluating (forming a judgment) and logically testing the suggestion(s) - before consciously choosing and acting on the suggestion(s). This interaction between the two Systems is much, much more than mere “blunder checking” after a decision has been made.
(3) System 2 can be consciously focused on the “wrong” thing (aspects of a situation that are not applicable, important or optimal). Think of it in terms of the anecdote regarding the drunk in the dark circling a lamppost looking for his keys. System 2 is logically [primarily] focused on looking for the keys with the [secondary] constraint in the dark that in order to find the keys, the search MUST be conducted where there is sufficient light to “SEE” them. System 2 is “blind” to the possibility that it would make more logical sense to look in the area where the keys were most likely to have been lost - because being drunk inhibits the necessary change in priority of the two requirements (find the keys AND where there is light) while ignoring the constraint where the keys were most likely lost. The emphasis and order of the requirements and constraints are reversed so that the optimal solution (finding the leys) is impossible to achieve because the search space is not considered at all. This is the basis of the aphorism “There are none so blind as those who WILL not “SEE.” System 1 has NO capability to evaluate whether a collated “story” it has created is applicable or actually answers the question; that is System 2’s responsibility. System 1 simply assembles (without judgment) whatever resources (knowledge) are available that seems to best “fit” the task at hand, given the constraints. System 2 MUST evaluate not only the efficiency but the applicability of the proposed solution.
Conclusion: both Systems MUST work interactively and cooperatively, with each System contributing its own strengths and compensating for the other System’s weaknesses.
Unfortunately, System 2 (not being “lazy” but instead minimizing effort in determining a viable “solution”) takes a “Good enough for government work” attitude UNLESS conscious monitoring is applied throughout the entire task, not just at critical moments. That can be very effortful, and most of us do not make the effort.
@Robert. You are definitely on to something here. It is a matter of visual perception. Now I work my way through my database with relative simple problems, it becomes evident that I continuously miss simple themes for the simple reason that system 2 is too busy with its own concerns instead of looking around.
ReplyDeleteWe must investigate what is needed here. Must system 2 simply shut up? Or are the concerns of system 2 retrieved by system 1? Is system 2 just busy with the wrong things caused by an ill educated system 1?
An inquiring mind needs to know.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteTemposchlucker poses some very intriguing questions:
(1) Must system 2 simply shut up?
(2) Or are the concerns of system 2 retrieved by system 1?
(3) Is system 2 just busy with the wrong things caused by an ill educated system 1?
Since we got to this point in our quest for the Holy Grail of adult chess improvement using the Kahneman “System1/System 2” paradigm, I’ll continue to use that terminology rather than “switching horses in mid-stream” to the Edwards “R-mode/L-mode” paradigm, or, worse for clarification, intermingling them. Please keep in mind that the correspondence is [1:1] between the two paradigms; only the terminology is different (a difference without a distinction, IMHO).
(1) My “gut feeling” (System 1) is that forcing or coercing System 2 to “shut up” is a big mistake. We need both Systems harmoniously and cooperatively working together to gain maximum benefit from “SEEing” things as they are [What You “See” Is All There Is – WYSIATI], i.e., the visual perspective in the mind’s eye.
(2) Unless we are in a situation which System 1 recognizes as dangerous (triggering the “fight or flight” response), System 1 operates from the shadows. It perceives holistically the “whole” AND the “parts” because it is a massively parallel processor, but it responds to System 2’s focus/attention by bringing into consciousness only ONE “story” (from what’s available in memory) that best “fits” whatever System 2 has focused attention on. System 1 does NOT consider all possible options (and definitely NOT a logically derived set of candidate moves à la Kotov) but only those options that seem most germane AND limited to the area of System 2’s focus. System 2 is responsible for making sure that the System 1 “suggestion(s)” actually work, by abstracting, verbalizing, evaluating (forming a judgment) and logically testing the suggestion(s) - before consciously choosing and acting on the suggestion(s). This interaction between the two Systems is much, much more than mere “blunder checking” after a decision has been made.
PART II:
ReplyDelete(3) System 2 can be consciously focused on the “wrong” thing (aspects of a situation that are not applicable, important or optimal). Think of it in terms of the anecdote regarding the drunk in the dark circling a lamppost looking for his keys. System 2 is logically [primarily] focused on looking for the keys with the [secondary] constraint in the dark that in order to find the keys, the search MUST be conducted where there is sufficient light to “SEE” them. System 2 is “blind” to the possibility that it would make more logical sense to look in the area where the keys were most likely to have been lost - because being drunk inhibits the necessary change in priority of the two requirements (find the keys AND where there is light) while ignoring the constraint where the keys were most likely lost. The emphasis and order of the requirements and constraints are reversed so that the optimal solution (finding the leys) is impossible to achieve because the search space is not considered at all. This is the basis of the aphorism “There are none so blind as those who WILL not “SEE.” System 1 has NO capability to evaluate whether a collated “story” it has created is applicable or actually answers the question; that is System 2’s responsibility. System 1 simply assembles (without judgment) whatever resources (knowledge) are available that seems to best “fit” the task at hand, given the constraints. System 2 MUST evaluate not only the efficiency but the applicability of the proposed solution.
Conclusion: both Systems MUST work interactively and cooperatively, with each System contributing its own strengths and compensating for the other System’s weaknesses.
Unfortunately, System 2 (not being “lazy” but instead minimizing effort in determining a viable “solution”) takes a “Good enough for government work” attitude UNLESS conscious monitoring is applied throughout the entire task, not just at critical moments. That can be very effortful, and most of us do not make the effort.
Correction: finding the leys should read: finding the keys.
ReplyDeleteWhat can I say? It's 2:11 AM and I should be asleep!