The Science of Thinking

What people said

bshacklett · 2019-12 · Recommendation

This sounds a lot like System 1 and System 2 as described by Thinking, Fast and Slow [LINK] Veritasium did a great job summarizing the idea: [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

pdkl95 · 2018-07 · Reference

(edited and fixed after accidental early posting. edit2: added URLs) > does an ad being shown next to something objectionable transfer some of that negative sentiment to the brand? Yes, it does because the negative sentiment will be added to the possible results returned by "System 1"[1][2] thinking that tends to be very fast at approximate searches of long term memory and applying energy saving simplifications/heuristics. System 1 strongly favors fast lookup times over accuracy ; this is very useful when you need to decide quickly if that thing you just saw around the corner was a bear or just a strangely shaped shrubbery. Wasting a bit of energy running away from shrubbery is a better survival strategy than waiting for an accurate analysis from System 2 while the bear eats you. The question isn't if the brand will be negatively affected - it will . What we don't know is how this is the size of the effect, which probably varies wildly due to many different factors. [1] [LINK] [2] [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗

pdkl95 · 2017-12 · Reference

> the threshold for the use of lethal force That isn't the problem (at least primarily). Claiming that there is a serious hostage situation with the possibility of serious violence (perhaps even a potential murder) seriously escalates the risk and hostility of the situation. I didn't say potential hostility; the claim itself directly increases the perceived threat level of the situation, even if it isn't credible. A team of people responding en masse with weapons[1] at the ready further escalates the tension of the situation and the hostility of the room, even if their weapons are never used. The end result is a very tense situation with everyone - on all sides - ready to jump at anything that might be a threat. Fortunately there is at least some evidence[2] that in "most" swattings, cooler heads eventually prevail and nobody gets shot. However, evaluating potential threats is always going to use the faster but less accurate "System 1"[3][4]. The higher the tension level, the greater chance that someone's mind will make a serious mistake, which can easily result in a cascade of everyone recursively responding in ways that probably compound the mistake, which is when people tend to get shot/stabbed/beaten/whatever. The solution is that there needs to respond to situations that are less likely to escalate the situation to greater levels of hostility. Once it turns into a "charlie foxtrot"[5], it's too late. However, if a streamer's prior notification to the police that, should

Read the original HN comment ↗