Talk:Thinking, fast and slow

Regarding my edits

Nick, I follow your lead. Do whatever you think meets your goals regarding my edits, including deletion.

Interesting book. Have you come across Keith Stanovich's The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin? System 2 rebelling. Anthony.Sebastian 23:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony, I am encouraged by your interest, and grateful for your help.

I am finding it difficult to summarise writing that is so rich in content, in a way that gives the reader the flavour of the book, without giving him indigestion. I am far from satisfied with this first attempt. It seems to me that it is much improved by your edits, but that more are needed. I fear that I may have left out matters that deserve a reference, and that I have included some references that are obscurely phrased.

Thanks for drawing my attention to the Stanovitch book. I have had it downloaded onto my Kindle.

I know little about psychology. My interest in the writings of Tversky and Kahnemann has arisen mainly from their implications for economics. I have always accepted their findings as totally convincing, and I am conscious of my inability to take a critical view of what, for all I know, may be considered controversial by professional psychologists. Perhaps there should be a concluding critique? Perhaps the Stanovitch book will help? What do you think? Nick Gardner 10:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Stanovich's The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin might be another book review article for CZ. I've read it twice, a year apart. Time for a third reading—have to finish my first read of Kahneman first, though. Anthony.Sebastian 04:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I fear that a CZ review of the Stanovitch book might draw a torrent of protest (and attempts at rebuttal) from the religious communities. Nick Gardner 11:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You have a point. I'll look at the responses/reviews/blogs to the The Robot's Rebellion, see what the faithful had to say. The message in Stanovich is not too different from that in Kahneman, more one of emphasis.

David Eagleman's Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain, a national bestseller, also speaks of the "I" as a kind of robot, er, shades of Asimov's I Robot:

The first thing we learn from studying our own circuitry is a simple lesson: most of what we do and think and feel is not under our conscious control. The vast jungles of neurons operate their own programs. The conscious you—the I that flickers to life when you wake up in the morning—is the smallest bit of what's transpiring in your brain. Although we are dependent on the functioning of the brain for our inner lives, it runs its own show. Most of its operations are above the security clearance of the conscious mind. The I simply has no right of entry...Your consciousness is like a tiny stowaway on a transatlantic steamship, taking credit for the journey without acknowledging the massive engineering underfoot. This

Interesting stuff. See also Metacognition.  Anthony.Sebastian 17:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Asimov didn't originate the phrase "I, robot". It was the title of a short story by Eando (pseudonym for E and O, Eric and Otto, I think) Binder. Peter Jackson 18:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)