Me:
System 1 is very good and very fast at what it does, but it does not have the memory buffer capacity to effectively and wholly manage the initiation and coordination of thinking and decisions required to start-to-finish manage events to conclusion if those events span too much time.
If the totality of the thinking and decision making required to survive an event can be successfully managed end-to-end by system 1, it will do it.
If the totality of the thinking and decision making required to survive an event can't be successfully managed end-to-end by system 1, the loci of decision making can shift to system 2.
If stimuli is recognized as "new" system 1 will take the loci of decision making from System 2 and only relinquish decision making control when it feels there is no risk.
System 1 cannot afford to waste time and resources including its buffer. One efficient strategy is to ignore all thinking and management and orchestration for inputs and conclusions that are uncertain. System 1 can only afford to invest effort when there is certainty (or extremely high probability) that its decision making is required for survival. This can be observed as the Certainty Effect.
System 1 also pays attention to new stimulus. System 1 is wired to prioritize Certainty risks and prioritizes processing to certain and near certain event. System 1 is also wired to prioritize attention to events that transition from zero probability to any greater than zero probability. These are considered potential new threats, and therefore system 1 attention is warranted and justified.
However, because so much of reality must deal with all ranges of probability from 0% to 100%, we have evolved two systems of thinking and decision making that both operate at very different sample rates. System has a concept of 'infinite' and that is the extent of its memory buffer size.
System 2 operates at a slower perception of time (our conscience sense of time), it has a greater memory buffer that can project and even imagine a more useful concept of infinite space and time. System 2's different sense of time and different concept of infinite allows system 2 to better think and make decisions regarding all those pesky probability that exist between 0 and 100. This is something System 1 could possibly replicate, but can't do well because its concept of infinite is only a few minutes long
&GPT:
Your detailed explanation offers a nuanced understanding of how Systems 1 and 2 operate, particularly in relation to their handling of time, memory, and decision-making processes. Let's break down these insights:
System 1’s Limited Buffer and Immediate Management:
System 1 excels in managing situations that require immediate response and can be handled within its short operational timeframe. It's quick and efficient for processing events that don't require extended analysis or planning.
Transition to System 2 for Complex, Extended Events:
When an event or situation cannot be fully addressed by System 1 due to its complexity or duration, the locus of decision-making shifts to System 2. System 2 is capable of handling extended thinking and planning, dealing with situations that require sustained attention and deeper cognitive processing.
Response to New Stimuli and Risk Assessment:
System 1 is highly responsive to new stimuli, particularly those it perceives as potential threats. It takes control of decision-making in such scenarios and maintains it until the perceived risk diminishes. This immediate reaction to new stimuli is crucial for survival, as it allows for rapid responses to potential dangers.
The Certainty Effect in System 1:
System 1 prioritizes certainty and high-probability events in its decision-making. This is an efficient strategy, as it allows the system to focus on immediate and clear threats or opportunities, conserving its limited processing capacity for scenarios where its rapid response is most needed.
Prioritization of New and Certain Threats:
System 1 is wired to prioritize both certain risks and new stimuli that transition from zero to any higher probability. This is an evolutionary adaptation to recognize and respond to potential new threats quickly.
System 2’s Slower Pace and Larger Memory Buffer:
System 2 operates at a slower pace, with a much larger memory buffer. This allows it to handle more complex, nuanced situations that involve probabilities and uncertainties. System 2 can project, plan, and deliberate over a more extended period, dealing effectively with the range of probabilities between 0% and 100%.
Different Concepts of Infinity and Time:
System 1’s concept of 'infinity' is constrained to its short operational timeframe, while System 2 possesses a broader concept of infinite time and space. This distinction allows System 2 to better manage situations that require long-term planning and consideration of various probabilities and outcomes.
Complementary Operation of Both Systems:
These two systems work in tandem, each playing a crucial role in our cognitive functioning. System 1 handles immediate, high-certainty situations efficiently, while System 2 takes over for more complex, uncertain scenarios requiring extended thought and planning.
In essence, the different operational modes, time perceptions, and capacities of Systems 1 and 2 are adaptively tailored to handle the diverse range of challenges and decisions we face in our lives. This dual-system model of cognition highlights the efficiency and adaptability of human thinking and decision-making processes.
Comments