How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith in God

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You're missing the point, which is the fact that psychologists are seeking to override System 1 thinking in favor of System 2 thinking..

Since both are natural, I doubt that overriding one with the other is always necessary. If I'm confronted with a female bear showing lots of teeth and a wee cub behind her, I'm pretty satisfied that System 1 thinking will be quite enough, thank you.

On the other hand, when I know that some blue berries can kill me, some are not only edible but quite nice, and I'm starving, I'm going to have to put aside System 1 for a bit and try to remember everything I know about which is which. This can get especially tricky if I find that I don't actually possess that information. Then I might have to invent some tests ("how about just a teensy taste, then see how I feel," and so on).

Or, how about when you're rolling dice hoping to win a little money (and are well behind at the moment). What do you really know about odds, and how will that help you decide what to do next -- double down and roll again or go home with the few dollars you have left and eat?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Cognitive scientists who study expertise (expertise experts), mostly agree that most expertise is implicit, i.e. it's reliable but cannot be explained. For example, a chess master can't really tell you the process by which she made her last move. These scientists use the phrase "expert intuition" or just "intuition" to label implicit skill and knowledge. But you don't have to be an expert to have a lot of implicit knowledge and skills, we all do.

With all that said, the conclusion of the article strikes me as intuitive.

This is not quite true. What we are coming to understand is that deep familiarity -- the result of an inordinate amount of study. You don't actually know how to walk, did you know that? The nerves in your spine and legs know how, not your brain. If you had to consciously think about walking all the time you were doing it, you would be ludicrous. The Baseball player who can hit a tiny ball coming at him at 95 MPH with a thin stick isn't using S2, trust me, nor is the outfielder who makes a four foot leap at an impossible angle to catch that ball.

No, expertise is not implicit -- it is instead practiced so much that it no longer requires your brain to help you do it.

 

[Skwim]

Since both are natural, I doubt that overriding one with the other is always necessary.

If I'm confronted with a female bear showing lots of teeth and a wee cub behind her, I'm pretty satisfied that System 1 thinking will be quite enough, thank you.

Which is quite reasonable; however, the point was in regard to:

"Solving logical and analytical problems may require that we override our System 1 thinking processes in order to engage System 2. Psychologists have developed a number of clever techniques that encourage us to do this."

.​

.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You may eventually run into a live former atheist, perhaps even here in the fora, who can help you understand better than I that these types of people do, indeed, exist and have followed different paths to their destination.

I have. None were actual atheists in the first place. That's kinda how it works.

 

[icehorse]

This is not quite true. What we are coming to understand is that deep familiarity -- the result of an inordinate amount of study. You don't actually know how to walk, did you know that? The nerves in your spine and legs know how, not your brain. If you had to consciously think about walking all the time you were doing it, you would be ludicrous. The Baseball player who can hit a tiny ball coming at him at 95 MPH with a thin stick isn't using S2, trust me, nor is the outfielder who makes a four foot leap at an impossible angle to catch that ball.

No, expertise is not implicit -- it is instead practiced so much that it no longer requires your brain to help you do it.

In this domain, "implicit" means more or less what you just explained.