I think you're spot on with the "internally predictable world". One can observe patterns in the world, and make the bet that these originate from an underlying regularity.Then there are no evidence, only experiences that are more compatible (in the Bayesian sense) with one model than with an other, which you use to make the bet that this model is more likely to predict the regularities well than other models.
I have just like you a lot of .pdf and articles saved in Pocket. Once a month I go through all of them and add those I really want to read to "Next Actions" (GTD style). I try to keep the number within what I know that I am able to do every month, like 10-15, and if the next month I have not finished I know I need to put less
This kinda works
I think that the attitude you're talking about is not what is commonly understood as "moral nihilism". You are saying "nihilism will say that there are no right or wrong answers to [the question what to do]", but even the question "what should I do from a moral point of view?" is irrelevant in the moral nihilist stance.
I'd say that you're conflating the non-existence of moral reasons (that's the nihilist claims) with the non-existence of all reasons. It does not seem like being a nihilist implies that you don't have any goal, as you point out below with the discussion on existentialism. A moral nihilist (someone that holds the "meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong", from Wikipedia) could still have goals and desires upon which to act.
The various voices would not be "nothing is right or wrong" vs "pull the switch", but rather "do according to your own values" vs "do so as to maximize well-being" or even "do so as to do what is moral".
The absence of values can not matter indeed, but moral nihilism is not the absence of values rather than the denial of the metaphysical nature of these values.
Hey, can you give reference for "Tasting exercises from the book Taste"? There seems to have at least two
Can I have a link to the discord server you're talking about?
Great article! I seek to embody this attitude when I converse
I finished "Thinking fast and slow" a few days ago, and I have remarks.
1) You say
The terms “System 1 and System 2” suggest just that: two distinct, clearly defined systems with their own distinctive properties and modes of operation.
Kahneman is aware of that and tries to prevent it. A quote from the conclusion of the book :
And of course you also remember that the two systems do not really exist in the brain or anywhere else. “System 1 does X” is a shortcut for “X occurs automatically.” And “System 2 is mobilized to do Y” is a shortcut for “arousal increases, pupils dilate, attention is focused, and activity Y is performed.”
2) Either there is something I don't understand ir the examples taken by Melnikoff & Bargh (2018) seem to lack charity. In the bat-and-ball problem, the task of "computing the price of the ball by substracting the total cost and the difference between the two prices" is unintentional, there is not a moment when it was decided. This is what is meant by "the task is performed unintentionnaly". Similarly, in the availability heuristic the task "estimate whether more words begin with the letter K than have K in the third position by assessing how many words with each I can remember" is not intentional. The substitution, attributed to System 1, is not intentional.
3) I don't know if the quotes from Evans (2012) are directed toward Kahneman, but "why should [type 2] reasoning necessarily be normatively correct? [...] why should type 1 processes that operate automatically and without reflection necessarily be wrong ?" has nothing to do with what the book says, and you explain quite well why System 1 will make more mistakes. I don't see what this adds to the rest
4) Similarly, there are two chapters of Thinking Fast and Slow (21 and 22) dedicated to the good and bad of expert intuitions, so the remark about "there is much evidence that expert decision making can often be well served by intuitive rather than reflective thinking" seems out of place
I found your text interesting and quite informative but I don't want people to have the idea that Thinking Fast and Slow is letting important things like this slip.
Being pro-actively social, learning social interaction and dynamics.
Could you give precisions on what you did to improve?