#system 2

[neuroscience-corner]

Systems of thinking

There are 2 systems that are responsible for our thinking processes. System 1 is a near-instantaneous, quick process that happens automatically and is based on intuition and previous knowledge. System 2, on the other hand, is slower and requires a mental effort in order to produce the answer. 

What are cognitive biases? 

While system 1 is very efficient, its intuitive nature makes it prone to errors. It is often based on assumptions (often called heuristics) that do not match the complexity of the real world. Heuristics are mental shortcuts that generate a probable answer that would fit the overall picture, but they are rarely accurate. The patterns that are formed due to heuristics are referred to as cognitive biases. A cognitive bias is a systematic error in thinking that occurs when information is being processed and interpreted. Some cognitive biases are independent of heuristics. 

[mochiotomedumplings]

this is my understanding of the autism and adhd spectrum so far, with neurotypical on one hand and neuronontypical on the other hand:

autism spectrum has 2 aspects, the social interaction part and the repetitive/narrow focus part.

part 1 is a spectrum going from Being able to intuitively navigate social situations with great ease to Seeing human as just another object in the room.

part 2 goes from Being able to easily switch between different contexts of actions and thoughts to Being unable to change context without external influence.

i haven’t read enough on adhd so for now i will think of it as having 2 parts based on what i remember of the main types of symptoms, the inattention part and the impulsiveness part.

the inattention part has quite some overlap with the context switching in the autism spectrum that i can’t help feeling it might be one single large spectrum at play here, going from constantly switching context (out of control) to absolutely cannot switch at all (out of control). the neurotypical range (some control) would fall in the middle of this spectrum.

part 1 of the adhd spectrum goes from Being able to easily direct and maintain attention on an activity or topic to Having no conscious control over attention and mental focus.

part 2 goes from Being able to consciously control actions and thoughts with ease to Doing whatever the unconscious brain picks up and suggests.

the impulsiveness part becomes a bit clearer when considering how system 2 in TFAS works. in fact most of adhd seems to relate to system 2’s ability to regulate and control system 1, while most of autism is on system 1. it fits in nicely… but maybe a bit too nicely.

[geistesgegenwart]

[geistesgegenwart]

[geistesgegenwart]

[geistesgegenwart]

The battle between REASON and EMOTION

[mochiotomedumplings]

it helps to remember a couple things, based on tfas:

- feelings, mindsets, most things relating to thinking like thought patterns, don’t work like static values in a database table but rather like variables in machine learning. the variables are not in our direct control but are formed over many past predictions and result comparisons. they cannot be simply changed with a flick of a finger even if sometimes it looks like that out of context, especially with regards to feelings/patterns that have been adopted over a long period of time, consciously or otherwise. for example, if by heuristics you determine that an activity “seems unpleasant to do” and continues to leave this mental statement unchallenged (or self-fulfilling this prophecy by making it unpleasant), over time the statement (which might have originally been founded upon insufficient evidence and assumptions) becomes a truth in your brain - your system 1 basically “learned” this variable. even if upon summoned your system 2 can determine that it’s a wrong statement, your first instinct would still be to accept it - this is simply due to the difference in operation between the two systems. hence for all things related to mental patterns and feelings aka system 1, it by defintion requires exposure and conscious adjustments over time in order to change. the trap is comparing two different mindsets and forgetting the context of how it was possible for them to come about - you don’t just think and feel differently overnight, it’s a process. and consciously challenging and adjusting your own thoughts and feelings (in a healthy manner) requires mental effort - it’s not a simple matter of “just” change your mindset.

- humans are superficial, but not in such a judgemental way. system 1 works in a way that it makes quick decisions with the information that is readily available - it makes sense considering that quick decisions are essential to living now and survival in the past. the reason appearances matter so much in our society is because when facing another person, their appearance is the most easily obtained information about the person, compared to other types of info like personalities and past encounters which would require activating system 2. consciously or otherwise, system 1 makes decisions and generate feelings with this input, and by the principle of cognitive ease, the easier it is to “figure out” someone the more positive the feeling. this is why similar people make friends with more ease and families often stick together - the brain find it easier to predict the behaviour of the other parties. of course, this is surface level and by no means should one’s attempt to understand another person stop here, but it would be a mental strain to turn on system 2 all the time. happiness as a concept is subjective, but the feeling generated from the cognitive ease of system 1 is also a type of “happiness”.

[mochiotomedumplings]

a very interesting phenomenon was observed (OvO).

preface: i have very instinctive and deeply rooted feelings towards someone.

description: upon a (somewhat familiar) event, my brain worked at lightning speed (the heuristics were kinda amazing, not gonna lie) and led me to instantly follow old (very old) patterns of thinking and responses that it was almost like time regressed right within me. i managed to stop myself in time but it was wild seeing myself go through old brain processes like it’s a given.

analysis:

this definitely reflected the way the human brain, under time constraints, utilized/relied almost exclusively on the unconscious heuristics (system 1) trained within it. the longer the particular thinking path has been used (and accepted by system 2, consciously or otherwise), the easier for the brain to adopt it especially under time constraints (without time, system 2 does not go online). left unchecked, this causes some serious illogical thinking that may seem very baffling from an outsider’s perspective, but consider the following analogy…

i was gonna write an analogy about walking with closed eyes but realized it’s not so necessary - this is just a variation of the method of training by repetition that everyone knows. what’s crucial here is that all these “trainings” don’t just happen consciously but so much unconsciously too, like how one treats and reacts to someone. this is demonstrated by the whole open-cage training story (that one).

i could normally have my wits with me and still easily fall down old thinking patterns no matter how illogical they are, if there isn’t enough time for my system 2 to kick in. the same powerful potential of trained reactions can also be crippling when it’s something undesirable. this highlights the need to double-check one’s thinking, even just re-iterating how obvious it is, by giving your brain a few seconds to consider your own thought process (waking up system 2).

of course, this is sometimes harder than it sounds and it’s good to remember that ego drain is a thing. being constantly on edge and second-guessing your every thought is counter productive as well unless that works for you.