Of two minds, one slow and one fast

A short op-ed appeared in yesterday's online The New York Times, entitled "Who You Are," by David Brooks.  In it, he briefly discusses some ideas from psychologist Daniel Kahneman's new book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow."  

The book is said to encapsulate Kahneman's (with the help of his now-late assistant, Amos Tverskey) big insight into human psychology, which suggests that people are not entirely in control of all their thinking. Sub-conscious biases and maxims appear to influence the way people make decisions without them realizing it. It's not that all thinking is governed in this way; rather, as Mr. Brooks states:

"We are dual process thinkers. We have two interrelated systems running in our heads. One is slow, deliberate, and arduous (our conscious reasoning). The other is fast, associative, automatic and supple (our unconscious pattern recognition)."

Mr. Brooks illustrates the general differences in these ways of thinking by invoking two popular works, one emphasizing each method. "In popular terms," he says, "think of it as the debate between Moneyball (look at the data) and 'Blink' (go with your intuition)."

If you're unfamiliar with those works, that's okay, the links should help. The point is, evidence is mounting to suggest that the old way of understanding our own mind is not entirely accurate. "50 years ago," says Brooks, "people may have assumed we are captains of our own ships, but, in fact, our behavior is often aroused by context in ways we can't see." Thinking humans are not merely "rational agents" who "depart from reason...because some passion like fear or love has distorted their judgment." Kahneman and Tverseky have shown that, "...the flaws are not just in the passions but in the machinery of cognition" itself.

This would seem an important understanding. It might even be scary. The point is, the better we understand the reality of our own minds--to the extent that it is possible--the more likely it seems that we might come to terms with those tendencies and habits which lead to grief and harm, both to ourselves and others. To realize that a portion of our cognition is informed by biases, rules-of-thumb, and other maxims without our awareness  may allow us to bring them before the light of our own reason, and thereby subject them to conscious investigation. Just as importantly, however, simply knowing these sub-conscious elements exist may help us to better align our lives with our values.

Appreciating that some things are within our control and some are not, would seem a good first step in this process. In fact, this point constitutes the opening lines of the Roman slave Epicetus' stoic handbook, the Enchiridion. Accordingly, one essential element of stoic philosophy is the delineation between those things within one's control and those things outside of one's control. To rightly understand this distinction is to allow one to focus fully on those things one can control, and to cease worrying about those things one cannot.

What Kahneman and Tverskey have shown is that the mind's thinking methods itself can be investigated and divided in like manner. Perhaps Epictetus and the other Stoics would have agreed. The point is, the evidence suggests that the mind has a diverse collection of cognitive tools, some intuitive and some conscious. Realizing that you have both may help clarify some things in your own mind. It may also help you understand the ways of others. Something to consider perhaps.

Happy Friday, friends :).