research paper

Question

Is slow thinking more reliable than fast thinking?

Abstract

This research is an investigation for analyzing reliable dependency of cognition on which type of thinking most: slow or fast. The main aim of the research is carried out with respect to the research and experiment from mainly academic journals, articles, and book. It is observed through the process that slow thinking (system 2) is more reliable than fast thinking (system 1) due to high tendency of fast thinking on manipulativeness. The result demonstrates that mechanism of thinking can be understood with comparison of the machine and human thinking. With the help of this, it is concluded that system 2 is less manipulative and more reliable than system 1.

Keywords: slow thinking, fast thinking, system 1, system 2, manipulation, cognition. 

The Slow Thinking on Inner Reliability

The trustworthiness of a human being has been a timeless issue regard to Descartes’ significant book “Meditations on First Philosophy”. As the trustworthiness of a machine has started to be questioned, the actual issue emerged: The trustworthiness of selves. The questioning of selves is one of the assertive problems of today too. Science was born with questioning nature and philosophy was born with questioning selves, some say. The science of psychology has answered this question near time. There are two systems for the decision mechanism of human beings: System 1 and System 2. System 1 is the quicker and more automatic one, and system 2 is the one that completes tasks that need concentration, mental effort, focus, and choice, briefly, which includes complex computations (Kahneman 22). Therefore, automatic system 1 can generate a complex pattern of ideas that can be imaginary or real, however, system 2 can build up ideas on ideas in an order of steps (23). Although most people rely on their system 1, in fact, system 2 is more reliable due to the efficiency-seeking nature of the decision-making mechanism of humans with regard to the effects of slow thinking on system 1, system 2, and dual-core system.

People unintentionally work with system 1 while thinking, deciding, and living by the law of least effort. Because the brain is prone to use energy moderately, it makes energy reduction in activities that require high energy consumption (Kahneman 39). System 1 produces fast thinking while its being is automatic and quick. On this aspect, system 1 interprets emotions and facial expressions like mood interpretation. Similarly, humans’ mood affects their cognitive functions on the essence of leisure time, sleeping and eating time, and being alone. They conduct this experiment via an app and some activities which take time and need to be focused. Participants use this app while engaging in the experimental situation, after that, they are given some activities to complete. According to research, having leisure time results in a better mood because humans’ core psychological needs are compensated (von Stumm 1555). Having slept and eaten enough results in a better mood and high cognitive function and it is indicated that it does not affect short-term memory (1554). Being alone results in a worse mood but higher cognitive function rather than being with people they know (1554). They hypothesized that the situation of being alone is different from other cases because people they know cause distraction and this results in a decrease in attention and focus time. Overall, better mood causes high cognitive function, hence, system 2 which produces slow thinking takes over control, and worse mood causes low cognitive function, hence, system 1 which produces fast thinking takes over control. Another property of system 1 is the effect of spoken language which also depends on the law of least effort. The research conducted analyzes the influence of the usage of language which is English as a foreign language and Polish as a native language on solving mathematical problems. Results concluded that “Processing input in a foreign language will be more emotional and less of a cognitive strain for advanced language users; less emotional but debilitating for intermediate users” (Turula 231). Kahneman further explains this phenomenon by the law of least effort which is energy reduction in activities that require high energy consumption in the brain (39). When the speaker has an advanced level in that language, neural connections become already made by the brain itself. Therefore, the action needs less energy and cognitive strain because it is learned, and also can be more emotional which is under the effect of system 1 producing fast thinking. At the first glance, many may think that because we speak automatically, system 1 is activated. However, according to the proficiency level, system activation is dependent.

People work with system 2 during risky and stressful situations. If there exists a situation that poses risk to living conditions, system 2 automatically starts to take prevention to make humans stay alive. This mechanism also directly influences focus time which correlates to attention as prevention. Kahneman who is the author of the famous book Thinking Fast and Slow, gives an example of a shared system to explain the control of attention which is unintentionally giving rise to attention on a loud sound is an automatic behavior of system 1, right after this, system 2 intentionally stabilizes the attention on that sound (Kahneman 24). In other words, first, a sound is heard, then this sound is understood. Moreover, every people have had the situation of nearly saying someone to go to hell or saying god damn it but did not let it happen (28). This is the self-control mechanism of system 2 over system 1. System 2 which produces slow thinking overcomes the stressful situation by holding horses (28). About lazy people who let their self-control go, the author argues that it is not too unfair to call them and their system 2 lazy (43). The author claims that people who avoid the sin of intellectual inertia can be called “occupied” (43). Because system 2 is more active in their brain, they are more alert, more ready to learn, and more skeptical about their intuitions (43). Therefore, as another response to the previous prevention mechanism, Wittmann claims that their time perception should differ from others because they have a high cognitive function (137). In the aspect of time perception, the author’s strong argument claims that because people experience change and movement, the time passing is understood from this change (127). As their focus duration is maximum because their system 2 is active, hence, their perception increases, and hence, those people perceive time slower than others. The consequence of this situation is subjective time perception which holds dependence on “body time” something between relaxation and excitement (133). Similar to maximum focus duration, when there are no distractions which means the presence of only the body sense also results in slower time perception (125). To be more aware of the time and the presence, Wittmann states that “Or one might focus on one’s breath and become aware of one’s heartbeat. When we perceive the body and its process in this way, time passes very slowly. Bodily presence thus creates awareness of time” (137). In this pace of the world, people should consider meditation or mindfulness exercise options to stay calm and keep moving on. Otherwise, this situation may cause damage physically or mentally with no solution or prevention. Other than stressful situations, the presence of mindfulness also keeps system 2 activated which affects the duration of attention and focus.

In machine conditions, contrary to human conditions, one can change the activeness of system 1 and system 2 according to the work they need. Because of these conditions, experimental data is needed for concluding the hypothesis. Bonnefon and Rahwan conduct an experiment to collect data and reach a conclusion. They set up various tasks for machines and choose random people to observe their interaction with machines. For the first phase of the experiment, there is still a need for data due to the controversy on whether the operation of machines on large amounts of data produces fast thinking or slow thinking (Bonnefon and Rahwan 1022). Moreover, in the second phase of the experiment, it is observed that people can be manipulated by the idea that machines can process either fast or slow while deciding a particular task to give a particular machine (1023). Overall the experiment, the key result for the dual-core system is that “As a result, when they have to trust a machine, they may not simply ask themselves ‘Does the task require Slow Thinking?”, but rather ‘Can the machine think in whichever way is required by this task?’ ” (1023). Just like machines, the last century’s technology which is artificial intelligence (in short AI) also utilizes a dual-core system. For most people, AI produces fast thinking at the first glance. However, Rossi and Loreggia’s study carries further this idea. Their article focuses on what are the consequences and influences of applying the theory of the human mind to machine and artificial intelligence. By this, they aim to demonstrate that system 1 is controlled by system 2 in the machine’s functioning so that system 1 (fast thinking) is used effectively similar to the self-control mechanism of humans as it is discussed previously. At the beginning of the machine’s operation, each decision is made by its system 2 (Rossi and Loreggia 4). After the adaptation period, system 2 compiles enough knowledge, observation, and data to allow the system to kick in (4). To be more specific, system 1 has most of the required qualities of a machine learning attitude, whose practice set is given by system 2 (4). Because of 21st-century technology, this kind of experiment and data may be insufficient and may cause a contradiction in the near future. Collaborating with the pace of technology, experiments should be redone and analysis should be reconsidered. Briefly, according to the experiments, machines can use both system 1 and system 2 according to the user’s choice and requirements of the task.

Most people assert that the human decision system provides free will to them whether on the influence of their past or not contrary to the fatalists. In the same sense, Descartes also asserts that “that we are carried in such a way toward what the intellect proposes for affirmation or denial or for pursuit or avoidance, that we feel ourselves determined to it by no external force” (cited in Pereboom 2). Although they defend this opinion, recent studies not only show that they are wrong in their claim but also the media uses these tricks to deceive the audience. Alba-Juez criticizes the background of the most common tricks of manipulating decision mechanisms in their article. In the manners of favoritism, elections and commercials are where fake news possibilities arise. To further explain this, the exploitation of system 1 is the key factor of manipulation and the affect heuristic, the confirmation bias fallacy, framing, or priming are the main concepts of this exploitation (Alba-Juez 75). The pattern-seeking and creating relevance between stories structure of system 1 tends to be manipulated with skillful tricks which affect pragmatic decisions and judgments in everyday life (71). It is called confirmation bias when news is parallel to one’s belief, this person accepts this kind of news as true without judging (73). This is related to the affect heuristic, which means influence in directing decisions demonstrates that choices of people state their beliefs about life (73). With these delusions, it is not reasonable to operate with free will. To make this refutation stronger, further experiments should contain data on human reactions as well concerning the ethical frame.

To conclude, contrary to the common misbelief, system 2 is more reliable than system 1 in the case of utilization of system 1, system 2, and dual-core system. However, the presence of the law of least effort generates a dependent situation on system and system 2 which means that people do not have complete control of themselves and this is where the refutation of free will starts genuinely. Everyday examples like commercials and elections produce observation experiments for criticizing frames like confirmation bias. It is understood here that the natural occurrence of a dual-core system in the human brain is not enough, although a dual-core system works properly for machines and AI. Besides, the duties of system 1 and system 2 hold separate influences for each inner mechanism of decision-making. According to proficiency level in that spoken language and mood in present, brain functions are changing positively or negatively. In another aspect, stressful situations make system 2 alert which produces an increase in focus and attention. After that, this kind of increase generates a self-control mechanism in humans to make them stay alive. To be more aware of inner presence and control selves, mindfulness holds the key which is being aware of bodily presence. It is suggested that being engaged with old traditions more and being in the right comfort area helps humans to focus on bodily presence rather than coping with stress and risk.

Works Cited

Alba-Juez, Laura. “Fast and Slow Thinking as Secret Agents behind

Speakers' (Un)Conscious Pragmatic Decisions and Judgements.” Journal of Pragmatics, North-Holland, 11 May 2021, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0378216621001478.

Bonnefon, Jean-François, and Iyad Rahwan. “Machine Thinking, Fast and Slow.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Elsevier Current Trends, 28 Oct. 2020, https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661320302229.

Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. Pereboom, Derk. Free Will. Cambridge University Press, 2022.

Rossi, Francesca, and Andrea Loreggia. "Preferences and Ethical Priorities: Thinking Fast

and Slow in AI - IFAAMAS”. Proc. of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2019), 13 May 2019, https:// www.ifaamas.org/Proceedings/aamas2019/pdfs/p3.pdf.

Turula, Anna. “Thinking in a Foreign Language, Fast and Slow.” Polish Psychological Bulletin, 20 June 2016, https://www.academia.edu/26326987/ Thinking_in_a_foreign_language_fast_and_slow.

Wittmann, Marc. Felt Time : The Psychology of How We Perceive Time. The MIT Press, 2016.

von Stumm, Sophie. “ Feeling Low, Thinking Slow? Associations between Situational Cues, Mood and Cognitive Function: Semantic Scholar.” Undefined, 1 January 1970, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Feeling-low%2C-thinking-slow- Associations-between-and-Stumm/ 0bc13b694697812d6c4601ac61b1d032a3d7b722.