Think Fast! Critical Thinking and Dual Process Theories

This video is part of a playlist called "Critical Thinking About Science". The order of the videos matters, since they form an extended argument and later videos build on ideas introduced in earlier ones.
To view the complete playlist, click the link below:
• Critical Thinking Abou...
New videos are being added to this playlist.
Please visit the Critical Thinker Academy for free access to this course, plus many more free video courses on logic and argumentation, fallacies, reasoning with probabilities, essay writing tips and tricks, and more.
criticalthinkeracademy.com
Everything you see on this channel is funded by viewers like you. Please consider becoming a Patron at
/ kevindelaplante

[@susanasher6939]

This is a great explanation. But at time 1:48, the slide has an error. It says "System 2 is to accept what system 2 tells it." It should say "what system 1 tells it."

[@ianmccracken8101]

shout out WWAMI EHM

[@Paranoidhuman]

Why can't I add subs to this video?

[@byter75]

I am interested to hear more on what you think are the tools or methods to effect or adjust our 'fast' thinking. I would guess that this goes down nature vs nurture. I'd say that.. Nature: People are born with different predispositions towards slow or fast thinking. Nurture: The way people can go about fast & slow thinking can be changed. Speaking personally. I am predominantly a 'slow' thinker.This is largely due to nature but I do think it's in part due to my conscious decision to encourage methodical logical thinking and to discourage more rash emotional thinking. When it comes to education however... I typically associate education with us 'telling' people what's what. The thing is though.. is that you can't just 'tel'l someone to be more rational, and then it just happens... Somehow you have to cultivate an environment where people are using their fast and slow thinking appropriately... This is all mostly guess work on my part.. I have read a bit into stuff like cognitive misers and such with the psychology, but my knoledge is by no means, that extensive on the topic..

[@byter75]

+UniversalPotentate I got my education in the UK, so religion had relatively little relevance to my education (we had religious education classes, where we learnt of the traditions and beliefs of religions around the world but that was about it). To additionally clarify. Most of the focus of my school education was given to learning how to get the best marks for the exam at the end of the year. I do think though that my education did have plenty of reference to what relevance their subjects had to real life. In science we would very often hear of the real world use of scientific principals and the strengths of the scientific method. In English we'd focus on things like public speaking and writing formal documents, despite neither of them being strictly relevant to exams. To try to clarify my position: People are logical and emotional (i.e. fast & slow think). I can use logic to appeal to their logical side but not (s easily) their emotions. Stories can appeal to people but I am rather doubtful about the (consistent) effects of media and culture on humans.. To try to help demonstrate what I mean(t). Let's contrast 'abstinence only' education to 'comprehensive sex' education (for context I had the latter). Abstinence tells people to not act on their instincts to have sex. But they do so anyway and abstinence only is almost a complete failure. Comprehensive sex education similarly doesn't have much of an effect on the rate at which teens have sex but it does have success in regards to the rates of safe sex and teen pregnancy. I am being very brief (on a controversial topic in where you live). But I hope it gets the my point across. Despite all the social and religious pressure. People carried on (on an instinctual level) as normal (kind of like with alcohol in the prohibition era). Informing people about the options regarding safe sex and reproductive control (things that aren't very instinctual).. does have an effect. When people 'know' about condoms they are much more likely to use them properly. Critical thinking has typically been taught to handle the logical or slow think side. I am curious to see what Kevin deLaplante has to say on teaching critical thinking on a fast think level..

[@byter75]

+UniversalPotentate On relationships & sex; most people I know go about it on a very emotional level. They focus on how much they 'love love love' one another.. until the dopamine levels drop back to normal and then they are stuck in a relationship that they either just live with.. or fall away from. I am glad that for my current partner (of 3 years or so) we started our relationship by discussing what it meant and how we should act. We agreed that we were going to be life partners who are both "friends" and who recognize the value of "mutual support". We also made sure to establish that if either of us had any issues we should talk about it, rather than keeping it bottled up. In the uk things aren't perfect but I am fairly happy with our education system. We had sex education classes. Drug clases. Religious studies and Citizenship classes. These classes did address things like: STD's, safe sex, sexual health options, abortion; the qualities of different drugs (what high you get, how addictive, health effects and withdrawal effects), the services available to get off drugs; what religions (empthasis on the plural) believed in, how they were practiced and opportunities to discuss politics and controversial topics in class. I would agree with you that all we hear about relationships is the lovey-dovey bit.. and not the logical side, that this is something people should be made more aware of (and something that was omitted from my education). I would love there to be more training, team building and public speaking exercises that are done during education... but to be a bit cynical for a moment... There just isn't enough time (given everything else schools are supposed to teach) and running such exercise courses require a lot of expertise and resources to work effectively. At the end of the day. To continue being cynical. I think society at large values book smart, measurable results, rather than more independent thinking people. Humanity's many biggest achievements are a result of very smart individuals (who can do great work without this kind of education (generally because they are so gifted)) and a populace that can work together at a large scale (the haulage industry is vital to modern society but the skills needed there are just the abilities to move stuff from A to B (you don't need very enlightened truck drivers!).

[@byter75]

+UniversalPotentate I always was rather engaged in my school work and I generally saw the merit in the subjects I was taught. I'll go over every subject I was taught at school: Maths: Pretty useful abstract skills for life and higher education. Science: Pretty useful knoledge on how stuff works and how we got to figure these things out (da scientific method). English: Practice at creative writing and critical appraisal. Information technology: Practice at computers, pretty handy. (though it was pretty dull and poorly taught) Foreign languages (French was compulsory): Pretty handy skill for travel and employment. (not many took that seriously though) Physical Education: Chance to try out many different sports and to remain healthy. Art: Chance to try creative arts and practice appraising art. History: Learn about the past of our world and the lessons we can take from it. Geography: Learn about cartography and geological phenomena. Citizenship/Religious education: Talk about real world issues n stuff (most people didn't take these subjects very seriously, subject quality was very variable and dependent on the skill of the teacher) Now.. I'm not going to say that all students are going to be interested in all these subjects, or that they are necessary. But I am a bit surprised to hear that you think that some are "totally unnecessary". That sounds like a rather position to me, but first I would like to hear what subjects and why you think they are totally unnecessary. On economics: I would say that what "society values" is no doubt, in part at least, dependent on economic factors. On engineers and technologists. How do you know that we haven't got enough? I also wonder about the effects of focusing on trying to get more 'engineers & technologists'. Only so many people are interested in the topics and only so many people are going to have the competency to qualify for such roles. There has almost always been more demand for limited resources and skills. And whilst it would always be nice to be able to fill those demands, is it feasible to be able to do so? In regards to your points about being able to fix your own pc. Your argument seems to imply that we should all be generalists. As things are though, I think that specialization is not only the way to go but it is the best way to go. We have to be dependent on many many strangers to do many tasks. I have a bachelors in mechanical engineering.. but I'm no expert in electronics and I have to rely on my doctors when I become ill and many many other people to maintain my country, my local store and so on... On romance: There's logic and emotion to romances. Both are important. In the case of both, people are typically rather lazy. People go into relationships for the wrong emotional and logical reasons all the time. Generally speaking though. I think that people generally can get the idea that you form relationships with people you 'like' or 'get along with' (and that people generally can tend towards this anyways). What is lacking though, is enough healthy discussion on the rational reasons to live with someone. I am not sure how to formulate that into education. I am not very familiar with what has been learnt in psychology and counseling in regards to how to help people have healthy relationships. But it's certainly something I think that the rational side to relationships should be spoken about more...

[@byter75]

+UniversalPotentate Now just hold on a second... This is a lot of rhetoric to process and respond to. I think that if we are to discuss this properly, we go through each claim one at a time. Let's do an example: _*"What you describe as generalization, I describe as literacy. What you describe as specialization, I describe as dependency. What you think of as economic efficiency, I describe as economic inefficiency. Therein lies the fundamental difference in view. Perhaps we need to be more clear in what it is we're discussing. I don't want to be yelling about apples while you're yelling about oranges."*_ It looks like to me that you made a lot of apples to oranges statements to start with.. and then went on to recognize that it might not be clear and that we would be "yelling" past one another. (I don't know why I am described to be "yelling" nor do I see why you should be "yelling about apples".. can't we discuss this calmly and steadily?)

[@byter75]

+UniversalPotentate 'Hedging' your bets by making your argument long and accusatory is more likely to turn people off and to lead to those "typical" KZbin conversations... Right then.. llet's try to look at this first on the small scale. Let's look at an imaginary single person. Okay so first off... how do we educate them?