System 1 and System 2

I just read an interesting blog post on decision making.  It referenced two process: one automatic (System 1) and one "controlled" (System 2).  These correspond roughly to intuition or unconscious process and conscious attention or reasoning.  Most people believe that most decisions are made automatically and then evaluated in conscious attention.

Yes, there is some hedging in that sentence.  Conscious attention would not be much use in deciding to jump out of the path of oncoming traffic.  So there are times we act - or react- and make judgments about our wisdom after the fact.  On the other end of the scale, we have all had to solve puzzles to which we have no instinctive reaction.  You look at the exam question and absolutely nothing happens in the automatic side of your brain.  So you begin to pick at the question consciously, the way you might pick at a tangled chain.

It is interesting to me that people feel more control when they are more conscious.  After all, none of us invented the rules by which we judge things consciously: from science through logic through religious principles, we are guided consciously by things beyond our control.  Unconscious process is probably more unique and therefore a better representation of the self. So why does conscious attention feel like "us" and unconscious process feel like "instinct" or "magic": a gift or a curse? It is not that unconscious process robs us of control. We just do not recognize the "us" that running the unconscious process.

Control may not prove a very useful concept in human thinking.  Out of control, we have access to our fullest selves: the selves that think 'automatically' and the selves that follow rules other people devised.  In control, we have effort, struggle, and learning by mistakes.  There is certainly value in all of these things. I wonder if that value requires a concept of control or if there is a more useful frame for how we make decisions.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The hypnotic contract

Under what conditions would you allow someone else to tell you what to think?   If you have watched a stage hypnotist, you have seen what looks like one person exercising remarkable control over the thoughts and actions of another. It is fascinating, in part, because we have all seen it happen in real life. Suddenly someone we know seems to be relying on someone else to do the thinking.  Even if the influence is good, it is a little frightening. The secret is that there are no magic words.  In order to lead someone into hypnosis, that person has to be willing to go there. Often the people you see on stage are more than willing. For whatever reasons, they are enthusiastic about giving up self control and allowing someone else to take charge. They know that there are limits to what can happen on stage and they are only agreeing to give up control within those limits. What you see in hypnosis is an agreement between two people. Like all agreements between human beings, it stretches as far...
Read more

Good with people

What do you think of when you hear the phrase "good with people?" When a wine is good with steak, it means that both the steak and the wine taste better when enjoyed together. If you are 'good with people' that could mean that both you and they perform better when you work together. "Good with people" should not be confused with charm or grace. Many famous leaders have, in the absence of any obvious charm or eloquence, managed to get people to produce at high levels. Some introverts fail to be influential; some extraverts fail to be effective. The most useful criteria for "good with people" is the performance that results when an individual is working with others: does the sum exceed the total of the parts? Or would they all have been better working from separate cubicles? We are entering the season of networking: it's a perfect time to observe the difference between the people who are working the room and the people who are making the room w...
Read more

The fine line between observations, suggestions and commands

I have been watching Tony Robbins this week in the documentary called " I Am Not Your Guru ." You can read a nicely ambivalent review in the Financial Times here.   I think the ambivalence is built into the process, which might be surprising given the loud celebration that characterizes the Date with Destiny in the film. For those of us whose work has evolved from NLP, there are lessons to be learned from modelling the most famous and successful practitioner of NLP (Robbins has far surpassed all the founders by all measures of success). Because he does so much so well, Robbins lets us see how fine the line is between observing and suggesting. Let me explain. Robbins frames his "interventions" both with the exercises and performances we do not see in the film and with his invitations. The film opens with an intervention with a young man who says he is suicidal; it is only later that we see Robbins say he is looking for someone who is suicidal to work with. Since...
Read more