Comments on: Intuition, initial and final http://blogs.reuters.com/emanuelderman/2011/10/28/intuition-initial-and-final/ Models.Behaving.Badly Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:10:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Emanuel Derman http://blogs.reuters.com/emanuelderman/2011/10/28/intuition-initial-and-final/#comment-212 Emanuel Derman Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:17:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/emanuelderman/?p=526#comment-212 Seanv: Will take a look at the book you recommended as soon as I get a chance, thanks. Seanv: Will take a look at the book you recommended as soon as I get a chance, thanks.

]]> By: seanv http://blogs.reuters.com/emanuelderman/2011/10/28/intuition-initial-and-final/#comment-211 seanv Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:38:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/emanuelderman/?p=526#comment-211 Dr Derman I would recommend you look at Philip Johnson-Laird's books. His basic premise is that much human thought is by using "mental models". As a cognitive scientist he doesn't just put up arguments but builds computer programs to emulate that reasoning process. I have read "Computer and the Mind: An Introduction to Cognitive Science", which is an easy read, and should give you an nice overview of your sense of "intuition" from Logic puzzles to body movement. He has recently written a book "How we reason" - 500 pages! Dr Derman
I would recommend you look at Philip Johnson-Laird’s books. His basic premise is that much human thought is by using “mental models”. As a cognitive scientist he doesn’t just put up arguments but builds computer programs to emulate that reasoning process. I have read “Computer and the Mind: An Introduction to Cognitive Science”, which is an easy read, and should give you an nice overview of your sense of “intuition” from Logic puzzles to body movement. He has recently written a book “How we reason” – 500 pages!

]]> By: DanCostin http://blogs.reuters.com/emanuelderman/2011/10/28/intuition-initial-and-final/#comment-204 DanCostin Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:22:55 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/emanuelderman/?p=526#comment-204 Having only read a bit of Kahneman's book, it seems that System 1 (fast thinking) encompasses both instinctual intuition (responses to angry faces) and expert intuition (master chess players' understanding of a board, physicists' hard-won intuitive grasp of the next step). Hopefully he teases these apart as the book progresses. Using the speed of the these two processes as a unifying concept seems unsatisfying, like equating running a marathon in 3 hours to a 26 mile taxi ride that takes 3 hours in traffic. And perhaps the physicist's Eureka! moment is still a third form of thought. But it seems to fit into the same category as a chess master's problem solving, perhaps used less repetitively. Call it System 1-prime? Having only read a bit of Kahneman’s book, it seems that System 1 (fast thinking) encompasses both instinctual intuition (responses to angry faces) and expert intuition (master chess players’ understanding of a board, physicists’ hard-won intuitive grasp of the next step). Hopefully he teases these apart as the book progresses. Using the speed of the these two processes as a unifying concept seems unsatisfying, like equating running a marathon in 3 hours to a 26 mile taxi ride that takes 3 hours in traffic.

And perhaps the physicist’s Eureka! moment is still a third form of thought. But it seems to fit into the same category as a chess master’s problem solving, perhaps used less repetitively. Call it System 1-prime?

]]> By: pensive_sascha http://blogs.reuters.com/emanuelderman/2011/10/28/intuition-initial-and-final/#comment-203 pensive_sascha Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:32:16 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/emanuelderman/?p=526#comment-203 Dear Dr. Derman, thank you for your efforts including this blog, which I enjoy because you doubt unquestioned assumptions more deeply than the majority. Concerning your attempts at resolving the essential difficulties in philosophical and scientific understanding I would like to point out that the distinction of theory versus model is a helpful, but not yet sufficient condition for coming fully to terms with pragmamorphism and achieving a completely clear view. My own field of expertise is methodology, specializing in strictly integral ways of thinking, clarifying also the usefulness of the concept of intution. Some years ago I worked intensely on how to achieve a complete grasp of the eco-social process in a new approach to really systematic socio-economic theorizing. You might enjoy two articles by Alec Schaerer, published in 2008 and 2009 and available online at www.ijtr.org in their archives, because these articles offer the strict and universal systematics that you are calling for, applicable as much to physics as economics (among the many other fields). Please feel free for starting a fruitful dialog. Dear Dr. Derman, thank you for your efforts including this blog, which I enjoy because you doubt unquestioned assumptions more deeply than the majority. Concerning your attempts at resolving the essential difficulties in philosophical and scientific understanding I would like to point out that the distinction of theory versus model is a helpful, but not yet sufficient condition for coming fully to terms with pragmamorphism and achieving a completely clear view. My own field of expertise is methodology, specializing in strictly integral ways of thinking, clarifying also the usefulness of the concept of intution. Some years ago I worked intensely on how to achieve a complete grasp of the eco-social process in a new approach to really systematic socio-economic theorizing. You might enjoy two articles by Alec Schaerer, published in 2008 and 2009 and available online at http://www.ijtr.org in their archives, because these articles offer the strict and universal systematics that you are calling for, applicable as much to physics as economics (among the many other fields). Please feel free for starting a fruitful dialog.

]]> By: macroresilience http://blogs.reuters.com/emanuelderman/2011/10/28/intuition-initial-and-final/#comment-200 macroresilience Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:54:37 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/emanuelderman/?p=526#comment-200 Kahneman's view of intuition stems from the fact that when it comes to psychology, he is essentially a cognitivist. For a view of intuition much closer to yours (and mine), try Gary Klein http://edge.org/conversation/insight . This concept of "expert intuition" is nothing new to almost any Eastern philosophy - especially Taoism and Zen Buddhism. Kahneman’s view of intuition stems from the fact that when it comes to psychology, he is essentially a cognitivist. For a view of intuition much closer to yours (and mine), try Gary Klein http://edge.org/conversation/insight . This concept of “expert intuition” is nothing new to almost any Eastern philosophy – especially Taoism and Zen Buddhism.

]]>