Thanks so much for this. I’ve been thinking a great deal about the growing divide between academic and nonacademic people lately, and this piece beautifully captures a difference in the way the two types might think that leaves adequate room for the rationality of nonacademics, who are often well equipped to think on their feet and solve immediate, real world problems. The recognition of this practical competence is important for nonacademics to maintain their societal agency as more academics suggest less educated people are increasingly unfit to make decisions regarding their own governance and welfare.
I, unsurprisingly, agree with this take. It's well done and does a nice job of rebutting the dichotomy of dual-process thinking. Oh, and I appreciate the shout out.
On the philosopher's definition thing… I am doing a philosophy degree and I believe that philosophers have picked up some definitions that are just plain wrong — or, at least, ambiguous or incomplete — that lead to bad conclusions.
For example, there's an essay that I am supposed to be writing now about the Experience Machine. Nozick just assumes that the people who don't want to plug in are not hedonists — but he uses a very narrow definition of hedonism to come to this conclusion.
Similarly, when Gettier sees a sheep on the hill that looks like a dog, he thinks he is justified in believing that it is a sheep, even though it's not a sheep. That's an odd definition of 'justified'.
I've written several Substack posts where, it seems to me, that the philosopher is using an odd definition of a word that leads him to a wrong conclusion. Locke, Descartes, Rawls, Kant — all wrong.
Rigid and clean definitions are not useful if they are wrong.
Subject: The Art of Being Brilliantly Dumb (or Dumbly Brilliant?)
Hey Dr. Blanchard,
Your latest piece on Smart Mode vs. Dumb Mode just single-handedly validated every existential crisis I’ve ever had while trying to remember why I walked into a room. If dumb mode is where the magic happens, I think I’ve been unconsciously running a creative genius factory in my head for years—I just forgot to file the paperwork.
But seriously, love the insight into cognitive flexibility. It’s a timely reminder that sometimes, the best breakthroughs happen when we stop trying to force them. Now, if only I could get my brain to stop overclocking itself at 2 AM.
Would love to hear your take on how this plays into intuitive problem-solving vs. structured reasoning. Do we default to “dumb mode” when we trust the process, or is there a hidden toggle switch I haven’t found yet?
I'm far from an expert on this but before I read your post, I would have said that all of those problems required system two mode and they all require consciousness. They all require a strategy even if some strategies are easier and some strategies can be learned. Meanwhile, system one mode can be solved unconsciously. I recognise my wife's face or I can tell whether or not the weather is nice without thinking.
Thanks so much for this. I’ve been thinking a great deal about the growing divide between academic and nonacademic people lately, and this piece beautifully captures a difference in the way the two types might think that leaves adequate room for the rationality of nonacademics, who are often well equipped to think on their feet and solve immediate, real world problems. The recognition of this practical competence is important for nonacademics to maintain their societal agency as more academics suggest less educated people are increasingly unfit to make decisions regarding their own governance and welfare.
I, unsurprisingly, agree with this take. It's well done and does a nice job of rebutting the dichotomy of dual-process thinking. Oh, and I appreciate the shout out.
On the philosopher's definition thing… I am doing a philosophy degree and I believe that philosophers have picked up some definitions that are just plain wrong — or, at least, ambiguous or incomplete — that lead to bad conclusions.
For example, there's an essay that I am supposed to be writing now about the Experience Machine. Nozick just assumes that the people who don't want to plug in are not hedonists — but he uses a very narrow definition of hedonism to come to this conclusion.
Similarly, when Gettier sees a sheep on the hill that looks like a dog, he thinks he is justified in believing that it is a sheep, even though it's not a sheep. That's an odd definition of 'justified'.
I've written several Substack posts where, it seems to me, that the philosopher is using an odd definition of a word that leads him to a wrong conclusion. Locke, Descartes, Rawls, Kant — all wrong.
Rigid and clean definitions are not useful if they are wrong.
Wow, that got me thinking! :D
Subject: The Art of Being Brilliantly Dumb (or Dumbly Brilliant?)
Hey Dr. Blanchard,
Your latest piece on Smart Mode vs. Dumb Mode just single-handedly validated every existential crisis I’ve ever had while trying to remember why I walked into a room. If dumb mode is where the magic happens, I think I’ve been unconsciously running a creative genius factory in my head for years—I just forgot to file the paperwork.
But seriously, love the insight into cognitive flexibility. It’s a timely reminder that sometimes, the best breakthroughs happen when we stop trying to force them. Now, if only I could get my brain to stop overclocking itself at 2 AM.
Would love to hear your take on how this plays into intuitive problem-solving vs. structured reasoning. Do we default to “dumb mode” when we trust the process, or is there a hidden toggle switch I haven’t found yet?
Cheers to thinking less and creating more,
Jeremy
I'm far from an expert on this but before I read your post, I would have said that all of those problems required system two mode and they all require consciousness. They all require a strategy even if some strategies are easier and some strategies can be learned. Meanwhile, system one mode can be solved unconsciously. I recognise my wife's face or I can tell whether or not the weather is nice without thinking.