<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>unconscious &#8211; Spencer Greenberg</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.spencergreenberg.com/tag/unconscious/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.spencergreenberg.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:13:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>

 
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">23753251</site>	<item>
		<title>Careful Analysis vs. Automatic Processing</title>
		<link>https://www.spencergreenberg.com/2011/08/careful-analysis-vs-automatic-processing/</link>
					<comments>https://www.spencergreenberg.com/2011/08/careful-analysis-vs-automatic-processing/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Spencer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:13:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Essays]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[automatic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[careful]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conscious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heuristic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intuition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prediction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[problem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[processing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subconscious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thought]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unconscious]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spencergreenberg.com/?p=134</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thinking very carefully about problems can be an extremely powerful way to answer questions or make predictions. But there are some problems for which our non-conscious processing systems produce superior results. Our non-conscious systems primarily work using pattern recognition. Through a combination of genetic pre-programming and repeated exposure, your brain learns to label instances of [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thinking very carefully about problems can be an extremely powerful way to answer questions or make predictions. But there are some problems for which our non-conscious processing systems produce superior results.</p>
<p>Our non-conscious systems primarily work using pattern recognition. Through a combination of genetic pre-programming and repeated exposure, your brain learns to label instances of things in the world as &#8220;dangerous&#8221; or &#8220;not dangerous&#8221;, &#8220;food&#8221; or &#8220;not food&#8221;, &#8220;person&#8221; or &#8220;not person&#8221;, &#8220;real smile&#8221; or &#8220;fake smile&#8221;. It learns to categorize and predict automatically.</p>
<p>When you see a chair you are immediately able to recognize it as a chair and associate it with your concept of chair, even if it is the largest chair you have ever seen, or the first one you&#8217;ve seen with a zebra stripe pattern. Your brain has effectively developed a way to rapidly recognize things as being &#8220;chairs&#8221; or &#8220;not chairs&#8221; based on whether they match a certain pattern. This pattern was learned automatically from exposure to many chairs in the past. You don&#8217;t have to consciously consider whether this particular object has the features necessary to make it a chair, your brain produces an answer before you are even aware of thinking about it.</p>
<p>To give another example, consider what happens when a chess Grandmasters looks at a chess board. In many cases, they are able to glance at a board positions and immediately (without conscious thought) identify them as being strong or weak, with good reliability. Of course, they might then choose to reason consciously about the positions in order to check or improve upon their gut responses.</p>
<p>Having considered these two ways of making predictions and decisions, the question then arises: when should we rely on thorough conscious analysis, and when should we use our automatic processing? To answer this, let&#8217;s consider the advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><strong>Careful Conscious Analysis</strong></h2>
<p><strong><span style="color: #19571a;">Advantages</span></strong></p>
<ul>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #19571a;">Handles problems where multiple logical deductive steps are necessary to find a solution (e.g. I know that all A&#8217;s are B&#8217;s, and also that if something is a C it cannot be a B, therefore this particular A is not a C.)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #19571a;">Allows the application of theories to problems, and in doing so lets you leverage the research and thinking of others (e.g. what does economic theory tell us will happen to soybean prices when the supply of soybeans dries up?)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #19571a;">Allows you to develop theories of your own which can then be applied in future situations. (e.g. I&#8217;ve noticed that when I attack him on his left side he parries and counter attacks. So this time I will initiate a fast attack to the left, and as he begins to parry, I will drop the point of my blade to get underneath his sword, and carry the momentum into an attack to the right instead)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #19571a;">Lets you compare the advantages and disadvantages of multiple possible methods or solutions. (e.g. The first theory predicts results will come out a certain way, but the second predicts a slightly different outcome. However, the first theory has a better track record on cases like this one.)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #19571a;">Produces reasoning that can be communicated to others. (e.g. I came to my conclusion by evaluating the randomized controlled trials and noting that…)</span></li>
</ul>
<p><strong><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #6c1f25;">Disadvantages</span></strong></p>
<ul>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #6c1f25;">Unless you have <a href="http://www.spencergreenberg.com/?p=78"><span style="color: #6c1f25;">honed your truth discernment skills</span></a>, you may fall prey to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies"><span style="color: #6c1f25;">logical fallacies</span></a>, become misled by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases"><span style="color: #6c1f25;">cognitive biases</span></a>, or rely on theories that have not been empirically validated. Performing truly excellent and reliable conscious analysis takes work, skill, self correction, good habits of mind, knowledge about potential pitfalls, and practice. (e.g. Due to the compatibility of your astrological charts, I think that he would make an excellent husband.)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #6c1f25;">Thinking carefully is a slow process. (e.g. There is a deer in the road about thirty feet ahead of me and I&#8217;m going 60 miles per hour. If I hit the brake now will I have time to stop before I hit it? Will it be more or less dangerous to me if…)</span></li>
</ul>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><strong>Unconscious Automatic Processing</strong></h2>
<p><strong><span style="color: #19571a;">Advantages</span></strong></p>
<ul>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #19571a;">Operates fast (e.g. That ball he hit is going out-of-bounds so there is no need to run and try to catch it)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #19571a;">Can be used in lots of situations where feedback is readily available, even when you don&#8217;t have a theory about how to solve the problem consciously (e.g. Now when I look at a cubist work I immediately know if is by Picasso, Braque or someone else, even if I&#8217;ve never seen it before.)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #19571a;">Starts to get trained automatically without effort if you just do something enough times (e.g. Having listened to enough songs that I knew the titles of, I can now often guess what the title of a song is just from its lyrics)</span></li>
</ul>
<p><strong><span style="color: #6c1f25;">Disadvantages</span></strong></p>
<ul>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #6c1f25;">Cannot effectively handle all types of problems. This method is especially bad for problems that require long deductive chains to solve, or where gathering various sorts of evidence together is necessary. (e.g. I know that the randomized controlled trials say otherwise, but my own experiences as a psychologist still tells me that psychodynamic therapy is more useful and cost-effective for treating depression than Cognitive Behavioral Therapy)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #6c1f25;">May give you wrong answers when the problem changes compared to what you have been trained on (e.g. I know we&#8217;re playing squash now, but that move I did would have been perfect if we were playing tennis!)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #6c1f25;">Requires repeated exposure, so won&#8217;t work well when you don&#8217;t get to practice a lot or see examples over and over again. (e.g. Well, I&#8217;ve only done heart surgery two times before, but from what I can tell this doesn&#8217;t quite seem to be in the right place, so I&#8217;m going to abandon the standard procedure and improvise)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #6c1f25;">Doesn&#8217;t always provide us with conscious insight into why the prediction came out a certain way (e.g. I know that thing is designed to put food onto, but it still looks like a chair to me)</span></li>
</ul>
<p>Careful analytical thought, and automatic processing relying on pattern matching are both extremely useful ways of approaching problems. When processing needs to be done quickly and you can train yourself through lots of examples with feedback, automatic processing may provide the best method for making predictions. But when chains of logical deduction are required, or evidence needs to be gathered and evaluated, or repeated exposure is not possible, or strong predictive theories exist, then as long as you have honed your thinking skills sufficiently well, conscious analysis will probably provide the best results.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.spencergreenberg.com/2011/08/careful-analysis-vs-automatic-processing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">134</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
