Kahneman-TFaS-PI-1-v2

On Daniel Kahneman, Systems of Thinking and Knowledge Sharing—Part 1: THE CHARACTERS OF THE STORY

© Copyright 2011 David M. Sherr [email protected] 11/17/11-1

Kahneman opens his treatise on Thinking, Fast and Slow with a dramatic center page picture:

TF&S, Page 19

I was immediately engaged as he went on to discuss my immediate responses and predictions, and, later

thoughtful reactions. Attention is immediately on her eyes and the furrowed brow. We know she is

angry. Moving to her mouth, she is about to speak. We begin to consider how we might respond to an

aggressive statement.

This picture is worth much more than a thousand words. It is the whole book!

He got my attention. In Knowledge Sharing, it is about getting people’s attention and then imparting

the concepts and information. Wisdom is a fortunate residual benefit. Attention. Attention. Attention.

As Foghorn Leghorn says to Henery Chicken Hawk, “Pay attention. I say, I say, Pay attention, Son!”

What do you have when you have a green ball in your right hand and a green ball in your left hand? You

have the undivided attention of the Jolly Green Giant. Ho. Ho. Ho.

Two Systems

We think, process, and react in two fundamentally different ways. One is fast and effortless; the other is

slow and deliberate. They compete for control of our attention. Otherwise, they have their own

particular capabilities for cognitive processing. System 1 (Fast) and System 2 (Slow), he dubs them, and

credits the original concept as proposed by Keith Stanovich and Richard West. But Kahneman (and

deceased collaborator Amos Tversky) developed this model of thinking into Kahneman’s post-Nobel

Prize Masterpiece Thinking Fast and Slow (TF&S).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLYLLPHKRU4&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Stanovich

http://byu.academia.edu/RichardWest



In TF&S, Kahneman presents a psychodrama with two characters: “Although System 2 believes itself to

be where the action is, the automatic System 1 is the hero of the book.”

He portrays these Systems as agents with individual abilities, limitations and functions. In mechanizing

Knowledge Sharing, this implies the existence of a space of two types of digital assistants. I call these

digital assistants “KnowBots”. KnowBots are idiot savant apps that operate as services dedicated to

specific Domain Knowledge by narrow Topic Categories.

Kahneman provides an 11-point scale for the complexity of System 1’s automatic activities, ranging from

the Simple (1—detecting relative distances of objects) to Medium (6—answering what is 2+2?) to

Complex (10—understanding simple sentence structure) and capped with the most Complex (11—

recognizing stereotypes).

For System 2, he provides examples without an ordering of their complexity. A few are enumerated

here: Brace for the starter gun in a race. Monitor the appropriateness of your behavior in a social

situation. Tell someone your phone number. Fill out a tax form. Check the validity of a logical

argument.

In Knowledge Sharing, stereotyping is a key in analyzing patterns of Use Cases that are developed into

templates to guide creation of differing classes of digital assistants, KnowBots. System 2 is the Logic

Machine, the business rendered in a Knowledge Sharing system while System 1 is the Sensing

Apparatus, the infrastructure that delivers the grist for the Logic Machine mill.

System 1 needs to be understood in how it controls our perceptions of Knowledge and its basic fabric of

data and information woven into that fabric through processing. It becomes useful Knowledge when it

is actionable. System 1 comes out of the box “ready to perceive the world: recognize objects, orient

attention, avoid losses, and fear spiders (sic).” System 1 is the hardware of the Brain and firmware of

the Mind. There I go describing something, turning the brain and mind into machines (opposite of the

pathetic fallacy) instead of treating them as agents engaged in activities. But for those in Information

Technology it is a very apt and rich description.

In Knowledge Sharing systems, it directs us to think of System 1 as autonomic infrastructure while

System 2 is the higher level functions and services supporting Knowledge analysis and interpretation.

For Kahneman, in System 1: “The Knowledge is stored in memory and accessed without intention and

accessed without effort.”

Essentially, this is direction to make Knowledge Sharing System 1 functions that operate transparently to

explicit applications (KnowBots). These System 1 KnowBotic functions are part of the KnowBot

Environment available to System 2 KnowBots without any programming. Creating a contextual KnowBot

Environment is at most a configuration task. Writing KnowBots is a developing art form.

The Systems share attention. Control may be shared, but ultimately it rests with System 2. System 1 is

the default state of attention—especially when we sleep. System 2 will prevent you from reacting



aggressively to the women in the picture, even though from her angry outburst, your System 1 makes

you feel insulted.

System 2 is distinguished by its requirement for attention to operate. System 2 is disrupted when

attention is lost. A loud noise disrupted me as I was reading this chapter of TF&S. I had to spend a

moment or two to recover my place after I apprehended and fully comprehended it (i.e., understood the

world I live in has occasional earthquakes and looked it up on the Internet) as a 3.0 earthquake. The

only consequence was my computer mouse that flew of the edge of the mouse pad. This is part of the

Joy of Living in Seismically Active Regions.

The mark of effortful activities is that they interfere with each other unlike System 1 activities.

However, System 1 requires some attention. They way I put it is, we can multithread thinking but only

single thread doing. Some of us can spin more threads and/or do things faster than others. I read very

slowly, but can handle up to eight contexts concurrently (probably why I am a slow reader due to a fixed

amount of attention and interference in effortful tasks). My father could play eight games of chess

simultaneously. A gift capability, yes, but one can improve oneself with introspection and training

according to Kahneman.

To close his discussion of the two Systems, Kahneman asserts, and demonstrates later in the book, that

“We are blind to the obvious and we are blind to our blindness.” This is quite a jolting statement

challenging the reader to stay engaged. I was and still am.

Plot Synopsis

Kahneman presents a one-page overview of these two Systems interacting in a storied fashion. It is a

dance, System 1 proposing and System 2 disposing. System 1 suggests impressions, intuitions,

intentions and feelings for System 2 to consider. If System 2 deems them worthy, impressions and

intuitions are transformed into beliefs while intentions and feelings are the impulses for voluntary

actions. Kahneman observes, “Our normal (default) state is to believe impressions and act on desires.”

System 2 is most comfortable when operating in a low-effort mode. Stress ensues when System 2 is

engaged at near capacity for extended periods—like being next to the World Trade Center on 9/11 from

8:45AM-9:15AM EDT.

Children generally have an underdeveloped System 2 filtering process. We learn it during adolescence

when we take many risks and live with the consequences (if we are not killed first by the outcomes or

our parents). This is an important lesson for Knowledge Sharing systems—acceptance of responsibility

and assignment of accountability. This is something we could use a little more in the world today!

If System 1 can’t handle a perceived problem, it activates System 2. For example, a break in the current

model of the world will activate System 2. In the narrative style advocated by Kahneman, specifically, I

am sitting in my chair quietly reading TF&S. Suddenly the room shakes and my computer mouse drops

to the floor. System 1 says, “Hey! I didn’t expect that. System 2, figure it out.” Because my reading is

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/mapping/

http://www.newglobalenterprises.net/blog/September-12-2005.pdf

http://www.newglobalenterprises.net/blog/September-12-2005.pdf



effortful, it is interrupted while I figure it out as a minor earthquake. Completing the processing, I pick

up my mouse from the floor and surf the Internet to determine that it was as I thought. System 2 says

“Relax, it is just a 3.0. As you were.” The current world model updated, I return to my reading chair and

continue this chapter. All is well with the world once again and System 1 returns to invisibility and

System 2 returns attention to my reading.

Once activated by System 1, System 2 resolves between an immediate action, an eventual action or no

action at all. In terms of updating your Model of the World, System 2 decides whether to modify (there

is a secular change in the World) or not (just a momentary displacement or part of a random walk).

System 2 is less vigilant than System 1 which you can’t turn it off. System 2 always on is no way to live.

But, except for those suffering with Tourette ’s syndrome, where System 1 cannot be controlled, System

2 always has the last word.

Did you hear about the Tourette’s charity T-Shirt: “Understand Tourette’s, Find a Cure, Go to Hell! “

In my children’s youth theatre days, they sang a song, “Live and learn. Everybody’s got to live and

learn.” This was sung at moments of resolution and denouement in the plays they enacted. Kahneman

understands and uses the power of story to tell his Psychodrama of the Mind. It is a great template

process for Knowledge Sharing for an enterprise.

In evolution of an Intelligent Enterprise, life and what we do provide the Data. Information is your

mother’s response it. Knowledge is then what your father advises. And, Wisdom is in the story your

grandparent tells you. Kahneman is our grandfather here for the Knowledge Sharing lesson. Stories are

model behavior to capture the Knowledge and eventually the Wisdom of others.

The above link is the iconic cultural reference story for the description. It is the 50’s and Father Knows

Best.” The 50’s, when the US was entering Golden Age and the millionaire marginal tax rate was 90%.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tourette/detail_tourette.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y1__b6uyxg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y1__b6uyxg



Conflict

TF&S, Page 25

To demonstrate uninterruptable interference between System1 and System 2, he presents and

discusses the exercise above, that even when you know what will happen, you cannot avoid behaving as

he suggests you will. This is a fabulous exemplar of the System 1-System 2 Interference phenomenon.

The lesson here for Knowledge Sharing and Expertise demonstration is that there are cognitive

processes that are inexorable, yet mitigatable. We need to be aware of them not to remove, but to

avoid. Specifically, in communicating, don’t mix self references (intended or not) into the system being

used—like in the example, left on the right and upper in lower case.

The conflict between an automatic reaction and the intention to control the response is common in our

lives. And it is System 2 which is in charge of self-control. In the extreme, it generates stress. I had a

desk plaque which read: “Stress is listening to someone who is being monumentally stupid and not

choking them to death.” As Foghorn Leghorn would say, “Control yourself. I say, I say, control yourself,

Boy.”

Illusions

What you see is NOT what you get! WYSIWYG NOT!

The proverbial Cognitive Psychology 101 course uses the Mueller-Lyer diagram below to illustrate visual

illusions.



TF&S, Page 27

It is perceived by the eye (System 1) as the lower line being longer than the upper one regardless of the

fact by measurement (System 2) they are of equal length.

Again, this is a fabulous exemplar. As Kahneman says, “Once seen, you will not be fooled. But you will

still see one line longer than the other.”

These types of cognitive illusions are perceived in System 1. Acting on them as they seem to be can lead

to errors or bad outcomes. You will perceive the error, but can train yourself to act or not to act. A

similar situation around feelings is about the person standing outside a bar asking you for bus fare to the

next town. You feel sympathy for the story you are told, but you do not believe the story to be true and

therefore do not contribute any money to the erstwhile plight.

As we discovered in Kahneman’s Introduction in the previous essay, this response could also be the

Fallacy of Resemblance where we draw an immediate conclusion because of stereotypes—in this case:

scamming no-good beggar. System 2 needs to be engaged further to resolve the situation. Problem is,

as you are in a hurry to get to an appointment, you are long gone by the time you determine to give him

the money. Such are the complexities and time dependencies for Knowledge Sharing as well.

Probably for Knowledge sharing, the lesson is from Ronald Reagan in calling for inspections in the US-

USSR’s nuclear anti-proliferation treaty, “Trust, but verify.” Trust what you see, but check it any way

with an independent method and/or agent.

Useful Fiction

Kahneman uses a narrative story style to impart his knowledge to us. He asserts it is considered very

unprofessional. System 1 and System 2 are not little people in our heads. Stories are compelling

though. There is something about a story as a container and conveyor of knowledge. Kahneman

defends his approach as more efficient in describing the phenomena he is describing. “Description, not

explanation” is his explanation.



He is clear to distinguish the fictional characters, System 1 and System 2, from classic systems theory

which defines a system as assemblies of interacting aspects or parts. That is a bottomless rabbit hole of

discussion. In TF&S, he rarely tries to elaborate the mechanisms beyond the OBSERVABLE behavior

being discussed. That is the nature of behavior—observable, but not necessarily explainable.

System 1’s automatic recognition of fables, fairy tales, parables and other narrative forms seems to be

wired into it for apprehension. While, I diverge from his avoidance of explanation here, it is would

appear our System 1 has evolved to ingest statements in the form of <agent> <action>. Now going out

on the limb farther (not too far), I posit it is intimately connected to our innate language acquisition and

processing abilities.

Warning: Deeper Geekier observations to follow.

For Knowledge Sharing, consider the two cognitive capabilities associated with <agent><action>

recognition, assimilation and retention:

{ [ Apprehend | Comprehend ] (<agent><action>) }

Couple these with stories depicting the 127 (2^7-1 for math geeks) possible combinations of seven

deadly sins (System 1). Their 2520 (7! for math geeks) differing orders of occurrence insert interesting

plot twists. Then, the appropriate muse adds conflict through the antidote, seven heavenly virtues

(System 2) and all its numerical possibilities (math geeks, the situation is symmetric around sin/virtue—

there are the same number as for the seven deadly sins!).

Story writing is easy once you fix the parameters of sin and virtue. For Kahneman, his

intelligent/informed/enlightened gossip is defined by these forms. This makes said gossip both

appealing (we are all voyeurs) and quite useful (let he who is without sin cast the first stone).

For Knowledge Sharing systems, narratives and templates serve well (1) to build effective Knowledge

Sharing infrastructure and support applications, as well as, (2) to populate it with easily comprehensible

(storing concept and knowledge) and apprehensible (acquiring concept and knowledge) content.

I favor linguist Noam Chomsky’s structural, super-rational view of Language and Mind. As an early hero

of mine (and subject of PhD computer science studies in computational linguistics), Chomsky was a role

model. It is partly the reason I ignored the original “soft” behavioral approach of Tversky and Kahneman

in their 1974 Science article. (I was in the throes of the final draft of my dissertation when I read it.)

It would indeed be an interesting collaboration between Kahneman and Chomsky. They are polar

opposites in terms of their approach to the mind. I’d pay a dollar to see that interaction!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Virtues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomski



In the 70’s, I remember reading in The New York Review of Books a review on the Cromwell Revolution

that cost Charles I his head. (Though much less erudite, I am channeling this type of in-depth book

review here.) The reviewer remarked that Charles lost his head because he thought a political fiction,

The Divine Right of Kings, to be real and acted on it. Such fictions were useful in organizing entire

civilizations, but not in the day to day running them—political exigencies always prevail. Current US

politics come to mind. In this case, the political fiction is “Of the people, by the people and for the

people.”

Kingness and Divinity are cultural universals. We have hopefully evolved, albeit slowly, to where we

may believe this (System1) but we don’t act on it (System 2). Nonetheless, we still cast political leaders,

sports figures, movie stars, musicians and other celebrities into this royal role. They achieve demigod

and mythical status. Such is the power of fictions and these deep seated patterns of belief.

Kahneman’s useful fiction is more modest. System 1 and System 2 are agents, characters in a story.

That story tells tales of how we think, where we err and how we cope and learn. It is a universal

apprehension/comprehension pattern. Agents and their sins and virtues are better and more quickly

understood than a dry description of stimulus-response in the medulla, cortical, cerebellum and cerebral

pathways. A story is mind over matter. Well, controlling matter a bit, at least.

Kahneman ends Chapter 1 with a very incisive statement: “The fictitious systems make it easier for me

to think about judgment and choice, and will make it easier for you to understand what I say.” To this I

say, “Amen, Brother. Write on!”

http://www.nybooks.com/



Kahneman’s Examples: Speaking of System 1 and System 2 (p. 30, TF&S)

“He had an impression, but some of his impressions are illusions”

“This was a pure System 1 response. She reacted to a threat before she recognized it.”

“This is your System 1 talking. Slow down and let System 2 take control.”

Documents

Kahneman-TFaS-PI-1-v2