On Nov 27, 8:53 am, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote: > From a review in the NY Times about "Thinking Fast and Slow", by > Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Prize in economic science in 2002. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/thinking-fast-and-slow...
The rest of the review is worth reading. Specifically, the distinction between "type 1" and "type 2" processing (fast, intuitive vs slow, logical) is a "useful fiction." I use this distinction all the time. I am willing to put so much effort into picky (even tedious) descriptions of my work because it primes the subconscious (type 1) pump. As the latest example, understanding leoInspect as creating pointers into ASTs is a picture simple enough for the unconscious mind to handle. This has already lead to collapses in complexity. The hope is that it will lead to further collapses in the much harder job of analyzing Python types. Please don't bore me with a "proof" that such type analysis is impossible. The world is littered with such failed proofs. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
