Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av OY
Har du lust att presentera vem det skulle kunna vara?
Men det är ju just det som är poängen, det kanske är någon för fb inkl mig och dig helt okänd person.
Dessa trådar är ett nästan löjligt övertydligt exempel på ett av de vanligaste och mest elementära tankefelen vi gör: Att utgå från att det vi själva vet om något är allt som finns att veta.
[spoiler]But, System 1 can sometimes lead us astray when it's unchecked by System 2. For example, you write about a concept called "WYSIATI"—What You See Is All There Is. What does that mean, and how does it relate to System 1 and System 2?
System 1 is a storyteller. It tells the best stories that it can from the information available, even when the information is sparse or unreliable. And that makes stories that are based on very different qualities of evidence equally compelling. Our measure of how "good" a story is—how confident we are in its accuracy—is not an evaluation of the reliability of the evidence and its quality, it's a measure of the coherence of the story.
People are designed to tell the best story possible. So WYSIATI means that we use the information we have as if it is the only information. We don't spend much time saying, "Well, there is much we don't know." We make do with what we do know. And that concept is very central to the functioning of our mind.
There is a very nice example of this, and it's actually the thing that impressed Malcolm Gladwell when he wrote the book "Blink." We form an impression of people within less than a second of meeting them, in some cases. We decide whether they're friendly, hostile or dominant, and whether we're going to like them. And clearly, we form that impression with inadequate information, just based on their facial features or movements. This is WYSIATI—we don't wait for more information, we form impressions on the basis of what is available to us.
Gladwell emphasized that there was some accuracy to those, but they are very far from perfectly accurate. They're better than nothing … but what is striking is that you form them immediately in the absence of adequate information.
[\spoiler]
Nästan ingen här verkar kunna resonera utifrån den fullt rimliga hypotesen att det finns personer i utredningen som vi inte vet ett dugg om. Så gott som alla utgår från att det är någon av de personer som vrängts ut och in i tråden som är skyldig. Möjligen en okänd gärningsman men i så fall någon som är okänd även för polisen. Att hela tråden kan ha varit på helt fel spår från första början pga saknad info verkar få inse som en fullt tänkbar möjlighet
