The Science of Thinking

It seems like the things that are more painful to learn and use make your brain work harder, and thus make you learn better. Or, maybe it is the case that people who know to use the hard stuff are interested in the subject enough to learn how to do it the hard way. You wouldn't be surprised that those who use Assembly to program tend to have better programming skills compared to those who only can program in Visual Basic, would you? Veritasium also mentioned this recently: [this video] The more interesting question to ask to me is (1) whether it is the abacus that makes children learn better, or it is just that children who choose to use the abacus learn better (2) whether teaching abacus use at the beginning has the same effect as teaching abacus use later on after the students already know how to use the calculator. If children who choose to use the abacus learn better, then it wouldn't surprise me, but it means that teaching abacus wouldn't help. If that is false and (2) is true, then we know we better off teach abacus (or assembly) -- it doesn't matter when. But if (2) is false, it means that we have a huge trade-off to consider. Because either we teach the hard stuff at the beginning and discourage a lot of students, or we don't and have worse learning outcomes.

> the threshold for the use of lethal force That isn't the problem (at least primarily). Claiming that there is a serious hostage situation with the possibility of serious violence (perhaps even a potential murder) seriously escalates the risk and hostility of the situation. I didn't say potential hostility; the claim itself directly increases the perceived threat level of the situation, even if it isn't credible. A team of people responding en masse with weapons[1] at the ready further escalates the tension of the situation and the hostility of the room, even if their weapons are never used. The end result is a very tense situation with everyone - on all sides - ready to jump at anything that might be a threat. Fortunately there is at least some evidence[2] that in "most" swattings, cooler heads eventually prevail and nobody gets shot. However, evaluating potential threats is always going to use the faster but less accurate "System 1"[3][4]. The higher the tension level, the greater chance that someone's mind will make a serious mistake, which can easily result in a cascade of everyone recursively responding in ways that probably compound the mistake, which is when people tend to get shot/stabbed/beaten/whatever. The solution is that there needs to respond to situations that are less likely to escalate the situation to greater levels of hostility. Once it turns into a "charlie foxtrot"[5], it's too late. However, if a streamer's prior notification to the police that, should

(edited and fixed after accidental early posting. edit2: added URLs) > does an ad being shown next to something objectionable transfer some of that negative sentiment to the brand? Yes, it does because the negative sentiment will be added to the possible results returned by "System 1"[1][2] thinking that tends to be very fast at approximate searches of long term memory and applying energy saving simplifications/heuristics. System 1 strongly favors fast lookup times over accuracy ; this is very useful when you need to decide quickly if that thing you just saw around the corner was a bear or just a strangely shaped shrubbery. Wasting a bit of energy running away from shrubbery is a better survival strategy than waiting for an accurate analysis from System 2 while the bear eats you. The question isn't if the brand will be negatively affected - it will . What we don't know is how this is the size of the effect, which probably varies wildly due to many different factors. [1] [link] [2] [this video]