You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


That’s the conventional wisdom, anyway, and it was exploited mercilessly following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.Rudy Giuliani in particular is famous for having a hard time completing a sentence without bringing up the attacks.

The 2002 Republican conventions and rallies prominently featured scenes of destruction from these attacks.George Bush, Jr., won re-election under such banners as a wartime president.

But is it true? Do scared people really vote Republican?

There’s a problem with trying to predict voter behavior based on voters’ attitudes and values. And it’s a big problem: Voter attitudes and values tend to change to match their chosen political alignment.

In other words, it may not be that you are liberal because you are for same-sex marriage. It could be that you are for same-sex marriage because you are liberal.

The whole issue sure is worth thinking about.

Changing values and cognitive dissonance.

Even candidates running for office seem to change values over time. Review the 2012 Obama/Romney campaign and watch Mitt Romney become increasingly conservative over the course of the race. Romney even went so far as to deny the viability of the Affordable Care Act. And that was his own policy, just expanded from state to national level.

And watch what is going to happen to Hillary Clinton as she needs to compete for votes with Bernie Sanders. She will be dragged left of center by voters who are disappointed Elizabeth Warren isn’t running.

Voters are dragged the same way.Your voting choices are narrow, after all. You really have only two positions to choose from.You choose the party that most closely aligns with your own politics, then adjust your values to match.

A 2013 study of Italian politics titled “Voting and Values: Reciprocal Effects over Time” confirms those effects. What’s the cause of this? Likely, it’s what we psychologists call cognitive dissonance.

Namely, it showed a strong tie between authoritarian attitudes and conservative opinions. And that so-called “right wing authoritarianism” is composed of those three prevailing attitudes: authoritarianism, conservatism and traditionalism.

Conservatives tend to value tradition.Worldwide, this is a central facet of political conservatism.

Regardless of party systems or names, political affiliations tend towards the two poles. Conservatism reveres the values upon which a nation was founded, and liberalism bends towards social progress and change.

In an ideal world, those forces would be balanced. In an ideal world we would not have so much change in society that was chaotic and unpredictable, but enough that we could progress, learn from experience and science, and still advance at a reasonable pace.

But the world is neither ideal nor balanced. And once politicians get hold of political systems, things can really go off the rails.

Are more authoritarians racist?

Authoritarians tend to believe orders should come from above and should be followed without question.An authoritarian commander does not explain his orders.The law is the law and should be always followed and never changed. In this environment, we do not question why laws exist. We only enact, enforce and obey.

There is some evidence that such attitudes correlate to racial bias, and you can hear that in liberal versus conservative explanations of things like the Baltimore protests/riots and debates about incarceration or the death penalty.

Conservative whites tend to blame black people for their own incarceration, while liberal whites look to the system of laws and practices that place people of color unduly in the proverbial crosshairs.

This is so common and basic an error — and every living human seems predisposed to think this way — that it has a name: fundamental attribution error.This is the all-too-common tendency to think the cause of others’ failures lies in their personal attributes.

A corollary tendency, called the self-serving bias, is to let ourselves off the hook for our own failings based on circumstances.

Net/net: We blame others for their failings and let ourselves have face-saving excuses.

So was it a depression? A recession? Or just plain laziness?

On the national scene, fueled by politically biased media, we can see such tendencies play out with in-groups and out-groups.In other words, we blame black people for black poverty and we blame recessions for white poverty.

Many of us make the same errors when dealing with crime.When black men are killed by police we blame their behavior – resisting arrest or having bad attitudes – rather than the social conditions that lead to crime, poverty and exploitation, and the by now hard-to-deny institutionalized racism almost inherent to policing.

Particularly dangerous are candidates who express law-and-order views when they do not understand the issues at hand.

Remember that ordinary conservative voters will tend, over time, to adopt the views of the candidate they support.

And, especially in a presidential election year, there are limited candidates from whom to choose.

The 2016 election is already shaping up to be one of the most polarizing events in our history.

Unprecedented gerrymandering and racial segregation have created a primary system in which only the most conservative candidates will pass muster with a repeated litany of evolution-denial, war on women and jingoism. This will be matched on the left by increasingly socialist solutions to problems which the right won’t even admit exist.

Study: Crime victims become more conservative after the fact.

A 2013 study published in the European Journal of Social Psychology — “Criminal victimisation fosters conservatism among people living in areas with high unemployment rates: A multilevel longitudinal study”– finds that being victims of crime increases peoples’ political conservatism when they live in areas of high unemployment.

Now the cynic might suggest this explains Republican obstructionism at home regarding real work to fix our bleeding economy.But that is probably just a convenient coincidence. After all, “conservative” and “republican” are overlapping constructs, but not identical ones.

But now we are getting closer to the question, which is again:

Do scared people vote Republican?

Well, do they? Do scared people vote Republican?

That is the key finding of the experiments behind The Handbook of Experimental Existential Psychology. This weighty tome has since 2004 been attempting to provide empirical support for the works of the late philosopher Ernest Becker (Denial of Death), which suppose that fear — and fear of dying — is what underlies hate politics.

By now, there are thousands of experiments replicating those core findings: When we are threatened, we do tend to increasingly favor our ingroups and hate outgroups.

Such attitudes line up nicely with conservative ideals. After all, nothing denies ambiguity like recourse to authority, whether that authority is divine right (the religious conservative component of the Republican party), the law (that wing of Republicans that hates gay marriage), white supremacy (the so-called “Southern Strategy” component), or the law-and-order corner (tough on crime/criminals, death-penalty advocating, war-on-drugs quarter).

So, let’s get right to it now. In 2011, a study published in Current Biology titled “Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults” found a larger amygdala in conservative college students than in non-conservative ones.The amygdala is where fear originates in the brain.Now a big amygdala only matters here if size relates to function.

1 Comment

If scared people vote republican, then what’s that say about President Obama? The guy can’t go five minutes without reminding us that the world is going to end due to climate change, that ISIS/ISIL wants to kill us all, or that if we don’t give the keys to our encryption over to the FBI impending doom looms on the horizon!