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]


This post has been updated.

Hedge fund and other private equity managers have created a huge imbalance in the campaign finance picture with their massive contributions to super PACs. But as an industry, Wall Street writ large makes its mark in the simplest of ways: by simply giving more, by far, to candidates than any other interest group.

Naturally, though, not all candidates are created equal.

A quintet of House incumbents and challengers are far more reliant on the financial world to fuel their campaigns than most others running for a seat in that body — they’ve received twice as much from the securities and investment industry in the 2016 election cycle as they have from their next highest donor industry, OpenSecrets‘ Anomaly Tracker shows. A bipartisan bunch, they are: Reps. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) and David Jolly (R-Fla.) and candidates Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Andrew Heaney (R-N.Y.).

The two non-incumbents have raised the most from the Wall Street-centered industry. That makes sense, considering they’re running to represent two of the country’s most prominent Valleys in the financial realm: Silicon and Hudson.

Khanna, a former Obama administration official headed into a rematch in the California Democratic primary this month with Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), has long projected himself as the new, young face that can represent Silicon Valley better than the Baby Boomer currently occupying the seat and collecting ethics complaints.

That means, apparently, building a donor base of investors: Khanna has raised $480,500 from the securities and investment industry compared to $170,752 from his next top iindustry, electronics manufacturing. His top company donors so far are Google’s parent company Alphabet Inc. and a number of venture capital firms. Khanna lost his bid to unseat Honda in 2014 by fewer than 5,000 votes. That year, he raised $629,950 from financiers, compared to $261,345 from electronics manufacturing.

Help us keep government accountable by making a donation today.

In New York, the race for the Hudson Valley district would pit Heaney, who has collected $270,369 in contributions from the securities and investment industry, against the crusading law professor Zephyr Teachout, who wants to overhaul the campaign finance system. That’s if he wins his primary later this month.

Heaney managed to raise the money from investors despite throwing himself headfirst onto the Donald Trump bandwagon ahead of the New York presidential primary. In an ad, according to the Albany Times-Union, Heaney says that, like Trump, “we don’t take special interest money and we can’t be bought.”

Heaney’s donor base looks nothing like Trump’s, though — not least because the nation’s top political-donor investors mostly have a well-documented aversion to the expected Republican presidential nominee. Heaney’s campaign is so heavily financed by Wall Street that real estate, his next top industry, has barely contributed a quarter of the $270,000 contributed by investors.

For the sitting members of Congress who look to investors for a big majority of their campaign cash, there’s a bipartisan spirit to the industry’s contributions. Moulton, the Democrat from Massachusetts, has raised $255,799 from Wall Street; Garrett, of New Jersey, has raised $213,755 and Jolly, of Florida, has raised $147,550 — he’s now running for the Senate seat to be left open by failed presidential candidate and retiring Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

Much of the loot has come from the industry’s PACs, which have shelled out $31,949 and $21,000 to Moulton and Jolly respectively, while they’ve given Garrett — who sits on the House Financial Services Committee. $104,000 so far. The money comes from the likes of Silvercrest Assett Management and Stephens Group.

Goldman Sachs and Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. stand out as big backers of Moulton, whereas the equity investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald stands squarely behind Jolly.



For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]





Support Accountability Journalism At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.Please support our work and keep this resource free. Thank you. Support OpenSecrets ➜