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]


Jon Hansen

Jon Hansen is an American attorney serving as a Representative for the 25th Legislative District in the South Dakota House of Representatives. A member of the Republican Party, Hansen previously served as a Representative for District 25 in 2011–2013.  Hansen currently serves as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and as a House Majority Whip.

Early life, education, career
Hansen was born in Yankton, South Dakota. When Hansen was six years old, his father died.  Six years later, Hansen's mom remarried and his family moved to Dell Rapids, South Dakota where he grew up along with his two sisters.

Hansen attended the University of South Dakota School of Law where he earned his Juris Doctor Degree. Hansen graduated with Sterling Honors in the top 10% for his law class.  Hansen was Vice President of the USD Law School Moot Court Society and won two outstanding oral advocate awards at the William E. McGee National Civil Rights Moot Court Competition. Hansen also co-founded and served as Vice President of the USD Law School St. Thomas More Society.

Hansen attended the University of Sioux Falls where he earned his Bachelor's degree in Business Management. Hansen was featured in promotional materials for the University of Sioux Falls' Degree Completion Program. Hansen attended Southeast Technical Institute where he earned his Associate degree in Business Administration.

Hansen has served as President of the Dell Rapids Chamber of Commerce.

Hansen is a lawyer at Dell Rapids Law Firm in Dell Rapids, South Dakota. Hansen represents families as their adoption attorney.

Hansen occasionally performs live, acoustic music as a lead singer and plays guitar, piano, harmonica, and percussion.

Personal life
Hansen resides in Dell Rapids, South Dakota with his wife, Sheila, and their four children. Hansen is Catholic and a member of St. Mary Parish in Dell Rapids.

Political career

Tenure 
In 2010, Hansen defeated incumbent Democrat Oran Sorenson, winning a seat in the South Dakota House of Representatives. Hansen was reelected in 2012. In 2013, Hansen left public office to attend the University of South Dakota School of Law. Upon Hansen's departure, Governor Dennis Daugaard said, "in his second term, Jon has already stood out as a leader, and I hope to see him return to public service in the future."

In 2018, Hansen returned to the South Dakota House of Representatives by defeating incumbent Democrat Dan Ahlers. Hansen was also victorious in a Republican primary election earlier that same year.

Hansen Represents South Dakota's 25th Legislative District, which "includes the towns and rural areas surrounding Baltic, Colton, Dell Rapids, Garretson, Lyons, Rowena, Sherman, Split Rock Township, Valley Springs, and eastern Sioux Falls."

Leadership Positions 
Hansen currently serves as a Majority Whip in the South Dakota House of Representatives. Hansen was also elected as a Majority Whip in 2013.

Hansen currently serves as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Hansen also served as Vice Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 2013.

Committee assignments

2019 – 

 House Judiciary Committee – Chairman
 House State Affairs Committee
 House Legislative Procedure Committee

2013 

 House Judiciary Committee – Vice chairman
 House State Affairs Committee
 House Legislative Procedure Committee

2011 – 2012 

 House Judiciary
 House Transportation

Awards 
In 2019, Hansen received the Americans for Prosperity Torchbearer Award "for his tremendous record of voting to break down barriers for South Dakotans and for his sponsorship of legislation to expand education opportunities for our students."

In 2019, Hansen received the American Conservative Union's Award for Conservative Achievement.

Political positions

Abortion 
Hansen is pro-life. Hansen is a current board member and executive committee member of South Dakota Right to Life. Hansen received an "A” rating from South Dakota Right to Life for his 100% pro-life legislative voting record.

House Resolution 1003 
In 2019, Hansen sponsored House Resolution 1003, denouncing the recent passage of New York's abortion law and requesting that the Governor declare a day of prayer and fasting to atone for the unspeakable crime of abortion. Hansen spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives in support of the resolution:"We express our shock and our sorrow for the people of New York.  They have fallen into making the same grave mistake as our own United States Supreme Court did when it decided Roe vs. Wade.  And I offer you an often undiscussed, but probably most important sentence in the Roe vs. Wade decision.  The Court actually said,  “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.” Sadly New York is making that mistake today.  South Dakota recognizes that from the moment of conception an abortion terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.  The sacred relationship between a mother and her child is the core of all civilized culture and its denigration is the denigration of the human race. . . .  We mourn the loss of all beautiful, innocent, unborn human lives who have fallen victim to the unspeakable crime of abortion.  So to our fellow Americans in the great state of New York, I want you to know – that the people of South Dakota are honestly, humbly, praying for you, for the conversion of your hearts, that one day you too would know that an abortion terminates the precious and sacred life of a whole separate unique living human being, and that this horrific genocide must end."House Resolution 1003 passed the South Dakota House with 59 yea votes and 9 nay votes. In response to the passage of the resolution, Governor Kristi Noem declared May 4, 2019 as a day of prayer and fasting for all in South Dakota and "respectfully request[ed] people of all creeds or none at all to observe [the] day with solemn mourning and pleas to heaven as best their consciences do direct."

House Bill 1193 
In 2019, Hansen sponsored House Bill 1193, which "provide[s] a criminal penalty for causing an abortion against a pregnant mother's will." Anyone found guilty under the bill faces mandatory life in prison. In his remarks on the floor of House of Representatives, Hansen said, "A pregnant mother should never be forced to undergo an abortion against her will. . . .  Pregnant mothers in bad situations deserve the protection of this bill."

House Bill 1193 passed on the floor of the House of Representatives with 68 yea votes and 0 nay votes. The bill passed on the floor of the Senate with 32 yay votes and 0 nay votes. Governor Kristi Noem signed House Bill 1193 on March 20, 2019.

Senate Bill 110 
In 2018, Hansen appeared before the Senate State Affairs Committee to testify in favor of Senate Bill 110. Senate Bill 110 specifically criticized the Planned Parenthood facility in Sioux Falls, South Dakota for allegedly failing to adequately provide the required pre-abortion counseling to pregnant mothers under South Dakota law. Senate Bill 110 also required pregnancy help centers in South Dakota to provide the disclosures that it claimed Planned Parenthood was failing to provide. Testifying before the Senate State Affairs Committee, Hansen said:"[T]hrough the last few decades, Planned Parenthood has consistently demonstrated that it has no interest in ensuring that a pregnant mother is fully informed before making the irrevocable decision to terminate the life of her unborn child.  That's why, back in 2005, our legislature . . . required an abortion doctor to tell a pregnant mother that an abortion terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being, and that the mother has an existing relationship with her unborn child, and that relationship is protected by the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the state of South Dakota. . . .  That information is incredibly significant.  Those two disclosures alone are incredibly profound, but that's the information that Planned Parenthood wasn't providing to pregnant mothers.  That information Planned Parenthood didn't want to provide to pregnant mothers.

. . .

A pregnant mother at least deserves to know that an abortion terminates the existing relationship with her unborn child: a whole separate unique living human being.  As long as Planned Parenthood refuses to make those disclosures, this bill will ensure that pregnant mother hears the truth from our state’s pregnancy help centers."  Senate Bill 110 was signed into law by Governor Dennis Daugaard on March 7, 2018.

House Concurrent Resolution 1002 
In 2013, Hansen co-sponsored House Concurrent Resolution 1002, urging the United States Supreme Court to revisit the Roe v. Wade case and to overturn its decision. The Resolution passed the South Dakota House of Representative on a vote of 60 to 10 and passed the South Dakota Senate on a vote of 23 to 10. Hansen said in his remarks on the floor of the House of Representatives: "When it comes to the killing of innocent children and the destruction of the most sacred rights of their mothers, it is the solemn duty of the Court to look at this decision and to overturn the result.  We have now learned that both Roe vs. Wade and its companion case that were decided in 1973 were a virtual fraud on the Court and on this Nation.  Neither case had any record.  No discovery was taken.  No depositions were taken.  No trial was held.  The entire record in Roe was an affidavit signed by Norma McCorvey, which she now told us she never read.  The entire record in Doe vs. Bolton was a single affidavit that Sandra Cano now tells us she never signed.  Her signature was forged.  Roe and Doe are national scandals.  In recent times both plaintiffs, in unprecedented fashion, filed motions in both the Roe and Doe case and asked the Court to reverse their own judgments because they were harmful to women and unjust. . . .  [P]lease support this Resolution, and ask that the Court revisit Roe vs. Wade and overturn its decision."

House Bill 1237 
In 2013, Hansen sponsored House Bill 1237, which excludes weekends and holidays from the calculation of the 72-hour waiting period required between a pregnant mother's initial consultation with an abortionist and an abortion procedure. The 72-hour waiting period requirement was passed into South Dakota law in 2011 via House Bill 1217, which Hansen also co-sponsored. During the 72-hour waiting period, House Bill 1217 also required that the pregnant mother have a consultation at a pregnancy help center during which the pregnancy help center "inform[s] [the pregnant mother] about what education, counseling, and other assistance is available to help the pregnant mother," and also screens for "circumstances that may subject [the pregnant mother's] decision to coercion."

In his testimony on the floor of the House of Representatives, Hansen said that House Bill 1237 was necessary to "provide the pregnant mother with a reasonable opportunity to seek and obtain counseling at a registered pregnancy help center as mandated in our existing statutes." Hansen further explained: "We continue to find that Planned Parenthood has no interest whatsoever in ensuring that pregnant mothers considering an abortion are fully informed of their rights, the risks, and the consequences associated with the procedure. . . .  How can we expect Planned Parenthood to fully inform pregnant mothers of the consequences of aborting her unborn child when they don't even acknowledge that a relationship between the two exists?  Certainly anybody who has had children knows that a relationship exists between a pregnant mother and her unborn child and yet Planned Parenthood refuses to even acknowledge it. . . .  Planned Parenthood's interest is in providing abortions.  Planned Parenthood has no interest in ensuring that a pregnant mother is making a fully informed decision to terminate the life of her unborn child.  Our state does, however, have a compelling interest in the protection of the right of a pregnant mother to her relationship with her unborn child. . . .  This bill advances that interest." House Bill 1237 was signed into law by Governor Dennis Daugaard on March 8, 2013.

House Bill 1185 
In 2012, Hansen sponsored House Bill 1185 which prohibits all health care plans offered through the Affordable Care Act in South Dakota from including abortion coverage. House Bill 1185 was signed into law by Governor Dennis Daugaard on March 19, 2012.

House Bill 1217 
In 2011, Hansen co-sponsored House Bill 1217, which, among other provisions, requires a 72-hour waiting period between a pregnant mother's initial consultation with an abortionist and an abortion procedure. At the time, the 72-hour waiting period was reportedly the longest in the nation. Under the bill, during the 72-hour waiting period, the pregnant mother must have a consultation at a pregnancy help center at which the pregnancy help center "inform[s] her about what education, counseling, and other assistance is available to help the pregnant mother keep and care for her child." The pregnancy help center also conducts a private interview with the pregnant mother to help ensure that she is not being coerced into making her decision to abort her unborn child. House Bill 1217 was signed into law by Governor Dennis Daugaard on March 28, 2011.

Intellectual diversity on college campuses 
On February 19, 2019, on the floor of the House of Representatives, Hansen spoke in favor of House Bill 1087, an act to "promote free speech and intellectual diversity at certain institutions of higher education." House Bill 1087 was signed into law by Governor Kristi Noem on March 29, 2019.

On June 26, 2019, the South Dakota Board of Regents convened to discuss House Bill 1087. Speaking to the Board of Regents, Hansen said: "I’m proud of South Dakota universities.  I’m a proud graduate of our law school. But on this issue, our own universities have followed a disturbing national trend.  On campuses everywhere disagreement is said to be hatred. Intellectual diversity said to be bigotry.  Speech is quelled and voices are silenced.  That’s why our legislature passed House Bill 1087.

. . .

No student should feel pressure, fear or intimidation from any professor, dean, or administrator for exercising his or her ideas.  But that pressure and intimidation is present in South Dakota today. That is unacceptable.  So allow students to be educated in a place where ideas compete and the truth can prevail.  When students engage in the honest pursuit of truth in an environment where that pursuit is promoted, they will likely find it.  Truth is attractive to the human soul.  So do not social engineer.  Do not create safe spaces from what you somehow deem to be threatening viewpoints.  Do not discriminate in funding or access to facilities based upon viewpoint. Do not create a culture of fear and intimidation for students who simply speak what they believe.  Instead, equip students with reason.  Instill good judgment. Judge by the content of character.  Orient toward the pursuit of truth. And let the students flourish."

Second Amendment 
Hansen "has been endorsed three times by the NRA and has received an 'A' rating from the Association because of his 'demonstrated record of support on Second Amendment issues.'"

In 2019, Hansen supported Senate Bill 47, which allows individuals in South Dakota to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Governor Kristi Noem signed Senate Bill 47 into law on February 5, 2019.

Taxes and budget 
Hansen has signed the Americans for Tax Reform Taxpayer Protection Pledge, "pledg[ing] to the taxpayers of the State of South Dakota, that [he] will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes."

In 2012, Hansen voted in favor of House Joint Resolution 1007, which "[p]ropos[ed] and submitt[ed] to the electors at the next general election an amendment to Article XII of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, relating to a balanced budget." The passage of House Joint Resolution 1007 resulted in "The South Dakota Budget Balance Amendment, also known as Constitutional Amendment P," being placed on the November 2012 general election ballot. The South Dakota Budget Balance Amendment was approved by the voters of South Dakota by a 64.6% to 35.4% vote.

In 2010, the State of South Dakota faced a $127 million budget deficit. In his 2010 campaign, Hansen pledged to vote to balance the state budget without raising taxes. During the 2011 legislative session, Hansen voted in favor of the general budget bill, which eliminated the state's $127 million budget deficit and balanced the state budget without raising taxes.

Electoral history

References

Category:Living people
Category:Year of birth missing (living people)
Category:Members of the South Dakota House of Representatives
Category:Place of birth missing (living people)
Category:South Dakota Republicans
Category:South Dakota lawyers
Category:People from Dell Rapids, South Dakota