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]


Turkey and EU’s Visa-Free Travel Deal is on the Verge of Breaking Down

Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg

- May 29, 2016 11:00 am

Skift Take

The EU needs to become more liberalized in its view of visa-free travel and consider which countries actually pose a risk to its universal culture and values.

— Dan Peltier

Share

Tweet

Share

Post

Send

The spat between the European Union and Turkey over visa-free travel is heating up. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey is demanding the abolition of visas for his citizens, or else he’ll renege on a deal that has reduced the flood of refugees to the EU to a trickle. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told Erdogan that won’t get him anywhere.

This public fight is futile. Europe could safely cancel visas for Turkey and many other countries: The benefits would far outweigh the costs.

QuickTake Europe’s Migrant Crisis

The EU struck its deal with Turkey in March. Erdogan agreed that his country would take back undocumented immigrants who arrive in Europe by the Balkan route, which was used by more than 1 million people last year. In return, he demanded 6 billion euros ($6.7 billion) in aid and an end to short-term Schengen zone visas for Turks by the end of June. The Europeans promised the money and agreed to expedite visa liberalization “provided that all benchmarks have been met.”

Erdogan appears to have missed that caveat. On Wednesday, he said the immigrant readmission agreement wouldn’t pass the Turkish parliament if visa-free travel wasn’t granted. “Turkey is supposed to fulfill criteria? What criteria are these I ask you?” he fumed.

Juncker’s reply was prompt and equally sharp. “We do expect that Turkey will stick to its commitments — and threats are not the best diplomatic instrument you can use,” he said. “So one should stop to use them, because they will produce no effect whatsoever.”

There are 72 criteria that Turkey is supposed to meet, and further work is needed on only five of them, according to a May 4 document from the European Commission. These are, however, the hardest to implement: They concern anti-corruption legislation, police and judicial cooperation with the EU, personal data protection to EU standards and, most importantly to Erdogan, changes to legislation that now allows him to persecute journalists and academics for “terrorist propaganda.”

Erdogan’s repression of dissent is deplorable. One might wonder, however, what this has to do with 90-day tourist visas to the EU. After all, if someone needs to escape persecution, the need to get a visa is a serious barrier.

In practical terms, the EU’s “black list” of countries whose citizens require visas is meant to keep out undocumented immigrants. It’s a blunt tool for that purpose, though. There is a correlation of about 0.6 between the number of a country’s citizens apprehended in Europe for being there illegally in a given year and the share of rejected visa applications from that country. Officials have a highly approximate idea of the propensity of citizens from specific countries to overstay their visas — but in many cases, they don’t act on the information.

In 2014, Schengen area countries issued 5.7 million visas to Russians, and less than 0.01 percent of that number of Russians were caught that year for being in Europe illegally. For Turkey, the ratio is about the same. Chinese citizens received 1.7 million visas, and only 0.5 percent of that number were apprehended. The number of undocumented immigrants from these three countries is small — slightly more than 27,000, compared with Europe’s population of more than 500 million. And it isn’t small because the EU countries are doing a good job of filtering out risky applications: Visa refusal rates are quite small — 1 percent for Russia, 3 percent for China, 4 percent for Turkey.

The risk of letting Turkish, Chinese and Russian citizens travel to Europe visa-free — for tourism, not work purposes — would therefore be negligible. Letting them travel freely would only give Europe an economic boost given their huge potential for tourist spending.

Yet other countries, which supply more undocumented immigrants, are closer to visa liberalization than these safe ones — or even are exempted from the need for short-term visas.

In 2014, 14,120 Serbs — who don’t have to apply for short-term visas — were apprehended for being in the EU illegally, almost as many as Turkish and Chinese nationals combined. The number of Georgians caught reached eight percent of the number of visas issued in that country, and Georgia is likely to be granted visa-free status this year — along with Ukraine, which supplied 60 percent more undocumented immigrants to the EU in 2014 than Russia.

The logic behind this has nothing to do with curbing irregular migration. It’s purely political. Many of Europe’s criteria for a visa-free regime with a non-member country have to do with the Europeanization of those countries’ domestic rules: They demand, for example, strong anti-discrimination and anti-corruption laws. It’s a mechanism of European “soft power”: If a government wants to offer its citizens hassle-free travel to Paris and Rome, it needs to adopt certain European values.

Russia and China either won’t comply with these requirements or will only pay lip service to them, so they’re not likely to have the visa requirement waived. Georgia, Serbia and Moldova are more likely to attempt to meet the political demands, the latter two countries’ citizens can already travel visa-free, and Georgians will soon get to do so, too.

The political logic is deeply flawed. It’s the citizens of the least European countries who most need exposure to Europe, its ways and values. The more they see of the free world, the more they are likely to want similar rules at home. Turks who can go freely to Europe and back may soon be unwilling to tolerate Erdogan’s authoritarianism, and his illiberal laws may be struck down. Erecting barriers for them, on the contrary, alienates them and makes Europeans look surly and unwelcoming.

The refugee deal with Turkey, which has already forced European bureaucrats to move faster than intended on vise liberalization, should prompt the EU to abandon visa liberalization as a political tool and only maintain the visa requirement for countries whose citizens present a serious risk of overstaying, such as Afghanistan or Eritrea. Everybody else should be free to visit, Turks included.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Leonid Bershidsky at <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Max Berley at <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>.