Talk:Dual process theory

message: To the comment below (that says "I don't see the point of this entry") - I am a Professor of Cognitive Science and at least 40% of the university program that I teach in is about dual process theory. I suspect the same is true for many programs at other universities too. Therefore, having a dual process theory is relevant to many students. The comment below is absurd and obviously ignorant of current academic discussions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Dr. Brain Scientist (talk • contribs) 11:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

message: I am a professor and don't have time to edit this entry. However, the historical precedents seem to be false. Freud started Dual Process Theory. I've never heard of James in relation to DPT, so I did some research. After much google scholaring, I still found no mention of William James in relation to DPT. I think the text about James in this wiki entry is wrong and should be about Freud. Someone, please correct. Citation: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231948804_Freud's_dual_process_theory_and_the_place_of_the_a-rational  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Dr. Brain Scientist (talk • contribs) 11:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The first bases for dual process theory go at least all the way back to Plato with his Chariot Allegory where human reason is lickened to a chariot driven by a two horses: one horse is tamed, noble and reasoned and the other untamed and passionate. Indeed many philosophers have touched this subject thereafter. --Nikosgpet (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical precedents 

message: To whom it may concern,
A group of undergraduate psychology students and myself have been studying Dual Process Theory and believe this page needs some more information about specific applications. We propose the following changes.
1. Add a subheading of economic application of Dual Process Theory, including the example about economic decision making. Application to economic decision making is completely absent on the page and may provide a good example of how Dual Process Theory works. This would include information from Alos-Ferrer and Strack (2014) whose Multiple Selves Model helps explain economic choices made by individuals.
2. Add information about the intersection of the Dual Process Theory and terror management theory as proposed by Psyzczynski, Greenburg, and Solomonas (1999). This article outlines the way the brain deals with conscious and unconscious thoughts about death.
3. Expand the section about habituation to include information from Groves and Thompson (1970). The article currently mentions habituation but does not say that it involves both systems and does not talk about the specific steps that occur.
Please let me know what you think. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
--JeffreySzczecinski (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Expansion and Additional Examples 

message: I don't really know much about this subject, but it seems that the "systems" version is a "stronger" proposition than the "process" conceptualization, whereas the overall impression I have from this article is that it's all the same thing. Here's an example of the differences laid-out:
1. Dual-process and dual process and dual process and dual-system theories theories theories
Dual-process theories:
* - posit two distinct mental processes that can generate a response to a problem,
* - posit one process that is fast, automatic, nonconscious, effortless, highly contextualized,
* - posit a second process that is slow, controlled, conscious, effortful and abstract,
* - claim that the fast process relies on heuristics or associations, and generates responses that are often biased,
* - claim that the slow process is rule-governed and analytic and generates normative responses,
* - were developed during the 1980s and 1990s in various areas of psychology (e.g. Wason & Evans 1975; Evans
* 1989; Kahneman & Tversky 1982; Kahneman &  Frederick 2002; Chaiken 1980; Petty & Cacioppo  1986).
Dual-system theories (DSTs):
*- are more ambitious,
*- synthesize different dual-process distinctions,
*- attribute the fast and slow processes to two different multi-purpose mental systems (System 1 and System 2),
*- ascribe further features to the two systems, such as difference of evolutionary age, heritability, malleability,
*- are supported by evidence from (a) experimental manipulations, (b) neuroimaging, (c) studies of individual differences,
*- emerged in the late 1990s (e.g. Evans & Over 1996, Sloman 1996; Stanovich 1999, 2004). 
Quoted from: http://herbertsimonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Frankish_Dual-systems_HSS_handout.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.35.36.190 (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  More distinction/less interchangeability between "system" and "process"?  

message: The "evolution" subsection is currently found under the "evidence" section. This is odd, since no evidence is cited for the evolutionary claims, they are purely opinion and hypothesis. I suggest the "evolution" subsection be moved.
59.102.90.92 (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution subsection