Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Second-Order Thinking

fs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 266 posts

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#31

Post by crygin »

jdmoreira wrote: post #21
danw1979 wrote: post #19

This just in from the eggheads: actions have consequences. I think it’s more likely that what Smart People actually have isn’t some supernatural common sense that allows them to iterate over cause and effect to a greater degree than Joe Stupid, but rather a set of specific domain experience and knowledge that allows them to infer that particular effects follow particular events about which they are reasoning.

> This just in from the eggheads: actions have consequences. Everyone can understand that actions have (first-order) consequences. The problem is that most people stop there. But consequences also have consequences, those are second-order consequences. And you can follow the reasoning to nth-order consequences. The better game players (chess for example but can applied to anything) simply go deeper in the search tree…

This is not higher-order thinking (insofar as such exists). The search tree is first-order -- in a sufficiently complex game that the search tree cannot be fully examined, the heuristics necessary to perform at a high level without the need to explore the search tree are the second order. The third order is left as an exercise to the reader.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#33

Post by another-dave »

hef19898 wrote: post #17

>> First-order thinking is fast and easy. Most definitely not. Thinking about the processes and long term effects takes a deeo understanding of things, time to properly think it through, experience to get it right and constabt adjustments. So basiy the opposite of fast and easy. Pretending to practice second -order thinking is fast and easy. As is writing a short blog about it.

> Most definitely not. Thinking about the processes and long term effects takes a deeo understanding of things, time to properly think it through, experience to get it right and constabt adjustments.

Isn't what your describing second-order thinking though?

For example — "I'm hungry therefore I'll order a takeaway" is an easy decision, if you ignore any second order effects & consequences (e.g. impact on your health/finances).

It's layering in second (and third, fourth) order effects that requires the time to think through, experience, etc.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#34

Post by csours »

csours wrote: post #25

Hah, jokes on you! Second-Order thinking is what I use to torture my own brain and underperform.

Ok, here's a real comment about Second Order Thinking.

When trying to reduce my adiposity (lose fat mass), I get hungry. Everyone talks about diet and exercise. No one really talks about hunger. Dieticians talk about satiating foods - food that fills you up, but that is only one aspect. Last year I decided I need to find another way to experience hunger. Learning about this has greatly helped my efforts to get healthy. I highly recommend "The Hungry Brain" and some time with a Cognitive Behavior Therapist if you have had repeated difficulty in losing weight. Tell your therapist you want to change your relationship with food and learn how to handle the sensations of hunger. These are easy words to say, but to really change your learned behaviors takes a lot of time and effort.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#35

Post by noduerme »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #30

I use the predictive horizon model. It's not that there's a clear division between first order and second order thinking, it's that some people's ability to model consequences covers a narrow area, a few people can model successfully much further out, and a tiny minority can make astounding predictive leaps that reach far into the future. It's a continuous variable, not a Boolean. But it means most of the population…

In human terms, my older brother who I learned to code from (he left me his TRS-80/100 and the BASIC manual when I was 8, plus some Springsteen tapes, and gave up programming to become a federal prosecutor) told me:

Your problem is you can never look two weeks into the future. Which is now exactly the same thing I think about kids a decade younger than me. It's true, but they're not dumb, they just have to live awhile.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#36

Post by jrh206 »

noduerme wrote: post #24

Aaaand third order thinking is skimming this and knowing it's about as deep as the conversation I tried to have at a bar three hours ago when I explained I was just playing "devil's advocate" to someone who was already playing devil's advocate. Whenever I get desperate enough to start a blog full of deep thoughts that only gets posted here, watch out HN.

Indeed. Unfortunately the article lost me when I saw the graph of "extent to which you consider second order and subsequent consequences" vs "odds of success".

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#37

Post by gostsamo »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #30

I use the predictive horizon model. It's not that there's a clear division between first order and second order thinking, it's that some people's ability to model consequences covers a narrow area, a few people can model successfully much further out, and a tiny minority can make astounding predictive leaps that reach far into the future. It's a continuous variable, not a Boolean. But it means most of the population…

I call it the minority report problem.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#38

Post by smckk »

Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One by economist Thomas Sowell[0] explores this in good detail, applying it to political and economic policies, in his book.

Housing policies, medicare and today's problem of defund the police can be better analysed if the framework of second-order thinking is used to view the pros and cons of such policies and their subsequent ramifications.

Second-order thinking is a great mental model to have and helps us address some of the cognitive biases that get in our way when making choices.

To me this form of thinking is evident in chess, the evaluation necessary to make a single move gets us to look at the consequences after the third and fourth move before a final decision is made.

I believe when the time allows for it we should really consider the future ramifications of our actions before making a move.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Applied-Economics-Thinking-Beyond-Sta...

Post reply on HN