Second-Order Thinking • Hacker News Board

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#261

Post by uoaei » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 5:28 PM UTC

atoav wrote: post #86

kqr wrote: post #60

This article, and some of the comments here, seem to confuse "second-order" with "long-term". Long-term just means doing the same analysis far out into the future: "If I spend less on maintaining software product $LEGACY, I will save money. If I continue to do this, I will save more and more money by each passing month." Second-order means discovering neighbouring causal links. "If I spend less on maintaining softwar…

I am not particularily familiar with the connotation of the term second-order-thinking , but to me it implies the somewhat mathematical meaning of it. The first order might be some value (e.g. a voltage) and the second order might be the rate with which that voltage changes and the third the rate with which this rate changes etc. To me this implies that thinking on a higher order is somewhat about stepping back and v…

The connotation of the term second-order refers to systems-thinking principles.

In the causal graph of entities interacting in a system, considering one element of the system, second-order thinking corresponds to considering effects on neighbors of that element which are caused by changes to that element itself.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#262

Post by dcanelhas » Tue, Aug 16, 2022, 7:08 PM UTC

I think this sounds like using a Markov process to model a current state and reachable states, at two steps away, and tryimg to assign transition probabilities between them. The flaw I see in this approach is that one has limited sensing (don't really know the true state of things) and likely a large number of possible transitions to other states that are outside of one's influence or ability to predict. But I guess it may work well in limited domains, with few variables/agents and it's probably better to give it some thought rather than ignoring it completely.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#263

Post by wawjgreen » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 6:32 AM UTC

ehnto wrote: post #177

wawjgreen wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the first things skeptics should be skeptical about is skepticism itself: are they right in being skeptical about what they are skeptical about?

If in their analysis, they come to the conclusion that they shouldn't be skeptical, does that make them the best skeptic or the worst?

the best if their skepticism is carefully done.

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#264

Post by ephbit » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 7:33 PM UTC

phforms wrote: post #259

Thinking in systems, their interactions, feedback-cycles and causal dependencies is a very important and underdeveloped skill for any person, regardless of profession, since we all live and have to make decisions in an increasingly messy/complex/interactive environment. I believe second/nth-order thinking can help with that. From my personal experience I can recommend the free online course “Introduction to Complexit…

> ... we all live and have to make decisions in an increasingly messy/complex/interactive environment.

Sorry for isolating this one aspect from the rest of your post.

But this is IMO a very important yet too seldom discussed aspect of our modern societies.

What's the outcome of fixed (more or less) cognitive capacity brains being confronted with ever increasing complexity of society?

Can it be a favourable outcome?

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#265

Post by trasz » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 8:52 AM UTC

verisimi wrote: post #45

I stopped here: > It’s often easier to identify when people didn’t adequately consider the second and subsequent order impacts. For example, consider a country that, wanting to inspire regime change in another country, funds and provides weapons to a group of “moderate rebels.” Only it turns out that those moderate rebels will become powerful and then go to war with the sponsoring country for decades. Whoops. The aut…

>countries don't think! People think

“People don’t think, their neurons think”

Re: Second-Order Thinking

#266

Post by omginternets » Sat, Aug 20, 2022, 9:12 PM UTC

Akronymus wrote: post #258

omginternets wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If x, then y" is one implication, so that's first-order reasoning. "If y, then z" is second-order reasoning.

Wouldn't "if x, then y because z" be second order?

As I see it, z is a different type than x and y. It’s the causal arrow linking x to y. The existence of a second causal arrow would make it second-order.