The reason this is a disingenuous argument is because it endeavors to restrict the definition of 'thinking' strictly to cognition - or further still, to cognition in the absence of recognition, which is actually quite absurd if you think about it. However, by definition thought has no such restriction - recognition and spontaneous ideas should hold as much weight, and can in fact speed up the process of cognition itself [0].

> The difference between "thinking faster" and shortcutting your thinking to reach a conclusion faster.

I don't see any difference between these two things - perhaps you can elaborate. In my opinion if you can shortcut your thinking to reach the same conclusion faster, you are in fact thinking faster for all intents and purposes.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Zm9sTfWnQ0

Think of it like simple decisions. X=>Y

You start with some of them: A=>B, C=>D, B=>C, E=>F, B=>G. You now get A, and need to decide which tool is better: D or F. You start the reasoning: A=>B=>G&C=>D. After 4 reasonings you arrive at the solution: D. If you need to do this reasoning several times, you 'learn' A=>D. Now, when you need to make the same reasoning, you do A=>B&D. You get the same output but twice as fast. You 'learned'. Muscle memory is also a very good example of this.

The objection is that spending more time thinking about something doesn’t guarantee more accurate responses. Often people’s first reaction is correct and they second guess themselves into making the wrong choice, thus so called shortcuts are just as valid as any other kind of thinking.

For the muscle memory example try really paying attention to walking and your going to be less stable.

I think a definition of thinking close to how the article is using the term is more like:

Thinking is a process of considering options and reaching a conclusion.

Using that definition, or something like it, then I think it's pretty evident that decision making shortcutting is an absence of thinking.

> Thinking is a process of considering options and reaching a conclusion.

Okay, let's take this definition of thinking as our basis. Presumably, a chess grand master is able to do this faster than a novice.

However, by your own argument, you're also calling this an absence of thinking. So, which is it?

A chess grandmaster knows better than to consider every option to the same depth. Pruning is choosing what not to think about. I wouldn't expect grandmasters improve by increasing their positions evaluated/second throughout their career.

As an amateur chess player (2000/rapid/lichess) I wouldn't say the speed or amount of thinking I do has changed as I've gotten better in terms of the number of moves I evaluate. In fact it feels like I frequently think less now than when I was worse.

My brain has compressed/chunked patterns so that I can immediately see what the optimal move or set of candidate moves are instead of having to determine them more computationally.

I'm not sure how that fits into the framework of this article. Something like the number of calculations remains static but total work done per calculation increases.

Much of the debate in this comment thread is a result of these concepts being fuzzily defined in the article itself.

You memoized some of the computation.

"Think rate is fixed" glosses over activities with compounding returns. Learning!

Better abstractions and heuristics can have an enormous impact on problem solving efficiency.

First-principles thinking is a powerful hammer, but it's expensive. Over-use it and you'll get nothing done. Under-use it, and you'll do nothing original. Knowing where to use it is the trick, and that's _also_ a skill that can be improved over time.

Chess GMs certainly prune better, but can also evaluate moves faster because they can easily hold multiple boards in their head. It's common for strong GMs to play 10+ blindfold simul games. Nakamura solving chess puzzles is a sight to see.

How is knowing what to prune not thought?

Sometimes it is, then it would be thinking in this context. Other times it's pattern matching which isn't analytical thinking.

I’m still having a hard time understanding the distinction. How is pattern matching not thinking?

This distinction is captured in "Thinking Fast and Slow"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

Doing less thinking to reach a conclusion quickly isn't the same thing as thinking faster.

It's a meaningful distinction because there are physical and mental costs (calories and stress) to trying to "think faster" that don't accrue the same when making decisions based on learnings.

You've abandoned "thinking is a process of considering options and reaching a conclusion" now.

> making decisions based on learnings

This is the ONLY type of thinking there is. Ergo, you can 'think faster' for any given discipline with practice.

> You've abandoned "thinking is a process of considering options and reaching a conclusion" now

This is a big claim to make without any explanation of why you think that.

I'm forced to conclude you're not discussing in good faith. Bye.

If the process of considering options and reaching the correct conclusion concludes faster and that is our definition of thinking, it should follow that the thinking is faster. Somewhere in your last comment you must've pivoted your definition, because you described it rather as thinking 'less' and saying that it is NOT the same thing as thinking faster. That's perfectly fine, of course, but it left me confused as to what definition you were now using.

It's a shame you've decided to abandon the argument.

> If the process of considering options and reaching the correct conclusion concludes faster and that is our definition of thinking, it should follow that the thinking is faster.

That doesn't follow because once you've mastered something you consider less options to reach a conclusion than a novice. One reaches the correct conclusion whit less thinking, not faster thinking.

Following your logic a person taking a shortcut from point A to point B is doing the same amount of driving as somebody not taking the shortcut, they are just driving faster.

Agreed, you can see it as operating on a compressed version of the original domain. Your symbolic reasoning may not be faster but your symbols change, through your own dictionary optimization.

> Eventually you are faced with a task that looks on the surface like the type of task you use tool X for, so you start working. After a while it turns out that it would be best to use tool Y. Now you've wasted a bunch of time using the wrong tool because you used a shortcut to avoid thinking, instead of taking the time to think.

I'd caution that for many tasks, using a close enough tool can be good enough, and an experienced user of a "close enough" tool may very well get results rapidly.

Regular Expressions are a great example of this. I've done stuff with regular expressions that a proper parser or tool modifying ASTs would be "correct" for[1], and if I learned to use those specialized tools I'd be better off, for that one particular task. But the fact is regular expressions serve to sub-optimally solve a lot of different problems. I'd make the argument that the total time I've spent learning regex's and then solving a lot of problems with them at 80% speed has been a more efficient use of time than if I'd learned a bunch of one off "ideal" tools.

[1] I have a ~bad~ habit of generating large repetitive chunks of code using regexs.

> It's a dumb example but I think it illustrates the difference between "thinking faster" and shortcutting your thinking to reach a conclusion faster.

As in the old joke:

Q: What's the difference between a novice and an expert?

A: The novice thinks twice before doing something stupid.