<p>From my understanding about cognitive psychology and social psychology, the whole route from when people meet new unknown thing to when they making judgement about it is like this:</p>

<ol>
<li>First people <strong>perceive</strong> information about the subject</li>
<li>Then they <strong>memorize</strong> it</li>
<li>When they meet new information, they recall the old one to <strong>organize, categorize</strong> or <strong>re-categorize existing knowledge</strong>, using logic</li>
<li>This may create <strong>cognitive dissonance</strong>, and after a while they will <strong>solve this problem</strong></li>
<li>After that, the decision is formed, and their <strong>attitudes</strong> toward the subject is changed or strengthened</li>
</ol>

<p>But each topics are fragmented and studied by their owns (perception &amp; attention, memory, knowledge representation, problem solving, attitude), not unifying in a single topic. For example, I notice a recurring theme in those topics, which I term as "clearness" and "fadedness":</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/puXaW.png" alt=""></p>

<p>I'm aware of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">dual process theory</a> and I think this is it. However I prefer the "clearness – fadedness" naming because it is more visual to me than "system 1 – system 2". Anyway, the problem is that in that page I don't see how the interactions between two systems are discussed <strong>in its own term</strong>. All I see is that it describes which specific process belong to which system, but when it needs to describe how the two systems interact with each other, specific models are used. </p>

<p><sup>Here we see the convenience of the "clearness – fadedness" naming: we can say that a clearness fades away to become a fadedness, or a fadedness is unfaded and become a clearness. With "system 1 – system 2" we don't have the verbs and adjectives to describe it visually. Or perhaps because in our language there is no suitable word to describe the transformation of the systems, we don't have a model to describe its interactions?</sup></p>

<p><strong>Q:</strong> What are the interactions between each system, described in its own term?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-12T17:57:54.130Z
Has anyone else that you know of used "clearness" and "fadedness" to refer to the different systems of dual process theory? Those terms seem very inconsistent with dual process theory in my view, and it won't help you to redefine existing terms in your own words if those words are incorrect, you'll just cause yourself confusion. Maybe instead you can learn more about dual process until you understand it better?
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-13T02:45:03.503Z
@BryanKrause yes, it was before I knew about the dual process theory. Do you have any good texts on it?
Ooker
<cognitive-psychology><dual-process>
In the dual process theory, how are the two systems interact with each other?
Ooker
# In the dual process theory, how are the two systems interact with each other?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-02-12)

From my understanding about cognitive psychology and social psychology, the whole route from when people meet new unknown thing to when they making judgement about it is like this:

1. First people **perceive** information about the subject
2. Then they **memorize** it
3. When they meet new information, they recall the old one to **organize, categorize** or **re-categorize existing knowledge**, using logic
4. This may create **cognitive dissonance**, and after a while they will **solve this problem**
5. After that, the decision is formed, and their **attitudes** toward the subject is changed or strengthened

But each topics are fragmented and studied by their owns (perception & attention, memory, knowledge representation, problem solving, attitude), not unifying in a single topic. For example, I notice a recurring theme in those topics, which I term as "clearness" and "fadedness":

![](https://i.sstatic.net/puXaW.png)

I'm aware of the [dual process theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory) and I think this is it. However I prefer the "clearness – fadedness" naming because it is more visual to me than "system 1 – system 2". Anyway, the problem is that in that page I don't see how the interactions between two systems are discussed **in its own term**. All I see is that it describes which specific process belong to which system, but when it needs to describe how the two systems interact with each other, specific models are used.

Here we see the convenience of the "clearness – fadedness" naming: we can say that a clearness fades away to become a fadedness, or a fadedness is unfaded and become a clearness. With "system 1 – system 2" we don't have the verbs and adjectives to describe it visually. Or perhaps because in our language there is no suitable word to describe the transformation of the systems, we don't have a model to describe its interactions?

**Q:** What are the interactions between each system, described in its own term?

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, dual-process

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Has anyone else that you know of used "clearness" and "fadedness" to refer to the different systems of dual process theory? Those terms seem very inconsistent with dual process theory in my view, and it won't help you to redefine existing terms in your own words if those words are incorrect, you'll just cause yourself confusion. Maybe instead you can learn more about dual process until you understand it better?  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause yes, it was before I knew about the dual process theory. Do you have any good texts on it?  

---

## 0 answers

