7.3 The Critic-Selector Model of Mind

I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated. —Poul Anderson

No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it. —Charles Schulz

We frequently change what we’re thinking about, without noticing that we are doing this—because it is mainly when some trouble comes that we start to reflect about thinking itself. Thus, we don’t recognize a problem as ‘hard’ until we’ve spent some time on it without making any significant progress. Even then, if that problem does not seem important, you might just abandon that line of thought and simply turn to some other subject.

However, if you have an important goal, then it is useful to notice that you are stuck—and it will be even more useful if you also can recognize that you’re being blocked by a certain particular type of barrier, obstacle, impasse, or snag. For if you are able to diagnose the particular “Type of Problem” you face, then that knowledge can help you to switch to a more appropriate “Way to Think.”

This suggests a Model of Mind based on reacting to ‘cognitive obstacles.’ We’ll call this the Critic-Selector model:

On the left are resources that we shall call Critics, each of which can recognize a certain species of “Problem-Type.” When a Critic sees enough evidence that you now are facing its type of problem, then that Critic will try to activate a “Way to Think” that may be useful in this situation.

For example, a Critic-Selector model could embody a set of ‘rules’ like these:

If a problem seems familiar, try reasoning by Analogy. If it seems unfamiliar, change how you’re describing it. If it still seems too difficult, divide it into several parts. If it seems too complex, replace it by a simpler one. If no other method works, ask another person for help.

Every person accumulates a collection of different “Ways to Think” because, as we’ve repeated many times, no single method or mental technique can solve every kind of problem-type; however, if we have enough of them then, whenever the one we’re using fails, we’ll be able to switch to a different one.

However, there is a problem that is sure to arise in any system based on If-Then rules: what if more than one Critic or “If” is aroused? [2] Then we might decide which one to use by adopting some policy like these:

Choose the Critic with the highest priority. [Ref: GPS]

Choose the one that is most strongly aroused. [Ref. Pandemonium] Choose the one that gives the most specific advice. [Ref. Raphael] Have them all compete in some ‘marketplace.’ [See §9-X]

Simple strategies like these will work in simple cases, but will fail in more complex situations. Then we’ll need higher-level Critics that recognize and suggest ways to change our bad selections of low-level Critics:

 If too many Critics are aroused, then describe the problem in more detail.
 If too few Critics are aroused, then make the description more abstract.

 If important resources conflict, then try to discover a cause for this.

 If there has been a series of failures, then switch to a different set of Critics.

Sometimes we recognize, after the fact, that our selections may have been incorrect, and that we may need to edit our collection of Critics:

I selected a hard-to-use method, but realized that I knew a simpler yet better one.

I now see that the action I took had a bad, irreversible side effect.

I regarded that as an obstacle, but now I see that it was valuable.

Although that method caused some trouble, I learned a lot from using it.

To recognize those kinds of events would require Critics that work at higher levels—and all this suggests that our model of mind should include Selectors and Critics at every level. [3]

The following sections will discuss some of our many Ways to Think, and some of the Critics we use to recognize various ways in which we get stuck.