Editing Thought (section)

==Types of thinking==
A great variety of types of thinking are discussed in the academic literature. A common approach divides them into those forms that aim at the creation of theoretical knowledge and those that aim at producing actions or correct decisions,<ref name="BorchertThinking">{{cite book |last1=Borchert |first1=Donald |title=Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition |date=2006 |publisher=Macmillan |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/BORMEO |chapter=Thinking}}</ref> but there is no universally accepted taxonomy summarizing all these types.

===Entertaining, judging, and reasoning===
Thinking is often identified with the act of [[Judgment|judging]]. A judgment is a mental operation in which a proposition is evoked and then either affirmed or denied.<ref name="Crowell"/><ref name="Schmidt">{{cite book |last1=Schmidt |first1=R. W. |title=New Catholic Encyclopedia |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/judgment |chapter=Judgment}}</ref> It involves deciding what to believe and aims at determining whether the judged proposition is true or false.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sgarbi |first1=Marco |title=Theories of Judgment. Historical and Theoretical Perspectives |journal=Quaestio |date=2006 |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=589–592 |doi=10.1484/J.QUAESTIO.2.302491 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/SGATOJ}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Robins |first1=E. P. |title=Modern Theories of Judgment |journal=Philosophical Review |date=1898 |volume=7 |issue=6 |pages=583–603 |doi=10.2307/2176171 |jstor=2176171 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/ROBMTO}}</ref> Various theories of judgment have been proposed. The traditionally dominant approach is the combination theory. It states that judgments consist in the combination of concepts.<ref name="Rojszczak">{{cite journal |last1=Rojszczak |first1=Artur |last2=Smith |first2=Barry |title=Theories of Judgment |journal=The Cambridge History of Philosophy 1870-1945 |date=2003 |pages=157–173 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/ROJTOJ |publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/CHOL9780521591041.013 |isbn=978-0521591041 }}</ref> On this view, to judge that "all men are mortal" is to combine the concepts "man" and "mortal". The same concepts can be combined in different ways, corresponding to different forms of judgment, for example, as "some men are mortal" or "no man is mortal".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Hanna |first1=Robert |title=Kant's Theory of Judgment |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-judgment/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=24 October 2021 |date=2018}}</ref>

Other theories of judgment focus more on the relation between the judged proposition and reality. According to [[Franz Brentano]], a judgment is either a belief or a disbelief in the existence of some entity.<ref name="Rojszczak"/><ref name="Brandl">{{cite web |last1=Brandl |first1=Johannes L. |last2=Textor |first2=Mark |title=Brentano's Theory of Judgement |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brentano-judgement/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=24 October 2021 |date=2020}}</ref> In this sense, there are only two fundamental forms of judgment: "A exists" and "A does not exist". When applied to the sentence "all men are mortal", the entity in question is "immortal men", of whom it is said that they do not exist.<ref name="Rojszczak"/><ref name="Brandl"/> Important for Brentano is the distinction between the mere representation of the content of the judgment and the affirmation or the denial of the content.<ref name="Rojszczak"/><ref name="Brandl"/> The mere representation of a proposition is often referred to as "entertaining a proposition". This is the case, for example, when one considers a proposition but has not yet made up one's mind about whether it is true or false.<ref name="Rojszczak"/><ref name="Brandl"/> The term "thinking" can refer both to judging and to mere entertaining. This difference is often explicit in the way the thought is expressed: "thinking that" usually involves a judgment whereas "thinking about" refers to the neutral representation of a proposition without an accompanying belief. In this case, the proposition is merely ''entertained'' but not yet ''judged''.<ref name="Mandelbaum2"/> Some forms of thinking may involve the representation of objects without any propositions, as when someone is thinking about their grandmother.<ref name="Crowell"/>

Reasoning is one of the most paradigmatic forms of thinking. It is the process of drawing conclusions from premises or evidence. Types of reasoning can be divided into deductive and non-deductive reasoning. [[Deductive reasoning]] is governed by certain [[rules of inference]], which guarantee the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true.<ref name="BritannicaThought"/><ref name="Vinacke">{{cite book |last1=Vinacke |first1=W. Edgar |title=International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/sociology-general-terms-and-concepts/thinking |chapter=Thought}}</ref> For example, given the premises "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man", it follows deductively that "Socrates is mortal". Non-deductive reasoning, also referred to as [[defeasible reasoning]] or [[non-monotonic reasoning]], is still rationally compelling but the truth of the conclusion is not ensured by the truth of the premises.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pollock |first1=John L. |title=Defeasible Reasoning |journal=Cognitive Science |date=1987 |volume=11 |issue=4 |pages=481–518 |doi=10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4 |doi-access=free }}</ref> [[Inductive reasoning|Induction]] is one form of non-deductive reasoning, for example, when one concludes that "the sun will rise tomorrow" based on one's experiences of all the previous days. Other forms of non-deductive reasoning include the [[inference to the best explanation]] and [[analogical reasoning]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Koons |first1=Robert |title=Defeasible Reasoning |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-defeasible/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=16 October 2021 |date=2021}}</ref>

[[Fallacies]] are faulty forms of thinking that go against the norms of correct reasoning. [[Formal fallacies]] concern faulty inferences found in deductive reasoning.<ref name="HansenFallacy">{{cite web |last1=Hansen |first1=Hans |title=Fallacies |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=18 March 2021 |date=2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Vleet |first1=Van Jacob E. |title=Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide |date=2010 |publisher=Upa |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/VLEILF |chapter=Introduction}}</ref> [[Denying the antecedent]] is one type of formal fallacy, for example, "If Othello is a bachelor, then he is male. Othello is not a bachelor. Therefore, Othello is not male".<ref name="BritannicaThought"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stone |first1=Mark A. |title=Denying the Antecedent: Its Effective Use in Argumentation |journal=Informal Logic |date=2012 |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=327–356 |doi=10.22329/il.v32i3.3681 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/STODTA|doi-access=free }}</ref> [[Informal fallacies]], on the other hand, apply to all types of reasoning. The source of their flaw is to be found in the ''content'' or the ''context'' of the argument.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Dowden |first1=Bradley |title=Fallacies |url=https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=19 March 2021}}</ref><ref name="HansenFallacy"/><ref name="John Benjamins">{{cite book |last1=Walton |first1=Douglas N. |title=Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms |date=1987 |publisher=John Benjamins |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/WALIFT |chapter=1. A new model of argument}}</ref> This is often caused by ambiguous or vague expressions in [[natural language]], as in "Feathers are light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, feathers cannot be dark".<ref name="philpapers.org">{{cite book |last1=Engel |first1=S. Morris |title=With Good Reason an Introduction to Informal Fallacies |date=1982 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/ENGWGR |chapter=2. The medium of language|publisher=St. Martin's Press }}</ref> An important aspect of fallacies is that they seem to be rationally compelling on the first look and thereby seduce people into accepting and committing them.<ref name="HansenFallacy"/> Whether an act of reasoning constitutes a fallacy does not depend on whether the premises are true or false but on their relation to the conclusion and, in some cases, on the context.<ref name="BritannicaThought"/>

===Concept formation===
[[Concept]]s are general notions that constitute the fundamental building blocks of thought.<ref name="Margolis">{{cite web |last1= Margolis |first1=Eric |last2=Laurence |first2=Stephen |title=Concepts |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=28 September 2021 |date=2021}}</ref><ref name="BritannicaThoughtsAndAttitudes">{{cite web |title=Philosophy of mind – Thoughts and attitudes |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-mind/Thoughts-and-attitudes |website= Encyclopedia Britannica |access-date= 16 October 2021 |language=en}}</ref> They are rules that govern how objects are sorted into different classes.<ref name="BritannicaConceptFormation">{{cite web |title=Concept formation |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/concept-formation |website=Encyclopedia Britannica |access-date=16 October 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Kazdin"/> A person can only think about a proposition if they possess the concepts involved in this proposition.<ref name="Fodor">{{cite journal |last1=Fodor |first1=Jerry |title=Having Concepts: A Brief Refutation of the Twentieth Century |journal=Mind and Language |date=2004 |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=29–47 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-0017.2004.00245.x |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/FODHCA}}</ref> For example, the proposition "[[wombat]]s are animals" involves the concepts "wombat" and "animal". Someone who does not possess the concept "wombat" may still be able to read the sentence but cannot entertain the corresponding proposition. Concept formation is a form of thinking in which new concepts are acquired.<ref name="Kazdin">{{cite book |editor1-last=Kazdin |editor1-first=Alan E. |title=Encyclopedia of Psychology |date=2000 |publisher=American Psychological Association |isbn=978-1-55798-187-5 |url=https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4600100 |chapter=Thinking: An Overview}}</ref> It involves becoming familiar with the characteristic features shared by all instances of the corresponding type of entity and developing the ability to identify positive and negative cases. This process usually corresponds to learning the meaning of the word associated with the type in question.<ref name="BritannicaConceptFormation"/><ref name="Kazdin"/> There are various theories concerning how concepts and concept possession are to be understood.<ref name="Margolis"/> The use of [[metaphor]] may aid in the processes of concept formation.<ref>
{{cite book
 |last1                = Ortony
 |first1               = Andrew
 |editor-last1         = Ortony
 |editor-first1        = Andrew
 |date                 = 26 November 1993
 |orig-date            = 1979
 |chapter              = Metaphor, language, and thought
 |title                = Metaphor and Thought
 |url                  = https://books.google.com/books?id=QiJRvuXA_VcC
 |edition              = 2
 |publication-place    = Cambridge
 |publisher            = Cambridge University Press
 |page                 = 2
 |isbn                 = 9780521405614
 |access-date          = 21 February 2024
 |quote                = The constructivist approach seems to entail an important role for metaphor in both language and thought [...].
}} 
</ref>

According to one popular view, concepts are to be understood in terms of [[Ability#Concepts and concept possession |abilities]]. On this view, two central aspects characterize concept possession: the ability to discriminate between positive and negative cases and the ability to draw inferences from this concept to related concepts. Concept formation corresponds to acquiring these abilities.<ref name="Fodor"/><ref name="Weiskopf">{{cite journal |last1=Weiskopf |first1=Daniel A. |last2=Bechtel |first2=William |title=Remarks on Fodor on Having Concepts |journal=Mind and Language |date=2004 |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=48–56 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-0017.2004.00246.x |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/WEIROF}}</ref><ref name="Margolis"/> It has been suggested that animals are also able to learn concepts to some extent, due to their ability to discriminate between different types of situations and to adjust their behavior accordingly.<ref name="BritannicaConceptFormation"/><ref>{{cite web |title=Learning theory |url=https://www.britannica.com/science/learning-theory |website=Encyclopedia Britannica |access-date=16 October 2021 |language=en}}
</ref>

===Problem solving===
In the case of [[problem solving]], thinking aims at reaching a predefined goal by overcoming certain obstacles.<ref name="Mole"/><ref name="BritannicaThought"/><ref name="Kazdin"/> This process often involves two different forms of thinking. On the one hand, ''divergent thinking'' aims at coming up with as many alternative solutions as possible. On the other hand, ''convergent thinking'' tries to narrow down the range of alternatives to the most promising candidates.<ref name="BritannicaThought"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Kim |first1=Kyung Hee |last2=Pierce |first2=Robert A. |title=Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship |chapter=Convergent Versus Divergent Thinking |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-3858-8_22 |publisher=Springer |access-date=24 October 2021 |pages=245–250 |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_22 |date=2013 |isbn=978-1-4614-3857-1 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Razumnikova |first1=Olga M. |title=Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship |chapter=Divergent Versus Convergent Thinking |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-3858-8_362 |publisher=Springer |access-date=24 October 2021 |pages=546–552 |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_362 |date=2013 |isbn=978-1-4614-3857-1 }}</ref> Some researchers identify various steps in the process of problem solving. These steps include recognizing the problem, trying to understand its nature, identifying general criteria the solution should meet, deciding how these criteria should be prioritized, monitoring the progress, and evaluating the results.<ref name="BritannicaThought"/>

An important distinction concerns the type of problem that is faced. For ''well-structured problems'', it is easy to determine which steps need to be taken to solve them, but executing these steps may still be difficult.<ref name="BritannicaThought"/><ref name="Reed"/> For ill-structured problems, on the other hand, it is not clear what steps need to be taken, i.e. there is no clear formula that would lead to success if followed correctly. In this case, the solution may sometimes come in a flash of insight in which the problem is suddenly seen in a new light.<ref name="BritannicaThought"/><ref name="Reed">{{cite journal |last1=Reed |first1=Stephen K. |title=The Structure of Ill-Structured (and Well-Structured) Problems Revisited |journal=Educational Psychology Review |date=1 December 2016 |volume=28 |issue=4 |pages=691–716 |doi=10.1007/s10648-015-9343-1 |s2cid=146496245 |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-015-9343-1 |language=en |issn=1573-336X}}</ref> Another way to categorize different forms of problem solving is by distinguishing between [[algorithm]]s and [[heuristic]]s.<ref name="Kazdin"/> An algorithm is a formal procedure in which each step is clearly defined. It guarantees success if applied correctly.<ref name="BritannicaThought"/><ref name="Kazdin"/> The [[Multiplication algorithm#Long multiplication|long multiplication]] usually taught in school is an example of an algorithm for solving the problem of multiplying big numbers. Heuristics, on the other hand, are informal procedures. They are rough rules-of-thumb that tend to bring the thinker closer to the solution but success is not guaranteed in every case even if followed correctly.<ref name="BritannicaThought"/><ref name="Kazdin"/> Examples of heuristics are working forward and working backward. These approaches involve planning one step at a time, either starting at the beginning and moving forward or starting at the end and moving backward. So when planning a trip, one could plan the different stages of the trip from origin to destiny in the chronological order of how the trip will be realized, or in the reverse order.<ref name="BritannicaThought"/>

Obstacles to problem solving can arise from the thinker's failure to take certain possibilities into account by fixating on one specific course of action.<ref name="BritannicaThought"/> There are important differences between how novices and experts solve problems. For example, experts tend to allocate more time for conceptualizing the problem and work with more complex representations whereas novices tend to devote more time to executing putative solutions.<ref name="BritannicaThought"/>

===Deliberation and decision===
[[Deliberation]] is an important form of practical thinking. It aims at formulating possible courses of action and assessing their value by considering the reasons for and against them.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Arpaly |first1=N. |last2=Schroeder |first2=T. |title=Deliberation and Acting for Reasons |journal=Philosophical Review |date=2012 |volume=121 |issue=2 |pages=209–239 |doi=10.1215/00318108-1539089 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/ARPDAA}}</ref> This involves foresight to anticipate what might happen. Based on this foresight, different courses of action can be formulated in order to influence what will happen. Decisions are an important part of deliberation. They are about comparing alternative courses of action and choosing the most favorable one.<ref name="Vinacke"/><ref name="BorchertThinking"/> [[Decision theory]] is a formal model of how ideal rational agents would make decisions.<ref name="Kazdin"/><ref name="Steele">{{cite web |last1=Steele |first1=Katie |last2=Stefánsson |first2=H. Orri |title=Decision Theory |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/decision-theory/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=24 October 2021 |date=2020}}</ref><ref name="Buchak">{{cite book |author-link=Lara Buchak|last1=Buchak |first1=Lara |title=The Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy |date=2016 |publisher=Oxford University Press |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/BUCDT |chapter=Decision Theory}}</ref> It is based on the idea that they should always choose the alternative with the highest expected value. Each alternative can lead to various possible outcomes, each of which has a different value. The expected value of an alternative consists in the sum of the values of each outcome associated with it multiplied by the probability that this outcome occurs.<ref name="Steele"/><ref name="Buchak"/> According to decision theory, a decision is rational if the agent chooses the alternative associated with the highest expected value, as assessed from the agent's own perspective.<ref name="Steele"/><ref name="Buchak"/>

Various theorists emphasize the practical nature of thought, i.e. that thinking is usually guided by some kind of task it aims to solve. In this sense, thinking has been compared to trial-and-error seen in animal behavior when faced with a new problem. On this view, the important difference is that this process happens inwardly as a form of simulation.<ref name="BritannicaThought"/> This process is often much more efficient since once the solution is found in thought, only the behavior corresponding to the found solution has to be outwardly carried out and not all the others.<ref name="BritannicaThought"/>

===Episodic memory and imagination===
When thinking is understood in a wide sense, it includes both [[episodic memory]] and [[imagination]].<ref name="DictThink"/> In episodic memory, events one experienced in the past are relived.<ref name="Perrin">{{cite journal |last1=Perrin |first1=Denis |last2=Michaelian |first2=Kourken |last3=Sant’Anna |first3=André |title=The Phenomenology of Remembering Is an Epistemic Feeling |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |date=2020 |volume=11 |pages=1531 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01531 |pmid=32719642 |pmc=7350950 |issn=1664-1078|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Gardiner">{{cite journal |last1=Gardiner |first1=J. M. |title=Episodic memory and autonoetic consciousness: a first-person approach |journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences |date=29 September 2001 |volume=356 |issue=1413 |pages=1351–1361 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2001.0955 |pmid=11571027 |pmc=1088519 |issn=0962-8436}}</ref><ref name="Michaelian3">{{cite web |last1=Michaelian |first1=Kourken |last2=Sutton |first2=John |title=Memory: 3. Episodicity |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/memory/#Epis |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=2 October 2021 |date=2017}}</ref> It is a form of mental time travel in which the past experience is re-experienced.<ref name="Michaelian3"/><ref>{{cite web |last1=Tulving |first1=Endel |title=Learning and Memory: Episodic Memory |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/psychology/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/episodic-memory}}</ref> But this does not constitute an exact copy of the original experience since the episodic memory involves additional aspects and information not present in the original experience. This includes both a feeling of familiarity and chronological information about the past event in relation to the present.<ref name="Perrin"/><ref name="Michaelian3"/> Memory aims at representing how things actually were in the past, in contrast to imagination, which presents objects without aiming to show how things actually are or were.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Michaelian |first1=Kourken |last2=Sutton |first2=John |title=Memory: 4. Mnemicity |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/memory/#Mnem |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=2 October 2021 |date=2017}}</ref> Because of this missing link to actuality, more freedom is involved in most forms of imagination: its contents can be freely varied, changed, and recombined to create new arrangements never experienced before.<ref name="Manser"/> Episodic memory and imagination have in common with other forms of thought that they can arise internally without any stimulation of the sensory organs.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Russell |first1=Bertrand |title=Sensation and Imagination |journal=The Monist |date=1915 |volume=25 |issue=1 |pages=28–44 |doi=10.5840/monist191525136 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/RUSSAI}}</ref><ref name="Manser">{{cite web |last1=Manser |first1=A. R. |title=Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Imagination |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/medicine/psychology/psychology-and-psychiatry/imagination |access-date=3 October 2021}}</ref> But they are still closer to sensation than more abstract forms of thought since they present sensory contents that could, at least in principle, also be perceived.

===Unconscious thought===
[[Conscious]] thought is the paradigmatic form of thinking and is often the focus of the corresponding research. But it has been argued that some forms of thought also happen on the [[Unconscious mind|unconscious level]].<ref name="Garrison">{{cite journal |last1=Garrison |first1=Katie E. |last2=Handley |first2=Ian M. |title=Not Merely Experiential: Unconscious Thought Can Be Rational |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |date=2017 |volume=8 |pages=1096 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01096 |pmid=28729844 |pmc=5498519 |issn=1664-1078|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Dijksterhuis">{{cite journal |last1=Dijksterhuis |first1=Ap |last2=Nordgren |first2=Loran F. |title=A Theory of Unconscious Thought |journal=Perspectives on Psychological Science |date=1 June 2006 |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=95–109 |doi=10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00007.x |pmid=26151465 |s2cid=7875280 |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00007.x |language=en |issn=1745-6916|hdl=2066/55863 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Breyer">{{cite book |last1=Breyer |first1=Thiemo |last2=Gutland |first2=Christopher |title=Phenomenology of Thinking: Philosophical Investigations into the Character of Cognitive Experiences |date=2015 |pages=1–24 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/BREI-15 |chapter=Introduction|publisher=Routledge }}</ref><ref name="Nida-rümelin"/> Unconscious thought is thought that happens in the background without being experienced. It is therefore not observed directly. Instead, its existence is usually inferred by other means.<ref name="Dijksterhuis"/> For example, when someone is faced with an important decision or a difficult problem, they may not be able to solve it straight away. But then, at a later time, the solution may suddenly flash before them even though no conscious steps of thinking were taken towards this solution in the meantime.<ref name="Dijksterhuis"/><ref name="Garrison"/> In such cases, the cognitive labor needed to arrive at a solution is often explained in terms of unconscious thoughts. The central idea is that a cognitive transition happened and we need to posit unconscious thoughts to be able to explain how it happened.<ref name="Dijksterhuis"/><ref name="Garrison"/>

It has been argued that conscious and unconscious thoughts differ not just concerning their relation to experience but also concerning their capacities. According to [[Unconscious thought theory|unconscious thought theorists]], for example, conscious thought excels at simple problems with few variables but is outperformed by unconscious thought when complex problems with many variables are involved.<ref name="Dijksterhuis"/><ref name="Garrison"/> This is sometimes explained through the claim that the number of items one can consciously think about at the same time is rather limited whereas unconscious thought lacks such limitations.<ref name="Dijksterhuis"/> But other researchers have rejected the claim that unconscious thought is often superior to conscious thought.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Abbott |first1=Alison |title=Unconscious thought not so smart after all |journal=Nature |date=1 January 2015 |volume=517 |issue=7536 |pages=537–538 |doi=10.1038/517537a |pmid=25631423 |bibcode=2015Natur.517..537A |language=en |issn=1476-4687}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mealor |first1=Andy David |last2=Dienes |first2=Zoltan |title=Conscious and Unconscious Thought in Artificial Grammar Learning |journal=Consciousness and Cognition |date=2012 |volume=21 |issue=2 |pages=865–874 |doi=10.1016/j.concog.2012.03.001 |pmid=22472202 |s2cid=40114660 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/MEACAU}}</ref> Other suggestions for the difference between the two forms of thinking include that conscious thought tends to follow formal logical laws while unconscious thought relies more on associative processing and that only conscious thinking is conceptually articulated and happens through the medium of language.<ref name="Dijksterhuis"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fowles |first1=Christopher |title=Nietzsche on conscious and unconscious thought |journal=Inquiry |date=2 January 2019 |volume=62 |issue=1 |pages=1–22 |doi=10.1080/0020174X.2019.1527537 |s2cid=171812391 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0020174X.2019.1527537?journalCode=sinq20 |issn=0020-174X}}</ref>