Steven Poole at The Guardian:
Depending on which source of pop-rationality you consult, there are three, five, six or more ways of thinking that need to be mastered before the psychology-entertainment complex will consider you “smart”. So is there a good argument for four? And is making good arguments one of them?
Well, here one will not learn about syllogisms or the perils of affirming the consequent. The author, a professor of applied mathematics, has instead adapted a classification of natural systems once proposed by the whiz-kid Stephen Wolfram to describe in turn four ways of understanding the world: statistical, interactive, chaotic and complex. Statistics can help uncover broad truths across populations, such as, for example, the basic truths of healthy eating, but headline-grabbing claims can be statistically underpowered and so unreliable, as Sumpter lucidly demonstrates with claims such as that psychological “grit” is a hugely important factor in success.
more here.