This is basically an argument between heuristic and algorithm thinking, which are still compared today.
Care to elaborate?
Slow, meditative, thinking is always best in my opinion. Our fast paced, high stress society, demands quick, reflexive thinking instead of slow, reflective thinking. To stimulate creative thinking, Einstein use to advise his physics students to find jobs in places like lighthouses where they could get away from it all and spend long uninterrupted hours thinking.
I know that slow, meditative thinking is good sometimes but fast thinking is sometimes needed too. Example: Your house is burning and you need fast thinking to think of possible ways to escape. If at that time you use slow, meditative thinking you may die. What I need is to find the correct balance of fast and slow thinking, perhaps I can use optimization theory to work that out.
Why not both? When you practice, one time you should push for speed, next time for accuracy. When you go fast, you realize you can go fast and that you make errors, when you go slow you are slow but you realize you are able to be 100% correct. You progress by bringing speed and accuracy together. Otherwise, you must always make a compromise, when you're doing a test, you can't really afford to go through some small part of the test 10 times, checking it from differend angles, on the other hand you can't just write something like a maniac and not look back. In real life though, it's usually better to make no mistakes, when dealing with IRS for instance. There's a site where you can practice / test yourself regarding exactly what you're asking here.
So, when speed and accuracy comes together, in what proportions are they in? If in real life it's usually better to have more accuracy than speed does this mean that you think more slowly or you make your actions slower while you still think as fast? And what does IRS stand for? Thanks.