Okay, let's take this definition of thinking as our basis. Presumably, a chess grand master is able to do this faster than a novice.
However, by your own argument, you're also calling this an absence of thinking. So, which is it?
My brain has compressed/chunked patterns so that I can immediately see what the optimal move or set of candidate moves are instead of having to determine them more computationally.
I'm not sure how that fits into the framework of this article. Something like the number of calculations remains static but total work done per calculation increases.
Much of the debate in this comment thread is a result of these concepts being fuzzily defined in the article itself.
"Think rate is fixed" glosses over activities with compounding returns. Learning!
Better abstractions and heuristics can have an enormous impact on problem solving efficiency.
First-principles thinking is a powerful hammer, but it's expensive. Over-use it and you'll get nothing done. Under-use it, and you'll do nothing original. Knowing where to use it is the trick, and that's _also_ a skill that can be improved over time.
It's a meaningful distinction because there are physical and mental costs (calories and stress) to trying to "think faster" that don't accrue the same when making decisions based on learnings.
> making decisions based on learnings
This is the ONLY type of thinking there is. Ergo, you can 'think faster' for any given discipline with practice.
This is a big claim to make without any explanation of why you think that.
I'm forced to conclude you're not discussing in good faith. Bye.
It's a shame you've decided to abandon the argument.
That doesn't follow because once you've mastered something you consider less options to reach a conclusion than a novice. One reaches the correct conclusion whit less thinking, not faster thinking.
Following your logic a person taking a shortcut from point A to point B is doing the same amount of driving as somebody not taking the shortcut, they are just driving faster.