Source: "The Week" of February 10, 2012 (The Last Word,pp 36,37) While the essay refers specifically to interpretations of statistics and chance I think it also raises questions about playing fast chess and whether fast chess helps people who do other things besides chess about banking, investment risk and government policy or mathematics, of course. Great performers in music get there by practice along with fast thinking governing their reflexes. But does fast thinking, on the other hand, raise the soul of the listener? How well can "fast thinkers" teach others?

It is a very interesting article. 

"The dangers of quick thinking" about the difference between causation and coincidence but I don't think it had much to do with what the effects of fast thinking may be (on chess playing and elsewhere).  http://theweek.com/article/index/224043/the-dangers-of-quick-thinking

I was especially intrigued by the explanation that there's no such thing as a hot hand in sports. "Analysis of thousands of sequences of shots led to a disappointing conclusion: There is no such thing as a hot hand in professional basketball, either in shooting from the field or scoring from the foul line. Of course, some players are more accurate than others, but the sequence of successes and missed shots satisfies all tests of randomness. The hot hand is entirely in the eye of the beholders, who are consistently too quick to perceive order and causality in randomness. The hot hand is a massive and widespread cognitive illusion."

I want to believe this analysis but I saw people like Larry Bird "get hot" too many times to accept it easily.