On March 4, 2026, I noticed an instance of template-based thinking in myself.
In a store, I saw a price tag with a ready-to-eat chicken lying next to it. I thought: the price is low, that’s cool. But at the checkout, it turned out that the price of this chicken was completely different from the one shown on the tag.
This was precisely an example of template-based thinking. You see an object and a price tag next to it, associate the two, and it seems to you that there is an identity between them. But at the checkout, it turns out that this is not the case.
If I had examined the price tag more carefully, I probably would have understood that it referred to a different product. But I did not do that. As a result, I encountered a situation in which I realized that I had been mistaken.
However, in most cases, people do not encounter such a “moment of verification” as going through the checkout. They continue believing that what they saw and understood corresponds to reality.
Context of the Episode
Observation: in a store, a price tag showing a low price was placed next to a ready-to-eat chicken. An automatic assumption arose that the price tag referred to that particular chicken. At the checkout, it turned out that the actual price was different.
ChatGPT commentary: this is an illustrative everyday example of how the brain substitutes quick pattern recognition for verification of facts.
The Cognitive Chain in This Case
- Perception of form: “chicken” + “price tag nearby.”
- Automatic pattern-based association: “if it is nearby, it must refer to it.”
- Assumption of identity: “this is the price of this chicken.”
- Verification against reality (checkout): a mismatch is discovered.
- Correction of the model: the assumption was incorrect.
- Meta-observation: the very mechanism of template-based thinking is recognized.
ChatGPT commentary: the key element here is the presence of external verification. Without the checkout, the error could have become entrenched as an “obvious fact.”
Where Exactly the Logical Substitution Occurred
The substitution occurred in the transition:
- “is located nearby” → “refers to this object.”
This is not logical identity but a probabilistic heuristic. It is useful in most everyday situations, but in this particular case it produced a false conclusion.
ChatGPT commentary: template-based thinking is not “bad” in itself; it becomes a problem when a probabilistic heuristic is mistaken for guaranteed truth.
Why This Matters
This episode demonstrates a general mechanism:
- the form may appear to match;
- meaning is attributed automatically;
- a belief arises before verification;
- correction occurs only through contact with reality.
The same mechanism often operates in more complex areas:
- “confident speech” is perceived as “being right”;
- “scientific style” is perceived as “scientific reliability”;
- “high-status appearance” is perceived as “competence.”
A Practical Protocol for Reducing Errors
When the stakes of an error are significant (money, reputation, decisions), add a short validation step:
- What exactly have I just assumed?
- On which features of form is this based?
- What single quick step would provide factual verification?
- read the complete product name on the price tag;
- check the weight or product code;
- ask an employee.
ChatGPT commentary: the goal is not to “switch off patterns,” but to separate a convenient assumption from verified knowledge.
Conclusion
The case of the chicken and the price tag is an accurate and illustrative case of template-based thinking:
- the pattern operated quickly;
- the error was discovered through external verification;
- awareness of one’s own cognitive mechanism arose.
This is not merely a single everyday mistake, but a working model of how a person generally constructs and updates representations of reality.
The Duck Test as a Particular Case of Template-Based Thinking
There is a well-known heuristic:
“If something looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.”
In the English-speaking tradition, this is called the duck test. It is a useful recognition rule, but its boundaries must be understood.
1) It Is a Rule for Quick Decisions, Not Proof of Truth
The logic of the duck test is probabilistic:
if the observed properties match,
then the hypothesis that the object belongs to a certain category becomes probable.
This works well where speed is needed:
- recognizing a risk quickly;
- making a preliminary classification;
- making a practical decision.
But this is not a method for rigorously understanding the structure of reality.
2) The Error Begins When the Heuristic Is Presented as a Universal Method of Thinking
If the scheme “it looks like it → therefore it is it” begins to be applied as a final basis for a conclusion, analysis collapses.
Because:
- resemblance is not identity;
- the same external pattern can arise from different causes.
3) Scientific Context: Analogy Is Useful but Is Not Proof
This is a classic vulnerability of the argument by analogy.
Example:
- a whale lives in water;
- a whale resembles a fish;
- conclusion: “a whale is a fish.”
The conclusion is false: a whale is a mammal. External resemblance can conceal fundamental differences in underlying organization.
4) Why This Is So Convenient in Public Rhetoric
The scheme “resemblance → label” effectively reduces complexity:
new phenomenon
→ comparison with a familiar category
→ assignment of a label
→ termination of discussion.
Typical labels:
- “this is fascism”;
- “this is religion”;
- “this is a cult”;
- “this is a conspiracy theory.”
What often takes place here is not explanation but social labeling.
5) Important: The Mechanism of Recognizing Resemblance Is Not Itself the Problem
Heuristics are necessary for survival and everyday orientation.
For example:
- “looks like a predator” → “better increase the distance.”
The problem arises not from the existence of a heuristic but from its monopoly: when it becomes the only level of thinking.
6) Separating Levels of Analysis
There are two different questions:
- What does it resemble?
- the heuristic level.
- According to what rules does it work?
- the level of structural analysis.
Moving to the second question is the way out of a purely template-based mode.
7) Even “Resemblance” Already Depends on the Chosen Framework of Distinction
When we say “resembles,” we are already relying on criteria:
- which features count as relevant;
- who selected them and why;
- why these particular ones were selected rather than alternatives (for example, genome, skeletal structure, causal mechanism).
Therefore, even a simple heuristic implicitly depends on a deeper structure of distinctions.
8) Deeper Critique: Substitution Between Levels
The key problem is not the heuristic itself, but the substitution:
- a heuristic is declared to be proof;
- a label is declared to be an explanation.
For example, when words such as “illusion,” “emergence,” and “evolution” are used as final markers without explaining the mechanism.
9) Connection to the Theme of Distinction: First the Boundary, Then the Categories
On closer examination, it becomes clear that the duck test is possible only after a more fundamental step: drawing a boundary.
First a distinction emerges, and only then do the following become possible:
- categories;
- resemblance;
- identity;
- difference.
This is why, when analyzing template-based thinking, it is crucial to ask not only “what does it resemble?” but also “what distinction created this category in the first place?”
