Evidence points toward's Julia's uploads being beneficial and greatly apprecaited. I hope she continues to act according to the beliefs upheld by such evidence.
Hi from Nevada. I'm enjoying the process of learning from your videos. This particular one gives me new appreciation for the value of acceptance of uncertainty. It also makes me better appreciate the approach used by British Intelligence. My exposure to their statements began as I was reading about their take on the russian invasion of Ukraine, and the Ukrainians fighting back. British Intelligence goes out of its way to be open as to the level of uncertainty underlying a particular statement, including publishing a list of definitions of the various words they use to convey a particular level of uncertainty. I like that, by implication, they see value in publishing information even if they are not 100% sure about it. Rather, they include how certain they are. If modern-day "me" could visit 18-year old "me" then good advice to give would be that an idea doesn't go from useless to very valuable as its probability goes from less than 100% to 100%. It's more of a gradual thing.
Words have the power to both wound and heal. When used with kindness and empathy, dialogue becomes a bridge that connects hearts and minds, turning pain into understanding and loneliness into connection.
I don’t know... the cognitive dissonance of supposing I’m wrong just feels like inviting a lot of trouble, compared to the warm feeling of being validated by anecdotal evidence.
Intentionally preemptive self doubt is really healthy though. It gives the appearance of weakness and results in mental clutter, but it helps prepare you for shocks to the system and helps you prepare for ugly likely possibility of being wrong. Unless you're joking and I'm not getting it. But by saying that maybe I got it? (Maybe not ;) )
This is a good point, in alot of cultures, it takes deliberate practice for someone to be comfortable with the fundamental uncertainty of their existing beliefs. There's probably some way to make Bayesian thinking a cultural norm, but I haven't put any thought into it.
Consider it the opposite: poking holes in your own arguments only makes them stronger OR spares you from the embarrasment of spreading flawed ideas. Both are a good outcome. Always debate yourself!
I'm not a Bayesian, I'm just lazy, an I just dismiss statistical claims based on individual cases instantly. This way I have time to build little ships inside bottles as a hobby.
@@brunolanzavecchia5959 I actually have a lot to say about this and I have a lot of first-person experience with laziness. But this beer isn't getting any fresher and these computer games aren't going to play themselves.
@@evad7933 Three options. 1. You are vehemently racist to the point where you bring up race irrelevantly. 2. You are vehemently anti-racist to the point where you bring up race irrelevantly. 3. You use puns that make no sense and convey no proper meaning. "In black" and "black" are DIFFERENT. However, I forgot we were under a video about Bayesian thinking, so I didn't assume you were neurodivergent or anything.
Think more the quickest intuitively way as wise as how I shouldn't forget to nurture myself the hardest way for reconstruct my own mind in the suitable path, excluding what I shouldn't have to worry about and everything that seems like the reasons I'm getting stucked at... Vs Think more the quickest intuitively way as wise as how I lighted up myself with hope that I shouldn't forget about as individual particularly that life has a different story in everyone, and with that different story I should never forget my own responsible effort for each new day updates just to attain that quality of living that I fulfilled with comments of different moods that I continuously intuited my own mind particularly through your videos
You're not wrong; however, I fear that an erroneous belief, confidently stated, will always sway others far more than can the one who stands upon the pedestal of "I don't know". I think that's how we got to the (IMO totally bizarre) situation where we are now.
@@peNdantry Just out of curiousity, what is the totally bizarre situation we are in you're referring to? And in what way does it relate to people being swayed by confidently stated beliefs (even if erroneous)?
@@leefswgoh7558 Surely you're able to recognise the various crises we face on this planet which have been brought about by the lunatic behaviour of the species I've come to call 'homo fatuus brutus'?§ Much of that has arisen because of avarice, and the beliefs and assertions made by those whose sole purpose is to enrich themselves at any cost. The tobacco, lumber, fossil fuel and financial industries are good examples; all shored up by a bunch of 'expert' economists who confidently push the 'growth is good' mantra at every opportunity, based upon unfounded theories they refuse to shake. § I'd enumerate them, but life's short enough as it is.
@@peNdantry "... because of avarice, and the beliefs and assertions made by those whose sole purpose is to enrich themselves at any cost"? So basically because of greed and greed? haha. Anyway, still not being entirely sure what you're referring to exactly, i think you just think the powers that be are wrong. Which is possible, but seems unrelated to the video. I'm not really interrested in discussing the world's problems, i was only curious about how your real world example would relate to the topic that was being discussed in this video and your take on it. I thought you may have meant covid because that's also a totally bizarre situation we're in, which could have been interresting. The discussion about having to make decisions based on things you don't know is interresting to me, especially if you're responsible for leading a group of people or a nation for example. I don't think confident and (potentially) wrong is necessarily worse than uncertain when it comes to leadership. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be what you were talking about.
@@leefswgoh7558 I wasn't commenting on the video. I was responding to Oomenacka's assertion. "Confident and potentially wrong" is, in my book at least, definitely worse than "uncertainty" when it comes to leadership, as people are more inclined to believe arguments presented confidently than ones that are not -- I believe that's what I already said -- take as an example those who argue that "scientists can't be trusted because they keep changing their minds". It seems to me that we simply have to agree to disagree on this. And, quite possibly, many other things.
Thanks for clarifying this! This is helpful! About the word "Bayesianism", in my book "The Equation of Knowledge", I distinguish "pure Bayesianism" and "pragmatic Bayesianism". A pure Bayesian rigorously applies Bayes rule upon any evidence. While impractical, I find it to be a nice thought experiment to convince myself that, yes, in a world where computation comes for free, this is the way to go. In practice, we must then resort to being "pragmatic Bayesians". This means that we strive to find good heuristics to approximate Bayes rule. Interestingly, this applies to machines to, and there's a lot of surface tensions between AI research approximating Bayes rule and what Rationalists try to do 😄
In practice, isn’t the main problem going to be observer bias (or sampling bias in frequentist statistics)? If you’re relying on the media for information, for example about discrimination in the tech industry, isn’t there a bias in what stories get reported or judged to be newsworthy?
@@Avicenna697 This is precisely the point: there is always observer bias; but, it has a decreasing influence function with time as successive iterations are made. The main reason to think Bayesian.
Computation is a talent of humanity most baudaciously enhanced this last 80 years and is quite useful today in revealing the Mathematical Truth of Bayesian logic that is neither pure nor pragmatic! It is what it is, elemental, indivisible and most worthy. I am who I am, who would I be if I wasn't Popeye? Rene De FrenchName yonks ago.
Coming in here basically at complete random without a concrete preexisting understanding of bayesian thinking, I'm actually seeing how a person could hear a quick understanding of it (the sort that would fit into a typical conversation) and write it off as being normal thinking with pretentious terminology. Reason being, this kinda is just how I approach the world, because I've been horrifically wrong before and had to decide between preserving my self-image and minimizing the chance of being horrifically wrong again. Anyone who picks the latter option is likely to hit upon similar practices of "assume I'm wrong, does this make more/less/the same amount of sense" sooner or later, simply because that kind of *is* the only way to break out of an unrealistic pattern. Most of a person's beliefs are going to be internally consistent within the context they interact with those beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs are true. If they weren't, the beliefs would either be impractical to hold or generate cognitive dissonance, neither of which is encouraging the person to keep holding the belief. Forcing yourself to consider possibilities inconvenient to your beliefs is just the only option. Obviously, I have no doubt that anything with terminology behind it has a bunch of very specific ideas about how things work that I have no specific opinion on. It just seemed worthwhile to point out that without asking the specific person their reasonings behind making the criticism, the same words could be making a very different statement than the video seems to be reading into them.
Think more the hardest way as how it can be noticed that at the end of the latest Sentence in the previous comment, two separate quotation marks appear: a single quotation mark for closing the title and a double quotation mark for closing the direct quotation. Vs Think more the Hardest way as how Lewis Caroll said, "Always speak the truth, think before you speak, and write down afterwards."
I have fought this battle myself. What a breath of fresh air you are. My own world was as a biochemist in high throughput screening, and explaining why most hits were false positives. I then applied that reasoning to other things in life, just as your examples do.
When I first started to learn coding, each error I kept coming to the conclusion that the compiler was broken because I could swear my code was written correctly. Eventually I learned to think that hard assumptions don't help you much with coding, you need to think in terms of probabilities. There could be multiple reasons some code fails. I started to alter my thinking to not assume causes of problems and solutions, but instead check each possibility to try to reproduce and then isolate the problem. I called it just being intellectually honest when I started to apply this thinking to other views about real life ideologies.
I wonder what would be ur take on a scenario like where you are trying to have a debate with a guy/girl, and you are really trying your best to put yourself in his/her shoes as your goal is not winning but to understand the truth but this other person is all about himself/herself and only cares about winning the argument..do we keep on looking at the bigger picture (even at the cost of defeat) or eventually bring ourselves down to his/her level in order to win the debate..I know the theoretical answer obviously but in real life cases I wonder how many would go for the first option.
@@dd1278 If your current state with the debate is that no honest discussion can be had due to their defense mechanism rejecting any facts or insights, you must first deal with that issue before the actual debate can begin. Start with agreeing with them on some point and make them feel you are on their side so they deactivate the automatic opposing view rejection mode. Instead of stating blunt facts, form your words into questions. "I just wonder if argument X is really true though", instead of "argument X is BS!". It takes patience and some encounters are futile.
Wow, how enlightening for me, first time on this channel I think. Almost 40 years ago I was early in college taking paleontology as a part of my degree in Geology. I brought a fossil to class I found on the ranch to learn its origin. The prof asked the age of it. I said I don't know because it was found on an unconformity (either 65 or 225 million years ago, Cretaceous or Permian) but probably the younger because rocks roll downhill, turns out I was right and prof said I would be a good geologist because I started with "I dont know" and discussed probability of either. I was surprised by this because by age 19 that statistical way of thinking was completely ingrained, I didn't know another way. I recall similar stories from a much much earlier age. So assuming this is some sort of Bayesian way of thinking, the interesting question is, what is the evolutionary origin of this type of thinking. I suspect it is an inherited trait that is either reinforced or quashed at an early age. And maybe they are selectively chosen by our parents and peers at an early age which explains the difference in our common reactions to weather or politics? What a great video, thanks!
@@MrFungus420 idk what the original comment said but since then it has been edited to say: "prof said I would be a good geologist" which is the opposite to your comment's predicate
Think more as long as you still managed to think like I have to agree with what I shouldn't be... Vs Think more as wise as how you should know the shyless me who daringly opened to you, will never stop to stay in focus to specifically you to win an argument
Think more the hardest way as *Why while selecting a media, one should opt for the one capable of conveying the message appropriately to the target audience* Vs Think more the hardest way as how in the Process of Communication *The receiver gets the message*
I used to have a friend whose catchphrase was 'but how do you know that?' It was really bloody annoying and I think it was actually, in some passive aggressive way, designed to be, but I still learned a lot from it.
Think more the hardest way as tag and tag the only two tags that are used to create in HTML tag... Vs Think more the hardest way as how the Frame allows multiple views and also allows us to change one part of the page while keeping the other part static.
About 20+ years ago I read an article/commentary in Nature that confirmed that the brain, as a 'decision engine', is approximately Bayesian - even for people who don't have a clue about principles of belief updating
For example - I always refuse to believe it when people try to tell me astrology is a real science but I think it's because I'm a Taurus and we tend to be quite stubborn.
@@chriskennedy2846 Taurus tend to be tenacious. Stubborn is what others think of their tenacity, but not in a bad way? In a Bayesian universe, astrology would be on it's way to becoming a real science.
This was a refreshing video. The observation about people's political beliefs is very true. I wish more people seemed confident about acknowledging uncertainty in life.
Not really. The question is how you set about evaluating uncertainty. A pervasive problem these days is that people try to "big up" uncertainty, so they can then claim that there's no objective truth or that their position is as valid as someone else's. A good example is the anti-vaxxer movement.
@@lacdirk I accept that is a phenomenon, too. It may depend on which political debate you're talking about - in my country, the great issues of the day in recent years have been Brexit and the pandemic. In these debates - on both sides - people rarely betray any uncertainty.
@@Stopfief The difference isn't on whether projections and data are uncertain, but how you deal with uncertainty. Leave proponents publicly rejected experts and many continue to reject data. They insist that optimism, inherent superiority or historic destiny are the only real things that matter. The core arguments from Remain were projections, based on data, history and expertise. Almost all of the lead figures carefully worded predictions as uncertain, which is a big part of the reason why they lost. Osborne was the main (if not only) exception. So I don't think it's fair to say that "both sides" were equally at fault. As it turned out, brexit is a case study in both how important it is to deal rationally with uncertainty, and in how poorly most people do so.
Think more the hardest way as why sometimes the act of communication becomes difficult as there are many people talking to each other and inspite of talking loud to the extent of shouting may not reach the ears of the selected respondent.... Vs Think more the hardest way as how the process of communication possesses certain dynamism and goes through various phases
Think more the Hardest way as one of the key features of good documentaries is *Actively engaging and challanging the audience* Vs Think more the hardest way as why the Documentaries do not back away from controversy
My own experience is that bayesian thinking is not the norm. The amount of ppl I see "not updating" their f*cking priors (lol) is really significant. I think there is more "wishful thinking" than any other type of thinking honestly
Yeah. That's huge in medical science. They pretend like science is this solid chunk of objectivity, but science is meant to be challenged... As with these stupid never ending lockdowns and restrictions, despite no clear data of the benefit, but a clear picture of the issues that it causes. But hey, people like to feel safe, even if it means they suffer more.
@@skynet4496 I suspect many among those advising policies know they are dealing with constantly imprecise levels of uncertainty (estimates of probability of various risks). Problem is public seems to demand binary answers. How often do you hear people talk about "is it safe" vs what's the risk probability. Despite her opening example, people still freak out that the weather projections aren't precisely correct much of time, and are in rare instance's significantly off. And weather is something with little inflection from priors, morals, tribalism, ideology, etcetera.... (Except ever popular anti-authority /anti-intellectualism)
I agree completely. More often than not, people are vilified for having a belief system that is allowed to evolve when new evidence emerges. They are perjoratively labeled as "flip-floppers". Now flip-flopping on a principle out of *mere* political convenience is also common. However, changing one's position based on a change in the direction of the political wind is not the same as changing one's position based on changes in the underlying evidence. However, these two approaches are almost always considered to be the same thing.
I think the same thing but in regards to mental models of the world. Most people are not aware that TV depictions of the any time period did not actually reflect that period.
Think more the hardest way as wise as how I know I can't be fool by what I was repeatedly framed to satisfy with the unrealistic Vs Think more as wise as how I stand still and managed to focus on what I should always concentratedly focused at something that makes me feel real
Think more the hardest way as why Communication can be mediated or direct and why Writing for the Internet has done away with the concept of gate-keeping Vs Think more the hardest way as why the term *Mediated Communication* has led to debate and discussion among Scholars
Wow, it turns out that I'm Bayesian and I'd never even heard of it before. And I'm 85% sure of that. I await your next video with interest to see if I remain of that confidence level.
@@pjay3028 Hah, don't take my comment too negatively. Also, I'm not sure if there was some sarcasm in your reply and you actually are an expert on this, but I'll point this out anyway: Confidence levels and intervals and null hypothesis testing (NHST) and the p-value are all based on the same flawed frequentist concept. For example in NHST you calculate the probability of data assuming the null hypothesis to be true but then conclude the null hypothesis is not true. It doesn't get any more obviously self-contradictory. The Bayesian approach seeks to calculate the probability of the hypothesis given the observed data. You can compare hypotheses against each other using Bayes factors. Instead of confidence intervals there are credible intervals, which actually tell you the probability of a parameter to lie within a certain range. Confidence levels don't tell you that.
@@xnoreq haha, no sarcasm, just having a bit of fun. Thanks for the information I'm definitely not an expert, I genuinely only just learnt of this. All very interesting.
@@xnoreq "For example in NHST you calculate the probability of data assuming the null hypothesis to be true but then conclude the null hypothesis is not true. It doesn't get any more obviously self-contradictory." It's not self-contradictory whatsoever. You're confused.
Would it be a crazy idea for you to invite guests for video podcasts and post short clips of them to UA-cam, and contain a link to the full podcast on your website? I think this would pull more viewers, and thus give you more pull for guests, because visuals are stimulating, personalizing (facial expressions, etc), and promote further attention span.
Think more the Hardest way as wise as how I shouldn't be fool like a person who performed a duly duty when someone else do for me... Vs Think more the Hardest way as wise as how to believe what I did by myself is more important than what others managed their extra additional efforts to help me, yet with expectations
Think more the hardest way as *Line where it only exist when two points are joined together* Vs Think more the hardest way as *Virtuous or Mechanical Line where such Lines are drawn with the help of any mechanical tool or instrument* as well as *Spontaneous Line where Lines drawn freely with hands without using any instrument or tool like scale etc*
The issue is applying it to things that are qualitative not quantitative. Not everything in life is fungible and therefore amenable to this kind reasoning so you look stupid when you do apply it - which is the point of the cartoon. It's like Darwin's cost/benefit list of getting married or not.
I'm trying to understand when or why applying it to the quality of something would be a problem? Is it non sensical to apply a cost benefit analysis to marriage because love is so non fungible it can't be weighed against anything like it? What if you have to decide between an art career you love and a person you love?
@@nvman2262 @Nv man 22 Is romantic love measured in the same units as love of a job? We live in a world totally dominated by market thinking so sometimes it can be difficult to see that things might not be amenable to direct comparison. Bayesian thinking is about probability. How does "slurping their soup loudly" change the prior of deep romantic love? It may be annoying today but endearing in 30 years. Putting a unit of probability on the outcome is possible but is just a silly game.
Think more the hardest way no matter what.... Vs Think more the hardest way as wise as knowing the efforts I managed to push in a day, even with little duration portion of a day with respect to how I stopped emptying my own hungry stomach
Think more the hardest way as how *The fourth intended line is a particular type of expression statement called an Assignment Statement* Vs Think more the hardest way as how *The last intended line (print f) causes the calculated value for the area to be displayed* .
I think it's a bit more specific than that. It's a devil's advocate that argues for how his belief is compatible with the evidence too, and the following process of comparing how compatible the evidence is with either belief.
Imagine a political world where the leaders acknowledged doubt and uncertainty instead of boiling every issue down to meaningless absolutes. Of course, for this to happen, the population has to start looking at the world that way too. Unfortunately, life is just too busy for most people to stop and think. We all like simple exact solutions to complex unsolvable problems. It's a shame.
@Alex Even in your comment above, you acknowledge them as "leaders" and not "representatives", implying you are following their lead, even as you acknowledge they are not clear thinkers.
@@r0sal3sr I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting but I refer to them as leaders as I expect people in positions of power/influence to lead. I didn't say that I follow them. I think you're making the point that elected officials should serve the population and therefore represent our views. In which case you're correct. But I expect much more than that. I expect them not to blindly follow public opinion but to expertly interpret issues and policies in the light of reason and for the good of the population. However, my point was more about the fact that political discourse is only really about point scoring and pandering to the lowest common denominator, and in many respects, that is the fault of the population.
I really loved this video because it is such a clear explanation. The example really helped. Just one (tongue in cheek) question - what about the possibility that you are wrong about Bayesian thinking and actually it is a sham?
Think more the Hardest way as how Communication also has a poetic function which emphasizes the role of the addresser to encode a message in such a way that it could live after the given situation for which it was prepared... Vs Think more the hardest way as Phatic function which manages to keep the channels of communication open and allows people to maintain the relationships as we find that the physical and psychological connections are necessary for any communication...
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as B is for *Bracketing techniques* in photography again Vs Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how in this technique, a photographer takes shot of the same image using different camera settings.
Calling one's self Bayesian is a bit pretentious, but it is a decent aspiration. Most of what you describe could be also described as a scientific mindset.
@Super Brain 969 Fair enough... Though I was referring to the "philosophy of science", which is a specific well-established thing. Some dude named Popper (and some other folks) wrote a bit about it ;)
@@travcollier Yeah, but Popper was weird, he thinks that books "know" things, and that is how his epistemology works... How does a book have knowledge exactly Karl??? How about words then, do words "know" themselves??? Knowledge without a subject is inane.
@@seanoconnell1120 "knowledge" is a weird concept. My view is that we only have models which work more or less well. A useful term of art from learning theory is "probably approximately correct". I totally agree that knowledge (or information) has to be "with respect to" something else. It is a reduction in the uncertainty about one thing/system given the state of another thing/system. A map is just a bunch of lines on a paper unless those lines correlate with something else.
@@travcollier Also, quite literally I mean that lines on a paper are meaningless to the map itself, it does not comprise or encapsulate or have knowledge. It takes a mind to interpret the lines and give meaning to them and then to have a concept of the map, thus achieving knowledge (although it could be misinterpreted ...) How can an epistemology rely on a book "knowing" things. We could delve a little deeper and ask: does Alexa know things? You can certainly 'ask' Alexa and 'she' will answer (with the preprogrammed responses or call up a google/wikipedia search) But Popper just side steps these questions by saying "If you write 2+2=4 on a rock, now the rock knows 2+2=4" ??? and that is how a kid who reads the writing on the rock now learns 2+2=4, because the rock taught them, not the author who wrote on the rock ... but the rock in and of itself. What a way to get around the issue that knowledge transmission doesn't have to be direct (from subject to subject) but can be via a separate substrate like symbols.
@@seanoconnell1120 But does your (or my) brain "know" anything, or just encode patterns? For all I know, you are just a soulless bot (and you can say the same about me) ;) At a practical level it is certainly useful to use concepts like agency and knowing, but that doesn't mean they are well defined or have some really fundamental yes/no existence. Sort of reminds me of the philosophical zombie "hard problem". Imagine you have a bot which is indistinguishable from a conscious person, but is not conscious. Well, my answer to that is that it isn't "hard"... It is nonsense. Either conscious means something which can be distinguished, or it means nothing. I'm rather utilitarian of a sort. Anyways, back on topic... I don't think knowledge in any absolute sense really exists. So saying a map or book knows something isn't bothersome. It's a metaphor, but every time the word "know" is used it is a sort of metaphor.
UA-cam has been showing me Aubrey Plaza videos because I watched a couple because I find her attractive. Now I watched one video from Julia and keep getting more recommendations for her channel. Weirded out when I saw your comment. The algorithm doing its thing again. But this time I’m not complaining.
Think more as wise as how I Automatically came and hug you... Vs Think more as wise as how I feel it's the only way that makes me feel comfortable with whom I'm honest to
It looks like for almost 30 years without knowing absolutely nothing about Baywatch theory (LOL!), I’ve been looking and analyzing things pretty much like that, except when stuck in traffic I can’t stop not reading random license plates and finding so many relationships among them!!!
When I first learned Bayesian inference, my impression was, "Why is this controversial? This is just probabilistic reasoning done correctly." So now apparently one of the common complaints about is, "What's the big deal? It's just probabilistic reasoning." Maybe we should just point the people who object to it because it's too radical to the people who object to it because it's so obvious as to be uninteresting and have them fight it out?
I was gonna write a comment about how it's remarkable that there's a video of a woman on the internet and not a single comment about her appereance. But fuck, I agree with you completely.
Some people just don't age as fast. My mom is one of those people. She looked like a teenager until she was 40. There's no good explanation since my mom does not really lead a healthy lifestyle. I imagine it's something genetic, but who knows. But people on average don't really start aging until around 30 years when their hormones start to decline anyway.
Think more the hardest way as how a director helps the screenwriter visualise the script Vs Think more why he may also work directly with the sound mixers and film scorer for this reason
Think more the Hardest way as how the Journalistic interview is a specific type of informative interview where the interviews one or more 'sources' to gather material and all supporting information required to write a news story... Vs Think more the Hardest way as how in earlier times, a large space in newspapers used to be devoted to various types of reviews
Think more the wisest way with one strictest pattern I managed to discipline myself accordingly even when situation I was framed like I have to be out of control Vs Think more the wisest way even when I have to disagree with everyone included you
Think more the Hardest way as The word *'communication' which is derived from the Latin word 'communicatio' or 'communicare' that means communicate, discuss, impart or share* Vs Think more the hardest way as how different dictionaries and encyclopaedia define communication in their own way
I'd like to point out that using the two event form of baye's theorem iteratively is incorrect, and that the 3 event form is the right one to use iteratively. You would use it by calculating P( H | N, O) , where H = hypothesis, N = new data, and O equals old data, i.e. P( H | O) is the prior iteratively. Only if you can show that P( N | H, O ) = P( N | H) and that P( N | O) = P( N ) will the two event form be equivalent. This form has the advantage that it doesn't matter which bit of data you start with in your iterations, so long as you are able to establish a baseline probability under that data.
Think more when I learnt how to hate what I loved curious about just like my past old days Vs Think more when I learnt how to be satisfied in the warmth of your body
Think more the hardest way as how the problems of Grammar can generally be attributed to the levels of words and sentences.. Vs Think more the Hardest way as there are two ways of looking at the rules of grammar -prescriptively and descriptively while dealing with some common Grammatical errors in Media Writing
Think more the hardest way by being figured out to what's that make me stressful and depressed over the situation... Vs Think more the hardest way as wise as on worrying about the facts that I no longer construct my logically way of maintaining my financial stability with regards to my own profession
Think more the hardest way as wise as possible with the detail efforts of how I managed to make my Thursday a day ahead than others, no matter how approved or disapproved infront of everybody's eyes through feet, hands, brain, ears, eyes, nose, mouth etc... Vs Think more the hardest way as wise with words that end with C from A-Z pattern, apart from what I couldn't make through with 50% of words that end with B from A to Z pattern
Julia, PLEASE DO A VIDEO ON AXIOMS! you are so good at explaining this topic. Probabilistic reasoning and inductive/deductive reasoning would be a great tone too. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with us!
Think more as wise as possible the hardest way to be Specifically personal's secret sharing conversation way... Vs Think more the hardest way to let nobody interrupted
**Important note based on my experience with Bayesian logic: learned behavior based on upbringing can make me think I'm thinking objectively but really I'm taking self reflection to an opposite extreme tantamount to self minimization under the guise of humility.
Think more the Hardest way in order to form the possesive of a plural noun that ends in 's', add only an Apostrophe... Vs Think more the Hardest way as in order to form the possesive of a plural noun that does not end in 's' add an Apostrophe plus 's'
So, what is the opposite of Bayesian thinking called? Where someone has no evidence but still maintains their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence opposing their stance?
Think more the hardest way as how the While loop repeats statement (s) until the condition given proves false.. Vs Think more the hardest way as how While loop is also known as entry controlled loop
Think more the Hardest way as how the creativity required in advertisement writing is entirely different from what we find in literary writing... Vs Think more the hardest way as how creativity being the soul of advertising
Think more the Hardest way as wise as how I'm fairly free and Frank to communicate to you like the way normal people talked to each other... Vs Think more the hardest way yet I cannot pretend like I'm fine to live like this all the time by not seeing you face to face in reality but ended up by how you treated me the alternative ways through people, which I totally didn't like this process, and how I can't accept the fact that others will always asked me to start looking for my future partner, when I confidently pretend to live like you understand what I'm saying from the beginning...
Think more as wise as how I know how you framed what I have to reveal with what I have in mind... Vs Think more as wise as willing to do me as you wish me to do for
Think more here's the point, the more I keep on daring to be honest in every single truths with you... Vs Think more the quickest Intuitively its the only way to remind you that you should keep me with you like the way I sacrificed over one reasonable argument...
Think more even with the offering choices to pick whatever I like on Internet, even with the desire to fullfill the imagery fleshy needs, with different choices from facebook groups, Google etc... Vs Think more yet with what's makes me to automatically focus on you when I certainly see only the regrets in every sides
Think more the hardest way as how a variable declaration refers to reserving a place in computer's memory by a specific name and data type.. Vs Think more the hardest way as how Variable name should always begin with an alphabet, a dollar sign or an underscore and why it should not have spaces in between or have any special characters.
"I suggest we refrain from guessing and find some facts. Spock out." -- Star Trek It is astounding how many people live their lives with beliefs based on what they were told, or what they read in their favorite media sources, without taking the time to investigate the "facts" and then alter their beliefs based on the new facts found.
I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian. I was "certain" in all my beliefs. Not so anymore. I started assigning various levels of confidence to my beliefs some time ago. Maybe I'm naturally inclined to think like a Bayesian. I can't even get my head around my old beliefs. And I was deep in it. I believed in Noah's ark, the magic garden, talking snake, demons, witches etc. all of which are described in the bible. Now my brain can't work that way.
Think more the hardest way as Officially positioning related content from A-Z pattern... Vs Think more the hardest way as A is for Attorney General, the hardest way as B is for Branch Manager
Think more as wise as cooperative-less until what my thinking process is not a mistake... Vs Think more as human enemy-less until my honesty is more Saintful than everybody else
Think more the hardest way as wise as how *Attendance System Software* is used to monitor the attendance of the employee of a company Vs Think more the hardest way as wise as how an *Application Software* are designed to handle specialized tasks, such as Documentation, creating spreadsheet, creating graphics, employee payroll and school results.
Think more as wise as how I know how my mind functioning when I'm out of focussing Vs Think more as wise as how I know I can't pretend I'm okay by being not reasonable
Julia has the ability to speak cogently for a long time without a single edit and it is high sorcery
I was going to comment that I didn't notice any cuts. That's impressive!
This was the 42nd take.
Teleprompter?
Highly ordered thoughts.
@@evad7933 ??
I can't wait to catch her new video 5 years from now!
2 years to go.
1.5 years to go.
They're worth waiting for.
Evidence points toward's Julia's uploads being beneficial and greatly apprecaited. I hope she continues to act according to the beliefs upheld by such evidence.
I've updated my priors on the benefits of these videos
yikes
yes, crikeys
Hi from Nevada. I'm enjoying the process of learning from your videos. This particular one gives me new appreciation for the value of acceptance of uncertainty. It also makes me better appreciate the approach used by British Intelligence. My exposure to their statements began as I was reading about their take on the russian invasion of Ukraine, and the Ukrainians fighting back. British Intelligence goes out of its way to be open as to the level of uncertainty underlying a particular statement, including publishing a list of definitions of the various words they use to convey a particular level of uncertainty. I like that, by implication, they see value in publishing information even if they are not 100% sure about it. Rather, they include how certain they are. If modern-day "me" could visit 18-year old "me" then good advice to give would be that an idea doesn't go from useless to very valuable as its probability goes from less than 100% to 100%. It's more of a gradual thing.
Words have the power to both wound and heal. When used with kindness and empathy, dialogue becomes a bridge that connects hearts and minds, turning pain into understanding and loneliness into connection.
I don’t know... the cognitive dissonance of supposing I’m wrong just feels like inviting a lot of trouble, compared to the warm feeling of being validated by anecdotal evidence.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Intentionally preemptive self doubt is really healthy though. It gives the appearance of weakness and results in mental clutter, but it helps prepare you for shocks to the system and helps you prepare for ugly likely possibility of being wrong.
Unless you're joking and I'm not getting it.
But by saying that maybe I got it?
(Maybe not ;) )
you are not your thoughts, consider them, do not let them control you.
This is a good point, in alot of cultures, it takes deliberate practice for someone to be comfortable with the fundamental uncertainty of their existing beliefs. There's probably some way to make Bayesian thinking a cultural norm, but I haven't put any thought into it.
Consider it the opposite: poking holes in your own arguments only makes them stronger OR spares you from the embarrasment of spreading flawed ideas. Both are a good outcome. Always debate yourself!
I'm not a Bayesian, I'm just lazy, an I just dismiss statistical claims based on individual cases instantly. This way I have time to build little ships inside bottles as a hobby.
that's not consistent with my perception of lazy people
@@tgwnn how so??
LOL
@@tgwnn please explain your perception of lazy people
@@brunolanzavecchia5959 I actually have a lot to say about this and I have a lot of first-person experience with laziness. But this beer isn't getting any fresher and these computer games aren't going to play themselves.
I am so happy you're back!
Would you be happier still if she were black?
@@evad7933 What are you going on about?
@@silverflame8990 BACK versus BLACK. It is called a pun you numb skull.
@@evad7933 Three options. 1. You are vehemently racist to the point where you bring up race irrelevantly. 2. You are vehemently anti-racist to the point where you bring up race irrelevantly. 3. You use puns that make no sense and convey no proper meaning. "In black" and "black" are DIFFERENT. However, I forgot we were under a video about Bayesian thinking, so I didn't assume you were neurodivergent or anything.
@@silverflame8990 Gee are those my the only choices? If I was pushed to go for one it would be (3).
Think more the quickest intuitively way as wise as how I shouldn't forget to nurture myself the hardest way for reconstruct my own mind in the suitable path, excluding what I shouldn't have to worry about and everything that seems like the reasons I'm getting stucked at...
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as wise as how I lighted up myself with hope that I shouldn't forget about as individual particularly that life has a different story in everyone, and with that different story I should never forget my own responsible effort for each new day updates just to attain that quality of living that I fulfilled with comments of different moods that I continuously intuited my own mind particularly through your videos
It is really really hard to put the world at the Bayesian distance required for rational discourse. Thanks again for a great video!
i love humans who want to think critically, openly, apply it and communicate it to us. I feel comfortable here.
The words "I don't know" are very powerful. We all need to learn them.
You're not wrong; however, I fear that an erroneous belief, confidently stated, will always sway others far more than can the one who stands upon the pedestal of "I don't know". I think that's how we got to the (IMO totally bizarre) situation where we are now.
@@peNdantry Just out of curiousity, what is the totally bizarre situation we are in you're referring to? And in what way does it relate to people being swayed by confidently stated beliefs (even if erroneous)?
@@leefswgoh7558 Surely you're able to recognise the various crises we face on this planet which have been brought about by the lunatic behaviour of the species I've come to call 'homo fatuus brutus'?§
Much of that has arisen because of avarice, and the beliefs and assertions made by those whose sole purpose is to enrich themselves at any cost. The tobacco, lumber, fossil fuel and financial industries are good examples; all shored up by a bunch of 'expert' economists who confidently push the 'growth is good' mantra at every opportunity, based upon unfounded theories they refuse to shake.
§ I'd enumerate them, but life's short enough as it is.
@@peNdantry "... because of avarice, and the beliefs and assertions made by those whose sole purpose is to enrich themselves at any cost"? So basically because of greed and greed? haha.
Anyway, still not being entirely sure what you're referring to exactly, i think you just think the powers that be are wrong. Which is possible, but seems unrelated to the video. I'm not really interrested in discussing the world's problems, i was only curious about how your real world example would relate to the topic that was being discussed in this video and your take on it. I thought you may have meant covid because that's also a totally bizarre situation we're in, which could have been interresting.
The discussion about having to make decisions based on things you don't know is interresting to me, especially if you're responsible for leading a group of people or a nation for example. I don't think confident and (potentially) wrong is necessarily worse than uncertain when it comes to leadership. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be what you were talking about.
@@leefswgoh7558 I wasn't commenting on the video. I was responding to Oomenacka's assertion.
"Confident and potentially wrong" is, in my book at least, definitely worse than "uncertainty" when it comes to leadership, as people are more inclined to believe arguments presented confidently than ones that are not -- I believe that's what I already said -- take as an example those who argue that "scientists can't be trusted because they keep changing their minds".
It seems to me that we simply have to agree to disagree on this. And, quite possibly, many other things.
Thanks for clarifying this! This is helpful!
About the word "Bayesianism", in my book "The Equation of Knowledge", I distinguish "pure Bayesianism" and "pragmatic Bayesianism".
A pure Bayesian rigorously applies Bayes rule upon any evidence. While impractical, I find it to be a nice thought experiment to convince myself that, yes, in a world where computation comes for free, this is the way to go.
In practice, we must then resort to being "pragmatic Bayesians". This means that we strive to find good heuristics to approximate Bayes rule. Interestingly, this applies to machines to, and there's a lot of surface tensions between AI research approximating Bayes rule and what Rationalists try to do 😄
In practice, isn’t the main problem going to be observer bias (or sampling bias in frequentist statistics)? If you’re relying on the media for information, for example about discrimination in the tech industry, isn’t there a bias in what stories get reported or judged to be newsworthy?
@@Avicenna697 This is precisely the point: there is always observer bias; but, it has a decreasing influence function with time as successive iterations are made. The main reason to think Bayesian.
Computation is a talent of humanity most baudaciously enhanced this last 80 years and is quite useful today in revealing the Mathematical Truth of Bayesian logic that is neither pure nor pragmatic! It is what it is, elemental, indivisible and most worthy. I am who I am, who would I be if I wasn't Popeye? Rene De FrenchName yonks ago.
Computation comes for free? Wtf!
@@kevincinnamontoast3669 It is an innate ability of homo sapiens but rare amongst teachers.
Coming in here basically at complete random without a concrete preexisting understanding of bayesian thinking, I'm actually seeing how a person could hear a quick understanding of it (the sort that would fit into a typical conversation) and write it off as being normal thinking with pretentious terminology. Reason being, this kinda is just how I approach the world, because I've been horrifically wrong before and had to decide between preserving my self-image and minimizing the chance of being horrifically wrong again. Anyone who picks the latter option is likely to hit upon similar practices of "assume I'm wrong, does this make more/less/the same amount of sense" sooner or later, simply because that kind of *is* the only way to break out of an unrealistic pattern. Most of a person's beliefs are going to be internally consistent within the context they interact with those beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs are true. If they weren't, the beliefs would either be impractical to hold or generate cognitive dissonance, neither of which is encouraging the person to keep holding the belief. Forcing yourself to consider possibilities inconvenient to your beliefs is just the only option.
Obviously, I have no doubt that anything with terminology behind it has a bunch of very specific ideas about how things work that I have no specific opinion on. It just seemed worthwhile to point out that without asking the specific person their reasonings behind making the criticism, the same words could be making a very different statement than the video seems to be reading into them.
Think more the hardest way as how it can be noticed that at the end of the latest Sentence in the previous comment, two separate quotation marks appear: a single quotation mark for closing the title and a double quotation mark for closing the direct quotation.
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as how Lewis Caroll said, "Always speak the truth, think before you speak, and write down afterwards."
I have fought this battle myself. What a breath of fresh air you are. My own world was as a biochemist in high throughput screening, and explaining why most hits were false positives. I then applied that reasoning to other things in life, just as your examples do.
When I first started to learn coding, each error I kept coming to the conclusion that the compiler was broken because I could swear my code was written correctly. Eventually I learned to think that hard assumptions don't help you much with coding, you need to think in terms of probabilities. There could be multiple reasons some code fails. I started to alter my thinking to not assume causes of problems and solutions, but instead check each possibility to try to reproduce and then isolate the problem. I called it just being intellectually honest when I started to apply this thinking to other views about real life ideologies.
I wonder what would be ur take on a scenario like where you are trying to have a debate with a guy/girl, and you are really trying your best to put yourself in his/her shoes as your goal is not winning but to understand the truth but this other person is all about himself/herself and only cares about winning the argument..do we keep on looking at the bigger picture (even at the cost of defeat) or eventually bring ourselves down to his/her level in order to win the debate..I know the theoretical answer obviously but in real life cases I wonder how many would go for the first option.
@@dd1278 If your current state with the debate is that no honest discussion can be had due to their defense mechanism rejecting any facts or insights, you must first deal with that issue before the actual debate can begin. Start with agreeing with them on some point and make them feel you are on their side so they deactivate the automatic opposing view rejection mode. Instead of stating blunt facts, form your words into questions. "I just wonder if argument X is really true though", instead of "argument X is BS!". It takes patience and some encounters are futile.
@@Khyrid That's a good enough feedback on the topic..will take it. Thanks 👍
Wow, how enlightening for me, first time on this channel I think. Almost 40 years ago I was early in college taking paleontology as a part of my degree in Geology. I brought a fossil to class I found on the ranch to learn its origin. The prof asked the age of it. I said I don't know because it was found on an unconformity (either 65 or 225 million years ago, Cretaceous or Permian) but probably the younger because rocks roll downhill, turns out I was right and prof said I would be a good geologist because I started with "I dont know" and discussed probability of either. I was surprised by this because by age 19 that statistical way of thinking was completely ingrained, I didn't know another way. I recall similar stories from a much much earlier age. So assuming this is some sort of Bayesian way of thinking, the interesting question is, what is the evolutionary origin of this type of thinking. I suspect it is an inherited trait that is either reinforced or quashed at an early age. And maybe they are selectively chosen by our parents and peers at an early age which explains the difference in our common reactions to weather or politics? What a great video, thanks!
--deleted because OP edited their post--
@@MrFungus420 idk what the original comment said but since then it has been edited to say: "prof said I would be a good geologist" which is the opposite to your comment's predicate
Think more as long as you still managed to think like I have to agree with what I shouldn't be...
Vs
Think more as wise as how you should know the shyless me who daringly opened to you, will never stop to stay in focus to specifically you to win an argument
Think more the hardest way as
*Why while selecting a media, one should opt for the one capable of conveying the message appropriately to the target audience*
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how in the Process of Communication *The receiver gets the message*
"All models are wrong, some are useful" - George E P Box. A Bayesian model of the world is useful I think.
It should have been really obvious but the idea of saying to oneself "ok, what if I'm wrong" and treating that idea seriously is actually mindblowing.
I used to have a friend whose catchphrase was 'but how do you know that?' It was really bloody annoying and I think it was actually, in some passive aggressive way, designed to be, but I still learned a lot from it.
@Santiago Duarte Yep! Except, actually, I think he was probably more like one of the philosophical skeptics Socrates opposed - or claimed to.
Think more the hardest way as tag and tag the only two tags that are used to create in HTML tag...
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how the Frame allows multiple views and also allows us to change one part of the page while keeping the other part static.
About 20+ years ago I read an article/commentary in Nature that confirmed that the brain, as a 'decision engine', is approximately Bayesian - even for people who don't have a clue about principles of belief updating
This could also be called, "How to check your confirmation bias."
"Why are you glaring at me like that?"
Julia said I could.
For example - I always refuse to believe it when people try to tell me astrology is a real science but I think it's because I'm a Taurus and we tend to be quite stubborn.
@@chriskennedy2846 Taurus tend to be tenacious. Stubborn is what others think of their tenacity, but not in a bad way? In a Bayesian universe, astrology would be on it's way to becoming a real science.
She will give Hopkins a run for his money in a stare, don't blink competition 😂
This was a refreshing video. The observation about people's political beliefs is very true. I wish more people seemed confident about acknowledging uncertainty in life.
Not really. The question is how you set about evaluating uncertainty. A pervasive problem these days is that people try to "big up" uncertainty, so they can then claim that there's no objective truth or that their position is as valid as someone else's.
A good example is the anti-vaxxer movement.
@@lacdirk I accept that is a phenomenon, too. It may depend on which political debate you're talking about - in my country, the great issues of the day in recent years have been Brexit and the pandemic. In these debates - on both sides - people rarely betray any uncertainty.
@@Stopfief
The difference isn't on whether projections and data are uncertain, but how you deal with uncertainty.
Leave proponents publicly rejected experts and many continue to reject data. They insist that optimism, inherent superiority or historic destiny are the only real things that matter.
The core arguments from Remain were projections, based on data, history and expertise. Almost all of the lead figures carefully worded predictions as uncertain, which is a big part of the reason why they lost. Osborne was the main (if not only) exception.
So I don't think it's fair to say that "both sides" were equally at fault.
As it turned out, brexit is a case study in both how important it is to deal rationally with uncertainty, and in how poorly most people do so.
Think more the hardest way as why sometimes the act of communication becomes difficult as there are many people talking to each other and inspite of talking loud to the extent of shouting may not reach the ears of the selected respondent....
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how the process of communication possesses certain dynamism and goes through various phases
Think more the Hardest way as one of the key features of good documentaries is *Actively engaging and challanging the audience*
Vs
Think more the hardest way as why the Documentaries do not back away from controversy
I totally agree with this. I have a lot of issues with “absolute conviction”... so this is music to my brain. 😊
My own experience is that bayesian thinking is not the norm. The amount of ppl I see "not updating" their f*cking priors (lol) is really significant. I think there is more "wishful thinking" than any other type of thinking honestly
Yeah. That's huge in medical science. They pretend like science is this solid chunk of objectivity, but science is meant to be challenged... As with these stupid never ending lockdowns and restrictions, despite no clear data of the benefit, but a clear picture of the issues that it causes. But hey, people like to feel safe, even if it means they suffer more.
@@skynet4496 I suspect many among those advising policies know they are dealing with constantly imprecise levels of uncertainty (estimates of probability of various risks). Problem is public seems to demand binary answers. How often do you hear people talk about "is it safe" vs what's the risk probability. Despite her opening example, people still freak out that the weather projections aren't precisely correct much of time, and are in rare instance's significantly off. And weather is something with little inflection from priors, morals, tribalism, ideology, etcetera.... (Except ever popular anti-authority /anti-intellectualism)
I agree completely. More often than not, people are vilified for having a belief system that is allowed to evolve when new evidence emerges. They are perjoratively labeled as "flip-floppers". Now flip-flopping on a principle out of *mere* political convenience is also common. However, changing one's position based on a change in the direction of the political wind is not the same as changing one's position based on changes in the underlying evidence. However, these two approaches are almost always considered to be the same thing.
I think the same thing but in regards to mental models of the world. Most people are not aware that TV depictions of the any time period did not actually reflect that period.
I can always find a reason why I'm right. Sometimes Bayesian thinking fits the bill.
LOL Someone after my own heart!
Think more the hardest way as wise as how I know I can't be fool by what I was repeatedly framed to satisfy with the unrealistic
Vs
Think more as wise as how I stand still and managed to focus on what I should always concentratedly focused at something that makes me feel real
Think more the hardest way as why Communication can be mediated or direct and why Writing for the Internet has done away with the concept of gate-keeping
Vs
Think more the hardest way as why the term *Mediated Communication* has led to debate and discussion among Scholars
Albert Einstein once said, "The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." So is this.
Einstein...what did HE know! 💯
@John McLawson How come?
Wow, it turns out that I'm Bayesian and I'd never even heard of it before. And I'm 85% sure of that. I await your next video with interest to see if I remain of that confidence level.
Confidence levels are a flawed, non-Bayesian concept.
@@xnoreq OK, so it seems I'm not Bayesian after all. That's probably why I'd never heard of it. Thanks for the extra information.
@@pjay3028 Hah, don't take my comment too negatively. Also, I'm not sure if there was some sarcasm in your reply and you actually are an expert on this, but I'll point this out anyway:
Confidence levels and intervals and null hypothesis testing (NHST) and the p-value are all based on the same flawed frequentist concept.
For example in NHST you calculate the probability of data assuming the null hypothesis to be true but then conclude the null hypothesis is not true. It doesn't get any more obviously self-contradictory.
The Bayesian approach seeks to calculate the probability of the hypothesis given the observed data.
You can compare hypotheses against each other using Bayes factors.
Instead of confidence intervals there are credible intervals, which actually tell you the probability of a parameter to lie within a certain range.
Confidence levels don't tell you that.
@@xnoreq haha, no sarcasm, just having a bit of fun. Thanks for the information I'm definitely not an expert, I genuinely only just learnt of this. All very interesting.
@@xnoreq "For example in NHST you calculate the probability of data assuming the null hypothesis to be true but then conclude the null hypothesis is not true. It doesn't get any more obviously self-contradictory."
It's not self-contradictory whatsoever. You're confused.
Would it be a crazy idea for you to invite guests for video podcasts and post short clips of them to UA-cam, and contain a link to the full podcast on your website? I think this would pull more viewers, and thus give you more pull for guests, because visuals are stimulating, personalizing (facial expressions, etc), and promote further attention span.
Think more the Hardest way as wise as how I shouldn't be fool like a person who performed a duly duty when someone else do for me...
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as wise as how to believe what I did by myself is more important than what others managed their extra additional efforts to help me, yet with expectations
Think more the hardest way as *Line where it only exist when two points are joined together*
Vs
Think more the hardest way as *Virtuous or Mechanical Line where such Lines are drawn with the help of any mechanical tool or instrument* as well as *Spontaneous Line where Lines drawn freely with hands without using any instrument or tool like scale etc*
Well this has nothing to do with being black and asian.
The issue is applying it to things that are qualitative not quantitative. Not everything in life is fungible and therefore amenable to this kind reasoning so you look stupid when you do apply it - which is the point of the cartoon. It's like Darwin's cost/benefit list of getting married or not.
I'm trying to understand when or why applying it to the quality of something would be a problem? Is it non sensical to apply a cost benefit analysis to marriage because love is so non fungible it can't be weighed against anything like it? What if you have to decide between an art career you love and a person you love?
@@nvman2262 @Nv man 22 Is romantic love measured in the same units as love of a job?
We live in a world totally dominated by market thinking so sometimes it can be difficult to see that things might not be amenable to direct comparison. Bayesian thinking is about probability. How does "slurping their soup loudly" change the prior of deep romantic love? It may be annoying today but endearing in 30 years. Putting a unit of probability on the outcome is possible but is just a silly game.
Dang, Galef coming back out after 5 years. Always enjoy hearing from intellectuals. You go Gurl!
Think more the hardest way no matter what....
Vs
Think more the hardest way as wise as knowing the efforts I managed to push in a day, even with little duration portion of a day with respect to how I stopped emptying my own hungry stomach
Think more the hardest way as how *The fourth intended line is a particular type of expression statement called an Assignment Statement*
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how *The last intended line (print f) causes the calculated value for the area to be displayed* .
Is an alternative way of thinking about it as having a little devil's advocate on your shoulder all the time?
I was wondering if it had connection with being a Devil's advocate, too! (As seen in my own comment)
I think it's a bit more specific than that. It's a devil's advocate that argues for how his belief is compatible with the evidence too, and the following process of comparing how compatible the evidence is with either belief.
@@iurigrang
Seems right.
You can send him on advanced training in order to have a little peer-reviewer instead of a little devil ;)
@@RobertHildebrandt haha good one! Although, in my experience, reviewers of my papers have been the real devil incarnate!
Imagine a political world where the leaders acknowledged doubt and uncertainty instead of boiling every issue down to meaningless absolutes. Of course, for this to happen, the population has to start looking at the world that way too. Unfortunately, life is just too busy for most people to stop and think. We all like simple exact solutions to complex unsolvable problems. It's a shame.
@Alex Even in your comment above, you acknowledge them as "leaders" and not "representatives", implying you are following their lead, even as you acknowledge they are not clear thinkers.
@@r0sal3sr I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting but I refer to them as leaders as I expect people in positions of power/influence to lead. I didn't say that I follow them. I think you're making the point that elected officials should serve the population and therefore represent our views. In which case you're correct. But I expect much more than that. I expect them not to blindly follow public opinion but to expertly interpret issues and policies in the light of reason and for the good of the population.
However, my point was more about the fact that political discourse is only really about point scoring and pandering to the lowest common denominator, and in many respects, that is the fault of the population.
I really loved this video because it is such a clear explanation. The example really helped. Just one (tongue in cheek) question - what about the possibility that you are wrong about Bayesian thinking and actually it is a sham?
Trick question..You are asking the question using the very basic premise of Bayesian theorem.😂
Think more the Hardest way as how Communication also has a poetic function which emphasizes the role of the addresser to encode a message in such a way that it could live after the given situation for which it was prepared...
Vs
Think more the hardest way as Phatic function which manages to keep the channels of communication open and allows people to maintain the relationships as we find that the physical and psychological connections are necessary for any communication...
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as B is for *Bracketing techniques* in photography again
Vs
Think more the Quickest Intuitively way as how in this technique, a photographer takes shot of the same image using different camera settings.
Calling one's self Bayesian is a bit pretentious, but it is a decent aspiration. Most of what you describe could be also described as a scientific mindset.
@Super Brain 969 Fair enough... Though I was referring to the "philosophy of science", which is a specific well-established thing.
Some dude named Popper (and some other folks) wrote a bit about it ;)
@@travcollier Yeah, but Popper was weird, he thinks that books "know" things, and that is how his epistemology works... How does a book have knowledge exactly Karl??? How about words then, do words "know" themselves??? Knowledge without a subject is inane.
@@seanoconnell1120 "knowledge" is a weird concept. My view is that we only have models which work more or less well. A useful term of art from learning theory is "probably approximately correct".
I totally agree that knowledge (or information) has to be "with respect to" something else. It is a reduction in the uncertainty about one thing/system given the state of another thing/system. A map is just a bunch of lines on a paper unless those lines correlate with something else.
@@travcollier Also, quite literally I mean that lines on a paper are meaningless to the map itself, it does not comprise or encapsulate or have knowledge. It takes a mind to interpret the lines and give meaning to them and then to have a concept of the map, thus achieving knowledge (although it could be misinterpreted ...)
How can an epistemology rely on a book "knowing" things. We could delve a little deeper and ask: does Alexa know things? You can certainly 'ask' Alexa and 'she' will answer (with the preprogrammed responses or call up a google/wikipedia search) But Popper just side steps these questions by saying "If you write 2+2=4 on a rock, now the rock knows 2+2=4" ??? and that is how a kid who reads the writing on the rock now learns 2+2=4, because the rock taught them, not the author who wrote on the rock ... but the rock in and of itself.
What a way to get around the issue that knowledge transmission doesn't have to be direct (from subject to subject) but can be via a separate substrate like symbols.
@@seanoconnell1120 But does your (or my) brain "know" anything, or just encode patterns? For all I know, you are just a soulless bot (and you can say the same about me) ;)
At a practical level it is certainly useful to use concepts like agency and knowing, but that doesn't mean they are well defined or have some really fundamental yes/no existence.
Sort of reminds me of the philosophical zombie "hard problem". Imagine you have a bot which is indistinguishable from a conscious person, but is not conscious. Well, my answer to that is that it isn't "hard"... It is nonsense. Either conscious means something which can be distinguished, or it means nothing. I'm rather utilitarian of a sort.
Anyways, back on topic... I don't think knowledge in any absolute sense really exists. So saying a map or book knows something isn't bothersome. It's a metaphor, but every time the word "know" is used it is a sort of metaphor.
A financial wager always helps focus the mind.
ah, that's such a great way of subtly nudging people, including ourselves, to think in terms of probabilities and uncertainties
@@thomas.02 Or of just losing a whole bunch of money without contributing to the economy.
I wonder if anyone has told Aubrey Plaza that she looks like Julia Galef.
UA-cam has been showing me Aubrey Plaza videos because I watched a couple because I find her attractive. Now I watched one video from Julia and keep getting more recommendations for her channel.
Weirded out when I saw your comment. The algorithm doing its thing again. But this time I’m not complaining.
Think more as wise as how I Automatically came and hug you...
Vs
Think more as wise as how I feel it's the only way that makes me feel comfortable with whom I'm honest to
It looks like for almost 30 years without knowing absolutely nothing about Baywatch theory (LOL!), I’ve been looking and analyzing things pretty much like that, except when stuck in traffic I can’t stop not reading random license plates and finding so many relationships among them!!!
When I first learned Bayesian inference, my impression was, "Why is this controversial? This is just probabilistic reasoning done correctly."
So now apparently one of the common complaints about is, "What's the big deal? It's just probabilistic reasoning."
Maybe we should just point the people who object to it because it's too radical to the people who object to it because it's so obvious as to be uninteresting and have them fight it out?
So, it's like normal reasoning, but more thorough. Got it.
Mostly just normal reasoning, ho hum
How are you not getting old? You haven’t aged at all.
I was gonna write a comment about how it's remarkable that there's a video of a woman on the internet and not a single comment about her appereance. But fuck, I agree with you completely.
Some people just don't age as fast. My mom is one of those people. She looked like a teenager until she was 40. There's no good explanation since my mom does not really lead a healthy lifestyle. I imagine it's something genetic, but who knows. But people on average don't really start aging until around 30 years when their hormones start to decline anyway.
Probably don’t drink or smoke and has a healthy Mediterranean diet with lots of olive oil and fresh veg
Think more the hardest way with words that end with Y
Vs
Think more the hardest way as E is for Easy, F is for Fantasy
this is really well articulated.
Thanks for your permission. I am now glaring at my wife.
3 days later... tired of sleeping on the couch yet?
"Bayesian thinking" sounds like a "keto diet" for a different ecosystem. Wonder if it built already enough of tribalism around itself?
no
It literally can’t because it’s all about questioning your beliefs in light of new evidence.
You are completely right. Everyone wants to feel special or unique
Hey Julia! Happy International Women's Day! ❤️
Think more the hardest way as how a director helps the screenwriter visualise the script
Vs
Think more why he may also work directly with the sound mixers and film scorer for this reason
Think more the Hardest way as how the Journalistic interview is a specific type of informative interview where the interviews one or more 'sources' to gather material and all supporting information required to write a news story...
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as how in earlier times, a large space in newspapers used to be devoted to various types of reviews
Non-mathematician: how are you today?
Mathematician response: maybe fine!
thank you!, didn't really know what Bayesian is, now I just learned I've been a natural born Bayesian all my life (well, let's say 50 years of 64)
Think more the wisest way with one strictest pattern I managed to discipline myself accordingly even when situation I was framed like I have to be out of control
Vs
Think more the wisest way even when I have to disagree with everyone included you
Think more the Hardest way as The word *'communication' which is derived from the Latin word 'communicatio' or 'communicare' that means communicate, discuss, impart or share*
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how different dictionaries and encyclopaedia define communication in their own way
I'd like to point out that using the two event form of baye's theorem iteratively is incorrect, and that the 3 event form is the right one to use iteratively. You would use it by calculating P( H | N, O) , where H = hypothesis, N = new data, and O equals old data, i.e. P( H | O) is the prior iteratively. Only if you can show that P( N | H, O ) = P( N | H) and that P( N | O) = P( N ) will the two event form be equivalent. This form has the advantage that it doesn't matter which bit of data you start with in your iterations, so long as you are able to establish a baseline probability under that data.
Think more when I learnt how to hate what I loved curious about just like my past old days
Vs
Think more when I learnt how to be satisfied in the warmth of your body
Think more the hardest way as how the problems of Grammar can generally be attributed to the levels of words and sentences..
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as there are two ways of looking at the rules of grammar -prescriptively and descriptively while dealing with some common Grammatical errors in Media Writing
Think more the hardest way by being figured out to what's that make me stressful and depressed over the situation...
Vs
Think more the hardest way as wise as on worrying about the facts that I no longer construct my logically way of maintaining my financial stability with regards to my own profession
Think more the hardest way as wise as possible with the detail efforts of how I managed to make my Thursday a day ahead than others, no matter how approved or disapproved infront of everybody's eyes through feet, hands, brain, ears, eyes, nose, mouth etc...
Vs
Think more the hardest way as wise with words that end with C from A-Z pattern, apart from what I couldn't make through with 50% of words that end with B from A to Z pattern
Julia, PLEASE DO A VIDEO ON AXIOMS! you are so good at explaining this topic. Probabilistic reasoning and inductive/deductive reasoning would be a great tone too. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with us!
Think more as wise as possible the hardest way to be Specifically personal's secret sharing conversation way...
Vs
Think more the hardest way to let nobody interrupted
**Important note based on my experience with Bayesian logic: learned behavior based on upbringing can make me think I'm thinking objectively but really I'm taking self reflection to an opposite extreme tantamount to self minimization under the guise of humility.
Think more the Hardest way in order to form the possesive of a plural noun that ends in 's', add only an Apostrophe...
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as in order to form the possesive of a plural noun that does not end in 's' add an Apostrophe plus 's'
So, what is the opposite of Bayesian thinking called? Where someone has no evidence but still maintains their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence opposing their stance?
Think more the hardest way as how the While loop repeats statement (s) until the condition given proves false..
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how While loop is also known as entry controlled loop
Think more the Hardest way as how the creativity required in advertisement writing is entirely different from what we find in literary writing...
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how creativity being the soul of advertising
Think more the Hardest way as wise as how I'm fairly free and Frank to communicate to you like the way normal people talked to each other...
Vs
Think more the hardest way yet I cannot pretend like I'm fine to live like this all the time by not seeing you face to face in reality but ended up by how you treated me the alternative ways through people, which I totally didn't like this process, and how I can't accept the fact that others will always asked me to start looking for my future partner, when I confidently pretend to live like you understand what I'm saying from the beginning...
Think more as wise as how I know how you framed what I have to reveal with what I have in mind...
Vs
Think more as wise as willing to do me as you wish me to do for
Think more as C is for Centenary/Centennial
Vs
Think more as D is for Delay/Duration
Think more here's the point, the more I keep on daring to be honest in every single truths with you...
Vs
Think more the quickest Intuitively its the only way to remind you that you should keep me with you like the way I sacrificed over one reasonable argument...
Think more even with the offering choices to pick whatever I like on Internet, even with the desire to fullfill the imagery fleshy needs, with different choices from facebook groups, Google etc...
Vs
Think more yet with what's makes me to automatically focus on you when I certainly see only the regrets in every sides
Think more the hardest way as how a variable declaration refers to reserving a place in computer's memory by a specific name and data type..
Vs
Think more the hardest way as how Variable name should always begin with an alphabet, a dollar sign or an underscore and why it should not have spaces in between or have any special characters.
Think 🔕💎
Vs
Think more as sign to stop ringing bell normally found in some part of any big educational institutions, such as Emergency button
"I suggest we refrain from guessing and find some facts. Spock out."
-- Star Trek
It is astounding how many people live their lives with beliefs based on what they were told, or what they read in their favorite media sources, without taking the time to investigate the "facts" and then alter their beliefs based on the new facts found.
Think more the Hardest way as C is for Central Processing Unit again
Vs
Think more the Hardest way as D is for Disc Fragmental again
Think more the hardest way as E is for Eager to know
Vs
Think more the hardest way as F is for Forever Young
I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian. I was "certain" in all my beliefs. Not so anymore. I started assigning various levels of confidence to my beliefs some time ago. Maybe I'm naturally inclined to think like a Bayesian. I can't even get my head around my old beliefs. And I was deep in it. I believed in Noah's ark, the magic garden, talking snake, demons, witches etc. all of which are described in the bible. Now my brain can't work that way.
Think more the hardest way as Officially positioning related content from A-Z pattern...
Vs
Think more the hardest way as A is for Attorney General, the hardest way as B is for Branch Manager
Think more as wise as cooperative-less until what my thinking process is not a mistake...
Vs
Think more as human enemy-less until my honesty is more Saintful than everybody else
Think more the quickest intuitively way as M is for *Maturity* again
VS
Think more the quickest intuitively way as M is for *Merciful* again
Think more as C is for Courageous
Vs
Think more as D is for Determine
Think more the quickest intuitively way as Q is for *Question* again
Vs
Think more the quickest intuitively way as R is for *Realisation* again
Think less as A is for Arrogant
Vs
Think less as B is for Betrayer
Think more the hardest way as wise as how *Attendance System Software* is used to monitor the attendance of the employee of a company
Vs
Think more the hardest way as wise as how an *Application Software* are designed to handle specialized tasks, such as Documentation, creating spreadsheet, creating graphics, employee payroll and school results.
Think more as wise as how I know how my mind functioning when I'm out of focussing
Vs
Think more as wise as how I know I can't pretend I'm okay by being not reasonable