Using the context of this video, it's basically the idea that you need to intentionally adjust your beliefs to more confident or less confident when you encounter new evidence. Crucially, you need to adjust towards the strength of the evidence, not towards 100 or 0. For example, if your belief in something is 50/50 and you find evidence that implies something has around 70% chance of being true you would adjust to 60% not to 70%.
Bayesian thinking is also a great mindset tool for counterfactual reasoning and critical thinking. I encountered the theorem almost 30 years ago, and it changed my life completely. Who I am today it's also because of that.
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe well, I understood that there is no black or white, but a continuous scale of greys. The grade of grey, then, depends on how things are connected and how they interact. I learnt that what you see is no more than what you get and by amplifying your knowledge, your ability to understand that you don't know increases. Then the causality, the counterfactual reasoning and therefore the critical thinking are all related. I started to observe the world by questioning everything because I know that I don't know.
@@SimoneFavaro have you encountered the work of David Deutsch, whose book The Beginning of Infinity argues that knowledge is about seeking good explanation (that which explains which it purports to explain while being difficult to vary) over the pure credence-adjusting of Bayesianism
I think she is proposing to adopt a way of thinking that your existing beliefs may be wrong. That way you will not look at new information through the lens of your existing beliefs but rather for what it is.
Think more the hardest way as wise as possible with this particular video since 3 weeks ago... Vs Think more the hardest way yet I shouldn't be repeatedly framed like I know nothing
Man I was thinking I must be too stupid to get it lol but the I checked the comments and saw that other people were also confused. She didn’t explain the theory!!!
I just finished reading, "The Scout Mindset" two days ago. I remember taking a class Math 505: Introduction To Probability at the U. of Utah in the summer of 1980. We spent a lot of time studying Bayes Rule and its implications but it wasn't until about 12 years after that, that I discovered how controversial it is. Are you working n another book? Here's a potential title: How to Win Every Argument by Ignoring Facts: A Masterclass in Stubbornness
I like the sentiment, just don't like the 'provably the best way' (1:10)... because no, it isn't proven. we've just seen a lot of data that it is effective. to say it is 'provably the BEST' is to literally disregard the premise behind it.
By implying that we'll actually be told what Beyes' rule itself is, and how it's applied, this is just clickbait. I learned nothing other than some random person thinks it's a good rule. Why would I watch anything more from this channel?
Is Bayes’ Rule sufficient for authorities to refuse to examine records available to them that would resolve the claimant’s statement? Think, ‘He couldn’t possibly be a pedophile, he’s a Catholic Priest’, which put an end to the hopes of many for justice and to their belief in God.
There is a trick on Bayesian thinking that can be tricky. The governing of prior probability. Putting simply, if I consider only the evidence that supports my hypothesis, then the Bayes rule will confirm my initial hypothesis. It's called the Bayes Trap. But if you know it, then you can counter fight and adjust. Lawyer should present the evidence to balance the confirmation bias of authorities or change the ruling authority taking the case to another court.
What qualifies THIS entertainer (Julia Galef) to decide what is "rational" or "intelligent" or not? Sorry, but being an entertainer and being given free media platform does NOT qualify her as intelligent or rational. Also, show us how to get governments to overcome sunk cost fallacies. Then people will listen to you & take you seriously. Until then, no.
Why does ANYONE need to qualify themselves to decide what’s rational or intelligent? The arguments to determine what’s rational or intelligent should always speak for themselves
Fortunately UA-cam recommended a video of Julia explaining Bayes’ rules directly beneath this one.
Ah I had to scroll down a little, but then I found a TED talk by her, perhaps that’s the one you’re referring to. I’ll check it out, thanks!
I'm sure she spoke much longer than the final edit. My guess is that the editor didn't understand and so left out key parts of the presentation.
This is just a short part of a longer piece isn't it?
@@Catlily5 how do u know?
@@mihailmilev9909I think she spoke longer but I don't know for sure. That is why I am asking.
She noted "updating." incorporating new information, and "gray-scale," level of confidence. Two key ideas of Bayes.
Conspiration!!!!!!
Would be great if she also expalined what bayes rule is
Using the context of this video, it's basically the idea that you need to intentionally adjust your beliefs to more confident or less confident when you encounter new evidence. Crucially, you need to adjust towards the strength of the evidence, not towards 100 or 0. For example, if your belief in something is 50/50 and you find evidence that implies something has around 70% chance of being true you would adjust to 60% not to 70%.
@@GBM0311 so basically a bunch of random bullshit whatever
@@grand3640 wut
@@grand3640 thats not very bayesian bro
**explained.
Bayesian thinking is also a great mindset tool for counterfactual reasoning and critical thinking. I encountered the theorem almost 30 years ago, and it changed my life completely. Who I am today it's also because of that.
How exactly did it change your life? I’m very intrigued!
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe well, I understood that there is no black or white, but a continuous scale of greys. The grade of grey, then, depends on how things are connected and how they interact. I learnt that what you see is no more than what you get and by amplifying your knowledge, your ability to understand that you don't know increases. Then the causality, the counterfactual reasoning and therefore the critical thinking are all related. I started to observe the world by questioning everything because I know that I don't know.
@@SimoneFavaro have you encountered the work of David Deutsch, whose book The Beginning of Infinity argues that knowledge is about seeking good explanation (that which explains which it purports to explain while being difficult to vary) over the pure credence-adjusting of Bayesianism
Thats basically how i think everyday.
Life made me do it.
I think she is proposing to adopt a way of thinking that your existing beliefs may be wrong. That way you will not look at new information through the lens of your existing beliefs but rather for what it is.
If anyone else than me is wondering, his name is Thomas Bayes and the rule is a statistical one.
Vertasium had a good video on this too.
it was the first video recommended when you played this video, right? I am wondering how the algorthim can be so smart?
@@spiderlandd2 it was not, but maybe after my comment it added it. I saw the vertasium one a while back and remembered the general idea.
Think more the hardest way as wise as possible with this particular video since 3 weeks ago...
Vs
Think more the hardest way yet I shouldn't be repeatedly framed like I know nothing
Man I was thinking I must be too stupid to get it lol but the I checked the comments and saw that other people were also confused. She didn’t explain the theory!!!
I just finished reading, "The Scout Mindset" two days ago. I remember taking a class Math 505: Introduction To Probability at the U. of Utah in the summer of 1980. We spent a lot of time studying Bayes Rule and its implications but it wasn't until about 12 years after that, that I discovered how controversial it is. Are you working n another book? Here's a potential title:
How to Win Every Argument by Ignoring Facts: A Masterclass in Stubbornness
Can you elaborate? I’m curious about what your proposed title exposes in Bayesian thinking
Is this the entire video?
Were Italian Americans and Germsn Americans also interned during WWII?
I like the sentiment, just don't like the 'provably the best way' (1:10)... because no, it isn't proven. we've just seen a lot of data that it is effective. to say it is 'provably the BEST' is to literally disregard the premise behind it.
There were no WMD
By implying that we'll actually be told what Beyes' rule itself is, and how it's applied, this is just clickbait. I learned nothing other than some random person thinks it's a good rule.
Why would I watch anything more from this channel?
Is Bayes’ Rule sufficient for authorities to refuse to examine records available to them that would resolve the claimant’s statement?
Think, ‘He couldn’t possibly be a pedophile, he’s a Catholic Priest’, which put an end to the hopes of many for justice and to their belief in God.
No by bayes rule I guess you'd personally pay more attention to those guys given their track record
There is a trick on Bayesian thinking that can be tricky. The governing of prior probability. Putting simply, if I consider only the evidence that supports my hypothesis, then the Bayes rule will confirm my initial hypothesis. It's called the Bayes Trap. But if you know it, then you can counter fight and adjust. Lawyer should present the evidence to balance the confirmation bias of authorities or change the ruling authority taking the case to another court.
Qualify everything!
Either I completely missed the point of this video or there wasn't one.
😂😂😂😂😂
Here is a video of her talking about it more fully. ua-cam.com/video/BrK7X_XlGB8/v-deo.html
Is this the trailer lmao
I have a crush on her❤️❤️
I still don't understand why you erasing my latest comments? I still haven't understand how you did this to me...I'm not hurt but I'm angered
Huh?
Exercise those thumbs and look it up… DYOR!
❤
this is so true 😂😢😮
Click bait
Bayssien philosophy
Scratches
If Jordan Peterson were a Woman:
Hell no ❌
Peterson is a confused unit trying to cure his psychosis by talks to the public.
In what way?
Equally gibberish
What qualifies THIS entertainer (Julia Galef) to decide what is "rational" or "intelligent" or not? Sorry, but being an entertainer and being given free media platform does NOT qualify her as intelligent or rational. Also, show us how to get governments to overcome sunk cost fallacies. Then people will listen to you & take you seriously. Until then, no.
Why does ANYONE need to qualify themselves to decide what’s rational or intelligent? The arguments to determine what’s rational or intelligent should always speak for themselves
rationalisation explain by a woman.
lol