Danielsan B In the spirit of the video I am going to analyze your statement. .You are demonstrating your inability to follow the report of some of the studies he mentioned and because you happen to agree with Pinker's politics, and may subconsciously feel confident that most of those who may engage the comment section would also be of your ilk. Emboldened by the high probability of engaging in an successful endeavor of virtue signaling, you suggest he is "simply brilliant". "Isn't it great the Left is so full of genius!" . But in reality, besides the clever finishing remark and a few annecdotel examples, he merely relayed the surveyed data from different social studies. Perhaps because he designed the studies in which the data was obtained, some credit IS due. And even though I, (yes,even I) may be implicated as one of those aforementioned headache sufferers (at least now that I admit it), I am still quite sure your comment was directed at his relay of data, in and of itself, and that was the source of awe in your declaration of admiration regarding his apparantly superior intellect. This was no great display of brilliance. Just a fun topic, which could provoke a personal survey of one's own past experiences and/or 'cringe worthy' moments. Yowza! Leftism has created my suspicions, are they deserved? Probably. So who is wrong? Hey, your Motballz are showing. FIN (Satire? You decide) I loved the talk, I just like to engage and exercise the patriarchy...
there is also a another variable that he doesn't mention referred to the veiled bribe to the maitre d. Maitre d could sniff out the bribe, not accept it and on top of it punish you with a longer wait than the one you were going to have. this been for the reason that he doesn't like bribes veiled or not
Probably because you assume they remember. They likely don't, but depends on the scale of the faux pas. If it was big enough, they may talk about it every day.
Valdagast If you don't remember a mistake, you are more likely to repeat it. If you still feel bad about it, either it was a serious faux-pas and feeling bad makes you even more likely to not repeat it, or you haven't learnt to let it go.
And of course, our brains are not programs designed with perfect logic. They are squishy approximations of a mix of logic and grown automatic responses to specific stimuli based on natural selection.
He forgot to mention that if you did a veil bribe on a cop that you also need to take into consideration the inconvenience of maybe having to go to court, even if a bribe could not be proven. You would be down at least a days pay. Also the cop could also pay a bit more attention to looking for defects on your vehicle if you tried a veil bribe on them instead of just accepting the ticket. So in theory the veil bribe could seem the logical option, in practice could sway the probability in accepting the ticket is the better option.
8:56 “In a situation in which there’s more than one perceiver, there’s a salient event, everyone can see the event, and everyone can see everyone else seeing the event. That is sufficient to generate common knowledge”
I watched this talk years ago, and got me thinking, not in a way that Pinker wanted me to think in his talk. And that is why the only person who is Honest is the kid? Shouldn’t the adults tell the emperor that he is naked? And why wouldn’t they? Now years passed since then, and today I wanted to rewatch this video “knowing” that Steven Pinker went to Epstein island. It is common knowledge now 😂. Now the question is did he went there to watch a whole set of emperors being naked, metaphorically and literally, or he himself was one of those emperors? I find all of these linguistics phenomena very interesting, from semantics and of course pragmatics point of view. All of these became more clear and yet confusing when I read the paper "Spilling Some Linguistic Beans: On the Syntactic Flexibility of Idioms" by Daniela Schröder. And asked myself many more confusing questions. I am now researching on Large Language Models and the community expects LLMs to be HHH (Honest, Harmless and Helpful). Clearly people who watched the emperor were not HHH at all, so why LLMs should ? It is all very confusing to me 😂.
I just heard him mention in an interview that his next book (after Enlightenment Now) will be on this subject, although it won't be released for a few years
Reminds me of the scene from "The Princess Bride" when Westley challenges Vizzini to a mental challenge to determine which cup has the poison. So funny!
This video for me underscores the importance of speaking your truth and making people know that you know - when the spell is broken so to speak, we can more easily unite with our common knowledge.
It really doesn't, though. It just as much showed that if you speak your truth - but nobody shares it - you look like an idiot. You presuppose that what you hold true is common knowledge, but the reason we use innuendo is because we don't know already. Which is exactly why only the "irrational" child spoke out about the emperor.
d4n4nable The "little boy" (as he was verbatim described here) simply pointed out the obvious. That is not irrational... But no, if ever one identifies an elephant in the room - keep silent because it would be totally "irrational" for human beings to, like, be 'on the same page' and such. As noted in this lecture, the collaborative induction of common knowledge is an integral element in the social consciousness that has historically empowered various political revolutions (many of which causally entailed a state of progress in civil society, more democratic integrity over time, etc.) It is much better for us all to be disengenous though, right? Right. Sarcasm aside, I would ammend the way that the OP framed his statement...'Your' truths is a problematic way of phrasing what should be communicated. It makes more sense to propose that positions which can be rationally defended should be declaratively shared - and of course, in every case, such is up for critical scrutiny and analysis...for one, that is fundamental to the process of better ideas succeeding over time...and ideas shape how humans interact in the world. Better ideas will tend to result in a better world (probabilistically).
Alan_08, it can be considered irrational to point out the obvious if such pointing would likely have negative consequences. If everyone kept silent about the obvious condition of the emperor out of fear of social repercussions, or direct punishment from the emperor, then it would be rational self-interest to keep quiet. It's cowardly and dishonest, but still rational.
I agree with Alan that "your truth" is a problem. What that phrase implies is that there is a proposition that you, personally and uniquely, believe true, but others might not agree. i.e. it likely isn't actually true, despite your belief. Better to say that you have an assumption/conjecture/hypothesis that you want to share so that you and others can work together to determine its truth value. We can't have "my truth" or "your truth" - there is *the truth* that belongs to all of us.
mdiem Unless someone is hopelessly entrenched or indoctrinated into Ayn Randian ideology or some such psychologically convenient non-sense, the phrase 'rational self-interest' should be understood as a vacuous, oxynoronic misnomer. Here's the reason why...There is nothing legitimately logical about self-interest. Is it psychologically predictable? Yes. But rational? No. As you point out, it involves intellectual dishonesty and cowardice. That is in quite direct conflict with what can be described as rational operation of a mind. Furthermore, self-interest is simply a natural mechanism, but ascribing a logical attribute to it actually reduces to nothing more than an appeal to nature logical fallacy (aka argumentum ad naturam). Just because it's an evolved trait does not mean that it is a rational or intelligently engineered one. In fact, humans are more capable of rational cognition and behavior than other animals precisely _because_ we can think beyond our own mere individual self-interests alone, when thinking and acting. Short-term gratification of a single self's desires =/= rational. Long-term probabilistic advancement of _collective_ cognitive function, understanding, and existential well-being is something rational to invest in - and (generally speaking), what I stated in my prior post, is more likely to produce better results for such. Just think about it for bit...because I doubt you'll come across this basic concept elsewhere anytime soon; for the most part, human culture is still too steeped in a sea of memes devoid of, or even directly contrary to, the underlying idea. Thanks for engaging.
Very thought provoking.This makes me question about what could be assumed common knowledge. Where one person thinks that he knows that she knows that he knows that she knows... and the other person knows that she knows that he knows... but in fact the common knowledge varies between the parties. I understand in order to achieve a common knowledge that a salient event occurs, however that event would need to be perceived in the same way. If it is not- could that then give rise to assumed common knowledge and what sets of circumstances could that then lead to such as a self conscious emotions, and what set of strategies would then ensue to manage the coordination of the relationship. Would that then lead to demonstrating a set of cultural bias overall in that which is common knowledge and what would that bias be if so?
I don't think the conditions at 9:05 is sufficient. What, for example, happens when one of the spectators, say Albert, thinks he is invisible? Then still everyone sees the emperor and everyone sees that everyone else sees the emperor, but Albert has faulty common knowledge since he thinks no-one know he sees the emperor naked.
That is a good point. It brings up the condition of extremes where people really don't react at all like most people are used to expecting. And, I hypothesize that it does have a significant impact on the way we act. The world really keeps you guessing. But, maybe we have to understand this normal condition before we can delve into how the extremes play into it.
But Albert can see that other people can see and know that other people (Except him) know that the emperor is naked. That is, if not a large amount of the other people also think they are invisible. And you don't say if Albert think that the other people are thinking they are invisible too. He could think that. I think it is a matter of probabilities at work here. If there is a crowd of, let's say 50000 spectators at a stadium, there is no way that everybody can see that everybody reacts to something that happens at a moment in time. And also to assume that everybody knows that everybody know it. It's impossible. But I think that the persons make the assumption that a large amount of people are taking notice of the same thing, since it is a shared event. And that they know that all others could potentially know. They can see "enough" people around them in the crowd, a sub-group, react in a certain way and from that infer that it also is shared in the whole group. More of a probability than an absolute "All or nothing". I mean, you could also make the case that many people are blind and happen to look in the direction of emperor (with sunglasses on). You don't know for sure if that person is taking notice or not of the thing. It could just look like he does. I think that a spectator assumes that a large majority of people will have normal functions when it comes to perception and that he knows that the other knows that too. So even if there is a "disturbance", it would work most of the time. That is, if there isn't a conference for blind people going on nearby. Or the invisible man convention...
Albert knows the month, Bernard the day. Because Bernard doesn't know 'at first' what the date would be, so Bernard knows it can't be May 19 or June 18 as all the other dates have have 2 dates with the same day (2 14's, July and August; 2 15's, May and August; 2 16's, May and July; and 2 17's, June and August). This leaves only one month - June , that has only one entry to choose from (ie. June 17th). Since Albert knows that Bernard doesn't know, Albert also knows that it can't be any date in which there is only one day with the day number and since Albert does know only the month, only the June month will fit. Please enlighten me as to the logic you used.
very briefly Albert(A) says B can't know answer with only date. So it is not May or June. (Eliminate those entirely.) With this new info B "Now I know" so it is not July 14 or Aug 14 (Eliminate those) A then says "I know, too". There are still two options in August. (Eliminate August) Only one left is July 16
Yes, my mistake was the second part of Bernard's statement ('now I know') means that Bernard knows before Albert. I read through and thought that Albert knew before Bernard.
Interestingly, the bribing part missing the case "Bribe + Corrupted Officer/Maitre d'" -> "Recieve a ticket/Long Wait". Since bribing is not something that guarantees the desired outcome even if accepted. That makes the choice of making a bribe "heavier" (referring to the Loss aversion).
Sedokun True. Which adds more negative probability to the desired outcome, despite the hope of plausible deniability working. But hey, maybe they wouldn't know, that you know, that they know what your up to. Agreed?
I like this concept a lot and enjoyed the video, but I think they over-simplify the "punishment" with the innuendo option on the game theory table. In each case, he shows that with the innuendo option you will get either the best reward or the least punishment, but I think people often reply to a veiled request, with a veiled punishment, if they feel insulted. For example, the maitre d' may intentionally have you wait longer if he is insulted, but doesn't want to make his feelings overt, or the girl who turns down the veiled request for sex may just distance herself from the requester. Saying the repercussions of a veiled request end with the conversation, seems like an arbitrary cut-off to me.
Presented results lack statistical rigor: how many subjects were in each experiment, what were the confidence intervals for the observed differences or what were the p-values and statistical powers? Were these results reproduced by other research groups? Great wording but flimsy data. Presentation not worthy professional audience. P.S. Directional graphs could have been used to simplify " ... she knows that he knows that ..." structures.
Twenty-five seconds in and -- uh-oh! I got a signal. Why "...seen with their own eyeballs"? Why not "eyes"? Language puffery always makes me put a hand on my wallet pocket. "Way, shape or form" instead of "way". "Cash flow" instead of "cash". I've been enjoying S.P. lately (despite his odd use, in at least one talk, of "she" for a neuter third-person when "they" is clear, unambiguous, not loaded and has historical precedent). Verbal irregularities such as this make me wonder what that scratchy stuff coming down my forehead is. Well, no matter -- the world has lots of oddities, and some of the most observant and articulate people display them. S.P.'s content is always engaging. And now, I hope to watch the rest of the show uninterrupted. ... Nice, as expected. The talk reminds me a little of grammar -- everyone uses it automatically, but he gives names of the parts of speech. It's fun, like the analysis of music -- but that's no way to learn how to play the piano.
What a beautifully intelligent man.
Sometimes, I feel smart. And then I listen to Pinker. Then me not so smart. Brilliant man.
Danielsan B totally agree! Brilliant man! There are some people in the world who make me proud of my species, others not so much.
blackestjake You wouldn't be talking about the current president, would you?
Me too. Pinker expanded my mind and I am grateful. Knowledge can hurt a bit, but is compelling and I have to learn.
Danielsan B
In the spirit of the video I am going to analyze your statement.
.You are demonstrating your inability to follow the report of some of the studies he mentioned and because you happen to agree with Pinker's politics, and may subconsciously feel confident that most of those who may engage the comment section would also be of your ilk. Emboldened by the high probability of engaging in an successful endeavor of virtue signaling, you suggest he is "simply brilliant". "Isn't it great the Left is so full of genius!" .
But in reality, besides the clever finishing remark and a few annecdotel examples, he merely relayed the surveyed data from different social studies.
Perhaps because he designed the studies in which the data was obtained, some credit IS due. And even though I, (yes,even I) may be implicated as one of those aforementioned headache sufferers (at least now that I admit it), I am still quite sure your comment was directed at his relay of data, in and of itself, and that was the source of awe in your declaration of admiration regarding his apparantly superior intellect.
This was no great display of brilliance. Just a fun topic, which could provoke a personal survey of one's own past experiences and/or 'cringe worthy' moments. Yowza!
Leftism has created my suspicions, are they deserved? Probably. So who is wrong?
Hey, your Motballz are showing.
FIN
(Satire? You decide)
I loved the talk, I just like to engage and exercise the patriarchy...
Danielsan B
Sometimes I am an a-hole.
Just when I think I am a genius, I listen to Pinka' and then I realize..... how true it is.
This has to have some cool implications for understanding sarcasm and irony in comedy...
there is also a another variable that he doesn't mention referred to the veiled bribe to the maitre d. Maitre d could sniff out the bribe, not accept it and on top of it punish you with a longer wait than the one you were going to have. this been for the reason that he doesn't like bribes veiled or not
Awesome lecture. I wonder if another study could be done that ties in egotism and maybe sarcasm? I feel like they're also related.
I want Dr Pinkers commentary on the internet story of the infamous "Hugh Mungus" or "HOW DARE you!" controversy in Seattle.
I dont follow the title
it's explained in the last minute.
Well, at least we know for sure that you don't know.
excellent presentation, wish my professors could make a power point like this instead of just pages of paragraphs
Steven Pinker. More like Steven Awesomer.
NICE!
He is far better than any Psychology Professor I had in University. This is what Psychology should be.
SevenRiderAirForce
Such a damn "Peavin(g) Stinker(ton and/or ski)".
Sowree 'eh. I like to ski, a ton! Cause it's a hoot!
P.S. even tinker
Keven Spinster
Well it seems the knowledge of common knowledge is not common knowledge...
Another amazing lecture. Dr. Pinker seems to be incapable of saying anything that is uninteresting.
Jassim Al-Oboudi you robbed that, and it's definitely worth robbing and applying to Steve Pinker
...as opposed to Jordan Peterson
Peterson is alt right ideologue. And entirely,y unoriginal and needlessly verbose.
Amazing talk on common knowledge.
was that a pun?? :P
But why does my brain think it's important for me to remember faux pas I made twenty years ago? And reminding me of them *all the time*.
To regret things of a distant past could be a sign but also a cause of chronic depression.
Probably because you assume they remember. They likely don't, but depends on the scale of the faux pas. If it was big enough, they may talk about it every day.
Valdagast If you don't remember a mistake, you are more likely to repeat it. If you still feel bad about it, either it was a serious faux-pas and feeling bad makes you even more likely to not repeat it, or you haven't learnt to let it go.
And of course, our brains are not programs designed with perfect logic. They are squishy approximations of a mix of logic and grown automatic responses to specific stimuli based on natural selection.
A reminder of what not to do?
Great lecture. Though I now have an overwhelming urge to test the scruples of London's restaurant staff.
Jaymzmiller did it work?
Always a great presentation from this great mind. Thank you.
He forgot to mention that if you did a veil bribe on a cop that you also need to take into consideration the inconvenience of maybe having to go to court, even if a bribe could not be proven. You would be down at least a days pay. Also the cop could also pay a bit more attention to looking for defects on your vehicle if you tried a veil bribe on them instead of just accepting the ticket. So in theory the veil bribe could seem the logical option, in practice could sway the probability in accepting the ticket is the better option.
There's the aspect of retaliation for a perceived bribe, whether or not there was one intended or not.
Millenial version of see my etchings: netflix and chill
8:56 “In a situation in which there’s more than one perceiver, there’s a salient event, everyone can see the event, and everyone can see everyone else seeing the event. That is sufficient to generate common knowledge”
Excellent talk as usual. Can the organizers allow time for q&a in the future? All the time?
This needs more views! Seriously!
Sorry, they're all too busy watching a woman getting her face bitten by a snake.
I'm a strictly astronomy and physics guy but I just clicked to
watch later and said to myself "I could get into this".
Did Steven Pinker just show that you should always try a veiled bribe every time you're pulled over?
Yep
I watched this talk years ago, and got me thinking, not in a way that Pinker wanted me to think in his talk. And that is why the only person who is Honest is the kid? Shouldn’t the adults tell the emperor that he is naked? And why wouldn’t they? Now years passed since then, and today I wanted to rewatch this video “knowing” that Steven Pinker went to Epstein island. It is common knowledge now 😂. Now the question is did he went there to watch a whole set of emperors being naked, metaphorically and literally, or he himself was one of those emperors? I find all of these linguistics phenomena very interesting, from semantics and of course pragmatics point of view. All of these became more clear and yet confusing when I read the paper "Spilling Some Linguistic Beans: On the Syntactic Flexibility of Idioms" by Daniela Schröder. And asked myself many more confusing questions. I am now researching on Large Language Models and the community expects LLMs to be HHH (Honest, Harmless and Helpful). Clearly people who watched the emperor were not HHH at all, so why LLMs should ? It is all very confusing to me 😂.
I just heard him mention in an interview that his next book (after Enlightenment Now) will be on this subject, although it won't be released for a few years
Reminds me of the scene from "The Princess Bride" when Westley challenges Vizzini to a mental challenge to determine which cup has the poison. So funny!
I want to hear a discussion with PInker, Peterson, Haight, and Harris on religion and it's cultural impact on the West and the world.
This video for me underscores the importance of speaking your truth and making people know that you know - when the spell is broken so to speak, we can more easily unite with our common knowledge.
It really doesn't, though. It just as much showed that if you speak your truth - but nobody shares it - you look like an idiot. You presuppose that what you hold true is common knowledge, but the reason we use innuendo is because we don't know already. Which is exactly why only the "irrational" child spoke out about the emperor.
d4n4nable The "little boy" (as he was verbatim described here) simply pointed out the obvious. That is not irrational...
But no, if ever one identifies an elephant in the room - keep silent because it would be totally "irrational" for human beings to, like, be 'on the same page' and such.
As noted in this lecture, the collaborative induction of common knowledge is an integral element in the social consciousness that has historically empowered various political revolutions (many of which causally entailed a state of progress in civil society, more democratic integrity over time, etc.)
It is much better for us all to be disengenous though, right? Right.
Sarcasm aside, I would ammend the way that the OP framed his statement...'Your' truths is a problematic way of phrasing what should be communicated. It makes more sense to propose that positions which can be rationally defended should be declaratively shared - and of course, in every case, such is up for critical scrutiny and analysis...for one, that is fundamental to the process of better ideas succeeding over time...and ideas shape how humans interact in the world. Better ideas will tend to result in a better world (probabilistically).
Alan_08, it can be considered irrational to point out the obvious if such pointing would likely have negative consequences. If everyone kept silent about the obvious condition of the emperor out of fear of social repercussions, or direct punishment from the emperor, then it would be rational self-interest to keep quiet.
It's cowardly and dishonest, but still rational.
I agree with Alan that "your truth" is a problem. What that phrase implies is that there is a proposition that you, personally and uniquely, believe true, but others might not agree. i.e. it likely isn't actually true, despite your belief.
Better to say that you have an assumption/conjecture/hypothesis that you want to share so that you and others can work together to determine its truth value.
We can't have "my truth" or "your truth" - there is *the truth* that belongs to all of us.
mdiem Unless someone is hopelessly entrenched or indoctrinated into Ayn Randian ideology or some such psychologically convenient non-sense, the phrase 'rational self-interest' should be understood as a vacuous, oxynoronic misnomer. Here's the reason why...There is nothing legitimately logical about self-interest. Is it psychologically predictable? Yes. But rational? No. As you point out, it involves intellectual dishonesty and cowardice. That is in quite direct conflict with what can be described as rational operation of a mind.
Furthermore, self-interest is simply a natural mechanism, but ascribing a logical attribute to it actually reduces to nothing more than an appeal to nature logical fallacy (aka argumentum ad naturam). Just because it's an evolved trait does not mean that it is a rational or intelligently engineered one. In fact, humans are more capable of rational cognition and behavior than other animals precisely _because_ we can think beyond our own mere individual self-interests alone, when thinking and acting. Short-term gratification of a single self's desires =/= rational. Long-term probabilistic advancement of _collective_ cognitive function, understanding, and existential well-being is something rational to invest in - and (generally speaking), what I stated in my prior post, is more likely to produce better results for such.
Just think about it for bit...because I doubt you'll come across this basic concept elsewhere anytime soon; for the most part, human culture is still too steeped in a sea of memes devoid of, or even directly contrary to, the underlying idea.
Thanks for engaging.
His sister's book The Village Effect is good.
My wife uses indirect speech all the time and it drives me crazy. I think it's intellectually dishonest...lol
I'm not seeing this infinite here. You can only know that she knows that you know that she knows once.
Wondering how this could be studied in other apes.
Very thought provoking.This makes me question about what could be assumed common knowledge.
Where one person thinks that he knows that she knows that he knows that she knows... and the other person knows that she knows that he knows... but in fact the common knowledge varies between the parties.
I understand in order to achieve a common knowledge that a salient event occurs, however that event would need to be perceived in the same way. If it is not- could that then give rise to assumed common knowledge and what sets of circumstances could that then lead to such as a self conscious emotions, and what set of strategies would then ensue to manage the coordination of the relationship. Would that then lead to demonstrating a set of cultural bias overall in that which is common knowledge and what would that bias be if so?
At 7:40 the answer is to get on the ‚telepathic phone‘ to fix the meet 🤙🏿 .. at Peet‘s.. anyplace but Starbucks ☕️🔫
1:54 Whats the solution?
Does he know that we know that he smacks his lips after every sentence?
I didn't know (notice) that. So, he should be about 50/50.
Annoying as hell, that.
I mentioned it before. Still, he's smart as hell.
Damn you! Now I can't not notice it.
Crazy Snake Me too. Attention bias is a bitch!
of course he does. I can't not notice that either.
Great talk. It seems to me that indirect speech is like a preemptive defence mechanism.
"Coffee is not coffee. Coffee is sex" George Costenza
I don't think the conditions at 9:05 is sufficient. What, for example, happens when one of the spectators, say Albert, thinks he is invisible? Then still everyone sees the emperor and everyone sees that everyone else sees the emperor, but Albert has faulty common knowledge since he thinks no-one know he sees the emperor naked.
That is a good point. It brings up the condition of extremes where people really don't react at all like most people are used to expecting. And, I hypothesize that it does have a significant impact on the way we act. The world really keeps you guessing. But, maybe we have to understand this normal condition before we can delve into how the extremes play into it.
But Albert can see that other people can see and know that other people (Except him) know that the emperor is naked. That is, if not a large amount of the other people also think they are invisible. And you don't say if Albert think that the other people are thinking they are invisible too. He could think that.
I think it is a matter of probabilities at work here. If there is a crowd of, let's say 50000 spectators at a stadium, there is no way that everybody can see that everybody reacts to something that happens at a moment in time. And also to assume that everybody knows that everybody know it. It's impossible.
But I think that the persons make the assumption that a large amount of people are taking notice of the same thing, since it is a shared event. And that they know that all others could potentially know. They can see "enough" people around them in the crowd, a sub-group, react in a certain way and from that infer that it also is shared in the whole group.
More of a probability than an absolute "All or nothing".
I mean, you could also make the case that many people are blind and happen to look in the direction of emperor (with sunglasses on). You don't know for sure if that person is taking notice or not of the thing. It could just look like he does.
I think that a spectator assumes that a large majority of people will have normal functions when it comes to perception and that he knows that the other knows that too. So even if there is a "disturbance", it would work most of the time.
That is, if there isn't a conference for blind people going on nearby.
Or the invisible man convention...
The Pinker the better.
easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy ... Cheryl's Birthday is July 16
Nope, Cheryl's Birthday is June 17.
July 16
Albert knows the month, Bernard the day.
Because Bernard doesn't know 'at first' what the date would be, so Bernard knows it can't be May 19 or June 18 as all the other dates have have 2 dates with the same day (2 14's, July and August; 2 15's, May and August; 2 16's, May and July; and 2 17's, June and August).
This leaves only one month - June , that has only one entry to choose from (ie. June 17th).
Since Albert knows that Bernard doesn't know, Albert also knows that it can't be any date in which there is only one day with the day number and since Albert does know only the month, only the June month will fit.
Please enlighten me as to the logic you used.
very briefly
Albert(A) says B can't know answer with only date. So it is not May or June. (Eliminate those entirely.)
With this new info B "Now I know" so it is not July 14 or Aug 14 (Eliminate those)
A then says "I know, too". There are still two options in August. (Eliminate August)
Only one left is July 16
Yes, my mistake was the second part of Bernard's statement ('now I know') means that Bernard knows before Albert.
I read through and thought that Albert knew before Bernard.
好棒~~
July 16th
Interestingly, the bribing part missing the case "Bribe + Corrupted Officer/Maitre d'" -> "Recieve a ticket/Long Wait". Since bribing is not something that guarantees the desired outcome even if accepted. That makes the choice of making a bribe "heavier" (referring to the Loss aversion).
Sedokun
True. Which adds more negative probability to the desired outcome, despite the hope of plausible deniability working. But hey, maybe they wouldn't know, that you know, that they know what your up to. Agreed?
I like this concept a lot and enjoyed the video, but I think they over-simplify the "punishment" with the innuendo option on the game theory table. In each case, he shows that with the innuendo option you will get either the best reward or the least punishment, but I think people often reply to a veiled request, with a veiled punishment, if they feel insulted. For example, the maitre d' may intentionally have you wait longer if he is insulted, but doesn't want to make his feelings overt, or the girl who turns down the veiled request for sex may just distance herself from the requester. Saying the repercussions of a veiled request end with the conversation, seems like an arbitrary cut-off to me.
Presented results lack statistical rigor: how many subjects were in each experiment, what were the confidence intervals for the observed differences or what were the p-values and statistical powers? Were these results reproduced by other research groups? Great wording but flimsy data. Presentation not worthy professional audience. P.S. Directional graphs could have been used to simplify " ... she knows that he knows that ..." structures.
What is this about actually? Intro lacks any cue. Just starts talking about common knowledge.
It's certainly not for you.
Twenty-five seconds in and -- uh-oh! I got a signal. Why "...seen with their own eyeballs"? Why not "eyes"? Language puffery always makes me put a hand on my wallet pocket. "Way, shape or form" instead of "way". "Cash flow" instead of "cash". I've been enjoying S.P. lately (despite his odd use, in at least one talk, of "she" for a neuter third-person when "they" is clear, unambiguous, not loaded and has historical precedent). Verbal irregularities such as this make me wonder what that scratchy stuff coming down my forehead is. Well, no matter -- the world has lots of oddities, and some of the most observant and articulate people display them. S.P.'s content is always engaging.
And now, I hope to watch the rest of the show uninterrupted.
...
Nice, as expected. The talk reminds me a little of grammar -- everyone uses it automatically, but he gives names of the parts of speech. It's fun, like the analysis of music -- but that's no way to learn how to play the piano.
I can't understand the logic puzzles when you constantly misspeak and swap out words randomly dude...