Hope you guys enjoy this one! I know It's another one that's a little different from most other videos but I just personally found all these examples really interesting (also needed a break from weird paradoxes and higher dimensional math). But on that subject you guys seemed to enjoy the higher dimensional stuff so I'm working on another one of those but from more of a physics perspective.
MajorPrep I want more of this video that I just watched. While the higher mathematics and physics stuff is more interesting and inspiring to me, and gives me stuff to share with my like-minded friends... What you've given me right now is actually relevant to my current life and is very much needed.
I actually wrote a note of this on my phone to remember it for future wise advice, right next to "When you think something is true, you must try as hard as you can to disprove yourself" from Derek, Veritasium.
Once you realize not only how little you know of what actually goes on in the world, but furthermore, how little of it you will ever understand, or could even hope to understand, is infinitesimal compared to the things which you cannot know, that conclusion is inescapable. It is only prudent to realize that we have a dirth of correct inferences when it comes to relying on our flawed human senses.
this video: *says a lot of things i can agree with* me: this is good quality content *hits like button* this video: confirmation bias means you think things are higher quality if you agree with them me: ...i feel called out now
Crazy isn’t it? But I guess as long as we’re cognizant of these biases, we can acknowledge them and understand the limitations and nuance of our take on something.
I was just recently trying to make this argument for why all hairdressers think that dying your hair at home will probably turn out badly. If you dye your hair at home and it turns out fine, you wouldn't need to see a hairdresser, so they tend to only see the horror stories. This video definitely put it far more eloquently.
He actually made it sound worst, the real story is that they added armor to the parts that were already shot first, thinking that the downed planes went down because it was shot too much. What the genius did is think the opposite, saving countless lives and planes.
@@guillermogutierrez-santana4446 Yeah I'm wondering about the story, because the later things he mentions kind of contradict his point? He says that's survivalship bias or whatever the name is, assuming things of the planes that didn't make it back, but when he brings the other examples like the houses, all his examples assume things of the things that do exist but miss the ones that didn't. Did he explain the bias wrong? Let me explain my question more clearly: Plane got shot marks -> Dude assumes the OTHER planes that didn't make it are the bad ones because they were destroyed. Old arquitecture is good -> Dude assumes the SAME houses are good, missing the point of the OTHER houses being bad because they were destroyed. Both of these are used for the same bias, but are completely opposite cases of assumptions, can someone clarify this point to me? The first one is clearly observing at the bigger picture taking both the ones that made it and didn't make it into account, so how is that one part of the bias?
@@guillermogutierrez-santana4446 maybe they thought that those are parts that are generally more likely to get hit, so it seemed reasonable to reinforce them.
It's a shame that schools teach (at least they try to) how to use Math for a pretty long time, but they don't spend even the fraction of that time to teach how not to use it, or to recognize when someone's using it the way it shouldn't be used. Videos like this (such as by Numberphile, Mathologer, Vsauce, Veritasium just to name a few) should be in the material of each and every school if they want to carry out their mission.
Math rests upon logic and that's certainly important. But it's science that offers a more substantive foray into skepticism...and that's really what this video is about. What's really sad is that skepticism is a subject on its own just like math or physics. As such, schools should be tasked with teaching it as a core curriculum. Instead, kids are left to learn only cursory amounts of skepticism via math and science (two subjects that routinely fail to interest teenagers) and, even then, only by means of osmosis. Kids should be directly and deliberately taught skeptical skill sets throughout school. Yet, they aren't. How can that be?
It's not just statistics. Schools (at least for older children) fail to prepare kids for the modern world in multiple ways. I for instance had to wait until university to be taught what the "scientific method" actually means, what cognitive biases are, how game theory can steer groups towards bad outcomes without any person being at fault, how financial markets work, ..... I could go on and on. Given that I visited one of the "better" schools here in Germany, I have to conclude that our entire education system is outdated.
@@TheLolle97 I'd gladly argue but unfortunately there is no reason for. Somehow we are lost among ready-made equations without making what's really behind them visible.
@Vela S Yeah, I don't know about using those videos as actual teaching tools, or incorporating them into the curriculum. The reality is that many of those videos are already produced with school funding (Numberphile and related channels, for example, are literally funded by UC Berkeley). They are outreach tools, and they are very effect at fostering a fun learning experience. They shouldn't be mistake for instruction or tutorial, though, you are definitely correct there. I disagree, however-and this is actually quite plain to see if you actually follow some of these channels for any length of time-that the viewership is entirely or near entirely those with a passing interest. There are clearly very well educated people in the audience who know these mathematics because they have to, because it's their job, or something.
@@ExosoIar I love how your comment about his comment confirms my biases about his comment about the video. As a result, I consider it to he a clever comment.
@@mrc2176 I love how your comment about his comment about his comment confirms my biases about his comment about the video. As a result, I consider it to be a clever comment.
@@alexadams4578 I love how your comment about his comment about his comment about his comment confirms my biases about his comment about the video. As a result, I consider it to be a clever comment.
The Google feedback loop leads to fringe beliefs in part because of recommended content. Although tv has been pushing whichever political flavor you prefer for years, it was as a group. Now our flawed views are becoming more fractured because of the personalised nature of internet consumption.
@@BrianGlaze Yes, a really big problem. Humans, with our "free will" are, because of such biases, irrational. I'm a deep thinker and generally when I hear things that are or might be group think (and that is most stuff you hear in media or online), I look for my own answers and it's fun to uncover the truth. Even with science related issues that is supposed to be fact, so much is not true.
Not for people who are smart. Those people understand how the world works and become successful. :) The people who don't know the truths behind the world, become sheeps. In general I am happy about all of this stuff, because Im becoming successful at the very moment because of this knowledge I have acquired over many years. -The world is not what it appears to be at the first look. And most people dont know that =D
I have always held the notion that statistics is the one subject which every person on the planet should have a basic knowledge of. Videos like this just reinforce that notion. Kudos to you for sharing this content!
@@rockngoals6531 As a conservative public educator, I have repeatedly insisted (to no avail) that Statistics is needed, not Algebra II. My pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
Statistics and money should be taught before calculus. The amount of people who don't even know the difference between cash and assets is deeply disturbing.
It was funny and he did go about it in a smart diplomatic yet humorous way, but true to statistics, him saying that "both sides" are represented he's is both correct and incorrect.... He's assuming that the 2 forms of authoritarianism that America so loves, are the only options.... In a way, that is the political system we are manipulated into accepting.... But in reality, there's freedom or there's not, and that is the true "both sides"... But our "leaders" don't want us to think about the other end of the spectrum, they just keep us divided on a mini-spectrum that plays out to their benefit either way.
This is also why its harder to confront someone who displays a behavior, when they ask you to name multiple times they’ve done it. There are just so many that the individual scenarios don’t stick out any more, making it harder to pull out finite examples. Might have to cite this video next time my roommate acts a fool
Your channel is getting better and and better. With already 218K subscribers, I think you've reached that point on the curve that you should expect reaching 1M+ soon.
To the old me and the other kids who said "When am I going to ever use maths in my life" Here. This is how you are going to use maths in real life. Man, wish I listened more in class.
".....our worldview gets more and more distorted because we're seeing things that get clicks, not things that proportionally represent our reality." Hands down, that's the best description of Social Media's cynical and nihilistic worldview I've ever heard. I feel like he put some suppressed feeling of mine in words that I didn't even know existed. The world isn't getting worse folks. It's getting better and the only reason the opposite is shoved down your throat by news outlets, magazines, twitter and the rest is because it gets more attention and hence more profit. The proportion of good and bad in this world is almost equal, if not more good. You see only the bad side because it means more money for big corps.
I think this highlights the reality of the danger of misinformation. Many people are not willing and/or able to investigate the validity of every claim they come across, so they have no choice but to rely on things like the availability heuristic (you could debate about whether they truly have "no choice," but I mean to say that this is what happens in reality). Furthermore, I find that being aware of the deception brings a source of anxiety.
Thats defiant of the point across this video. The bigger problem is people no matter the credibility of the information they are given build a stubbornness to fully understand every aspect of things they think they know completely. Its this idea that if something is outside your understanding that it doesnt or cannot make sense. This happens because people throw away reason. And are closed minded. They need proof to get things. Instead of being reasonable and using logic to allow themselves to give other modes of reasoning a chance. Basically this video is trying to tell everyone to be open minded to things. Not every idea needs credibility to be understood. Based off information you can get a good idea of things like projected distribution but you dont actually have as full of an understanding of the distribution as you leave yourself to believe.
Yes! Being aware of the deception is absolutely awful. It is humanly impossible to thoroughly investigate everything and honestly it just gets overwhelming and I have to fight wanting to stick my head in the ground at times. 😞
@@matthewcuriel991 I can find little fault with what you've said. However, there is no requirement that I be on topic in my comments. Furthermore, I think misinformation spreading is a very dangerous phenomenon, and it would be naive to think that simply telling people to be more open minded will effective in addressing the effects it is having on our society, and especially our mental and psychological well-being. What's more, it is a mistake, in my opinion, to belief that humans are governed by their rationality (that is to say, the human capacity to employ rationality). In my view, humans only perceive their actions to be rational, when they are in fact, fundamentally emotional. Even irrational emotions have a sort of rationality to them (if it makes sense to say so). People usually believe their own feelings are rational (or perhaps, appropriate to the situation), because they believe their judgement to be sound. The problem is one of epistemology; about what constitutes valid evidence, many people are gravely in error. Sorry if this is boring. Humans are fundamentally governed by their emotions. It is impossible to be 100% rational all of the time, all we can do is to attempt to have many, many, safeguards against it, where it will do us great harm. I don't get out of bed every day because it's rational to do so, for two main reasons: 1) because it would depend entirely on my presuppositions as to what would be rational give my circumstances, and 2) there are obviously other internal drives which I have which provide the far more compelling reason to get out of bed. The fact of these internal drives, as I refer to them, is incontrovertible in my view.
@@silentj624 The temptation is to resort to escapism, retreating to indulgences instead of trying to get something done. The truth of things, as I see it, is that life and this world are best characterized as perpetual, and unyielding struggles which we engage in. We struggle as humans to make lives for ourselves, like a never ending maintenance crew shift. Because our lives and this very Earth we live on will crumble and deteriorate if we don't struggle to maintain them. It is also anxiety relieving to know that you can (in theory at least) possess correct information (or at the very least know how to seek it out and verify it; how to learn things correctly).
Problem is misinformation can just be lack of information. I.E. You only get half the story, the half 'they' want you to hear. And seeing as having complete information is actually impossible, we just have to live the with fact that we are ALWAYS misinformed.
"Before you make a judgement based on your observations, be sure to think about the things you aren’t observing." I have always agreed on this. This video raised my IQ by a few points, I am sure.
Man! I love your rationality and great examples. I also really appreciate your editing. Your info alone would be enough for me to keep watching, but wow.......you have great editing to almost make it feel like a full length documentary. I hope you have a documentary in the works! I'm sure everyone would love to see this happen!! Thank you for these awesome and informative videos. Please make a great documentary :) - You are awesome man !
This is actually something I bring up to people during debates. Nothing is fully on one side or another until absolutely proven. Always keep your mind open to confirming new ideas.
Agreed, but I find most of the time the Reasoning portion of the whole transaction, is way to short. So the reason doesn't even have to be a good one, it just has to be accepted. People just do what they want and most (a calculation based on assumption), don't have a well informed reason at all.
I usually research the hell out before purchasing until my mind is so cluttered nothing makes sense anymore and I buy the one that “feels” less wrong. So... I guess I disagree but actually I agree?
I actually had a discussion with my grandmother on this! She’s afraid of going out because of all the violence there is today. And I said to her that it’s not more now then when she was young. She says she hears about it all the time and I responded that of course because of the world beeing more connected. I asked her about violent episodes that she heard about when she was young and she named a couple from her small town. And when we talked about it we couldn’t come up with any episodes from recent times in the same small town. And I told her that back in the day you only heard about what happened in a small area around where you live and now you hear about almost everything from anywhere on the planet! So of course it seems worse.
This is an excellent video, the bottom line is that our brains have limited capacities to process the insane amounts of data for daily living. Even if we wanted to be more objective, it would be improbable to reach maximum levels of that. That's why we resort to biases, beliefs and heuristics as a mechanism to cope with complexity. Which is great for things that don't really matter, but sucks for things that do matter.
This was an absolutely fantastic video. If this can open just one or two of my friends eyes about statistical manipulation and confirmation bias than it was well worth it in my eyes. Thank you.
Kings Cross Statistics the mathematics behind machine learning algorithms. And heavily uses signals processing and spectral analysis in theoretical time series forecasting
I think the first part is a trick question, when people think about "the average person" you intuitively remove outliers from the equation. If group A is on average very promiscuous but only a small subset of group B is even more promiscuous, your average case (with outliers removed) will have group A be more promiscuous than group B
Obviously, those who do not sleep with anyone should probably be removed from the equation. That would give a more accurate picture, as would including same-sex interactions.
Exactly my point, but removing outliers completely is not valid idea it woud make more sense to reduce their weight. But probably more intuitive way is to do popularity contest (finding the peak of the bell curve) rather than averaging numbers arithmetically. Then we find that most often women have like 10 partners and most men have 1 partner.
I love that you made this video to show how important it is to THINK. I have not been alive to see how society operated in the past, but right now it seems that people don't think their own thoughts, form their own opinions, or maintain an open mind, nor skepticism when being confronted with information. It's like they go through life confronted with everybody else's opinions & flip back and forth between "agree" or "disagree" then suck those opinions in & choose to assign one to themselves. When presented with two opposites, they pick one & move on, rather than question if it's a false dichotomy, and why it is presented in that manner.
As you get older, it becomes harder to learn & understand life as your mind focuses on remembering only what reinforces what you already believed. When all that confirmation bias piles up, you resist new information more and more.
I just subscribed because of you being one of the most sane and non obnoxious persons I've seen on youtube. And I think you're sane because I agree and.. oh wait that's confirmation bias.
What do you think of this comment? To which degree is it true? ua-cam.com/video/ioxWuCd-mn0/v-deo.html&lc=UgyZ-SSrQ8mwY7uM1gx4AaABAg.8wmD6Wnt4IA8xiWDeGZoH3 I feel directly insulted by it, and I've been thinking recently if I should try to get into math, but I'm not sure if I'd like it. I'm asking you because you're someone that loves maths and would better discern the situation.
To say 'you're wrong' is also an assumption that the person claims to know the right answer or that the subject cannot know it. You can't know what you don't know, but you can gain clarity through clearing the mind. If that's the truth is a whole other story. For example: You cannot prove the universe in the moment is not spontaneously generated, and memories aren't indicative of causes, simply because you cannot know what you don't know. In other words, probability, chance, prior based factors, etc. do not exist in a true vacuum / void. Of course, you have to assume there's no existence independent of observation and or that it does. Herein, lies the fundamental uncertainty principle. You can accept or you can believe. It's a preference. _Of course_ there could be some 'unknown unknown' that I do not know about, which allows one to be certain and know _truth_ , but there is no way to prove it, intellectually--hitherto--that I have found. So really, I am expressing my own state of uncertainty, and that is partially what I _know_ (/ observe) . Socrates once said, supposedly that, "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." It's an oxymoronic, paradoxical way to say: You can't know what you don't know. So what is knowing, reality, and truth, a feeling? Well, what is certain is apparentness, sensation, and experience. You can see. We can categorize what we see with words, but is that the same as truth and knowing? I think it's an unnecessary correlation. Really, there's no reason to use them at all, but you don't have to be reasonable either--since it's primarily a navigation and manipulation tool for discovering and predicting patterns--you can also live, just as well, with being and not thinking logically, and there is no 'right' or 'wrong' about it.
Thank you, mathbro. There are a couple of my favorite channels hitting this topic lately from different angles, and I'm super stoked to see you put one out. \m/
You just earned a subscriber! As part of my undergrad I took a course called Judgment and Decision Making and it literally changed my life. This reminds me of that and I think everyone should see this. Nice job!
This is the most interesting, revealing, and also disturbing video I have seen in a while. By disturbing I mean it is disturbing how people are so easily fooled into believing things based on evidence that has no logical implication. Great video.
You are amazing. Absolute genius. I’d heard of some of these concepts before, but the way you put things blows my mind. I wish I could like a video more than once
So many of your videos are proving to be highly topical right now! I've found myself sharing several on social media. My only wish is that I could force people to watch them and actually absorb the information.
I have to admit this is one of my or even my favorite Chanel’s extremely interesting topics well researched and I love your voice u should read some books on audible or do a podcast keep up the amazing work
I just stumbled across your channel and I absolutely love this content! This video genuinely made me reconsider the unconscious biases I have. Can't wait to watch more of your videos!
Survivor Bias: this struck me a few years ago when BBC Radio 3 said they were about to play a recently rediscovered piece by a favourite composer -- I hated it! Presumably it had been lost because others felt the same.
Hi, hanks for another great video. One thing I missed in this was the fear of flying for a lot off people. A great example of this lack off full information. Becourse statisticly flying is safer then driving a car, but if there is a plain crash the news will cover it for more then one day, and with a carcrash, it has to be hugh to get in to the news. Greetings from Belgium.
This goes much deeper than I think even this video talks about. I've been working on the self referential nature of how human beings process information for a very long time. I am currently working to mathematically demonstrate this behaviour.
Dude, i found your channel don't know how, through some recomendation from another science one. Must say your ditactics is amazing. I've been learning a lot from you, hope you keep up with your excellent work. Cheers from Rio/Brasil!
Yeah median is more representative. However I think the press and in general the public don't know enough about distributions to properly interpret what the data means. The fist example would create an exponential density function not a normal density function. So the same descriptors change in assumption. In a normal distribution the average=median. In an exponential the average is falls around 65th percentile. The skew is actually the normal for these types of distribution. It would be unnormal to be skewed in a normal way 😂
Excellent video. But how many will apply this to themselves instead of using against their opponents? I bet very few. The first thing to do is look for our own cognitive biases, all the ways we might be wrong. Looking for biases of others is easy and not that useful, but finding your biases might change your mind and that should be your goal.
Having been on youtube for literally several years and never having subscribed to ANY channel in all this time, I couldn't help but subscribe to you. Really great content
I think the first example has a problem. As you point out, the mean-average of sexual encournters of women vs men is a trivial statistic, and tells us little. However, the discussion does not deal with situation in which the property is unevenly distributed, in this case, the number of sexual encounters. I remember reading about a report years ago saying that among women, there was a minority who had many more sexual encounters than the average and that most women had fewer encounters than the male average. I don't know whether this report was valid, but I do know that your example would miss such an important observation. It's similar to the misleading nature of the "average depth" of a lake, in the case where 90% of it is very shallow, and 10% is 200 feet deep. So, perhaps you could add "Misleading Average" to your list of mental traps.
Bart that guy its confusing parameters vs raw data (X, Y), also covariance and variance with permutations & Combinations .... next he also divide two first moments (in this case two raw mean) that don´t say anything at all, in fact if its better wit a huge caveat to use use the geometric mean for its properties instead of multipliying parameters like the mean has it were raw data ... Also he are jumping to causality just by seeing different n sizes, thats stupid, all statistics its wrong if its a prerequisite to have the same n in all samples
Bart Anderson it’s a very simplistic analysis that he presented, and assumes that every person wants to have (or can have) sex, and that everyone’s desire is equal and every person of a certain sex has the same amount of sexual success. But he is certainly correct when it comes to lying on surveys... most notably some of the original studies on penis size actually asked participants to self report their size - no doctor or analyst went with them to actually verify the results.... and of course, most men overestimated!
Bart, are you stupid...even if he goes in deeper analysis as you mention it still wl be more for women..as its always one on one...Nd women are lesser in number
great video, and entirely accurate too. unfortunately its human nature to have confirmation bias and added with all the other hidden reasons for misinformation, it means that getting a true picture of reality is very difficult
What's the alternative? News gives you biased info, but ignorance gives you nothing. Isn't it better to have a sense of some of what's going on, but know that it's not representative?
@@stephenbrown9949 "sn't it better to have a sense of some of what's going on, but know that it's not representative?" ...But do you truly react, and act, as if you genuinely know that it isn't representative? Think about it.
@@TheWolfgangGrimmer No, I get it. Any info you have will influence how you think. And knowing that the info you have is biased means that you are being influenced sub-optimally. But the alternative is not to be influenced optimally, but not at all (or at least minimally). Which is better? I think it's better to have some information that you know is influencing you in a biased way than to be ignorant. But perhaps it's only better if you know that it's influencing you in that way. If you know you're being influenced, you counter that influence. If you're in a boat traveling directly towards your destination, the current may push you way off course. What are your alternatives? Account for the current or drop anchor. Dropping anchor won't get you anywhere, but it may be better than where the current takes you. If you can account for the current, however, you can overcome its influence on you. When it comes to information, I don't think we have much of a chance of completely overcoming the bias. But I do think we can overcome it sufficiently to avoid 'dropping anchor.' An anchor is only a temporary solution; eventually something is going to come along that will force an action, and it seems to me that usually some information is better than none.
@Neronian Diamanti I think you're right that it often doesn't, and I know that I am subject to this. But I also know that I have been able to overcome some bias simply by recognizing that I have bias and considering other opinions. People can be and are convinced of opposing positions every day. It happens to me. I think it's good to be able to honestly say you can be convinced, but not to be so easy to convince that you are tossed by the wind. If nobody ever moves you, your bias is probably too strong. But a bias isn't all bad - it represents what you've already figured out. There's a necessary utility in that - there's no point figuring out the same thing over and over, so you start to rely on things you've already accepted. One problem is that we often adopt a standard political bias that we haven't thoughtfully cultivated. Another is that we don't reconsider our biases. Add the two together and you have a typical partisan media consumer. I think we should cultivate our own bias consciously, with regular audits. We tend to wrap up our identity in our group bias, which is destructive to honesty and truth. But if our identity is tied to a commitment to truth - regardless of where it leads - then I think our bias will be more healthy. It's difficult though. And it's lonely, because many people will distrust you for questioning their identity.
After seeing only two of your videos, I can see that there's a subtext that reflects your frustrations with the outrage culture that's so prominent on social media these days. I really do sympathize with your plight. You must be a very patient fellow.
If falsehoods can sound as convincing as truth, then being convinced provides no evidence. You have convinced me, MajorPrep, that I do not understand the world. But that doesn't mean what you are saying is true and therefore it's perfectly rational to not change my mind: ergo I thought I understood the world before, and I will keep thinking that even after watching your video. Related question: How DO you convince people?
No matter what you believe, you might be wrong, or you might be right. Our best bet is to just stick with we know until new information comes along. :)
It's very hard. You can put such obvious data and information and even stuff they can see with their very own eyes... and you still won't convince them. People have an emotional attachment to their beliefs. I believe that it is the same mental process that makes people succumb to cults. So you convince people by subtle programing and deprograming and somehow slowly reducing their emotional attachments to those beliefs. It's a process. I loved his example using the presidents. There is such emotional hatred for President Trump so that even if he cured cancer, it wouldn't matter, he would still be a monster to the people who hate him. It's an emotional thing. The media doesn't help either. I read some data that 90% of the coverage of him by the mainstream media is bad and only 10% good. Yet he has done a lot of good things but nobody will acknowledge them. Again - beliefs are emotional. Even the presenter here.... who is excellent and very intelligent by the way.... even while he is giving us a lecture on bias undoubtedly has his own biases.
The Availability Heuristic seems to describe public opinion as of late perfectly. People are (at least to some extent) biasing their thoughts on the police issue based on recent events. I love how this information is immediately applicable to our world today.
I have to say watching this video it feels like such a blessing that my dad is a physicist and a statistician. Growing up he always was there to question and point out the mental shortcuts I was making, and made me a more careful thinker. Always beware of anecdotal evidence, and mind alternative explanations. I’m not going to say I can escape these biases, cause I probably don’t. But I was happy to see a few of these things I already knew.
I am incredibly happy that my response to the first question was to ask "Why would one be higher than the other?" (Not to say I'm not biased, I absolutely am. We all have our biases, and I probably have assumptions about the world that aren't true)
Thank you for informing people about the Availability Heuristic fallacy and especially its power due to modern media to sway people's opinions about social topics! I've been trying to spread this information around for some time with very few people really grasping how influential it can be.
I learned more about the different types of biases (Survivorship, Confirmation, Availability Heureustic) than I have in any video. Thank you. Side note: If you could make a video explaining the different types of biases, it will be great. Thanks in advance.
Amazing illustrations! Thank you! By the way, if you want to avoid the problem of internet getting mad, the question can be reframed to focus on just heterosexual people, like "who, on average, has more sexual partners, a heterosexual woman or a heterosexual man".
The argument at the beginning of the video is based on the assumption that everyone has the same SMV, which is a gross oversimplification. From an evolutionary perspective, it stands to assume that SMV is distributed in a much narrower curve for women than for men. The main reason being that men can have a much larger offspring than women can. As a result, the pool of sexually active men is lower than the pool of sexually active women, thus explaining the OkCupid stat, aka the 80/20 rule.
Doesn’t change the fact that based on the false assumption of only straight relationships, every sexual encounter will add 1 tally to both sexes, so regardless, the average would only be affected by population size in that scenario
I was actually thinking about things I may be wrong about. I hate being wrong, enough that I try not to be. Not being wrong is harder than I thought it was. Thanks for this!
It is impossible to be informed about everything, which is why all of us have a set of prejudicial values. This isn't necessarily a bad thing- you just do not have the time to scientifically explain why the Earth is round to a flat earther, much easier to label them as nutjobs and continue on with your life. Of course, prejudice can be a very very bad thing, which is why it's important to practice some healthy metacognition every once in a while. Thomas Sowell called these prejudices 'visions', read about it in his book 'A conflict of visions'.
I loved everything about this video 👌 especially the rewind at the end for all those people with a short attention span to reaffirm why they were originally brought here.
Context, it gets lost in the metaphor. :), simple proof "what is the area of a circle?" ... The truth is zero. As circles are one dimensional so cannot have area.
Math isn't my subject so I don't think I hundred percent get what u mean but will the problem u pose get solved if u word it as "what is the area enclosed by a circle?" If not could u clarify a bit,sorry
@@georgepaul6240 "is" makes the metaphor - its a simplification that gets into a thinking chain. The question, "what is the area enclosed by a circle?" Is clear. Dimensional flattening is one of those hidden error sources.
A circle refers to a set of points on a plane equidistant from a center point, i.e. an evenly curved line, just as a sphere really refers to a surface. If you want to include the insides, the mathematical terms are disk and ball, respectively.
English is not my first language, but from what i learned in Portuguese roughly translated, a circle is the circular and the area it encompasses, if you wish to refer only to the line you must say circumference. Thus as circle does have an area, the circumference is the one that does not, because it is simply a circular line
This was well put together. Good balance of clarity, brevity, and precision. You obviously skipped some pedantic details that people can jump on (and apparently some have!), but it doesn't change the basic conclusion, and it makes for a much better presentation.
Also, the seven people who disliked this video probably didn't bother watching the entire thing. Probably. That, or they are exhibiting one of the many forms of bias.
Or they just want to be that guy ... infinitely many solutions to which we will never truly know til those bastards tell us their reasoning behind such travesty
Hope you guys enjoy this one! I know It's another one that's a little different from most other videos but I just personally found all these examples really interesting (also needed a break from weird paradoxes and higher dimensional math). But on that subject you guys seemed to enjoy the higher dimensional stuff so I'm working on another one of those but from more of a physics perspective.
MajorPrep I want more of this video that I just watched. While the higher mathematics and physics stuff is more interesting and inspiring to me, and gives me stuff to share with my like-minded friends... What you've given me right now is actually relevant to my current life and is very much needed.
Great video! Important topic. Well done.
Duuddde.. im new. Love the content. subd, bell'd, even grabbed me some of that Curiosity Stream with your coupon code. Yeah.. Im in.
Is it just me or are you getting thiqq? (ie working out more)
Change the title to „everything you think is right, is wrong“ it fits but will get you a wider bandwidth of viewers :)
Before you make a judgement based on your observations, be sure to think about the things you aren’t observing.
Great saying.
I actually wrote a note of this on my phone to remember it for future wise advice, right next to "When you think something is true, you must try as hard as you can to disprove yourself" from Derek, Veritasium.
Once you realize not only how little you know of what actually goes on in the world, but furthermore, how little of it you will ever understand, or could even hope to understand, is infinitesimal compared to the things which you cannot know, that conclusion is inescapable.
It is only prudent to realize that we have a dirth of correct inferences when it comes to relying on our flawed human senses.
Lol, you mean think about all the things I cannot think of? 🤯 (Paradox overload.)😁
Great note for test day, lol
agree, and sorry for my like that break that nice 333 count of likes
this video: *says a lot of things i can agree with*
me: this is good quality content *hits like button*
this video: confirmation bias means you think things are higher quality if you agree with them
me: ...i feel called out now
I guess my confirmation biass was pretty strong during school time.
I felt like everything I said was almost as if said by a god.
LOL
@@Anonimowany1 I am in school right now and i feel the same. lol.
not called out. just reality. we all have our own biases and it is indisputable. And there is also nothing inherently wrong with it..!!!
Crazy isn’t it? But I guess as long as we’re cognizant of these biases, we can acknowledge them and understand the limitations and nuance of our take on something.
@@GrayCatbird1 And hopefully, if we become aware that we're biased, perhaps we'll begin to listen to each other more effectively.
I was just recently trying to make this argument for why all hairdressers think that dying your hair at home will probably turn out badly. If you dye your hair at home and it turns out fine, you wouldn't need to see a hairdresser, so they tend to only see the horror stories. This video definitely put it far more eloquently.
the capillary story I needed today
only dealing with the few needed, mostly just the failures needing help, only the few legends surviving long term
Yo that story about putting armour on the plane blew my mind
Bro I thought the plain armor dude was smart, I'm still think he had some good reasons but man those stats were cool
He actually made it sound worst, the real story is that they added armor to the parts that were already shot first, thinking that the downed planes went down because it was shot too much. What the genius did is think the opposite, saving countless lives and planes.
@@guillermogutierrez-santana4446 Yeah I'm wondering about the story, because the later things he mentions kind of contradict his point? He says that's survivalship bias or whatever the name is, assuming things of the planes that didn't make it back, but when he brings the other examples like the houses, all his examples assume things of the things that do exist but miss the ones that didn't. Did he explain the bias wrong? Let me explain my question more clearly:
Plane got shot marks -> Dude assumes the OTHER planes that didn't make it are the bad ones because they were destroyed.
Old arquitecture is good -> Dude assumes the SAME houses are good, missing the point of the OTHER houses being bad because they were destroyed.
Both of these are used for the same bias, but are completely opposite cases of assumptions, can someone clarify this point to me? The first one is clearly observing at the bigger picture taking both the ones that made it and didn't make it into account, so how is that one part of the bias?
Survivability bias was eureka moment for me
@@guillermogutierrez-santana4446 maybe they thought that those are parts that are generally more likely to get hit, so it seemed reasonable to reinforce them.
It's a shame that schools teach (at least they try to) how to use Math for a pretty long time, but they don't spend even the fraction of that time to teach how not to use it, or to recognize when someone's using it the way it shouldn't be used.
Videos like this (such as by Numberphile, Mathologer, Vsauce, Veritasium just to name a few) should be in the material of each and every school if they want to carry out their mission.
Math can be really fun. But you have to make it so.
Math rests upon logic and that's certainly important. But it's science that offers a more substantive foray into skepticism...and that's really what this video is about. What's really sad is that skepticism is a subject on its own just like math or physics. As such, schools should be tasked with teaching it as a core curriculum. Instead, kids are left to learn only cursory amounts of skepticism via math and science (two subjects that routinely fail to interest teenagers) and, even then, only by means of osmosis. Kids should be directly and deliberately taught skeptical skill sets throughout school. Yet, they aren't. How can that be?
It's not just statistics. Schools (at least for older children) fail to prepare kids for the modern world in multiple ways. I for instance had to wait until university to be taught what the "scientific method" actually means, what cognitive biases are, how game theory can steer groups towards bad outcomes without any person being at fault, how financial markets work, ..... I could go on and on. Given that I visited one of the "better" schools here in Germany, I have to conclude that our entire education system is outdated.
@@TheLolle97 I'd gladly argue but unfortunately there is no reason for.
Somehow we are lost among ready-made equations without making what's really behind them visible.
@Vela S
Yeah, I don't know about using those videos as actual teaching tools, or incorporating them into the curriculum. The reality is that many of those videos are already produced with school funding (Numberphile and related channels, for example, are literally funded by UC Berkeley). They are outreach tools, and they are very effect at fostering a fun learning experience. They shouldn't be mistake for instruction or tutorial, though, you are definitely correct there.
I disagree, however-and this is actually quite plain to see if you actually follow some of these channels for any length of time-that the viewership is entirely or near entirely those with a passing interest.
There are clearly very well educated people in the audience who know these mathematics because they have to, because it's their job, or something.
I love how this video confirms my biases. As a result, I consider it to be a well-put together video.
I love how your comment confirms my biases about the video. As a result, I consider it to be a clever comment.
@@ExosoIar I love how your comment about his comment confirms my biases about his comment about the video. As a result, I consider it to he a clever comment.
@@mrc2176 I love how your comment about his comment about his comment confirms my biases about his comment about the video. As a result, I consider it to be a clever comment.
@@alexadams4578 I love how your comment about his comment about his comment about his comment confirms my biases about his comment about the video. As a result, I consider it to be a clever comment.
Thank you for making everyone mad. I approve, in furious anger.
This is making me angry
I'm mad
why tho?
"We are seeing things that are getting clicks, not the things that proportionally represent reality" I'm gonna start using this quote more often
I mean is it just me or is this actually like a really big problem?
This is definitely a big problem
The Google feedback loop leads to fringe beliefs in part because of recommended content. Although tv has been pushing whichever political flavor you prefer for years, it was as a group. Now our flawed views are becoming more fractured because of the personalised nature of internet consumption.
@@BrianGlaze Yes, a really big problem. Humans, with our "free will" are, because of such biases, irrational. I'm a deep thinker and generally when I hear things that are or might be group think (and that is most stuff you hear in media or online), I look for my own answers and it's fun to uncover the truth. Even with science related issues that is supposed to be fact, so much is not true.
Not for people who are smart.
Those people understand how the world works and become successful. :)
The people who don't know the truths behind the world, become sheeps.
In general I am happy about all of this stuff, because Im becoming successful at the very moment because of this knowledge I have acquired over many years.
-The world is not what it appears to be at the first look. And most people dont know that =D
it is the problem and it's solution
“Your assumptions don’t reflect reality” is now one of the most hardcore insults😂👌🏼
I have always held the notion that statistics is the one subject which every person on the planet should have a basic knowledge of. Videos like this just reinforce that notion. Kudos to you for sharing this content!
I agree 99.7%!
Confirmation bias...? Lol
@@rockngoals6531 As a conservative public educator, I have repeatedly insisted (to no avail) that Statistics is needed, not Algebra II. My pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
Statistics and money should be taught before calculus. The amount of people who don't even know the difference between cash and assets is deeply disturbing.
@@Dark_OFW "Confirmation Bias is the most important, and all the evidence I've found supports my view" -Medlfie Crisis
18:15 Forget the statistics. What on earth is going on with that woman's eyebrows?
To be fair, she's just a prop. (As is everyone else on that stage behind Trump.)
Bobby Feet congrats you are the one guy who couldn’t keep his political shit to himself
@@maximilianbur2560 fr
@@maximilianbur2560 hey at least it’s been 6 months since someone has argued with him! Congrats internet, you’ve surprised me in a good way this time.
daaaamn!!
what is that man??
17:47 "No I think that means everyone will get mad" LMAO
This is a funny and daring move but I see what he did here.
Everyone will get madder..
As Childish Gambino said... This is america
It was funny and he did go about it in a smart diplomatic yet humorous way, but true to statistics, him saying that "both sides" are represented he's is both correct and incorrect.... He's assuming that the 2 forms of authoritarianism that America so loves, are the only options.... In a way, that is the political system we are manipulated into accepting.... But in reality, there's freedom or there's not, and that is the true "both sides"... But our "leaders" don't want us to think about the other end of the spectrum, they just keep us divided on a mini-spectrum that plays out to their benefit either way.
This is also why its harder to confront someone who displays a behavior, when they ask you to name multiple times they’ve done it.
There are just so many that the individual scenarios don’t stick out any more, making it harder to pull out finite examples.
Might have to cite this video next time my roommate acts a fool
I guess zuko never paid any attention to his math tutors then
Your channel is getting better and and better. With already 218K subscribers, I think you've reached that point on the curve that you should expect reaching 1M+ soon.
Big oof.
Wow right, almost 1 million. Didn’t even realize.
Glad that I’m here since the first videos.
OMG 995K now! You were right lol
He hit a million! This aged quite well
To the old me and the other kids who said "When am I going to ever use maths in my life"
Here. This is how you are going to use maths in real life.
Man, wish I listened more in class.
I literally slept through a whole year of Algebra 2.
U don't need to attend shitty school lectures for that
These types of things are definitely not taught in schools. I would've been much more interested in maths if these were taught in schools
Love how you stay apolitical
Indeed refreshing
It's lovely
y'all must not watch a lot of UA-cam cuz there's various ideas like this and more so that don't even speak about stupid PC terms.
Today we are going to demonstrate how math proves the communist manifesto accurate.
@@danielbojkovski723 you made my day sir
That’s why I love the quote “believe nothing that you hear and only half of what you see”. Living in this way keeps your mind clear and open.
".....our worldview gets more and more distorted because we're seeing things that get clicks, not things that proportionally represent our reality."
Hands down, that's the best description of Social Media's cynical and nihilistic worldview I've ever heard.
I feel like he put some suppressed feeling of mine in words that I didn't even know existed.
The world isn't getting worse folks. It's getting better and the only reason the opposite is shoved down your throat by news outlets, magazines, twitter and the rest is because it gets more attention and hence more profit.
The proportion of good and bad in this world is almost equal, if not more good. You see only the bad side because it means more money for big corps.
I think this highlights the reality of the danger of misinformation. Many people are not willing and/or able to investigate the validity of every claim they come across, so they have no choice but to rely on things like the availability heuristic (you could debate about whether they truly have "no choice," but I mean to say that this is what happens in reality). Furthermore, I find that being aware of the deception brings a source of anxiety.
Thats defiant of the point across this video. The bigger problem is people no matter the credibility of the information they are given build a stubbornness to fully understand every aspect of things they think they know completely. Its this idea that if something is outside your understanding that it doesnt or cannot make sense.
This happens because people throw away reason. And are closed minded. They need proof to get things. Instead of being reasonable and using logic to allow themselves to give other modes of reasoning a chance.
Basically this video is trying to tell everyone to be open minded to things. Not every idea needs credibility to be understood. Based off information you can get a good idea of things like projected distribution but you dont actually have as full of an understanding of the distribution as you leave yourself to believe.
Yes! Being aware of the deception is absolutely awful. It is humanly impossible to thoroughly investigate everything and honestly it just gets overwhelming and I have to fight wanting to stick my head in the ground at times. 😞
@@matthewcuriel991
I can find little fault with what you've said. However, there is no requirement that I be on topic in my comments. Furthermore, I think misinformation spreading is a very dangerous phenomenon, and it would be naive to think that simply telling people to be more open minded will effective in addressing the effects it is having on our society, and especially our mental and psychological well-being.
What's more, it is a mistake, in my opinion, to belief that humans are governed by their rationality (that is to say, the human capacity to employ rationality). In my view, humans only perceive their actions to be rational, when they are in fact, fundamentally emotional. Even irrational emotions have a sort of rationality to them (if it makes sense to say so). People usually believe their own feelings are rational (or perhaps, appropriate to the situation), because they believe their judgement to be sound. The problem is one of epistemology; about what constitutes valid evidence, many people are gravely in error. Sorry if this is boring.
Humans are fundamentally governed by their emotions. It is impossible to be 100% rational all of the time, all we can do is to attempt to have many, many, safeguards against it, where it will do us great harm.
I don't get out of bed every day because it's rational to do so, for two main reasons: 1) because it would depend entirely on my presuppositions as to what would be rational give my circumstances, and 2) there are obviously other internal drives which I have which provide the far more compelling reason to get out of bed. The fact of these internal drives, as I refer to them, is incontrovertible in my view.
@@silentj624
The temptation is to resort to escapism, retreating to indulgences instead of trying to get something done. The truth of things, as I see it, is that life and this world are best characterized as perpetual, and unyielding struggles which we engage in. We struggle as humans to make lives for ourselves, like a never ending maintenance crew shift. Because our lives and this very Earth we live on will crumble and deteriorate if we don't struggle to maintain them.
It is also anxiety relieving to know that you can (in theory at least) possess correct information (or at the very least know how to seek it out and verify it; how to learn things correctly).
Problem is misinformation can just be lack of information. I.E. You only get half the story, the half 'they' want you to hear. And seeing as having complete information is actually impossible, we just have to live the with fact that we are ALWAYS misinformed.
"Before you make a judgement based on your observations, be sure to think about the things you aren’t observing." I have always agreed on this. This video raised my IQ by a few points, I am sure.
Man! I love your rationality and great examples. I also really appreciate your editing. Your info alone would be enough for me to keep watching, but wow.......you have great editing to almost make it feel like a full length documentary. I hope you have a documentary in the works! I'm sure everyone would love to see this happen!! Thank you for these awesome and informative videos. Please make a great documentary :) - You are awesome man !
This is actually something I bring up to people during debates. Nothing is fully on one side or another until absolutely proven. Always keep your mind open to confirming new ideas.
People buy based on emotion, and justify the purchase with reason. They both capitalized on this communication skill.
Or a bit of both. I do a lot of research figuring out which product to buy, but some of the decision is based on purely subjective criteria.
Agreed, but I find most of the time the Reasoning portion of the whole transaction, is way to short. So the reason doesn't even have to be a good one, it just has to be accepted. People just do what they want and most (a calculation based on assumption), don't have a well informed reason at all.
I usually research the hell out before purchasing until my mind is so cluttered nothing makes sense anymore and I buy the one that “feels” less wrong.
So... I guess I disagree but actually I agree?
I actually had a discussion with my grandmother on this! She’s afraid of going out because of all the violence there is today. And I said to her that it’s not more now then when she was young.
She says she hears about it all the time and I responded that of course because of the world beeing more connected. I asked her about violent episodes that she heard about when she was young and she named a couple from her small town. And when we talked about it we couldn’t come up with any episodes from recent times in the same small town.
And I told her that back in the day you only heard about what happened in a small area around where you live and now you hear about almost everything from anywhere on the planet! So of course it seems worse.
This is an excellent video, the bottom line is that our brains have limited capacities to process the insane amounts of data for daily living. Even if we wanted to be more objective, it would be improbable to reach maximum levels of that. That's why we resort to biases, beliefs and heuristics as a mechanism to cope with complexity. Which is great for things that don't really matter, but sucks for things that do matter.
This was an absolutely fantastic video. If this can open just one or two of my friends eyes about statistical manipulation and confirmation bias than it was well worth it in my eyes. Thank you.
When i want to really learn something, this is the channel i come to. This channel is one of my favorites
I LOVE when my cognitive biases are pointed out. Thank you! I need these things pointed out. They should teach this is primary school!
Dude, just go get that maths PhD!
We know he wants it
He actually should do a statistics phd
Kings Cross Statistics the mathematics behind machine learning algorithms. And heavily uses signals processing and spectral analysis in theoretical time series forecasting
ok but why does the lady at 18:90 have those weird eyebrows????
You seem to have no idea what research in math is about. Stuff like this is far from appropriate for a math PhD.
I think the first part is a trick question, when people think about "the average person" you intuitively remove outliers from the equation. If group A is on average very promiscuous but only a small subset of group B is even more promiscuous, your average case (with outliers removed) will have group A be more promiscuous than group B
Yes! Thank you, I was just about to say that.
Obviously, those who do not sleep with anyone should probably be removed from the equation. That would give a more accurate picture, as would including same-sex interactions.
@@grantjohnson5785 same-sex only accounts for less than 5% of people though. Removing people who have not slept with anyone would change a lot more
Exactly my point, but removing outliers completely is not valid idea it woud make more sense to reduce their weight.
But probably more intuitive way is to do popularity contest (finding the peak of the bell curve) rather than averaging numbers arithmetically. Then we find that most often women have like 10 partners and most men have 1 partner.
@@ok0_0 it's like only 2% of the population that end ups virgin forever
18:25 who else realized that eyebrows of woman in the purple 🤣
I was looking for this comment.
@@CosmicEpiphany I was going to comment this too
@@kp8129 I really hope she was trolling
Yeah, i think the husband did not do her a solid when he told her she looked great before leaving the house
hahahahaha how good
I love that you made this video to show how important it is to THINK. I have not been alive to see how society operated in the past, but right now it seems that people don't think their own thoughts, form their own opinions, or maintain an open mind, nor skepticism when being confronted with information. It's like they go through life confronted with everybody else's opinions & flip back and forth between "agree" or "disagree" then suck those opinions in & choose to assign one to themselves. When presented with two opposites, they pick one & move on, rather than question if it's a false dichotomy, and why it is presented in that manner.
The fast rewind of everything we saw was super good editing and very completing for my viewing experience, most excellent
As you get older, it becomes harder to learn & understand life as your mind focuses on remembering only what reinforces what you already believed. When all that confirmation bias piles up, you resist new information more and more.
19:42 I love the idea of fast rewinding through the entire video right before the end
I just subscribed because of you being one of the most sane and non obnoxious persons I've seen on youtube. And I think you're sane because I agree and.. oh wait that's confirmation bias.
Thank you.
I love math, it’s even better when you understand it and the underlying concept behind it vs just knowing how to do it.
What do you think of this comment? To which degree is it true?
ua-cam.com/video/ioxWuCd-mn0/v-deo.html&lc=UgyZ-SSrQ8mwY7uM1gx4AaABAg.8wmD6Wnt4IA8xiWDeGZoH3
I feel directly insulted by it, and I've been thinking recently if I should try to get into math, but I'm not sure if I'd like it. I'm asking you because you're someone that loves maths and would better discern the situation.
I read that at first as “I love you. I thank math.”
To say 'you're wrong' is also an assumption that the person claims to know the right answer or that the subject cannot know it. You can't know what you don't know, but you can gain clarity through clearing the mind. If that's the truth is a whole other story.
For example: You cannot prove the universe in the moment is not spontaneously generated, and memories aren't indicative of causes, simply because you cannot know what you don't know. In other words, probability, chance, prior based factors, etc. do not exist in a true vacuum / void. Of course, you have to assume there's no existence independent of observation and or that it does. Herein, lies the fundamental uncertainty principle. You can accept or you can believe. It's a preference. _Of course_ there could be some 'unknown unknown' that I do not know about, which allows one to be certain and know _truth_ , but there is no way to prove it, intellectually--hitherto--that I have found. So really, I am expressing my own state of uncertainty, and that is partially what I _know_ (/ observe) .
Socrates once said, supposedly that, "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." It's an oxymoronic, paradoxical way to say: You can't know what you don't know. So what is knowing, reality, and truth, a feeling? Well, what is certain is apparentness, sensation, and experience. You can see. We can categorize what we see with words, but is that the same as truth and knowing? I think it's an unnecessary correlation. Really, there's no reason to use them at all, but you don't have to be reasonable either--since it's primarily a navigation and manipulation tool for discovering and predicting patterns--you can also live, just as well, with being and not thinking logically, and there is no 'right' or 'wrong' about it.
Thank you, mathbro. There are a couple of my favorite channels hitting this topic lately from different angles, and I'm super stoked to see you put one out. \m/
Thank you for the comment, and the term 'mathbro' made it that much better.
You honestly make me think differently. You give me a different perspective to look at. I love your videos man, never stop.
What in gods name are those eyebrows at 18:32. Looks like the outline of eyebrows she forgot to color in.
I was looking for this comment
Why isn't this the top comment?
Just found dude and im two videos deep right now. Glad I found this channel
This is such an awesome video! More people should watch it and learn these concepts in school
You just earned a subscriber! As part of my undergrad I took a course called Judgment and Decision Making and it literally changed my life. This reminds me of that and I think everyone should see this. Nice job!
That moment when he is talking about mathematical people sleeping together and mom suddenly walks in
This is the most interesting, revealing, and also disturbing video I have seen in a while. By disturbing I mean it is disturbing how people are so easily fooled into believing things based on evidence that has no logical implication. Great video.
Great video! Would love to see more math behind psychological biases, specifically how our assumptions affect our daily decision making.
You are amazing. Absolute genius. I’d heard of some of these concepts before, but the way you put things blows my mind. I wish I could like a video more than once
Thanks UA-cam for recommending this channel
So many of your videos are proving to be highly topical right now! I've found myself sharing several on social media. My only wish is that I could force people to watch them and actually absorb the information.
I have to admit this is one of my or even my favorite Chanel’s extremely interesting topics well researched and I love your voice u should read some books on audible or do a podcast keep up the amazing work
I just stumbled across your channel and I absolutely love this content! This video genuinely made me reconsider the unconscious biases I have. Can't wait to watch more of your videos!
Survivor Bias: this struck me a few years ago when BBC Radio 3 said they were about to play a recently rediscovered piece by a favourite composer -- I hated it! Presumably it had been lost because others felt the same.
just discovered this channel today and its the best thing that happened to me all quarantine. someone make this man a podcast lmao.
I'm one of those people who watches the news & is now afraid to go outside - May, 2020
Hi, hanks for another great video. One thing I missed in this was the fear of flying for a lot off people. A great example of this lack off full information. Becourse statisticly flying is safer then driving a car, but if there is a plain crash the news will cover it for more then one day, and with a carcrash, it has to be hugh to get in to the news.
Greetings from Belgium.
Very good vídeo. For those who liked the subject, I recommend the book “the power of mathematical thinking”.
Put the author too
This goes much deeper than I think even this video talks about. I've been working on the self referential nature of how human beings process information for a very long time. I am currently working to mathematically demonstrate this behaviour.
Dude, i found your channel don't know how, through some recomendation from another science one. Must say your ditactics is amazing. I've been learning a lot from you, hope you keep up with your excellent work. Cheers from Rio/Brasil!
Loved the first example. It shows why we shouldn't use averages for highly skewed distributions :)
Yeah median is more representative. However I think the press and in general the public don't know enough about distributions to properly interpret what the data means. The fist example would create an exponential density function not a normal density function. So the same descriptors change in assumption. In a normal distribution the average=median. In an exponential the average is falls around 65th percentile. The skew is actually the normal for these types of distribution. It would be unnormal to be skewed in a normal way 😂
Excellent video. But how many will apply this to themselves instead of using against their opponents? I bet very few.
The first thing to do is look for our own cognitive biases, all the ways we might be wrong. Looking for biases of others is easy and not that useful, but finding your biases might change your mind and that should be your goal.
Oh shit that is actually true
Having been on youtube for literally several years and never having subscribed to ANY channel in all this time, I couldn't help but subscribe to you. Really great content
God damn watching this during 2020 lockdowns REALLY hits differently😂
Lots of lying with statistics going on in the MSM...
I'm afraid I can't help myself, 'fewer'. You even got it right a couple of times.
I think the first example has a problem. As you point out, the mean-average of sexual encournters of women vs men is a trivial statistic, and tells us little. However, the discussion does not deal with situation in which the property is unevenly distributed, in this case, the number of sexual encounters.
I remember reading about a report years ago saying that among women, there was a minority who had many more sexual encounters than the average and that most women had fewer encounters than the male average. I don't know whether this report was valid, but I do know that your example would miss such an important observation.
It's similar to the misleading nature of the "average depth" of a lake, in the case where 90% of it is very shallow, and 10% is 200 feet deep.
So, perhaps you could add "Misleading Average" to your list of mental traps.
Bart that guy its confusing parameters vs raw data (X, Y), also covariance and variance with permutations & Combinations .... next he also divide two first moments (in this case two raw mean) that don´t say anything at all, in fact if its better wit a huge caveat to use use the geometric mean for its properties instead of multipliying parameters like the mean has it were raw data ... Also he are jumping to causality just by seeing different n sizes, thats stupid, all statistics its wrong if its a prerequisite to have the same n in all samples
Bart Anderson it’s a very simplistic analysis that he presented, and assumes that every person wants to have (or can have) sex, and that everyone’s desire is equal and every person of a certain sex has the same amount of sexual success.
But he is certainly correct when it comes to lying on surveys... most notably some of the original studies on penis size actually asked participants to self report their size - no doctor or analyst went with them to actually verify the results.... and of course, most men overestimated!
@@steves1015 I think you missed the point, which is that a sexual encounter inherently adds 1 to the total of sexual encounters for both sexes
Bart, are you stupid...even if he goes in deeper analysis as you mention it still wl be more for women..as its always one on one...Nd women are lesser in number
@@devekhande9204 , sorry I don't respond to abusive comments. Logic and reason, yes.
that's why always check multiply sources and think if it makes sense anyhow. If it doesnt, search for an explanation
great video, and entirely accurate too. unfortunately its human nature to have confirmation bias and added with all the other hidden reasons for misinformation, it means that getting a true picture of reality is very difficult
You should do a video about the "wisdom of the crowd" phenomenon if you haven't already. You're good at explaining these things! Subbed.
I’ve argued with my husband about the fact that exposure to news stories skews perspective and Ahhh!! It’s a waste of time.
What's the alternative? News gives you biased info, but ignorance gives you nothing. Isn't it better to have a sense of some of what's going on, but know that it's not representative?
@@stephenbrown9949 "sn't it better to have a sense of some of what's going on, but know that it's not representative?" ...But do you truly react, and act, as if you genuinely know that it isn't representative? Think about it.
@@TheWolfgangGrimmer No, I get it. Any info you have will influence how you think. And knowing that the info you have is biased means that you are being influenced sub-optimally. But the alternative is not to be influenced optimally, but not at all (or at least minimally). Which is better? I think it's better to have some information that you know is influencing you in a biased way than to be ignorant.
But perhaps it's only better if you know that it's influencing you in that way. If you know you're being influenced, you counter that influence. If you're in a boat traveling directly towards your destination, the current may push you way off course. What are your alternatives? Account for the current or drop anchor. Dropping anchor won't get you anywhere, but it may be better than where the current takes you. If you can account for the current, however, you can overcome its influence on you.
When it comes to information, I don't think we have much of a chance of completely overcoming the bias. But I do think we can overcome it sufficiently to avoid 'dropping anchor.' An anchor is only a temporary solution; eventually something is going to come along that will force an action, and it seems to me that usually some information is better than none.
@Neronian Diamanti
I think you're right that it often doesn't, and I know that I am subject to this. But I also know that I have been able to overcome some bias simply by recognizing that I have bias and considering other opinions. People can be and are convinced of opposing positions every day. It happens to me.
I think it's good to be able to honestly say you can be convinced, but not to be so easy to convince that you are tossed by the wind. If nobody ever moves you, your bias is probably too strong. But a bias isn't all bad - it represents what you've already figured out. There's a necessary utility in that - there's no point figuring out the same thing over and over, so you start to rely on things you've already accepted. One problem is that we often adopt a standard political bias that we haven't thoughtfully cultivated. Another is that we don't reconsider our biases. Add the two together and you have a typical partisan media consumer.
I think we should cultivate our own bias consciously, with regular audits. We tend to wrap up our identity in our group bias, which is destructive to honesty and truth. But if our identity is tied to a commitment to truth - regardless of where it leads - then I think our bias will be more healthy. It's difficult though. And it's lonely, because many people will distrust you for questioning their identity.
After seeing only two of your videos, I can see that there's a subtext that reflects your frustrations with the outrage culture that's so prominent on social media these days. I really do sympathize with your plight. You must be a very patient fellow.
If falsehoods can sound as convincing as truth, then being convinced provides no evidence. You have convinced me, MajorPrep, that I do not understand the world. But that doesn't mean what you are saying is true and therefore it's perfectly rational to not change my mind: ergo I thought I understood the world before, and I will keep thinking that even after watching your video.
Related question: How DO you convince people?
No matter what you believe, you might be wrong, or you might be right.
Our best bet is to just stick with we know until new information comes along. :)
It's very hard. You can put such obvious data and information and even stuff they can see with their very own eyes... and you still won't convince them. People have an emotional attachment to their beliefs. I believe that it is the same mental process that makes people succumb to cults. So you convince people by subtle programing and deprograming and somehow slowly reducing their emotional attachments to those beliefs. It's a process. I loved his example using the presidents. There is such emotional hatred for President Trump so that even if he cured cancer, it wouldn't matter, he would still be a monster to the people who hate him. It's an emotional thing. The media doesn't help either. I read some data that 90% of the coverage of him by the mainstream media is bad and only 10% good. Yet he has done a lot of good things but nobody will acknowledge them. Again - beliefs are emotional. Even the presenter here.... who is excellent and very intelligent by the way.... even while he is giving us a lecture on bias undoubtedly has his own biases.
If you want to learn how to convince people of utter nonsense, study religion.
The Availability Heuristic seems to describe public opinion as of late perfectly. People are (at least to some extent) biasing their thoughts on the police issue based on recent events.
I love how this information is immediately applicable to our world today.
It's applicable everywhere in the world, at any period of time, and it will most likely be like that for as long as the human being exists.
3:35 "Estimated population" is so estimated that it has 9 significative digits lel
10 significant figures.
10
You don't have to be accurate to be precise.
The rewind montage starting at 19:40 was so cool and well-executed
Why is the chart at 16:49 misleading? The red slice is much less than 13% of the circle.
William Loudermilk Good guess! I wonder whether we’ll find out.
Hes trying to distort our perception of reality
I have to say watching this video it feels like such a blessing that my dad is a physicist and a statistician. Growing up he always was there to question and point out the mental shortcuts I was making, and made me a more careful thinker. Always beware of anecdotal evidence, and mind alternative explanations. I’m not going to say I can escape these biases, cause I probably don’t. But I was happy to see a few of these things I already knew.
Thank you for your work!
I am incredibly happy that my response to the first question was to ask "Why would one be higher than the other?"
(Not to say I'm not biased, I absolutely am. We all have our biases, and I probably have assumptions about the world that aren't true)
Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Zach. Forty percent of all people know that.
Thank you for informing people about the Availability Heuristic fallacy and especially its power due to modern media to sway people's opinions about social topics! I've been trying to spread this information around for some time with very few people really grasping how influential it can be.
'Availability Heuristic' huh ?
I thought it was called Paranoia.
I learned more about the different types of biases (Survivorship, Confirmation, Availability Heureustic) than I have in any video.
Thank you.
Side note: If you could make a video explaining the different types of biases, it will be great. Thanks in advance.
Amazing illustrations! Thank you! By the way, if you want to avoid the problem of internet getting mad, the question can be reframed to focus on just heterosexual people, like "who, on average, has more sexual partners, a heterosexual woman or a heterosexual man".
Thank you for not just promoting knowledge, but wisdom. You don't just become smarter when watching these videos, you become a better person.
The argument at the beginning of the video is based on the assumption that everyone has the same SMV, which is a gross oversimplification.
From an evolutionary perspective, it stands to assume that SMV is distributed in a much narrower curve for women than for men. The main reason being that men can have a much larger offspring than women can.
As a result, the pool of sexually active men is lower than the pool of sexually active women, thus explaining the OkCupid stat, aka the 80/20 rule.
Doesn’t change the fact that based on the false assumption of only straight relationships, every sexual encounter will add 1 tally to both sexes, so regardless, the average would only be affected by population size in that scenario
I was actually thinking about things I may be wrong about. I hate being wrong, enough that I try not to be. Not being wrong is harder than I thought it was. Thanks for this!
We only accept truths most convenient to us.
^ how so if truth is truth.
It is impossible to be informed about everything, which is why all of us have a set of prejudicial values. This isn't necessarily a bad thing- you just do not have the time to scientifically explain why the Earth is round to a flat earther, much easier to label them as nutjobs and continue on with your life. Of course, prejudice can be a very very bad thing, which is why it's important to practice some healthy metacognition every once in a while. Thomas Sowell called these prejudices 'visions', read about it in his book 'A conflict of visions'.
Just like you did with that comment.
I loved everything about this video 👌 especially the rewind at the end for all those people with a short attention span to reaffirm why they were originally brought here.
I rly like @MajorPrep, he shown me the wonders of mathematics and it's real world applications. I never knew that math was this useful 🤔😀
^ I agree
This guy is literally better at teaching than the entire school system.
Context, it gets lost in the metaphor. :), simple proof "what is the area of a circle?" ... The truth is zero. As circles are one dimensional so cannot have area.
Math isn't my subject so I don't think I hundred percent get what u mean but will the problem u pose get solved if u word it as "what is the area enclosed by a circle?"
If not could u clarify a bit,sorry
@@georgepaul6240 "is" makes the metaphor - its a simplification that gets into a thinking chain. The question, "what is the area enclosed by a circle?" Is clear. Dimensional flattening is one of those hidden error sources.
one very confused boi over here
A circle refers to a set of points on a plane equidistant from a center point, i.e. an evenly curved line, just as a sphere really refers to a surface. If you want to include the insides, the mathematical terms are disk and ball, respectively.
English is not my first language, but from what i learned in Portuguese roughly translated, a circle is the circular and the area it encompasses, if you wish to refer only to the line you must say circumference. Thus as circle does have an area, the circumference is the one that does not, because it is simply a circular line
This should be mandatory viewing for every human being. Sharing this.
Love that Ben Shapiro is doing this now
I’m extremely impressed with your video quality, I can see the hard work going into these videos. Thank you.
Title: "You're wrong about more than you think"
Content: "People who can't reason can't reason"
Including you
This was well put together. Good balance of clarity, brevity, and precision. You obviously skipped some pedantic details that people can jump on (and apparently some have!), but it doesn't change the basic conclusion, and it makes for a much better presentation.
Also, the seven people who disliked this video probably didn't bother watching the entire thing. Probably. That, or they are exhibiting one of the many forms of bias.
Everyone has some form of bias
Or they just want to be that guy ... infinitely many solutions to which we will never truly know til those bastards tell us their reasoning behind such travesty
The road to success is paved with the bones of those who didn't make it.