balls doesnt exist. bravery doesnt exist, its a fiction, a lie. the truth is simply that what one man thinks is too scary, another thinks its much more exciting than scary, and therefore you do it.
Linguistic constraints + intelligence = good shit! I rarely sit through a whole one of these, but I found myself glued to his every syllable. Thanks, Dan.
Hey Dan, at 19:00 you basically argue rationality vs. irrationality on the basis of rationality = economic theory. Let's not forget game theory as well. Game theory is the reason why I don't take the unobserved purse. Trust and revenge are not purely irrational. They are rational in the context of game theory, they're actually the essential part of game theory.
There must be a point after revenge when trust is no longer possible. If this is not overcome, game over. Participants may later ask themselves, "What was my objective in online dating in the first place?" and "Did I represent my objectives honestly?" The latter is sometimes referred to as the Asswang game. It may have been possible to avoid games altogether by exhibiting compassion at the first misstep. People who try to outdo one another in round after round of revenge may find in it an ancient form of entertainment, but it is unlikely to result in dating.
You're right, of course, but I think his intention is to use the technical definition of rationality from economics. As a behavioral economist, he then shows how individual behavior often deviates wildly from the economic norm, and tries to draw some lessons from the kinds of deviations one observes. Anyway, cheers.
I have recently discovered Dan Ariely and I love his charisma. I must disagree on the topic at 17:46 though, where he presents as irrational things like morality and trust, when it is obvious that every person inside a society has to benefit in the long run from these features, so it's only rational to put aside his short-term gain. In the end (around 22:15) he kind of opposes his own previous arguments.
It's not the dating sites, it's the society itself. Inequality, globalization, etc. have created spaces between people that they don't know how to bridge. The sites are an effect, not a cause.
The fuck!? I've never purchased anything from Ikea. The fact that the instructions were so unclear so as to force this brilliant guy to have to continuously work at it, tells me I should be in no rush.
who defines "rational" as entirely self interested, i would argue rationality would take in account other sentient beings that are exposed to similar value states.
Great video, and all of the experiments he describes are very interesting. However, one problem that I have with it is that he seems to define rational actions as those that maximise the total net benefits to the actor, and doesn't take into account the fact that many people (myself, hopefully, included) endevour to act rationally, defining that as acting to maximise total net benefits for society as a whole, so for example I'd give the guy $80 because that helps him more than $20 would help me.
Part 1: I always thought that attractivennes is not as clear as proffesor Ariely explains in the video. i had a picture of me in the "hot or not" web site where you could see my face and recieved a 7.8 out of 10 (there were around 500 grades from women around the world). i then deleted that picture and upladed another picture with me smiling and laying down next to my dog which looked very calm and pleased from my company.
How do you motivate people with raises and bonuses when what they really want is something more? You can not. Personal values, Dan calls them irrational values, are our real motivations and money, etc. is a means. Very important but a means, not an end. Of course, there are many who lack strong irrational values but it is the admixture of these people with the "irrational" people that make cooperation possible. A lot of folks have spent a working lifetime making money and then find that they have nothing stimulating to do in retirement-they are the rational people who have come to the end of their equation.
Part 2: this time i recieved an overall 9.4 grade (from a few houndred women as well. my point is that while we can grade the way people look, we would change our idea of their attractivennes acording to how they present themself and what we get from the picture. that way, less attractive men can date very attractive women that see the "man" in them.
It seems odd to me that he would expect that most people WANT a partner in the first place. I think that is an anachronistic assumption. More and more people don't think that way.
Dr Dan explains it right from the start. A person is more like wine than a set of attributes. You can't explain it but know if you like the experience.
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
I saw Dan recently at Kilkenomics in a Kilkenny Ireland. I became a fan instantly. A really cool friendly guy.
It's crazy how 10 years later, what he is saying is still as relevant.
It took a very large set of balls and self awareness to give this speech. I applaud his attitude.
balls doesnt exist. bravery doesnt exist, its a fiction, a lie.
the truth is simply that what one man thinks is too scary, another thinks its much more exciting than scary, and therefore you do it.
Linguistic constraints + intelligence = good shit! I rarely sit through a whole one of these, but I found myself glued to his every syllable. Thanks, Dan.
This man is fantastic! How have I never heard of him before?
Agree. He is great.
Wow, I could listen to Dan Ariely speak all day.
29:05 "alot of kids have worms" lolol
I love Dr. Dan!
Hey Dan, at 19:00 you basically argue rationality vs. irrationality on the basis of rationality = economic theory. Let's not forget game theory as well. Game theory is the reason why I don't take the unobserved purse. Trust and revenge are not purely irrational. They are rational in the context of game theory, they're actually the essential part of game theory.
There must be a point after revenge when trust is no longer possible. If this is not overcome, game over. Participants may later ask themselves, "What was my objective in online dating in the first place?" and "Did I represent my objectives honestly?" The latter is sometimes referred to as the Asswang game. It may have been possible to avoid games altogether by exhibiting compassion at the first misstep. People who try to outdo one another in round after round of revenge may find in it an ancient form of entertainment, but it is unlikely to result in dating.
You're right, of course, but I think his intention is to use the technical definition of rationality from economics. As a behavioral economist, he then shows how individual behavior often deviates wildly from the economic norm, and tries to draw some lessons from the kinds of deviations one observes. Anyway, cheers.
I have recently discovered Dan Ariely and I love his charisma. I must disagree on the topic at 17:46 though, where he presents as irrational things like morality and trust, when it is obvious that every person inside a society has to benefit in the long run from these features, so it's only rational to put aside his short-term gain. In the end (around 22:15) he kind of opposes his own previous arguments.
It's not the dating sites, it's the society itself. Inequality, globalization, etc. have created spaces between people that they don't know how to bridge. The sites are an effect, not a cause.
The fuck!? I've never purchased anything from Ikea. The fact that the instructions were so unclear so as to force this brilliant guy to have to continuously work at it, tells me I should be in no rush.
I agree with you, you are right!
who defines "rational" as entirely self interested, i would argue rationality would take in account other sentient beings that are exposed to similar value states.
Awsome video
Great video, and all of the experiments he describes are very interesting.
However, one problem that I have with it is that he seems to define rational actions as those that maximise the total net benefits to the actor, and doesn't take into account the fact that many people (myself, hopefully, included) endevour to act rationally, defining that as acting to maximise total net benefits for society as a whole, so for example I'd give the guy $80 because that helps him more than $20 would help me.
Where is the site he describes?
Back in the days where Big Think was good.
Part 1:
I always thought that attractivennes is not as clear as proffesor Ariely explains in the video. i had a picture of me in the "hot or not" web site where you could see my face and recieved a 7.8 out of 10 (there were around 500 grades from women around the world). i then deleted that picture and upladed another picture with me smiling and laying down next to my dog which looked very calm and pleased from my company.
How do you motivate people with raises and bonuses when what they really want is something more? You can not. Personal values, Dan calls them irrational values, are our real motivations and money, etc. is a means. Very important but a means, not an end. Of course, there are many who lack strong irrational values but it is the admixture of these people with the "irrational" people that make cooperation possible. A lot of folks have spent a working lifetime making money and then find that they have nothing stimulating to do in retirement-they are the rational people who have come to the end of their equation.
Part 2:
this time i recieved an overall 9.4 grade (from a few houndred women as well. my point is that while we can grade the way people look, we would change our idea of their attractivennes acording to how they present themself and what we get from the picture.
that way, less attractive men can date very attractive women that see the "man" in them.
I'd totally date this guy if I weren't married.
On line dating is the equivalent of a cattle mart.
I think thats the point.
Irrationality + irrationality = rationality
It seems odd to me that he would expect that most people WANT a partner in the first place. I think that is an anachronistic assumption. More and more people don't think that way.
Why would you expect that most people don't want a partner? Every species has a drive to procreate, that's nature my friend.
overall good talk though
I have been!
Wasn’t he busted for fraud? How do we know this video is fully accurate?
Is it just me, or does he have a slight accent?
How do you explain black men who are unattractive with beautiful white women? Seen too many such relationships for this theory to hold ground.
Dr Dan explains it right from the start. A person is more like wine than a set of attributes. You can't explain it but know if you like the experience.
he's Israeli. he lived for a long time in Israel.
11 year later and still online dating is the same and still fruitless.
classic "2 wrongs make a right" fallacy
A really?^^ get it?
I have been!