This comes up a lot in Aydin Paladin's videos. She constantly cites papers, but half the time has to say "btw this was a single study of like 20 college kids and has never been successfully replicated, but every news network will quote it like it's gospel."
I can't do it anymore, but the funny thing about the coin flip example is that when I was younger I actually _was_ really good at flipping coins. If I started on heads and flipped it with roughly the same amount of force I could get heads at better than 50/50. I don't really have that kind of dexterity anymore but I bet you could get similar results from a machine.
There really is something going on with the unmemorable-ness of The Effective Executive. I had no memory of it being reviewed, even though I've listened to most of Cortex, so I searched the episode and listened to it again. The start of the podcast which is about other topics felt familiar, I had memory of hearing it before. The end of the podcast was also familiar. The section of the podcast with the book review felt way less familiar. I think I must have listened to it before, because I don't think past me would have skipped it, and there were a few sentences I think I've heard before, but my brain did not retain that section in the say way it retained the rest of the episode.
I can’t help but feel like the primary issues mentioned with the book are due to mixing epistemologies and the inherent contradictions that can sometimes resultantly occur . Maths (reason), social (empirical).
I know this was recorded probably a month ago but: the best way to resolve a major synchronization issue with DropBox is to wipe to local part and let it redownload everything. Then its just a matter of downloading the data, otherwise it has to check and compare (and maybe download) each and every file. Our database is 4TB (Small firm of 4 people) and I can tell you, its quicker to wipe. 20TB is quite a lot though so you might have to split it in "Active stuff" and "Archive" and keep the archive not synced constantly. Good luck!
I think I just found a nice thing to play in the background congratulations you will now be playing in the background when I'm doing homework You're replacing songs by Agnes obel so you got some pretty big shoes to fill
Having read the book completely I see its usefulness, but the best part of the work is the summary at the end of each chapter. It's sad because I feel that the book is full of useful information that we desperately need in today's society, it's just wrapped up in monotony.
Thank God Myke answered the bat and the ball question, because I could not get passed "the balls 10c, the bats a dollar". Might just be that I'm a very visual thinker, but I could NOT move past that on my own
I never knew the term for it but I have been aware that in the last decade or more they've been disproving so many social science tests; Grey brings up a very good point that there are more people now days who are able to retry an old test than there were even back in the 2000's. Oh, I want to add that I've always felt 'social science' stuff was a bit suspect even before I started learning about how a proper theory should be tested.
Julia Galef does such a better job at explaining the two types of thinking in Scout Mindset (it's a much easier read as well). She also explains Beyesian thinking way better than the fake people examples Kehneman uses.
I've been thinking about getting her book. It's interesting because while science communicators are often bemoaned by institutional academics, (books by such authors are reduced to "pop science"), I see no reason why Galef, just an undergrad in statistics, would actually be in a much worse position to aggregate and vet information than Kahneman. She also has the benefit of recency. Kaheman himself has conceded that he thinks some research cited was too weak, particularly in chapters 3 and 4. And a good idea that's communicated poorly is bound to become misunderstood, which it sounds like Kahneman also suffers from in some passages. All this to say, if Galef manages to distill the better memes from Thinking, and communicate those more effectively, that's a good reason to check out her book.
Hey cognitive psychologist here. The discussion starting in 1:03:53 is very misleading. While the examples given probably don't replicate they are definitely not core examples of priming. Priming in the way it is described in the book has been replicated at least thousands of times and is very robust. It is very good you are raising awareness to the replication crisis but you should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In general most of the experiments in the book has been replicated.
Ahh, replication crisis is the new way to call into question someone's results as still an unproven hypothesis. Even in ancient Rome people were complaining when Philosophers turned out to be wrong.
The linda fake person example might be mathamaticly wrong if her personality make's her extremly likley to go into social justice, let's say 75% the the probobility of bank teller + social justice is (p*0.75) and probobility of just bank teller is (p*0.25) so bank teller + social justice is more likley is she has more then a 50% chance of going into social justice
1:32:00 I see what the probability problem they were trying to do with Lynda, however, they did it wrong. It is not Bank teller vs bank teller and feminist (A or A+B). What they actually stated is that A was true no matter what and therefore irrelevant. You could argue that A is not inherent but that would make them both false anyway. Meaning it really worked out to whether B was True or False. Meaning Feminist vs Non-Feminist. The crux is whether or not they are a feminist, that is the only variable. What they should have done is A or B + C. Then try to convince you that B and C seem more likely than A. The difference is that they wanted to convey that a single variable is far more likely to be true than 2 variables. A good way of realizing how they got it wrong is to keep adding "A's" You know, a White, french, dog-loving, banker vs a White, french, dog-loving, banker, feminist. By adding everything else they are, it doesn't suddenly make the second one further unlikely than the original.
In A vs A + B, A + B is also part of A, making A inherently more common. The first category includes all members of the second, making it inherently more common. Being a bank teller tells us nothing about her political stance, allowing her to still be a feminist.
The correct answer should be, it's a word problem. The total cost is one dollar and ten cents. The bat costs one dollar, COMMA, more than the ball. Since the ball costs ten cents, the bat does indeed cost more than the ball. All correct and accounted for :D
Their "creative warehouse team" is likely better at customer support and integrating tech accessibility (and uses apple more devotedly)... They would be interesting to see, especially in a produced video over awkward lives.
For what it's worth, in interviews Kahneman makes it very clear that knowing about system 1 doesn't do much to mitigate its biasing effects, and that he doesn't think of himself as less susceptible to bias than people in general - in fact, he points out that the knowledge might make you overconfident and therefore *more* susceptible to bias. I don't remember if the book points this out or not, to be fair. It's kind of the whole point of the book that system 2 is smart and system 1 is dumb, not that Daniel Kahneman (and/or you, dear reader) is smart and other people are dumb. Regarding the fictitious people: maybe don't take it so personally. That part of the podcast was not very fun to listen to. (no offense intended; as you pointed out, as Kahneman pointed out, your reactions to that are pretty normal)
What do you guys think of Black Mirror? I find it to be good at pulling ideas from other places but not great at bringing those ideas to their logical ends. Although some episodes are very good, like the Ai horror game which is very much real in a basic idea today.
At this point a service like AWS Glacier might be worth it to you, maybe a script that moves a few files automaticly each month, the delete them off of dropbox after a while
Oh for the love of god Grey or anybody: please don't use glacier directly. If they didn't fix it since I've used it 3 years ago. Using S3 with archive feature turned on is easy. It appears as if it is in S3 but you pay just for metadata on those files 64K per file if I remember correctly. Everything else is in glacier with easy way to restore once needed. I might be biased because I don't like Amazon but even S3 is too complicated for this use case. I would use something purpose built for this use case not general lego blocks S3 scripts. For what the data is worth it's not very good idea. Also there are cheaper alternatives to AWS.
38:05 that append to me : "il manuale di autodistruzione" the self distruction manual wich was basically weak anti-comformism to the point where it advised you to do stuff wich could damage relations , and other pepole around you , i tought i bought it thinking that it would have been intresting but then i realized that damn , this sh*t sucks , and i was tempted to drop it but my gut reaction was "no ! you bought the whole book , you'll end this whole book!"
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed est eros, vulputate eget sodales nec, malesuada vel ante. Quisque volutpat risus in dolor sollicitudin a commodo libero suscipit. Nunc ultrices risus ut arcu hendrerit aliquet. Integer sit amet eros eu augue porttitor dictum. Quisque vel ante est, at lacinia tortor. Curabitur lacus purus, malesuada sit amet dapibus ac, placerat id leo. Nullam vel ultrices augue. Donec posuere convallis purus, sit amet imperdiet leo laoreet at. Quisque aliquam, urna non interdum lobortis, leo diam tincidunt lectus, non ultricies quam purus eget quam.
If you want to hear about Thinking Fast and Slow 29:08
Thanks, I was about to give up
This comes up a lot in Aydin Paladin's videos. She constantly cites papers, but half the time has to say "btw this was a single study of like 20 college kids and has never been successfully replicated, but every news network will quote it like it's gospel."
That was fun! This book unlocked a whole new level of vocal impressions out of Grey!
Cable management, one of the most important things
I am so enjoying this book club 😅
The fake people part broke me
1:22:55
"maybe the real experts were the friends we made along the way"
"Dammit Daniel Kahneman, *NO!"*
I can't do it anymore, but the funny thing about the coin flip example is that when I was younger I actually _was_ really good at flipping coins. If I started on heads and flipped it with roughly the same amount of force I could get heads at better than 50/50. I don't really have that kind of dexterity anymore but I bet you could get similar results from a machine.
There really is something going on with the unmemorable-ness of The Effective Executive.
I had no memory of it being reviewed, even though I've listened to most of Cortex, so I searched the episode and listened to it again. The start of the podcast which is about other topics felt familiar, I had memory of hearing it before. The end of the podcast was also familiar. The section of the podcast with the book review felt way less familiar. I think I must have listened to it before, because I don't think past me would have skipped it, and there were a few sentences I think I've heard before, but my brain did not retain that section in the say way it retained the rest of the episode.
I can’t help but feel like the primary issues mentioned with the book are due to mixing epistemologies and the inherent contradictions that can sometimes resultantly occur . Maths (reason), social (empirical).
I know this was recorded probably a month ago but:
the best way to resolve a major synchronization issue with DropBox is to wipe to local part and let it redownload everything. Then its just a matter of downloading the data, otherwise it has to check and compare (and maybe download) each and every file. Our database is 4TB (Small firm of 4 people) and I can tell you, its quicker to wipe. 20TB is quite a lot though so you might have to split it in "Active stuff" and "Archive" and keep the archive not synced constantly.
Good luck!
I think I just found a nice thing to play in the background congratulations you will now be playing in the background when I'm doing homework
You're replacing songs by Agnes obel so you got some pretty big shoes to fill
1:24:20 Grey just sounds so done with this at this point, and all the points before and after
Having read the book completely I see its usefulness, but the best part of the work is the summary at the end of each chapter. It's sad because I feel that the book is full of useful information that we desperately need in today's society, it's just wrapped up in monotony.
Thank God Myke answered the bat and the ball question, because I could not get passed "the balls 10c, the bats a dollar". Might just be that I'm a very visual thinker, but I could NOT move past that on my own
I never knew the term for it but I have been aware that in the last decade or more they've been disproving so many social science tests; Grey brings up a very good point that there are more people now days who are able to retry an old test than there were even back in the 2000's.
Oh, I want to add that I've always felt 'social science' stuff was a bit suspect even before I started learning about how a proper theory should be tested.
CORTEX DAY
Julia Galef does such a better job at explaining the two types of thinking in Scout Mindset (it's a much easier read as well). She also explains Beyesian thinking way better than the fake people examples Kehneman uses.
I've been thinking about getting her book. It's interesting because while science communicators are often bemoaned by institutional academics, (books by such authors are reduced to "pop science"), I see no reason why Galef, just an undergrad in statistics, would actually be in a much worse position to aggregate and vet information than Kahneman. She also has the benefit of recency. Kaheman himself has conceded that he thinks some research cited was too weak, particularly in chapters 3 and 4. And a good idea that's communicated poorly is bound to become misunderstood, which it sounds like Kahneman also suffers from in some passages. All this to say, if Galef manages to distill the better memes from Thinking, and communicate those more effectively, that's a good reason to check out her book.
Hey cognitive psychologist here. The discussion starting in 1:03:53 is very misleading. While the examples given probably don't replicate they are definitely not core examples of priming. Priming in the way it is described in the book has been replicated at least thousands of times and is very robust. It is very good you are raising awareness to the replication crisis but you should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In general most of the experiments in the book has been replicated.
i thought of soap instead of soup 😭
Echoes echoes. 💥
The last backup of all of the somewhat important files on my PC was 1.6 KB of compressed data.
Ahh, replication crisis is the new way to call into question someone's results as still an unproven hypothesis. Even in ancient Rome people were complaining when Philosophers turned out to be wrong.
@Vova Dykun Yeah, I completely agree.
Hi Grey!
Illinoise? Oy....
Seems like Grey needs help from Linus Tech tips.
I feel better about giving up part at the fake people part
Do you do autographs?
Resisting the urge to comment prematurely
The linda fake person example might be mathamaticly wrong if her personality make's her extremly likley to go into social justice, let's say 75% the the probobility of bank teller + social justice is (p*0.75) and probobility of just bank teller is (p*0.25) so bank teller + social justice is more likley is she has more then a 50% chance of going into social justice
1:32:00
I see what the probability problem they were trying to do with Lynda, however, they did it wrong.
It is not Bank teller vs bank teller and feminist (A or A+B). What they actually stated is that A was true no matter what and therefore irrelevant. You could argue that A is not inherent but that would make them both false anyway. Meaning it really worked out to whether B was True or False. Meaning Feminist vs Non-Feminist. The crux is whether or not they are a feminist, that is the only variable.
What they should have done is A or B + C. Then try to convince you that B and C seem more likely than A. The difference is that they wanted to convey that a single variable is far more likely to be true than 2 variables.
A good way of realizing how they got it wrong is to keep adding "A's" You know, a White, french, dog-loving, banker vs a White, french, dog-loving, banker, feminist. By adding everything else they are, it doesn't suddenly make the second one further unlikely than the original.
In A vs A + B, A + B is also part of A, making A inherently more common. The first category includes all members of the second, making it inherently more common. Being a bank teller tells us nothing about her political stance, allowing her to still be a feminist.
@@captain_m5360 Right, but how common A is doesn't matter if A isn't the crux of the statistic.
Someone should get Linus from LTT get a storage solution for Grey. I bet there's a solution for Grey's storage requirements
Channel got monetized ig, I got an ad during an ad
it's the new youtube terms thing (I'm assuming)
they just put ads on whatever they like now
The correct answer should be, it's a word problem. The total cost is one dollar and ten cents. The bat costs one dollar, COMMA, more than the ball. Since the ball costs ten cents, the bat does indeed cost more than the ball. All correct and accounted for :D
1:09:48
CGPGrey needs a consult with Linus Tech Tips about storage.
Their "creative warehouse team" is likely better at customer support and integrating tech accessibility (and uses apple more devotedly)... They would be interesting to see, especially in a produced video over awkward lives.
This isn’t the first time something happened to greys computer
For what it's worth, in interviews Kahneman makes it very clear that knowing about system 1 doesn't do much to mitigate its biasing effects, and that he doesn't think of himself as less susceptible to bias than people in general - in fact, he points out that the knowledge might make you overconfident and therefore *more* susceptible to bias. I don't remember if the book points this out or not, to be fair.
It's kind of the whole point of the book that system 2 is smart and system 1 is dumb, not that Daniel Kahneman (and/or you, dear reader) is smart and other people are dumb.
Regarding the fictitious people: maybe don't take it so personally. That part of the podcast was not very fun to listen to.
(no offense intended; as you pointed out, as Kahneman pointed out, your reactions to that are pretty normal)
What do you guys think of Black Mirror? I find it to be good at pulling ideas from other places but not great at bringing those ideas to their logical ends. Although some episodes are very good, like the Ai horror game which is very much real in a basic idea today.
At this point a service like AWS Glacier might be worth it to you, maybe a script that moves a few files automaticly each month, the delete them off of dropbox after a while
Oh for the love of god Grey or anybody: please don't use glacier directly. If they didn't fix it since I've used it 3 years ago. Using S3 with archive feature turned on is easy. It appears as if it is in S3 but you pay just for metadata on those files 64K per file if I remember correctly. Everything else is in glacier with easy way to restore once needed. I might be biased because I don't like Amazon but even S3 is too complicated for this use case. I would use something purpose built for this use case not general lego blocks S3 scripts. For what the data is worth it's not very good idea. Also there are cheaper alternatives to AWS.
Helloooo
38:05 that append to me : "il manuale di autodistruzione" the self distruction manual wich was basically weak anti-comformism to the point where it advised you to do stuff wich could damage relations , and other pepole around you , i tought i bought it thinking that it would have been intresting but then i realized that damn , this sh*t sucks , and i was tempted to drop it but my gut reaction was "no ! you bought the whole book , you'll end this whole book!"
Can't wait for the 8752nd year of cortex when they just literally don't stop raising money.
Why not make strorinator like linus from LTT?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed est eros, vulputate eget sodales nec, malesuada vel ante. Quisque volutpat risus in dolor sollicitudin a commodo libero suscipit. Nunc ultrices risus ut arcu hendrerit aliquet. Integer sit amet eros eu augue porttitor dictum. Quisque vel ante est, at lacinia tortor. Curabitur lacus purus, malesuada sit amet dapibus ac, placerat id leo. Nullam vel ultrices augue. Donec posuere convallis purus, sit amet imperdiet leo laoreet at. Quisque aliquam, urna non interdum lobortis, leo diam tincidunt lectus, non ultricies quam purus eget quam.
Hello I look in on this podcast every now and again. I always leave thinking there could be so much more.
A little bit of disappointment. m
Then don’t listen?
Huh?