Soldiers and Scouts: Why our minds weren't built for truth I Julia Galef
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- An expert on rationality, judgement, and strategy, Julia Galef notes that "our capacity for reason evolved to serve two very different purposes that are often at odds with each other. On the one hand, reason helps us figure out what’s true; on the other hand, it also helps us defend ideas that are false-but-strategically-useful. I’ll explore these two different modes of thought -I call them “the scout” and “the soldier”- and what determines which mode we default to. Finally, I’ll argue that modern humans would be better off with more scout mode and less soldier mode, and I’ll share some thoughts on how to make that happen.”
Galef is founder of the Update Project and hosts the podcast “Rationally Speaking."
"Soldiers and Scouts: Why our mind weren't built for truth" was given on September 12, 02018 as part of Long Now's Seminar series. The series was started in 02003 to build a compelling body of ideas about long-term thinking from some of the world's leading thinkers. The Seminars take place in San Francisco and are curated and hosted by Stewart Brand. To follow the talks, you can:
Subscribe to our podcasts: longnow.org/sem...
Explore the full series: longnow.org/sem...
More ideas on long-term thinking: blog.longnow.org
The Long Now Foundation is a non-profit dedicated to fostering long-term thinking and responsibility. Our projects include a 10,000 Year Clock, endangered language preservation, thousand year+ data storage, and Long Bets, an arena for accountable predictions.
Become a Long Now member to support this series, join our community, and connect with our ongoing work to explore and deepen long-term thinking: longnow.org/mem...
Like us on Facebook: / longnow
Follow us on Twitter: / longnow
Subscribe to our channel: / longnow
On my first pass of hearing Julia Galef I am impressed with the structure and direction of her research and the insights she brings. I now have more resources to explore or scout. I am totally unconvinced of her lack of bias or comprehensive scouting for truth. I am reminded of a framework I learned within the creative problem-solving discipline that close to her metaphors: To address a problem and solve it, take on, in sequence the roles of: explorer -> artist -> judge -> warrior.
Oh thts a great sequence thank William Hunt 😀
I like explorer -> tester -> evaluator with a repeat of exploration with every contradiction claimed and unexplored.
Pausing at halfway point just to say how brilliant this woman is and how much respect she deserves as a thinker and a person. Her character is attested to by her values on truth, accuracy, honesty and such. Refreshing. We need 8 billion more people like her on this planet.
I don't think being a scout would make a good parent. Children need directions. It would be like Scouts raising Scout.
At least fostering a sense of couriousity. You want to backup your kid while thier lying or just plain wrong.
Half way! The interview wasn't he best part
I'm not impressed at all. She is using rhetorical tricks to persuade her audience. One fallacy after another such as saying truth is relative to ones political beliefs.
She is using surveys and consensus to 'prove' a truth. The scientific method is very old and very reliable. Modern academia seems to have forgotten its principles for determining what is really true and what is popular folklore.
@@stevelenores5637 it does seem a bit trivial.
I do highly Agreed.
The most fun to watch was the Q&A. After a talk about being flexible in your assumptions, the host proceeds to offer various adjustments to the theory, and we get to see how adept the speaker is at practicing her own advice.
'We shouldn't expect that the brain evolved to be accurate. It evolved to give us a survival advantage. Sometimes that involves having accurate beliefs and sometimes it involves having false beliefs.'
Been saying this for years. Human brains are best guess machines. Correctness machines would fail and never get off the ground evolutionarily speaking.
Napoleon Hill, Maxwell Maltz, Psychoo-Cybernetics, PMA, "Zig" Zigler, Billy Graham **ducking**
In some ways, we are perfectly evolved to be citizens of ISIS.
@@josephw.1463 or citizens of woke.
AND THAT ADVANTAGE, THEE ADVANTAGE IS CALLED MASTERY. thank you God bless yall
Seems like you need the best of both the scout and the soldier mindset at different moments. 1.Scout the environment seeking truth, 2.formulate a plan to add value,
3.execute that plan like a soldier.
4. Re enter scout mindset, evaluate your plan, your execution, and the results.
5. Repeat steps 1-4
You’ve got it!! Now you have to realize that something flows within these steps and something deeper grows inside..
You spot on!
Smart enough to be this honest. That's impressive and inspiring. Challenge accepted.
All you have to do is tell people things they want to believe - that overcomes their sophistication.
unless they notice what you’re doing.
It’s happened to me...
Great way to find friends.
Yep. Steel skyscrapers can be blown into dust by Islamic Freedom Hate, for instance.
@@jimrobcoyle the classic one is "you and I are goodies but foreigners are evil and stupid" Politicians who are about to ask you to do something to benefit themselves love that one.
@@timmurphy5541 the only reason that works is becouse sometimes it is also true
@@Erik3E well if you want to believe that, I suppose you will.
My scout leader Hume dealt with this and succinctly put it as , reason is the servant of the passions.
Hume is definitely not a scout😂
@@OrangeRaft he was definitely not a soldier in a Galefian
sense of the words and definitely more of a scout in the philosophical sense when speaking about epistemology. certainly was a scout for Kant.
In other words, motivation is everything. There is a small percentage of the population who are actually self-objective and an even smaller percentage of that who are 1) high in openness, and 2) high in agreeableness. Personality traits are like your deeper motivational profiles.
If you are higher in openness, you don’t judge and won’t have an axe to grind, if you are high in agreeableness then getting ahead, prestige, or self-important competitiveness will not be propelling your views or choices. People who are motivated in any field are in one way or another good at it. Natural ability and even when it comes into play is very big as Malcolm Gladwell showed. However, the competitive aspects of early ability would not come into play if you are very agreeable.
So yeah obviously there have been people in history, and cultures in history better at nurturing motives which serve everyone rather than your own path or majority views on these things.
Being truly objective is walking a minefield. Speaking truly objectively makes Warriors look weak.
@@spiralsun1 Just about everyone who moves the needle in any significant way is driven. Why would Tom soldier on until he found the best material for his filament if he were not driven? Any rational person would've given up after, say, the 100th failure. Why would Al, the lowly patent clerk, soldier on with his radical idea that would upend Newtonian physics, if he were not driven? Were not Susan, Marie, Rosa, Martin, and everyone else who made a difference, driven? Rationalism is a cognitive bias ignored by scouts who soldier ahead with a great idea that transforms society.
1:20:24
Her argument that Pinker underestimates the impact of pandemics ended up becoming true a mere 2 months later.
She is spot on. Good stuff.
There was no pandemic
@@yingyang1008 - Er, what ?
haha. Great stuff. Pinker is a hack encouraged by his circle of self-interested intellectuals.
@@glowingunknown5625 Turn your TV off and it goes away
Funnier than Pinker, too.
As a non-academic philosophical pessimist I tend to view all things through Schopenhauer's fundamental premise that 'The Will' is supreme making both The Solider and The Scout archetypes of the will (ego). Furthermore using military theme nomenclature it is easy to visualize that both the solider and the scout answer to a higher authority. Knowing that when the scout is successful the solider benefits by becoming better equipped to defend and protect, who is it that the scout looks to for approval? We are born strangers in a strange land and someday our lives will end without any of the really important questions ever being answered. To that end I see both the scout and the solider as part of The Sage described by Carl Jung, a scout who studied martial arts. Thanks for all the mind candy.
Is it implied that the scout is subservient to the soldier? I didn’t get that myself...
Yes. I had similar thoughts while viewing/listening to this presentation. In my mind each of her references to having an "accurate map of the world" brought thoughts of old cartographers and figures like Lewis & Clark. It also made me think of fundamental understandings from indigenous peoples vs. conceptual cosmologies from the current conquerors in the Americas.
On one side the occupying forces were colonial and both the scouts and the soldiers were beholden to the crown. This made for an overall very disjointed line of command that favored forward-thinking, with a bulldozing result where the soldiering mindset won out every time over time.
Like you and Jung, I could see the Sage archetype at work here as the grand unifying agent. In the real life analogous scenario of the period of conquest in America which this UA-cam video brought to mind, we can see the divided (therefore conquered) tribes facing reality to gage hope for survival.
What can be observed as an emergent pattern of response to the very real and very advanced threat at this time period is that of the Prophet and the Warrior who jointly lead a movement aimed at combining both worlds/views for maximum power.
The Prophet/Warrior dynamic is the same as the Scout/Soldier dynamic. But in this case the unifying agent was not a world power with a locus on foreign soil, but rather an "otherworldly" universal archetype which we are calling The Sage. The challenge was to help divided and endangered peoples comprehend that which these two parts of self are in truth beholden to.
It is just like the reason and prejudice thing , isn´t it? BTW Optimists and Pessimists , are they necessarily soldiers looking for reasons to fight?
Wowowow....mind is blown. Such great value
And once you've worked out the detailed process of one perspective...you're faced with many others. Not to discourage anyone, but the "job" is mever done.
Eventually you settle on a philosophy that satisfies enough requirements to ease your personal feelings that you can stop searching.
But then you run into a "wild card".
This is called "life".
Love unconditionally ❤️.
Nothing else is truly important.
showing an accurate and deep understanding; great perceptive. 💡
Muito obrigado for all the insightful information. 🤝
This talk made me more intelligenterer
What's that long word at the end mean?
@@crungefactory it means I gained interligence
But not smarterer.😂
@@a-k9161 my ass is smart 😘
@@joannalewis5279 that's what I thought, you smart ass.!😂😊
A very interesting talk, on a fascinating subject. Your use of "soldier" and "scout" for the primary division of the human types is also interesting. In my personal experience I have met very few individuals with the scout personality you describe. Armies are made up of large units of soldiers with comparatively few scouts who were chosen for their personality, mind and skill set. Traditionally their job was to gather information and intelligence on the terrain and enemy deployment, and return that information to their officers and/or leaders. The lives of the entire army involved could hang on the accuracy, and truth of what they reported. In ancient times that could include the lives, or existence of their entire tribe, or other social group. That is a high price. It really is an intriguing idea. You would think that scientists and researchers, who are supposed to be seeking new truths and information would be predisposed to a "scout" personality, but is often not the case. It could just be that homo sapiens, being as adaptable, and as varied as individuals, can be educated and trained for almost any career or job, but that does not make them right for that career or job.
I believe that I am going to keep my eye out for your book on Amazon and grab it when I find it!
Spoken like a true armchair general. (Please don't take offense if you are a real military general) This poor girl...will be slowly driven mad by her fellow "humans". Trying to stay glib in the face of overwhelming odds, that is a sign of valor that while we live, comes without medals.
Another fine broadcast, Dane. I feel your frustration. And I was really limpressed about the fact that many congregations - I believe you mentioned Episcopalians - among those that you had spoken to, who had turned a blind eye. I see your point. I’ll mention this to my pastor after church next week or write them during the week. I’ll try to get them watch “The Dimming.” Could you imagine the power the cause would gain if every church in America showed “The Dimming” next Sunday! If your viewers go to a church and if they’ll ask their pastors the same thing- to watch THE DIMMING ( It’s free off Danes homepage.) we’ll be making some serious progress. All of us. If you don’t go to church, promise them that you will go at least once. If they will show THE DIMMING, you’ll be there to show your support. Let’s all hold hands and make a promise.
“ Please give each and everyone of us the impetus and courage to contact pastors this week and ask them to show the movie. To their congregation. Help us, Father. We’re so drugged up on RXs we’re lucky to know what planet we’re on much less the condition it’s in. We are being brainwashed on TV. WE NEED YOUR HELP TO SEE OUT OF THIS FOG! A lot of this fog comes from the very chemtrails we’re asking You to help us end. PLEASE HELP US.” Best thing yet, get close to God in your personal life, repent, ask for forgiveness, turn back to Him and watch what happens! If He created the world in six days, he can fix it inter blink of an eye. . I always look at it like this: If I go to a restaurant and have a bad meal, I don’t give up on food. I’d only ask you that, even though you’ve had those bad experiences with Christians, don’t give up on God.
I so much admire you, Dane.
she seems like a cool friend to have. I hope her career flourishes, Ill check out her book.
Yeah, if your 4 yrs old.
this is quite a generous talk, she covers quite a lot of the examples and subtopics from the book. I wonder why it took the book so long to be published.
I read the book a couple of days ago
I disagree virulently with the notion of "scientific consensus". The agreement of multiple scientists has nothing to do with the scientific method, as one person can destroy that "consensus" with one observation.
Scientific consensus is the new cathedral of "experts" whose opinions are more important than evidence. Now we almost never accept good evidence if it comes from outside that cathedral.
Fact/observation>consensus
And right now the consensus, in many fields, seems to deny basic biology.
The consensus of experts is not proof positive. It's not even direct evidence. It's just a good indication, similar to a meta-analysis of academic papers. Don't use consensus alone to justify a belief, but do at least consider it as relevant when it conflicts with a belief.
Scientific consensus, in a classical sense, implies the unforced agreement of learned minds basing their judgement solely on knowledge of the facts. In modern times, that consensus is forced by political considerations of future employment, future funding, social standing and sadly, physical safety.
@@thekevinjmiller That just means that public funding sources for scientists should specifically seek out hiring people who disagree with the other scientists and have good reasons (presumably based on failures in the experimental design, or on new experiments for showing reduced correlation (or having a design for such an experiment that they are willing to perform if they can get the grant)) for those disagreements.
Another source of funding should be for scientists who have established how a rigorous scientific experiment would have been predicted to work, which, when that scientist performed it, showed low or no confidence in the hypothesis.
These two things get rid of the incentives to turn science into groupthink or just confirm current biases.
97% scientists agree with your point.
I watched the whole video and was sold on getting her book.
Me too. It comes out April 13. Be the first to review it on Amazon!
Me too. I preordered it right away. There aren't many people like her who think about thinking, I think :D
Plus, she’s pretty hot too, so she must know what she’s talking about...
Think more as E is for Entertaining
Vs
Think more as F is for Forecasting
"Finding answers is easy. Asking the right questions... now that's hard!"
- The Doctor
19:14 image reminded me that we're vectors with direction and magnitude. Soldiers believe direction is correct, and so fights for magnitude. Scouts believe direction is yet to be decided, thus saving magnitude for later.
If information in your environment is described as a map, then sampling efficiently involves factoring in direction and magnitude of acceleration around the map, in addition to calculating at which point overthinking is occurring and action is ideal. I get the sense this speaker is a scout becoming soldier because that's what an intelligent person who becomes an advocate would presumably be, and I assume that to be given.
Anyway, how many dimensions are there to the average human's vector that defines them?
This is college level critical thinking. It's when you think being critical of ideas you read in books is what defines intelligence even though you can't express your own axioms, or use logic to describe the framework that defines your world-view.
@@iloveparadise
If your last sentence( quote ) is true this would explain why without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God ?
Because he knows how the minds of a truly *free* and intelligent creature works ?
If you’re looking for a mind-expanding video that challenges the way you think, look no further than Julia Galef’s “Soldiers and Scouts: Why Our Minds Weren't Built for Truth.” This video is an absolute must-watch for anyone curious about the inner workings of human cognition and decision-making. Julia effortlessly breaks down complex concepts like motivated reasoning and cognitive biases, making them not only understandable but also incredibly relevant to our everyday lives.
Her brilliant analogy of the "soldier mindset" versus the "scout mindset" opens your eyes to how our brains are wired for self-defense rather than truth-seeking. She artfully explains how adopting a scout mindset-where curiosity, openness, and a drive to understand the world accurately take the front seat-can revolutionize our thinking patterns, interactions, and even personal growth.
Julia’s delivery is engaging and thought-provoking, blending humor with intellectual rigor. She leaves you rethinking how you approach your own beliefs and decisions. This video is more than just a talk; it's a call to action to adopt a mindset that values truth over comfort. Highly recommended for anyone eager to challenge their perspectives and grow intellectually!
Self deception does have real world benefits. #1 In sports, if you take two individuals of equal ability, the one who 'Knows' he is just a little bit better usually wins. Believing in yourself really does make a difference. Pre and Post interviews would (and have) confirmed this. #2 Sometimes your assessment of your own abilities is slanted in a negative direction. By hitting things with your whole heart, you can surprise yourself (and everyone else)
lets occam's razor that "mindset" portion, out of the argument; this way you're not assuming causation or correlation.
"the better player wins"
she explains the folly of your assertion right around 26:00
Self deception is not necessary to know one has a slight advantage to win. Confidence can never start with a lie. There is no truth better for us than the real truth.
Your senario is less about self deception, and more about being all that you can be.
If the better player sells himself short, within himself, he can and will certainly lose, against a similarily capable opponent who is all in.
If he is over matched and the opponet is all in, he will lose and his 'self deception' will be confirmed.
He then as a scout knows a limitation to work on.
If facing a better opponet who may not be 'all in... because he knows that he is better, then the better can certainly lose.
I know/experienced this from every side mentioned here.
I have lost agsinst lesser, because of no confidence/fear.
I have edged triumph against similar, and I have been beaten by better and have beaten better..
and I processed(scouted) all the encounters during and after, to develope, and know my present 'ranking' and take any necessary steps, to be where ever I may wish to be.. as far as my drive and abilty can take me.
Just a cent or 2, for a real life take on such, in it's potential benefits, pro or con and it's limitations.
Delusions of losing will have you beaten.
Delisions of winning be they truely deliusions will still find you losing.. unless they are not delutions, or perhaps if the better is not all in(underestimates you/is cocky).
This is just sooooo good.
This is what the net was for.....great lecture - progress
A very interesting and thought-provoking presentation and subsequent discussion. I have pre-ordered Julia's book from Google Books. Really looking forward to going through it and learning much more about the scout mindset.
Think more the hardest way as wise as possible till 05:57 PM of Thursday
Vs
Think more the hardest way as wise as possible when I learnt how not to waste my time with people who underestimated with what I focussingly updating everyday
Great video! My only complaint is that Stewart Brand speaks far too quietly. I had trouble understanding him.
I think the closed captions typist had the same problem
Think more since the last comment
Vs
Think more as wise as knowing what to do, and knowing what not to do
Julia Galef seems to think like an engineer, which is what I am.
She does not seem to think like a salesperson, which is what I am not, and never could be, I hope.
A salesperson is almost compelled to lie or to rely on inaccurate impressions or bad-quality information, at least some of the time.
I think (again, I hope) I would not enjoy doing that.
Think more as wise as possible the hardest way to Intuit my mind with positiveness
Vs
Think more as wise as possible the hardest way of how being calm in situation that I shouldn't be is one of the hardest job ever
I enjoyed watching Julia's Bayesian statistics videos 5-6 years ago. I'm sad to say I have not kept up with her work. Better late than never I suppose.
Julia, I want to thank you for sharing this information. I've inherently been struggling with navigating the academic space. I am not formally taught but am inherently of the scout mindset. The knowledge I've gained for my own personal navigation of this world has led me to be saddened by current "thought leaders" across a lot of domains. I've found it curious how the facts and information is so easily and readily available but there are not very many leaders coherently synthesizing or sharing consistent information around many of the issues we face as a species. Nor are the basic postulates of science and the importance of definitions applied to many academic domains - economics and psychology being main examples.
I generally question my sanity quite a bit. Am I being too pessimistic? My passion for change is very optimistic though. Can I be both? Thanks for giving me interesting perspectives to play with. It is disappointing your view around education, but I can now see how it shifts the problem in a more social context. In my view education needs to have a pure social context to live that is heavily anthropological. Unfortunately the systems we have in place do not allow for such wishful ideals which is why I can understand why you suggest education is not a solution to these problems. If education was reimagined do you think this would shift your perspective?
As per your last ~ ? ¿ YES!
Because I was intrigued by her presentation at TED I wanted to hear more. At the end I was reminded of Zwike (sp?) who though he was disliked posited dark (invisible) matter much earlier than others. I was happy to hear the story of Prof. Baker at Oxford, who is my greatest example of someone who is willing to change their mind when presented with new facts.
I must say am impressed.
I am always right, and what Julia has said about people who can't change their minds is totally correct.
Thank you ... you are brilliant!
Julia Galef: Our minds weren't built for truth
Also Julia Galef: Here's the truth...
Ha!
Sorta. I'm always waiting for the miracles to start rolling in but they just get more obscure into motivated reasoning they weren't miracles to begin with. You can have your own reality 100% but you might be alone and in a lot of physical pain. The matrix arguments just turn into blame games with no actual neos in sight. Everybody scorned heavens gate but they were very consistent in their soldier mindset and paid with their own bodies I don't mind them oddly compared to other groups 🤷♀️
Great talk, indeed.
Think more as wise as possible the hardest way of what I did today, with "just once" even if with short duration gap...
Vs
Think more as wise as possible like a big heart but not as big belly
What an eye opening talk. Much thanks for your research into this Julia.
Think more the hardest way with remaining 25 minutes of a day...
Vs
Think more the hardest way to think this way to begin and conclude the day
I had to watch this twice for comprehension (unsophisticated audience trying to be less so) and my brain hurts a bit but wow!
Me too. She talks too fast for my brain. Plus I like the content.
There's a connection between the graph at 12:03 and the one at 13:50. "Instrumental" rationality can throw light on the earlier graph. This explanation is valid whether or not global warming is real because either side could be using instrumental rationality in order to be confident in their point of view, whether or not they actually understand the facts. (Of course, one side has to be wrong.) There can be many reasons why one would want to hold a given belief: You want to be approved of by Dad or you want to win an election in a place where that belief is prevalent, etc. Engaging in instrumental rationality (because you are emotionally driven to believe something while avoiding any effort to confirm it) causes suffering in the world around you even though you may feel terrific about yourself.
"The first rule of the survivors is: Face reality."
I found the interview portion (starting at 50:51) to be especially valuable
Thank you, that was a good interview. For example, I liked how she asked "What is situational planning?" at @1:05:10. She wasn't afraid to admit ignorance. Which was good because I didn't know what it was either and it gave Stewart Brand a chance to explain and extrapolate.
So eloquent, so important...I hope figures out how to help us grow more scouts, or at least help ppl to get in touch with their inner scout despite all the societal reasons to be soldiers.
The background is trippin me out
Think more as E is for Epicentre
Vs
Think more as F is for Fahrenheit
What a great lecture :)
"It's not because you have an idea you've been thinking" (Can't recall who said or wrote that)
But I would suggest *An introduction to thinking* a lecture with funny bits by Wes Cecil.
It's on You Tube . It's a bit in this style, but has more to do about actual thinking.
Hope you enjoy, I sure did.
My pessimism is Spenglerian in its grandeur. Not only that, but I know that in the long run I will be right.
Are soldiers more intensely driven to "DO" something, step forward and lead for a benefit that may or may not be the case. Where as a scout might hesitate because of being unsure, and therefore loose the moment of opportunity. And possibly eventually do what the soldier would have done? just a thought.
Usually these talks are focused on policy or strategy - the scout should still pull his or her their hand off the stove. Vietnam is the classic case when even McNamara is doubtful. With Iraq Saddam did indeed have torture cells it's never 100% clear cut.
"Why our mind aren't built for the truth"
She mentioned something more optimistic at the end. Maybe diversifying a little for a broader audience
If our minds aren't built for truth, why should I trust what Julia is saying?
@@gistfilm there's always more than one way to look at things. I believe she has put a great deal of time into her philosophy. And from my own experience I understand both sides
@@gistfilm Because they can be used to discover truth, and you can use yours if you choose to.
She couldn’t come up with a single cogent example of when an inconvenient truth that she didn’t like actually changed her mind. Which just proves her point. Right?
For the record, the US military won the Vietnam war, just read about the Paris Accords, however congress lost the post war by failing to supply and support the South Vietnamese army who were routed after the US left.
When the North headed south, they did so with more armored vehicles the Hitler EVER possessed.
I love this sort of self deception and mental gymnastics. The objectives of the US in Vietnam were never achieved, and never could have been short of mass genocide in the North. The South was always going to fall without the US propping it up. There was never a chance of it happening any other way. Objectives failed does not somehow translate into a win. Stop fooling yourself
@@choosetolivefree No mass genocide in the North was required to maintain the independence on the south, where's your evidence of the claim? The US needed only to indirectly support the south which it failed to do, due to decisions made in the US congress. Very shortly after, starting in the early 80s Vietnam started to allow free markets to enter the country. Likely the US would not have needed to prop the south up for more than a couple decades. The mass genocide and imprisonment of the south Vietnamese people after the war could have been avoided.
The US military won every major battle of the Vietnam war, it simply lost the propaganda war at home.
@@Greg-xs5py Sigh. I have been a student of the Vietnam war for many years. It's clear that the south did not have near the force of will and determination that the north had. The only reason the south existed was because of the U.S. creating it.
Your assertion that the U.S. won every major battle is laughable. Just go watch the movie "We Were Soldiers". U.S. forces were literally on the verge of being overrun during that battle and were forced to call in "broken arrow", meaning they were screwed and needed serious help. The Vietnamese leader at the end of the movie stated "they will think this is a victory". And that says it perfectly. What that movie doesn't tell is that U.S. forces leaving that battle field were later ambushed and virtually massacred. Go look it up.
Even at a time when the U.S. government was selling the propaganda at home that the war was won, the Tet Offensive took off. You're absolutely lying to yourself if you think the U.S. won that war in any size shape or form bro.
@@choosetolivefree so the US absolutely won the Tet offensive, they completely repelled the enemy attack and the enemy to US/SVA casualties were a lot to a little. The battle of Ia Drang valley is the same story, a quick internet search reveals that the US lost 499 soldiers while the North Vietnamese lost between 1000 and 1700 soldiers. Since the Vietnam war was a war of attrition what matters is body count over territory. The US would often fight a major battle over some hill only to pull out after a decisive victory. And the battle of Ia Drang was the very first battle involving a very green army unit who didn’t know what they were getting into. The only battles the Communists won were the propaganda battles which is why the South fell to the North. It could actually be argued, and I believe even the Communist Noam Chomsky said this, the US intent in the Vietnam War was to slow the spread of Communism in Asia and this was largely achieved. Most other Asian countries like Japan wanted no part in it after they saw what happened in Vietnam.
What I find most amazing is all the defenders of Communism that watch this video and try to challenge me.
And PS I don’t need to watch Mel Gibsons movie, I read Joe Galloways book that the movie was based on when it came out like 30 years ago, “We were soldiers once and young”.
Think more since the last comment....
Vs
Think more as wise as possible after coming from little shabby cabin, rearrange the left documents, such as old notes, old question papers etc since childhood years and bind them together in one place...
Vs
Think more as I somehow rationalise to find out what have I done before my sleeping hours
All Gore said that the ice caps would be gone by 2015 change my mind.
Bush said we'll go back to the moon by 2012. What's happening?
Politics requires hyperbole in order to work; if politicians talked about things as they are, then it would be extremely easy for any person telling people what they want to hear to get elected instead.
I would personally have preferred for him to talk about specific goals that would stop climate change, and leave the specifics of what is going to happen otherwise to scientists. However, this would require him to advocate for policies which actually accomplish the goal of stopping climate change, and not simply destroy the economy. Such a policy should have included putting manufacturing capacity or mines and factories on the Moon and the asteroid Psyche-16 (a metal rich asteroid) and using those factories to build more of themselves and gradually build out the parts necessary for a 2,000 km diameter mirror at the L1 Lagrange point between the Earth and the Sun (reducing the light hitting the Earth by 1%, entirely reversing the effects of the CO2 in the atmosphere). The other policy to stop climate change is to ban the practices of such companies as Apple and John Deere (and many car companies) of making products that are designed to require you to replace them after a certain amount of time (such as having a soldered-on battery (since batteries are known to fail well before the other parts) and similarly ban the use of planned obsolescence in all industries, and prohibit companies from firing workers who design products to last longer or are made more efficiently and requiring them to adopt such designs (for example, the Nylon string was first designed to last indefinitely, and then the engineers were required by the companies to make them break after a time period in order to make people buy more; the same thing happened with light bulbs with incandescent light bulbs having drivers built into them to make sure the tungsten burns out too quickly, and LEDs being driven with too much current).
Companies will still need to downsize after they have reached market saturation, but that just means they should move production over to new products that people need, which should not be disincentivized against as the stock market currently views drops in numbers of sales.
@@evannibbe9375 back in the 70s these same Crooks warned of a coming Ice Age. Energy companies and governments cooperate together to exploit fake science so they can screw their consumers and citizens. If they were serious about ending our profitable dependence on fossil fuels against their own selfish interests then they would promote energy alternatives that actually work like nuclear power.
@@astromastro6026 Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction too. Politicians lie about everything... except global warming.
@@memeticmedicine7950 ISWYDT
Think more as wise as how I nurturely write those difficult to understand Hindi sentences on Blackboard with Hindi learners in School in 09:00-09:45AM class...
Vs
Think more as wise as trying is better than leaving
Directionally motivated thinking is not inherently negative. The Scientific Method is directionally motivated, you first formulate a hypothesis and set out to prove the veracity of that hypothesis!! Such directional biases in thinking only become unhealthy if one stubbornly persists in a bias in the face of evidence to the contrary, like saying, my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts!!
I could argue that all thinking is directionally motivated. We all have a sense of when we’ve achieved our goal in thinking?? We all know when a problem is solved, and that sense of a goal achieved in thinking on some problem is a kind of bias?? A goal is a bias!! So, we need biases, but we should regard biases loosely as in the Bayesian process where change is allowed!!!!
prove -or- disprove the veracity of a given hypothesis, adding the or removes the direction. If a scientist's hypothesis is disproved, I don't beleive they would consider that a failure- as the goal of an "experiment" is knowledge, so any expirement is a by definition a success if done correctly. A failed science experiment is one in which we learn nothing, whether that be from mismanagement of a good experiment, or as you described actively "trying to prove something" and bending the data or variables to suit your goal.
Think more as wise as possible to not be fool by free stuffs I was settedly framed to accept with a benifit intention for what's next...
Vs
Think more as wise as possible as wise as how I should mind my own productive positive thoughts every moments
I'd love to have a conversation with Julia about spirituality
I’m guessing it would be a short conversation. She clearly insists on evidence to defend her positions. Most likely an atheist.
@@jltsoyowdycjltsoyowdyc1076 There is plenty of evidence to support spirituality, but it is found within yourself.
Thanks Galef Julia...learn so much from U.
7:04 I think about these two questions all the time, ever since I ran across it in The Righteous Mind. I didn’t realize it came from a deeper source (Thomas Gilovich) although I’m sure he cited him at the time. So, it looks like I’ve found an interesting author to look into (as well as Julia Galef, who I just found on UA-cam which is why I got this recommendation.)
Think more as wise as how I know you're still not focus on me
Vs
Think more as wise as how I know you're still trying to use me for other's beneficial purposes
"Why our minds weren't built for truth". So, that is the truth?...This title refutes itself.
No, it refers to the robot's rebellion. Human minds are, according to Julia Galef, wired as Soldier Minds, while she is propagating the Scout mindset. Her talk is also an example of this thinking.
Think more the hardest way when I notice everything are lies...
Vs
Think more there's no real at the end when I find out
"...we do not hold the belief that this earth is a realm of misery where man is doomed to destruction. We do not think that tragedy is our natural fate and we do not live in chronic dread of disaster. We do not expect disaster until we have explicit reason to expect it - and when we encounter it, we are free to fight it. It is not happiness, but suffering that we consider unnatural. It is not success, but calamity that we regard as the abnormal exception in human life...." from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (possibly the most "Scout" person in history). The idea of The Benevolent Universe cuts through both optimism and pessimism, by orienting us to reality. The universe is not out to get you, but it is also not going to automatically provide you with what you need. When we are free to achieve, we can, but the "Scout" mindset requires freedom. I would be interested to know if Julia Galef has read Rand.
Consider that when we appeared..we were not given much beyond rocks and grass....which..over time...we used to put a man on the moon. Some respect is deserved among today’s self-loathing.
Wonderful talk and ideas. Thank you.
Very interesting her answer to question about Steven Pinkiers thesis about how things are getting better not taking into account "tail risks", especially increased risks of major castrophe's like pandemic 1:20:35...
Very similar to Nassim Taleb's criticism of Pinker's work.
Things can be getting better and worst at the same time.
Think more the hardest way as how I developed the habit to create an opportunity from positive effects of failure stories that I encountered...
Vs
Think more just like I ashame-lessly commented to you the straight forward way
intelligence and beauty should not be given to the same person....
Pretty smart young lady. She's headed in the right direction.
TRUTH - Watching 1 hour of this blue and black background will burn the image into your retina
I swear I can see in 4D after looking at it for an hour and a half
It looks cool but I had to keep looking away. High contrast stripes can trigger visual migraines for me.
I thought it was white and gold. 😉
@@XxGLOWphoenix 😂
Think more the hardest way to fool not by same framely setup people...
Vs
Think more the hardest way when I know I cannot be repeatedly fool
This would be so much better if I could actually hear what that older guy is saying...
Try it with headphones, good ones if possible.
Think more as wise as how I dealt with souls Convergently/Digitally/Virtually either Live streaming or Highlight
Vs
Think more as wise as how I believed the healthy Julia Galef reading them figuratively
At 1:20:30 Julia basically summoned Covdid-19 😶
Summoned at 1:31:37 with the no-handshake
Awesome talk!
That "hedgehog and fox" metaphor comes from Tolstoy's War and Peace.
Ummmm, what about Sonic the Hedgehog 2?
Think more as wise as possible when I learnt how not to be fool by judgeable comment readers...
Vs
Think more as wise as possible when I learnt how to believe what mind has to say
I'm literally incapable of being anything but a scout. And yes, many times this has not worked in my favor. But sometimes it has hilarious results. I used to be a choir director. One day I got really excited because my 6th grade choir FINALLY got something right. One of my girls was like, "Wow, that means a lot, because you never say things like that!" My first thought was, maybe I should be nicer to my 6th graders. But then my second thought was, being a little bit of a jerk means my kids completely trust me. That's a pretty damn high bar to reach with 6th graders. So I guess I'm alright.
I'm also autistic, so that's probably a fair bit of it. I'm also perfectly willing to admit the many, many, times another route would have benefited me better. I just never figure out what would have been the "right" thing to do until the ordeal is over. Then I realized that if I had the re-do, I probably would just repeat the same damn thing I did in the first place.
Think more as wise as possible when I am not easy to be fool...
Vs
Think more when I know how to give a damn to the tempters
An acquaintance asked if I had a medical degree, because I had opted out of having the jab. She forgot that neither did she, having decided in favour of it.
What she was implying was that her sources were more sophisticated and reliable, and it struck me that this was always the argument in personal biases, including religion, politics and even sports teams.
you're describing the logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority"
You're on the right track
Think more as wise as possible as honest way of living me throughout all the day's hours of 18/11/22..
Vs
Think more as wise as possible as how I'm willing to sleep peacefully with the sweatful efforts I beared in a day though unnoticed by many, and learn how to sleep peacefully with three consecutive satisfied meals of a day
Sounds kinda like master and his emissary...
Think more as wise as possible the hardest way of how a conversation flow with the illusion of mind...
Vs
Think more the hardest way to not be fool by entertaining mind readers
But ultimately it's not about benefits and drawbacks - ultimately abandoning the soldier mindset requires you to drop all vanity and admit your insignificance. It is the way of the *monk*.
“The Perfect Way is only difficult for those who pick and choose;
Do not like, do not dislike; all will then be clear.
Make a hairbreadth difference, and Heaven and Earth are set apart;
If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against.
The struggle between 'for' and 'against' is the mind's worst disease;”
― Jianzhi Sengcan
Think not as outsmarters
Vs
Think more as one to one
Can the Soldiers rocket jump too?
wait this is not tf2?
Think more to rationalise not to think of anything that makes me worry so much...
Vs
Think more but to rationalise by how to challenge life when I'm filled with doubts and confuses
"Everyone loves a BIG FAT LIE..."
Think imagine until I am sure you are safe..
Vs
Think imagine a person who frequently wake-up in the middle of a night
When someone so visibly not yet a hundred years old starts by saying she's been a fan of the Long Now Foundation for 'a long time', I half expected to hear the rumbling of chairs as everybody just up and left! haha! Glad you didn't. ^__^
Think more as good boy....
Vs
Think more as wise as a person who always choose to be wrong when everybody avoid else to be
12:24 Is there a way to find a correlation between polymathic vs. specialized skill, and agreement on global warming? Perhaps tunnel vision in one's own field amplifies partisanship. If I were to guess, the more exposure people have to experts in other fields, especially ecology, the more they connect these dots.
Think more as wise as I knowingly know not what to think like I think in the past...
Vs
Think more like I knowingly not to show my actual action in the present with anybody
Arguably the most gorgeous woman Ive laid eyes upon...ever
Travel more dear John.
Have you seen the mathematician Hannah Fry?
Haha. You're a sad dude. I see way hotter girls in my gym every day. You definitely need to leave your house
@@choosetolivefree & @Harry W. No. you're the "sad" ones. This is a *woman,* not a "girl." And, @John Tankard may be a sapiosexual, finding the combination of the presenter's demonstrated intellect and her style of interaction, etc. attractive along with her physical package as a whole. he may also not buy into the propagated, classic ideals of feminine beauty and if so, BRAVO to him! *: )*
KandakeAmanirenas_and_MatriarchalChoctaw ..I tend to agree. Several times during the presentation I thought..is it me or does she have an particular...unusual enigmatic beauty about her...specially when combined with her intellect, sense of humor...and a self deprecating style with which she communicates. Her smile is also quite striking...
Lovely, intriguing talk, thank you. Regarding terminology, I've always liked the flow of "teleological reasoning" (indulging in it turns out to be especially pernicious and face-plant-inducing for scientists...eventually it burns you).
The ideal career choice, if you want to be over-confident, is to be a climate guru.
Think more as wise with the four downloaded photos I downloaded recently
Vs
Think more as wise as possible like how I understandably know my education investment tools in the past years
Rationalty in economics when synonymous with optimization in the short run could lead to perfect failure in the long run. Richard Dawkins reasonning is really poor and anthropocentric really the product of ultra capitalism apology of état de nature to evolution of life on earth.
The opposite is also true.
I would prefer to defeat nature, for to live according to what is seen on Discovery channel’s animals is that there is no one with the hope for great things being built before being eaten by your natural predators (in the case of modern humans, it seems that our natural predators are terrorists, bacterial infections, cancer, Alzheimer’s Disease and similar).
To defeat nature is such things as building factories and mining facilities on the Moon and Psyche-16, which will enable us to build all of the things we need (as well as a 2000 km diameter mirror at the L1 Lagrange point between the Earth and the Sun to reduce heating by the same amount that greenhouse gases have increased heating) in a way that avoids the possibilities of falling into the chaos caused by those who wish to disestablish everything that has made humanity better off to this point.
Think more the hardest way how not to go beyond others' sentiments..
Vs
Think more the hardest way of how I dealt with the limit