I'm not surprised Japan, Germany and USA have similar results as these are the lands of plenty. If there was going to be deviations, you would need subjects under stress. If you run the test in Syria, Afghanistan and Irag, you may get a statistically significant deviation if socialisation is a factor.
My grandmother was a hoarder and she told me that was from her direct experience of famine under German occupation. In that case, limited resources had a huge effect on her behaviour even fifty years after the war.
Personally I'm against change, of any kind, under almost all circumstances excepting perhaps the most dire. In truth I believe most of my fellows are similar.
to flesh out the entropy explanation more, how bout this: - to see a change as a result of subtraction, requires a record of what it used to be in the past. you cant tell something was removed unless you remember what used to be there. - to see a change as a result of addition, does not require a record of the past, since you can extrapolate what it must have looked like in the past simply because of entropy. so in some sense, entropy is what causes us to be able to see additions more than subtractions.
To recognize that something is a change, you need a record of the past regardless of whether that change is + or -, even if the record is a mental model of the past extrapolated from the present. Probably better not to reach too far in applying physics to psychology, since at the level of physics things are neither added nor subtracted, only changed in form. (Conservation of Energy)
Forget entropy for a second and consider this: There is a foundation of lego bricks sitting on a child’s bedroom floor. The lego set is not completed, but it is partially built. How did it come to be? One answer is that someone had built a dragon, and then dismantled it. Another answer is someone had built a spaceship, and then dismantled it. For all intents and purposes, there’s infinitely many things that **could have** been there and was removed. On the other hand, the lego foundation might look how it does because it was still being built, and was never more complex. This is a more sensible guess because it takes more input for something greater to **have been there** than for something lesser. It’s statistically more likely for it to be the result of addition than subtraction, because in order for something more complex to appear, it has to be built up. A full lego structure It will never just spontaneously form because it’s a locally lower entropy state. So the odds of the half-constructed foundation coming from something more complex are lower. Maybe with a lego set there’s more context clues, but something with no bias or structure might leave you guessing more.
@@nathanisbored When I was a kid I didn't buy a new Lego set every time I wanted to build something. Everything I built was a temporary construction from the same large set, which means that for each structure I created, there was a point when it was half-assembled because I was creating it, and another point when it was half-assembled because I was disassembling it. In either case it's reaching a bit to use an example of a half-completed anything to suppose the +/- bias is motivated by people consciously or even subconsciously observing of the law of entropy. I'm surprised a Carroll fan would disagree with Corroll, the actual physicist, on how a physics concept applies to other domains. I know Argument from Authority is a fallacy, but it seems like a good Bayesian would take more pause before making a challenge like that.
To me, the lego set analogy is similar to his beloved ‘broken egg on the sidewalk’ analogy to explain the arrow of time, and that’s what I was drawing from. In the same way you can accurately guess the past state of the egg (unbroken) because of entropy, but not the future state, you can guess legos were the result of addition rather than subtraction. I guess you could say the lego analogy demonstrates the arrow of complexity in the same way the egg demonstrates the arrow of time.
This is fine unless you want to reterm mass killings subtractive change. That would be unethical in the extreme. And disappointing. Obviously, sometimes a document needs to be edited down to size rather than up, and sometimes we own too many things. So subtractive change can be fine. Redistributing wealth is subtractive change and it is sometimes necessary. Sometimes bad. But we resist killing, or at least I do, because each killed person is someone who could have potentially contributed, whereas we opted for fast change through subtraction rather than benefiting from a hopeful change over time by growing people. Whereas if we just remove those who our theories and stats tell us to, what hope is there for anyone? None, for any could hit the beheading block on an informed whim. Such hopelessness is obnoxious. We replace a broader hope with a narrower certainty that some benefit will result of the expedience of killing. But consider other obnoxious cases of subtractive change... Subtraction of the library of Alexandria... Subtraction through genocide... Subtraction of biodiversity... But I mean, let's subtract some carbon out of the atmosphere and some plastics out of the ocean, amirite?
I seem to recall experiments showing we are averse to loss. In a game of risk someone will tend to be more conservative with a $20 in their hand vs in my hand holding their $20 for them. Maybe the tendency for additive problem solving is related to the loss aversion bias. Edit: this is why we should wait till the end to comment. Posted this before I got to 28 min...
But don't physicists do the opposite? Remove all the complications, all the extraneous variables and start from an idealized condition and then start adding up real world complexities thereafter? All that spherical cow in a vacuum thing?
I found the suggestion that the word"satisfice" needs re-coining amusing. I would suggest that it needs removing and we just use the phrase "good enough".
how things are as compared to how we want them to be. I taught painting, drawing, printmaking and design. One concept that I taught was "negative space". People find this difficult to understand. I noticed when teaching the concept that students thought that they needed to work on the "flower" and not the "sky". At some point I started teaching that "negative space" is the area you are not working on. so, if you are painting the flower, the sky is negative and if you are painting the sky the flower is the negative space. In addition, many students see value as light to dark. Photographers use the value scale as dark to light. When i taught light to dark many times i was corrected and the student would say, no it's dark to light. So, I started teaching that it didn't matter which direction you went, dark to light or light to dark. It was the concept that was important. in a sequence from one to ten where one is white and ten is black. Or, the sequence from one to ten where one is black and ten is white. The middle value is still five. It's the concept not the direction of the count.
Interesting, in music composition the rests are often more important than the notes.
Less is more
@@rosejulietblack no need to be rude
I wonder if people who sculpt and whittle as a hobby learn to be better at subtracting, since this is how they are creating their art.
I'm about 40 minutes in and still have no clue what he is talking about.
@@DenkyManner I was only speaking for myself.
I'm not surprised Japan, Germany and USA have similar results as these are the lands of plenty. If there was going to be deviations, you would need subjects under stress. If you run the test in Syria, Afghanistan and Irag, you may get a statistically significant deviation if socialisation is a factor.
I would be excited to see data given the same tests but with limited resources.
My grandmother was a hoarder and she told me that was from her direct experience of famine under German occupation. In that case, limited resources had a huge effect on her behaviour even fifty years after the war.
Watch EveryDay Astronaut RUclips tour with Elon Musk, "remove", "subtract" is VERY important to SpaceX and Tesla engineering!
Personally I'm against change, of any kind, under almost all circumstances excepting perhaps the most dire. In truth I believe most of my fellows are similar.
to flesh out the entropy explanation more, how bout this:
- to see a change as a result of subtraction, requires a record of what it used to be in the past. you cant tell something was removed unless you remember what used to be there.
- to see a change as a result of addition, does not require a record of the past, since you can extrapolate what it must have looked like in the past simply because of entropy.
so in some sense, entropy is what causes us to be able to see additions more than subtractions.
To recognize that something is a change, you need a record of the past regardless of whether that change is + or -, even if the record is a mental model of the past extrapolated from the present.
Probably better not to reach too far in applying physics to psychology, since at the level of physics things are neither added nor subtracted, only changed in form. (Conservation of Energy)
Forget entropy for a second and consider this:
There is a foundation of lego bricks sitting on a child’s bedroom floor. The lego set is not completed, but it is partially built. How did it come to be? One answer is that someone had built a dragon, and then dismantled it. Another answer is someone had built a spaceship, and then dismantled it. For all intents and purposes, there’s infinitely many things that **could have** been there and was removed.
On the other hand, the lego foundation might look how it does because it was still being built, and was never more complex. This is a more sensible guess because it takes more input for something greater to **have been there** than for something lesser.
It’s statistically more likely for it to be the result of addition than subtraction, because in order for something more complex to appear, it has to be built up. A full lego structure It will never just spontaneously form because it’s a locally lower entropy state. So the odds of the half-constructed foundation coming from something more complex are lower. Maybe with a lego set there’s more context clues, but something with no bias or structure might leave you guessing more.
@@nathanisbored When I was a kid I didn't buy a new Lego set every time I wanted to build something. Everything I built was a temporary construction from the same large set, which means that for each structure I created, there was a point when it was half-assembled because I was creating it, and another point when it was half-assembled because I was disassembling it.
In either case it's reaching a bit to use an example of a half-completed anything to suppose the +/- bias is motivated by people consciously or even subconsciously observing of the law of entropy.
I'm surprised a Carroll fan would disagree with Corroll, the actual physicist, on how a physics concept applies to other domains. I know Argument from Authority is a fallacy, but it seems like a good Bayesian would take more pause before making a challenge like that.
To me, the lego set analogy is similar to his beloved ‘broken egg on the sidewalk’ analogy to explain the arrow of time, and that’s what I was drawing from. In the same way you can accurately guess the past state of the egg (unbroken) because of entropy, but not the future state, you can guess legos were the result of addition rather than subtraction. I guess you could say the lego analogy demonstrates the arrow of complexity in the same way the egg demonstrates the arrow of time.
Human knowledge is additive; experience is additive, age is additive; isn't everything?
Not dating! I don't know about you, but I prefer smaller waists.
"knowledge is adding, wisdom is subtracting" I love it!!!
Subtracting 95% from this talk would make it much better
Would you say subtraction is…impor’ant?😂
I've already listened to the whole episode on 16x
Pfft I did that while training under 16x earth's gravity so I'm much more mighty, Mr.
@@defenderofwisdom Sounding like a DBZ character 🤡
@@ChurchOfThought I choose you pikachu!
@@mattblack6736 🐈🐈🐈
@@ChurchOfThought That was indeed the inspiration!
This is fine unless you want to reterm mass killings subtractive change. That would be unethical in the extreme. And disappointing. Obviously, sometimes a document needs to be edited down to size rather than up, and sometimes we own too many things. So subtractive change can be fine. Redistributing wealth is subtractive change and it is sometimes necessary. Sometimes bad. But we resist killing, or at least I do, because each killed person is someone who could have potentially contributed, whereas we opted for fast change through subtraction rather than benefiting from a hopeful change over time by growing people. Whereas if we just remove those who our theories and stats tell us to, what hope is there for anyone? None, for any could hit the beheading block on an informed whim. Such hopelessness is obnoxious. We replace a broader hope with a narrower certainty that some benefit will result of the expedience of killing. But consider other obnoxious cases of subtractive change... Subtraction of the library of Alexandria... Subtraction through genocide... Subtraction of biodiversity... But I mean, let's subtract some carbon out of the atmosphere and some plastics out of the ocean, amirite?
You don't have to kill people to get the benefit of fewer humans. Just stop having kids.
@@aaron2709 Nah I'm gonna have kids.
@@defenderofwisdom Of course you are. The world needs more humans.
I seem to recall experiments showing we are averse to loss. In a game of risk someone will tend to be more conservative with a $20 in their hand vs in my hand holding their $20 for them.
Maybe the tendency for additive problem solving is related to the loss aversion bias.
Edit: this is why we should wait till the end to comment. Posted this before I got to 28 min...
But don't physicists do the opposite? Remove all the complications, all the extraneous variables and start from an idealized condition and then start adding up real world complexities thereafter? All that spherical cow in a vacuum thing?
I found the suggestion that the word"satisfice" needs re-coining amusing. I would suggest that it needs removing and we just use the phrase "good enough".
I listened to this as I was cleaning up my 'man cave'. Needless to say, I have a lot more room now. Thanks!!
how things are as compared to how we want them to be. I taught painting, drawing, printmaking and design. One concept that I taught was "negative space". People find this difficult to understand. I noticed when teaching the concept that students thought that they needed to work on the "flower" and not the "sky". At some point I started teaching that "negative space" is the area you are not working on. so, if you are painting the flower, the sky is negative and if you are painting the sky the flower is the negative space. In addition, many students see value as light to dark. Photographers use the value scale as dark to light. When i taught light to dark many times i was corrected and the student would say, no it's dark to light. So, I started teaching that it didn't matter which direction you went, dark to light or light to dark. It was the concept that was important. in a sequence from one to ten where one is white and ten is black. Or, the sequence from one to ten where one is black and ten is white. The middle value is still five. It's the concept not the direction of the count.
🌹🌹
You are genius . I am going to read all of your books. Love and respect from india .
Stopped listening as soon as guest started speaking using crappy tinny ear bleeding potato mic.
What did potatoes ever do to you? You can mash 'em, boil 'em, stick 'em in a stew!
Seems to me you have quite a resistance to subtractive change.
It's a yam! 🤡
Better go listen to a RUclipsr with millions of subscribers explain how to put on makeup. At least they can afford a microphone.
Its not a problem if you don't have a crappy cheap non-configurable potato speakers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯