So I hope nobody missed the part where she said category theory is much about looking at a subject from the perspective of its relationship with other subjects or how it fits together with other subjects in order to gain a deeper understanding of it. The METHOD of applying mathematics to (insert any subject other than sociopolitics here) is all she trying to illustrate. If you couldn't use the method she illuminates to abstract that much out of the talk then it went right over your head.
To everyone complaining about the wokeness: she used those examples to explain the interconnectedness/relatedness, you could just as easily use other "non-woke" examples if you disagree with the assumptions she made. The whole point was about the power of generality and abstraction, not that you should be woke because math tells you to. It's ironic, because the point is to analogize your thinking, which includes replacing the examples she gave that you may not have liked with examples you more agree with. Or you could just dismiss the mode of thinking that invented the internet, computers, and now AI. I would be weary of wandering to close to the "stupid" quadrant, though.
I like to think that throughout the lecture, she was subtly showing us that mathematicians stick to facts when working on problems. She used several facts that many people would find uncomfortable to use, such as the privilege hierarchy. She was sticking to facts over feelings and opinions (unless she explicitly mentions that what she said was her opinion), and not caring if people will get offended, cuz I think she knows people will get offended, but proceeds to state facts, which I feel like is key to think like a mathematician.
Time Code 3:34 Pure mathematics is a framework for agreeing on things 4:35 Science hierarchy pure math > applied math > science... 5:56 Plan 1. Analogies 2. Interconnectedness 3. Relationships 4. Pivots 5. Intelligence 6:18 1. Analogies 13:18 2. Interconnectedness 26:54 3. Relationships 35:27 4. Pivots 40:51 5. Intelligence
The speaker points out that because they set up their problems carefully and use logic to reach their conclusions, mathematicians generally find it easy to reach consensus. I'd encourage anyone who feels that this video has gone too far in the support of any political agenda to use the same method and demonstrate its error.
The problem in this talk, as I see it, was not that she supported any political agenda but that she assumed the modelling and simplifications done here are sufficient to argue anything as complex as human interactions. Mathematicians find it easier to reach consensus where such clear definitions of operations and objects are possible without loss of generality (or even of usefulness). This is very clearly not the case in almost every topic touched on here. The most basic reading of sociology, anthropology, philosophy (or even musicology, for that matter!) will show that the objects studied by those disciplines, which she is tackling through maths here, very strongly resist such a bare-bones epistemological approach. In other words: while she is *technically* correct in her operations to obtain those diagrams, she is doing so by silently ignoring nearly every crucial aspect of the problems she's addressing. She is misunderstanding and/or misinterpreting the situations she's addressing. Sure, the diagrams "work", but you won't say anything meaningful with them. Just the platitudes we saw here. As for any political agenda present here (because there is one, and that is absolutely not a problem), this kind of approach is pretty much a disservice, as I see it. I tend to agree with her positions, with what she is trying to say and convince her audience of. But the way of going about it is infuriatingly poor from any epistemological point of view I can think of (not to mention super cringe-worthy), and undoes the whole project.
@@GuilhermeCarvalhoComposer I agree with you when you say that her method for convincing her audience of her political agenda is not good. In some cases her diagrams assume beliefs (--beliefs which many would considered controversial--) without sufficient evidence or justification. With that said, I do not believe that convincing us of her political opinion is the primary point of her talk. Towards the start of the lecture, she says that she's not going to tell us what to think but how to think. As a mathematician, a high standard of evidence and justification is the norm. So if her main goal had been to persuade an audience of her beliefs, she would have given more evidence than she did. Instead, the main point of the lecture was that using these diagrams helps organize complex scenarios in a way that allows us to reason about them more effectively. You say that these diagrams oversimplify the situation. First, the diagrams can readily be made arbitrarily complex by adding more branches and more dimensions, as you see fit. However, in any attempt to understand a real-world scenario, we must limit the complexity at some point and therefore sacrifice some accuracy. The key is to find the right level of complexity for your needs, given that there is usually an inverse relationship between the ease of understanding/application of a model and the accuracy of a model. (This is true for a mathematician's model as much as it is for a sociologist's or any other person for that matter.) Honestly, I am a bit confused about what you are saying in your second paragraph, and I'd rather not comment on it until I understand what you are saying. What makes her "technically correct"? How do you know that she is "silently ignoring nearly every crucial aspect of the problems she's addressing"? What does she do to show that "she is misunderstanding and/or misinterpreting the situations she's addressing"? Looking forward to your response!
To people calling her a racist: you and I probably agree on a fair number of political issues. I disagree with some assumptions she made in this talk. But if you watch this video and your only takeaway is that she is a racist, I think you you might have missed the forrest for the trees here...
@@mgmartin51That’s exactly what she does in her book. She bashes a specific racial group without substantiating why she’s doing it. And it’s funny, because she preaches in that same book that to argue logically you must carefully state the assumptions you’re making. Woke logic at its finest!
This talk is, at its core, about communicating more effectively with each other. Regardless of whether or not you believe this talk is about mathematics, and regardless of your political or personal opinions and beliefs, the speaker is focused on how identifying and categorizing the world can help simplify extremely complicated situations such that the average person can understand them, with particular focus on being able to understand people on the opposing sides of binary arguments to facilitate productive conversations and solve the problems causing said arguments. With that in mind, I suggest anyone outright dismissing or condemning the opinions of anyone else (including the speaker) in the comments might do well by themselves, and the people with whom they are arguing, to revisit the talk. You don't need to agree, bur that doesn't mean you shouldn't be respectful (if not considerate) and listen.
Your first paragraph sums it up perfectly. The reason her approach and others like it are so important is because the issues are so explosive. You just have to say "Trump " or "gay marriage" and anger and hatred seethes and we need a solution for this because the alternative is too nasty for all of us.
This woman is an excellent speaker. I don't necessarily agree with everything she says, and I also think she prioritises some things over others that I would not, but I found her talk very insightful.
She was pushing propaganda all along, and we all saw it, we all felt it, and here we are, denouncing it. That's it. If there was a point to it, it vanishes the moment you realize she has a political agenda. [at @@101yayo]
I was going to view this video for a minute or two but ended up listening to its entirety. This has opened me up to a much more in-depth way of processing information. Thank you Ms. Cheng.
To all those hating on this video because of the liberal leaning political examples, consider this: Suppose you are a mathematician. You're an intelligent individual, so you study prime numbers and how they relate to the million dollar Riemann Hypothesis. One day, you go to a colleague's lecture, but the numbers in the examples he gives are all prime which are one less than a power of 2, which you would know as Mersenne primes. After the lecture, you go to your office, deeply disturbed. You hate Mersenne primes. You conclude that the lecture was rubbish and choose not to waste your time thinking about the techniques presented in the lecture. This is a ridiculous scenario, of course. But by focusing your attention on the examples which you dislike, you have missed the meat of this lecture. Many of you think the point of this talk is to "shove liberal ideology down your throat." Clearly Dr. Cheng is left leaning, but the thesis of this talk is not left-leaning. Instead, what Dr. Cheng demonstrates are techniques which can allow us to think more clearly about topics from everyday life. In particular, the diagrams she presented are extremely helpful for analyzing why something happens. I'm not being very specific about the techniques because they're in the video if you want to learn them. You may not agree with the examples she gave, but if you try to apply the same techniques to different examples, they will still work. They allow us to be critical of a world in which it seems that everyone is trying to manipulate us. It's important to do this to all aspects of our lives whether we are on the left, on the right, or just somewhere else.
No, the moral of the story is: you shouldn't unnecessarily bring your political / radical views (no matter what side of the coin they fall) into an educational lecture which has nothing to do with them. Its annoying and needlessly distracts from whatever your main point happens to be. The moral of the story is that we shouldn't be forced by the lecturer to wade through their political views to get to the meat of their argument.
Finally I see a lecture where someone makes a case that mathematics is about learning how to think. For someone with abstract enough cognition it's obvious and even sometimes frustrating, seeing everybody arguing instead of thinking, getting carried away with emotion and misinterpreting or cherry picking data that fits someone's worldview. If your worldview consists of large, general ideas that you don't have a definition of then you don't know where you are. And those large, general ideas make you stay ignorant and feel safe at the same time.
@@henrykkaufman1488 Thanks for your reply. I know HOW to think, only not in that way. Maths is learning how to think in a particular way, it's a system of reasoning, and many people just don't "get it". Fortunately it's quite possible to live a successful life without maths. A great many people are perfectly intelligent yet helpless when it comes to maths so they choose a career and a life without it. Mine was in journalism. And no other subject that I know of triggers such strong reactions of loathing in so many people. They (we) may in a minority yet their (our) number is still signiificant. All those people know HOW to think. A friend with whom I get on very well is passionate about maths. Two years ago she tried to explain certain points to me, and for 6 weeks we exchanged FB messages and emails. Then she told me she was very sorry (and she was) but she couldn't help me because she didn't understand how my brain worked. But she readily acknowledges that it does. We often have some interesting exchanges on all sorts of topics (NOT maths!) and she values my judgement on them.
@@xavierkreiss8394 None of my comments here suggested that someone without mathematical knowledge doesn't know how to think at all, or that mathematical, rational thinking is the only way to think. I mostly pointed out that it is only rational thinking that makes communication possible. A fact that, I suspect not incidentally, this conversation is an example of.
All cognition is emotional first and rational second. You are also sometimes carried away by emotion and are unable to see how that is affecting your rationality. Happens to everyone.
Looking at the comments, I see a trend of people frustrated about the involvement of politics in what should be a scientific talk. And, taking a leaf out of Eugenia's talk, this makes perfect logical sense if science is apolitical. As Ian Hacking articulates, and Foucault more broadly, this is not the case and it is very much impossible to divorce science from the sociopolitical world in which it is conducted. The most obvious example that anyone engaged in scientific research will tell you is that one of the greatest concerns for a scientist is FUNDING. You can't do science without funding. And funding comes from sources with sociopolitical priorities, e.g. the government sets priorities about what is important. It could be something as innocuous as, "We need more stroke research", so scientists ask more scientific questions about stroke. Fantastic! Or, it could be something like, "We need to make scientific advancements to make military-grade lasers a reality", so scientists ask more scientific questions about that. Even "advancing human understanding of the universe through science is important" is a political stance, and not all humans share that stance. I think some more content about what science is, its relationship to epistemology, and how it is situated in broader society would be helpful to understand how science is inextricably tied to politics. Science is conducted by humans; each human is born and raised in a society with a dominant culture and with a particular worldview. This worldview shapes the types of scientific questions we ask. For example, "To what extent do white, black, and Asian children in North America differ in intelligence, as measured by IQ?" is a perfectly legitimate scientific question--and similar studies have been conducted in the past. This question is predicated on the sociopolitical worldview that race exists and that race is a meaningful category by which to distinguish intelligence. I won't argue the pros and cons of this worldview, but I do argue that this scientific question arises from this particular sociopolitical worldview and it is by this worldview that the results of the study would be interpreted.
You're missing the point of a lot of comments - I suspect on purpose. The title doesn't mention that this is a political talk and the topic could have very well be presented without any involvement of her personal political opinions. RI is purposefully misleading it's audience.
@@dixonpinfold2582 I was more responding to people's points about this video being in context of a science channel. But yes, you are correct that I failed to split this particular hair between pure math and science (let's not get into "Mathematical Sciences"). In certain contexts, I'd agree it's an important distinction. I don't think it's so important in this context of a science channel and the speaker's "scientific affiliations". But, to correct your beautifully pedantic gripe, "Mathematics is engaged by humans."
The comments on this thread amaze me. She used assumptions of privilege that are based on a mountain of statistical data. She said nothing about blame except that she thought any group of attributes of power superior to another should probably bear more responsibility to try to ease conflict between them. She also said that her thought could be argued. She never once used the word "woke." So I am very curious as to how in such a short few years that in the word "woke" has become a common word, what logical chain presented to you by whatever media you watch, read and/or listen to has led you to such an extreme reaction? Does the very mention of a phrase or certain phrases automatically elicit the label, "woke"? What is your personal full definition of "woke"? Is this a Pavlovian reaction or is there a mental logical chain that leads to the conclusion to apply the label? What does "woke" stand for to you? For those who have such an intense reaction to it, it seems to be being used as an "all things evil" label. How did that occur? What phrases used in the video immediately brought forth that label? Inquiring minds want to know.
There's a linguistics term called "thought terminating cliches" which is a good explanation of this and many comments threads. Essentially, by throwing out these cliches, the person essentially shuts down any further critical thought processes and shuts down further debate. Everyone is guilty of this, not just one group of people, but it's most seen play out in real time in comments threads.
I suggest "Using Category Theory to Analyze Society - with Eugenia Cheng" as a more precise title that would bring a more interested and receptive audience. People with differing political views will relate "How to Think" with the political views of the video, causing them to think more negatively about all the contents of the video.
One would think that 'fake fake news' is just 'news', but apparently some people make fake 'fake news' in order to see if people can distinguish between them and 'news'.
Please look at Tim Pools youtube channel, he is left of center but still a very intellectual honest person, focusing on objective facts and valid reasoning. A combination that sadly is becoming less common with every passing day. I think you will find some very interesting perspectives on the fake news allegation that often is tossed around today.
@@MikeVeracity If I point to motorcycle and tell you that it's a secret portal through time and space that leads to the kingdom of spacelord Ubetere does not turn the motorcycle into a magic portal. It simply a wrong, false, incorrect statement. The motorcycle still is a motorcycle, something that shouldn't even be questioned. It's probably a much better use of time to question my mental health. Now, if someone points their arm towards something and says #fakenews without presenting further evidence, it does not mean..... Most accusations of fake news do not come with supporting evidence. But as fake news is considered so evil, racist, sexistic, Islamophobic. So who dares to defend truth? You will only be next person found guilty of wrong thinking and rolled in tars and feathers by the media and Twitter mob, you will be fired from your job, your friends don't dare to speak to you, as the financial situation gets worse without a job your wife will divorce and your house sold in the process. Quite a brilliant way to implement censorship, much more effective than the soviet union. And we were prepared to nuke our planet to avoid the soviet union - but now we are allowing something much worse to poison the core of our free society, the freedom of speech. So, please, fall in line and denounce fake news, who wants to be a racist?
This lecture wins the award for packing the most flame-war inducing topics into the shortest time. Brilliant! Well done Eugenia! Enjoy reading the comments. 😉 (seriously though, as a “cis” white rich male, I learned a new perspective on category theory from this. Ordering the book! Thanks!)
She constantly disregard basic logic, you can't use any part of your assumption as a part of the proof of the assumption, that's called circular logic. Also, other times her political views are treated as axioms and the results will of course be in line with the axioms used. Compare classical vs non Euclidean geometry to understand why that methodology is bullocks. Please go ahead and subscribe to whatever dangerous political views that want to destroy the western civilization you wish to subscribe to. Our society is still free, or at least until the neo marxists like this lady have taken over. But please don't blame your views on mathematics, as correct math had next to no part in this lecture.
@@NomenNescio99 She didn't use assumptions to prove assumptions. She didn't prove anything. She talked about frameworks of thinking. She also stopped and recognized that someone with an opposing view could take things a different way, but with a framework people with opposing views can have a more thoughtful discussion. All I'm seeing you do is get angry and cling to your views, not really unpacking things and providing thought or substance.
As always, an excellent RI lecture, in particular the parts about forcing oneself to read the outraged (and outrageous) online comments written by ill-informed people. Plenty of examples here! So many commenters, in a lather, because using logic and precision to examine timely, contemporary issues - with rigor! - has dismantled one argument or another they recognize themselves as having, at some point, dogmatically made! Do they re-examine their own arguments? Or the fallacies they’ve consciously or unconsciously employed on the road to deploying these now-dismantled arguments? No! They take offense, cry, fault the host, fault the presenter, and again deploy the fallacies she decries - exactly as expected! Bravo, guys … [slowclap.wav] …bravo.
Good point! As I read comments in RUclips, I do find that I constantly need to remind myself to read without being judgmental. There's a number of benefits: It helps me to understand multiple points of view and to often learn new information. Both benefits are important to personal growth. I could be wrong, my views could be too narrow. Tell me new information, tell me what your view of the world looks like, and I may change my mind. I may be able to join in on a discussion I didn't know existed.
> Do they re-examine their own arguments? [...] > No! They take offense, cry [...] I enjoyed reading this great piece of irony. Thank you for that. Always remember that it is the social justice types that dogmatically try to force their world view onto others (or get them fired or even assaulted) and cry every time one of these "straight while males" has an opinion they don't like. If you are big on introspection, please do reconsider why it is okay to judge people because of their sexuality, skin color and sex.
Mathematics is not only about numbers, .mathematicians are also human being.I am really impressed how she explained society issues, thinking by concept of mathematics, and trying to understand by everyone point of view. The people of world really needs this type of knowledge to understand eachother, without creating hate.
She gets political because that is an area of society that seriously needs more logic instead of emotional argument and opinion entitlement...I am skeptical about the optimism claim though.
4:39 What many people actually do is to conflate Mathematics (an umbrella term for a group of learning disciplines) with Arithmetic (A specific learning discipline under mathematics that has to do with numbers).
@@xCorvus7x Because it's defined that way and has been commonly used that way for the last few thousand years. The word _Mathematics_ itself is Greek in derivation and means learning/knowing/studying. Biblio mathema (Books on Mathematics) have been written since ancient Greece and very few of them have to do strictly with numbers (mostly shapes, natural law, argumentative dialogues and postulates). Because Mathematics is any methodology or set of systematic rules developed toward the ends of acquiring accurate new information in it's application (i.e. a learning discipline or a discipline that helps one learn). So for example: Geometry deals with shapes. Arithmetic deals with numbers. Logic deals with what follows reasonably from a premise (irregardless of the validity of the premise). And these are all Disciplines under the header of Mathematics.
@@The1Helleri Thank you very much for your response and this education (I feel that this should be at least mentioned in school, somewhere along the way). I just realise that without mathematical tools, empirical studies don't make sense, so mathematics actually seems to incorporate all that is needed to learn, in some way or another.
I liked how you used basic fundamentals of logic and math to address real life issues. While some may find the examples potentially polarizing, i think that the choices made must have been thoughtful and I defer to your better judgment and find it brave and commendable. If we can look beyond the examples, the approach is something that I identify with and bears similarities to what I am trying to do, albeit you do it in a far more precise manner. I really respect and identify with what you are doing. Keep up the good work. First time, I've come across your name and video but already, I can see the caliber and dedication. Kudos. Gambatte ne.
In the overabundance of potentially good stuff to hear, I think I'll trust the comments and stop what in the intro seemed a good lecture about how to *avoid* identity politics in the public discourse.
The danger of theory without quantification, well demonstrated here. You can let yourself feel like you are being logical and justified when all you are doing is hiding your prejudices in a logical framework. The true power of logic is to take your hypothesis, eg. That “the people in power should be the ones to make the changes.” And see if that can work out logically in a wider system, given the other observable facts like human nature. If your hypothesis requires a fallacy to work out or ends in a contradiction then you should rework the hypothesis and retest.
Yes, the dumbest things I've ever heard have come from smart people who have devised complex logical systems, but have neglected to adequately test them against reality.
this is the dark side of the mind it self because, this elements characteristic can create new frame depending the non count hable characteristic elements bring ups so any divergent arrows bring up changes bring downs many arrows. and convergent arrow circuntance is when phenomenon of values happens. this is on godel hard problem. and hard math paradox problems. everything become wrong if before wholes of essential stuff was right , maybe just because a butterfly fisics particle theorem. math not necessary have meaning until you put it in the model some says.
@@jamesmaybury7452 You put it pretty well to begin with mate. My favourite example is when William Lane Craig said there are 3 meta levels to suffering. Then he applied this logic to animal suffering. Of course he is a Christian so he has to somehow justify the belief that we have dominion over the animals and can do whatever we want to them, anyway... He said the top layer of suffering is meta-awareness of the suffering, so while a pig may suffer, it doesn't realise that it's suffering and thus does not really suffer. I'm paraphrasing of course, but essentially he used logic to disprove the fact that animals can suffer. Of course a SCIENTIST would just do some brain scans and compare behaviour between us and other animals and INSTANTLY conclude that it's all the same shit and we probably suffer in much the same way. Smart people >.
The philosopher in the room is asking what is the meaning of two? How does two relate to the human condition? How can we possibly concern ourselves with such trivialities as chairs, apples and bananas until we answer the more fundamental question? After all, if a banana or apple is made of large bolts of cloth and filled with beans they are all chairs.
god bless her for not dancing around politics like it's some kind of swear word. she could have talked about colored blocks or material properties but this is making a much much much better point
Supposedly rational people proving that they're not... the talk is basically about being neutral - prioritizing logic over emotions, she mentions e.g. how Oprah is more privileged than a poor white man, but they get instantly offended at the mere sight of "privilege" and similar political terms.
You could make a very similar video, with these kind of concepts concepts supporting very different positions. (Right wing positions, for instance.) She uses concepts from math/logic to elucidate certain political situations, but since she doesn't prove any positions to be true, or refute any positions, this type of thing really doesn't change the political conclusions ppl come to. A lot of this is pretty intuitive to people as well - they know it but might have a hard time explaining it. I've read that people don't often make logical mistakes, outside of specially created puzzles. Most often our mistakes are due to perceptual errors: not having the correct information, missing key details, etc.
Your comments stand out for being coherently expressed. Most commenters in support of the lecture seem to have suffered a lot of blows to the head. Thanks.
I get what people are saying, but I appreciate someone playing with bridging cultural values and mathematics/reason. Yes, it can be offensive, but it's a little fun too. It'd be a bit unstimulating otherwise. At least it's not the usual left/right beatdown of dogma we get everywhere else. I wish everyone with a "cause" spoke like that.
To add on: Also one of THE MOST important things I found missing in her talk, was the weights on the arrows of her diagrams. It's a very crucial point. If a thing has many factors that doesn't mean all those factors are equally probable, or equally important/relevant. If someone X says, A -> B --> C And then she comes in and says oh, it's actually, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H .... all interconnected like a graph. Hence, it's all a very complicated interconnected system. Well we'll have to do a probability/relevance/importance analysis of all those pathways in her graphs. And if in the end, it turns out that the path: A --> B ---> C accounts for let's say 95% of the probability or everyday occurrences, then that someone X is not far off, and her analysis is farther from the practical truth. This is I feel where her analogies of a social system to a mathematical system, can be improved. But her analogies are very good starting points.
20 minutes in and she obviously wasn't going to talk about math so I stopped watching. Such a load of nonsense, she should be embarrassed about this talk.
Loved this. Eugenia was brave talking about her professional skills and showing how they help her personally, because we learn a little about her. We don't know everything about her. That makes her in part, vulnerable. Just remember the stupidity graph at the end though. Eugenia is aiming for you to benefit as well as herself. If like me you disagree with some of the conclusions and assumptions made during the talk, it is up to you to be more intelligent in discussing those issues. I really liked this talk because it is a challenge to grow stronger, not just have an opinion. That's exactly what healthy societies need.
Thank you, Professor Cheng. I am a math spouse, and after 27 years I still look for insights into how my wife’s mind works. This will be helpful, I know.
I assure you, there are WAY better videos on the Ri channel, including about maths. Check out the two by Matt Parker, for instance. This one was indeed subpar.
The LOGIC-EMPATHY isomorphism! AWESOME TALK. I think she is trying to show that maths is not some abstract thing that lives in a bubble on the top of an ivory tower. It's intrinsic in how the world works, even how we think about things. She is making abstract mathematics something you can feel. I don't think there was anything wrong in what she said. Politics, the economy, social structures ... understanding these with mathematics is part of being human, whether you know it's there or not. Sometimes you feel something and you don't know why. She just thinks that maybe you can try to figure out why you feel that way, organise the ideas. Without abstractions we aren't human. We can't relate. We can't communicate. Language is the first abstraction. Learning language is doing mathematics. Your mind FEELS the rules, when a sentence makes sense and when it won't, when words go together and when they can't. Ditto music. You feel it. Ditto morality. You feel it. Ditto fish swimming. They feel it. They understand fluid dynamics at a different level, by feel. It's like feeling the wind when riding a bicycle. There is a sense in which our minds are just computers, but instead of number crunching, human minds crunch ideas. She just trying to show that mathematics is THE basis that allows us to model ideas. It's THE meta-idea. There is Mathematics behind everything. Everywhere you look, the world, the planets, the stars, the atom, the cell, the eye, we see patterns, and that's all we can see. Is it because there are patterns out there in the world? Or, is it that our limited minds can only see patterns? If something isn't a neat, simple pattern we can't even see that thing. At least I can't. It's the matrix. Pun intended.
@@thekaiser4333 A valid question. Because it is handy to check up in hospitals on health of people you care about the most. And there are other legal benefits.
First is the complicated hierarchy more then 2 would cause. Who gets to make the medical decisions, who get the inheritance, ect.. The question is does marriage need any governmental recognition at all? It seems pretty dang convenient to simply automatically assign all these legal responsibilities in one simple contract. Do we want these kind of responsibilities? I think most would say yes, by taking legal responsibility for each other we remove that legal responsibility from society/government.
@@Uhlbelk many things are complicated but that doesn't mean we stop doing them or disallow. Problems with medical decisions etc all apply to unmarried people so if the 2 remaining people can't form consensus then just use the existing structures to solve the problem (doctors, judges?)
@@Uhlbelk I think marriage could be replaced by something else, it is just convenient bundle of rights and responsibilities for two unrelated adults. I think it could be greatly improved by allowing for more people to be part of your close group though. Could assign different people different rights or rank them so someone could override medical decision of another if they disagreed and both were available for consulting... There should be imho different system for biological parents in place, to ensure the safety. well-being, and proper development of the child. However family as a social unit imho can be greatly expanded from the traditional view of man and woman and (maybe) their kids.
Why don’t you guys apply the last framework about Logic Empathy to criticize your argument about her racism? Is that all you take from this valuable clip? For those questioning about her talking so much about politics but not numbers, do you understand the main idea / thesis statement of her speech?
About the white male privilege thing. It depends on the environment, how much privilege any given factor grants people. In some industries, being a woman is more advantageous than being a man. And in some countries being white, means you have much bigger chance of getting kidnapped. Like my little brother was, when he visited India. I also think the benefits of being a "white male" is emphasized way too much in the media all over the western world. When i visit the city center, the middle eastern beggars stare me with an evil eye when i dont give them any money. The beggars seek me out for some reason. I want to tell them _"Just because im white doesnt make me wealthy. I get maybe €500 a year. Also i just came from the homeless foodbank (sorry, im not sure if thats the right word) and i didnt see you there (the foodbank is open, twice a week for 1½ hours)"_ But i dont, because my social skills suck and it would take me several minutes to say that (even typing this comment has taken me well over an hour).
You said everything very well and clearly. Maybe you're not fast but this is one of the most well thought-out comments in the whole section. Your command of language is fantastic. If English is not your first language, then your ability is amazing. I'm an editor and I saw you made no mistakes. You don't need to be so humble. You have my respect.
The title of her presentation was "How to think like a mathematician." She applied her background in math to her real world views, and created a pattern of thought based in logic that would allow her to have more clear and productive arguments with people who's views differ from hers. Do you feel that she didn't give a presentation appropriate to the title? Did you spend a half hour watching the video so you could leave a comment?
Peter Curtis I spent half an hour trying to understand the maths. It got harder and harder to ignore her political option, so I just switched off. Hopefully someone else can teach me the same subject matter without subjecting me to all the baggage that came with this lecture.
Yes. Intelligent thinking is three dimensional problem solving. I can look at my own and someone else's needs, and rotate, translate, and/or reflect them around within the larger environment that we are both operating within, to find a single solution that helps us both get something that we need. Maybe not exactly what we were expecting, but something positive towards our goals. Physical thinking is 1D and is just focusing on one's own body's needs. Emotional thinking is 2D and focuses on one's own body's needs plus another's body's needs. But intellectual thinking is 3D and solves the problem of getting both of our needs met in a way that truly works, given the goals of the community/environment that we're in, so that we can effectively get our needs met in a way that helps the third, larger group, get its needs met too.
Her logic disproves itself with her examples. For example, her rich white male privilege example: Who determines what white is? Who determines how much money is rich? Who determines what constitutes privilege? Individuals determine this based on their state. If they are rich, but not the richest, then they may consider themselves poor. If they are poor but not the poorest, they may consider themselves rich. If they are anglo saxon but have a tan, they may not consider themselves white. If they have one parent that is white and another parent that is mixed race, they may consider themselves white, or mixed, or non-white. This is the key to identity politics, which is why it is a logical fallacy. It is not based on facts, or statistics, or logic. It is based on the individual and the platform they choose.
And using this logic, nobody has the right to disagree with me because you aren't me. Only I have the right to disagree with myself and I choose not to.
I see a lot of comments on here saying "keep politics out of math/science," but I think that's backwards: her talk is all about getting math into politics! She states her main claim pretty clearly in the part starting at 19:19: > what we should really do is think about how these things are all connected. and then i think we can think about who has more power in this situation and personally, i think that it's the people who have more power who should take the responsibility to change something and find an arrow to break. but at least, *even if we disagree about that, at least if we've understood this interaction, we can have a more sensible conversation about which arrows should be broken and who should break them.*
Except all she does is list a bunch of factors that play a role in the outcome and does no qualitative or quantitative analysis of how much each of them contributed to the end result. Furthermore, she then takes purely ideological constructs regarding power and oppression and tries to justify the pyramid of oppression (though in this case it looks more like a parallelepiped) with her diagrams. I find this utterly disgusting and a complete misrepresentation of what mathematics is or should be. Mathematics has NOTHING to do with politics and it should stay well clear of it. As an Eastern-European I can tell you that the only academic fields that were NOT destroyed by communist ideology in my part of the world were those that were fortunate enough to have nothing to do with politics, such as mathematics. And now this lady is trying to pervert it with her social justice ideology. SHAME ON HER!
Smart does not equal wise. Another Leftard who builds strawmen and thinks she is tearing it down, not realizing all she is doing is firmly solidifying her confirmation bias. She is not using math, there is no deductive reasoning. She is projecting.
@@peacefroglorax875 I would argue that Game Theory is its own thing and politics uses it sometimes. The converse isn't true: game theory isn't influenced in any way by what has/is/will happen in politics.
You worry me - Eugenia was using the "bunch of factors" completly unevaluated, just as illustrations - her focus was the process, and how it might help resolve differences. I saw no ideolgy in play -the process would work equally well for left or right, indeed it would help them get together@@fyngolnoldor4891
What a waste of time. Condescending, deeply lacking in subtlety, very, very, poorly thought out. Shot through with cant. Posturing, pompous, pretentious. 'Just look at how moral and intelligent I am. Feel the quality.' Like a first-year term paper by a mediocre student at a mediocre school. Thanks, Ri, for really letting me down.
Almost everything you watch or consume has embeded ideology in it but some people suddenly seem to really get stuck on her examples, which are just illustrative forf a broader idea. But even so, the only ideological input I see is her as sumption that ´whomever holds the power is responsible for breaking the chain’ (a moment that she's not even emphasizing that much) which can be indeed a subject of debate. Instead people are just throwing around the word ‘woke’ like it’s peiorative to get on their high horse.
Those complaining that the video is politically biased need to consider that Eugenia Cheng's personal opinions [though used as examples] are irrelevant to the content she is actually disseminating, which is about setting up sensible framework for analysis PRIOR to any kind of value judgement at all (and how math helps us formulate such).
That irrelevancy (or as one may call it, independence) is the exact reason, why some people (including me) think, that her personal opinions should be left for another lecture. She unnecessarily introduced very controversial claims as assumptions in her examples. Proving those claims would of course take a lot of time (if it is even possible), so I don't think she should make an effort to do that during this talk, but leave it for another, and use more agreeable examples instead. At the very least, she could have given some example from another perspective or clearly marked the boundary between what is math (universal and fundamental, where you can't really disagree) and what is personal opinion.
She I so good, even stand-up quality. This is so an important subject, to introduce mathematics to ordinary life topics. We can find the answers by taking into concern the complexity, not find answers just by simplifying all the time. The best answers can activate the acting of reducing a problem, not activate the blaming as it was the only goal from the beginning.
This speaker is taking things that are tangentially related to math, and then making very banal statements about them and how they have oblique relevance to some issue close to her heart. Then she acts like her conclusion is mind-blowing and unprecedented. She needs to get over her self.
At what point did you feel she acted as though her conclusion was mind-blowing and unprecedented? The title of her presentation was "How to think like a mathematician". She explained how her background in math helps her engineer a pattern of thought about something she feels is important, without becoming overly biased, or shutting out the possibility of constructive argument. What makes you feel as though she needs to get over herself? Do you disagree with her opinions? Do you disagree with her formula for mapping cause and effect?
@@ezralavaticas I agree with you entirely.She was not giving a list of her beliefs but listing issues people become angry and hateful about.She then demonstrates how complex the issues are and suggests that a variety points are worthy of discussion .For example at no point did she say gay marriage was either right or wrong but she did show that the issue is complex whether you argue for or against.
@@ezralavaticas At what point did you feel she acted as though her conclusion was mind-blowing and unprecedented? FROM START TO FINISH The title of her presentation was "How to think like a mathematician". FAKE TITLE She explained SHE EXPLAINED NOTHING, SHE ASSERTED WITHOUT CAUSE how her background in math helps her engineer a pattern of thought ISN'T THAT LIKE PROGRAMMING A COMPUTER? GARBAGE IN -- GARBAGE OUT about something she feels is important, without becoming overly biased, IT ISN'T "OVERLY BIASED" WHEN POLITICALLY CORRUPT DOGBRAIN GOOSESTEPPERS DO IT, ONLY WHEN WE HUMAN BEINGS DO IT. or shutting out the possibility of constructive argument. WHAT'S SO CONSTRUCTIVE ABOUT NARCISSISM? What makes you feel as though she needs to get over herself? HER SILLY PRETENSE THAT POLITICAL PROPAGANDA IS "MATHEMATICAL" Do you disagree with her opinions? Do you disagree with her formula for mapping cause and effect? ALL OF THE ABOVE
But if it is a shame for some people, it is probably worth discussing. Even in science there is a place for politics. We just have to find out why it would be a shame. Maybe emotions, maybe internet troll, maybe culture, maybe all. At least you paid attention.
If you had paid attention, you would have noticed that this talk was not at all about the political views that were mentioned. How analytical thinking can help to understand the world in general and other people in particular, was illustrated with several examples, one of which was a political view which is topic of current debate. Furthermore, it was mentioned because this particular debate is often led in rather unreasonable ways, which this presentation has hoped to work against by laying out methods which can be helpful to understand other people.
She's ridiculous in trying to ridicule opponents to same sex marriage: certainly crossing a limit never crossed to date doesn't imply that all limits will be surpassed but it does legitimately prompts the question what comes next. When she deforms grammar to call "they" a friend, when she suggests that mathematical thinking could settle political issues... she seems to believe that there is one truth/one language that we all should accept unless we are bigots. And it is her position that sounds as bigotry to me.
She started well and promising but ended up in the cuckoo land. You cannot mix maths if "it is my opinion", "I think" and other emotional indecisive comments. Maths is about absoluteness. If you can model anything with maths, it is either true or false. If you think you are right using maths then it is "right" and not perhaps. You cannot say "in my opinion 2+2 = 4"
In my own discipline (Business Systems Analysis) we have "the 5 whys" for trying to understand why something went wrong. I liked the breakdown of the United Express Flight 3411 incident. Now I have to think about how to use the lattice. Liked this lecture -- in spite of all the other comments (a rich, white man wouldn't have been criticised so harshly). The second time I watched it with my wife and 10yo daughter.
Where is the mathematical proof a white man wouldn't be criticized so harshly? YOU AND Eugenia Cheng criticize white males harshly on the basis of a hateful paradigm of "white privilege" -- as if the civilization that white men created from scratch with no help from the likes of you over the past 1000 years had fallen down out of the sky and white men had merel;y got there first and hogged it all -- so your own words prove conclusively that you're a liar.
Amazing how many of the commenters on this thread don’t realize that math fundamentally helps us to think logically and perhaps we need to get back to applying logic and facts to sift through the hogwash of political discourse especially in US politics ... Some of us seem uncomfortable with confronting the realities of the real world.
Paul it has been targeted by outrage trolls. This happens sometimes when the notion of white privilege is mentioned, even in passing. What has happened here is a really go example of targeted trolling. The key to identifying it is the comments are all similar and slightly off topic or at least pushing it of topic. Interesting to someone that has seen this a bit is that it tries to evolve. For instance, you may notice most of them are responding and trying to fight their position. This is a new phenomenon as before they just dumped their comments and ran. But, this also seems more costly as there is less of them doing it. They may have target specific campaigns now because the organised outrage with the shaver commercial was just a swarm of negativity. Its clearly different here.
A brilliant speech. I particularly like her conclusion where she applies logic and empathy to feelings. The common factor of logic and empathy is that both are non-judgemental. So is pure mathematics. So to bake a perfect pi, just take judgement out of the recipe and let people choose whether they want to eat their pi with apple sauce, chocolate pudding, powdered sugar, pink icing or even just the pure pi. But - dammit - let them choose later on and only for themselves. Do not let them stuff their particular version down your throat.
Eugenia's point was highlighting a mathematical method which could focus in on a problem, rather than people shouting at each other as politicians (left or right, red or blue) do. For my money she did a great job of showing how maths could assist where feelings and senses of right and wrong rage
Sadly the extreme left, and almost all of the right, can't identify facts as being true or false. They all need a healthy dose of hard science and math.
@buoyantair Actually there are statistics showing that white males are more likely than black males to be killed by police. There are many reasons for this too. One is that police are called out for excessive force for racism more often so they tend to use less force on black males.
So, you're invited to talk about mathematics ; but you decide to do your entire speech about politics , backed up with a graph which looks a bit like a cube. Wow :-)
The point about power depending on context deserves more attention than just a classroom vs. street analogy. In certain contexts (e.g. social media, a college campus) a perceived lack of "global" privilege (i.e. privilege outside that context) gives you maximal "local" privilege.
I did get the feeling she was catering to something , or someone else. The topics just keep going way off to the side. Kinda reminds me of def comedy jam and a female comedian would preach civil rights , but entirely drop the comedy. Getting herself banned not because she talked civil rights , but because she dropped the comedy act . Basically not doing what she was paid for.
That is a mathematical model relevant to the subject of math. Now if I started telling you my feelings about society, unless a number is involved . It is not relevant
Technically she did separate opinions into one category and structure into another. She did seem to give legitimacy to forms of analysis and imply meaning could be found but she said things like "Probably", and "I would" and her points were subtle like the comparison of 6 and 7 in hierarchical analysis. If you want to de-legitimize the system in front of you, you won't find anything by showing that being rich is way more important than all other axis of oppression combined. Pointing out that one form of criticism is illegitimate is helpful to moving on to the relevant problems with this analysis. She did not share her side and her actual criticism may in fact be the argument against people who argue against the moon landings. If there is no way to prove or disprove the usefulness or approach it critically, does it really offer anything? I might propose that an axis of oppression might offer someone an opportunity to find a method of sympathizing, but if sympathy is not enough and if the experience cannot be shared or described to outsiders or overcome, then I might argue something against this form of the theory. The moral of the story is don't be triggered by pure analysis and measured response. I am not an intersectionalist BTW certainly not the kind that thinks a lack of experience is a permanent sympathy disability.
All of you guys may or may not agree. Do you realize that no one has expressed a stance other than me. Too bad I failed and assumed which direction you are coming from and which direction you think the speaker is going. Biased in which way? Which is the wrong way and which is the right way?
Agreed. Smart does not equal wise. Another Leftard who builds strawmen and thinks she is tearing it down, not realizing all she is doing is firmly solidifying her confirmation bias. She is not using math, there is no deductive reasoning. She is projecting.
What is mathematics? Unless you have seriously done some philosophy of math and of science you should NOT make statements like "there is no place for politics in mathematics" No Free Ride, you just trolled a copy of your answer. As a reaction to your use of the word 'leftards': so many righ'duh'rds feel this is all wrong. That is because they feel they may have power, but no arguments.
31' 09" An utterly preposterous comment stream starts. Well RI, that was my last renewal of membership. I hope the lenders call in the mortgages and put the venerable institution out of its self-inflicted misery.
*To all the people who think that there was too much politics in this talk:* The political ideas you object to were examples for the application of mathematical, i. e. analytical, thinking, and how it could help to understand the world and other people. *The speaker has not tried with one word to persuade others of political opinions.* The speaker has not proselytised any ideas, except for seeking understanding and analyse the positions of other people instead of shouting them down, to improve the climate of any debate.
I wish I could like your comment a couple more times so that it could be on top so that people can read it. I think that I think in the fashion that was demonstrated in this video and in thinking this way about the comments that I have read so far I've come to the conclusion that many of the commenters haven't applied those skills before leaving their comments. If they did they probably wouldn't be crying so hard about the politics that was only present in this video for about 5 min.
But Greeks simplify over Macedonia, mocking Macedonian people and others, assimilated over time, turning to think read reason in antagonistic propaganda ideology of Romanticism Philhellene in process contradicting whit Christianity by putting monopoly over ancient. See Greeks do not care to understand Macedonians but Macedonans understands Greeks and have empathy over them by not mocking in process worse things asking for revenge. If only try to understand Macedonians Greeks may be understand their problem of fake nationalism that their politicians made to rule the mob by abstract privilege...
So I hope nobody missed the part where she said category theory is much about looking at a subject from the perspective of its relationship with other subjects or how it fits together with other subjects in order to gain a deeper understanding of it. The METHOD of applying mathematics to (insert any subject other than sociopolitics here) is all she trying to illustrate. If you couldn't use the method she illuminates to abstract that much out of the talk then it went right over your head.
It certainly did that.
Precisely!
To everyone complaining about the wokeness: she used those examples to explain the interconnectedness/relatedness, you could just as easily use other "non-woke" examples if you disagree with the assumptions she made. The whole point was about the power of generality and abstraction, not that you should be woke because math tells you to.
It's ironic, because the point is to analogize your thinking, which includes replacing the examples she gave that you may not have liked with examples you more agree with.
Or you could just dismiss the mode of thinking that invented the internet, computers, and now AI. I would be weary of wandering to close to the "stupid" quadrant, though.
I like to think that throughout the lecture, she was subtly showing us that mathematicians stick to facts when working on problems. She used several facts that many people would find uncomfortable to use, such as the privilege hierarchy. She was sticking to facts over feelings and opinions (unless she explicitly mentions that what she said was her opinion), and not caring if people will get offended, cuz I think she knows people will get offended, but proceeds to state facts, which I feel like is key to think like a mathematician.
Time Code
3:34 Pure mathematics is a framework for agreeing on things
4:35 Science hierarchy pure math > applied math > science...
5:56 Plan 1. Analogies 2. Interconnectedness 3. Relationships 4. Pivots 5. Intelligence
6:18 1. Analogies
13:18 2. Interconnectedness
26:54 3. Relationships
35:27 4. Pivots
40:51 5. Intelligence
The speaker points out that because they set up their problems carefully and use logic to reach their conclusions, mathematicians generally find it easy to reach consensus. I'd encourage anyone who feels that this video has gone too far in the support of any political agenda to use the same method and demonstrate its error.
The problem in this talk, as I see it, was not that she supported any political agenda but that she assumed the modelling and simplifications done here are sufficient to argue anything as complex as human interactions.
Mathematicians find it easier to reach consensus where such clear definitions of operations and objects are possible without loss of generality (or even of usefulness). This is very clearly not the case in almost every topic touched on here. The most basic reading of sociology, anthropology, philosophy (or even musicology, for that matter!) will show that the objects studied by those disciplines, which she is tackling through maths here, very strongly resist such a bare-bones epistemological approach. In other words: while she is *technically* correct in her operations to obtain those diagrams, she is doing so by silently ignoring nearly every crucial aspect of the problems she's addressing. She is misunderstanding and/or misinterpreting the situations she's addressing.
Sure, the diagrams "work", but you won't say anything meaningful with them. Just the platitudes we saw here.
As for any political agenda present here (because there is one, and that is absolutely not a problem), this kind of approach is pretty much a disservice, as I see it. I tend to agree with her positions, with what she is trying to say and convince her audience of. But the way of going about it is infuriatingly poor from any epistemological point of view I can think of (not to mention super cringe-worthy), and undoes the whole project.
@@GuilhermeCarvalhoComposer I agree with you when you say that her method for convincing her audience of her political agenda is not good. In some cases her diagrams assume beliefs (--beliefs which many would considered controversial--) without sufficient evidence or justification. With that said, I do not believe that convincing us of her political opinion is the primary point of her talk. Towards the start of the lecture, she says that she's not going to tell us what to think but how to think. As a mathematician, a high standard of evidence and justification is the norm. So if her main goal had been to persuade an audience of her beliefs, she would have given more evidence than she did. Instead, the main point of the lecture was that using these diagrams helps organize complex scenarios in a way that allows us to reason about them more effectively.
You say that these diagrams oversimplify the situation. First, the diagrams can readily be made arbitrarily complex by adding more branches and more dimensions, as you see fit. However, in any attempt to understand a real-world scenario, we must limit the complexity at some point and therefore sacrifice some accuracy. The key is to find the right level of complexity for your needs, given that there is usually an inverse relationship between the ease of understanding/application of a model and the accuracy of a model. (This is true for a mathematician's model as much as it is for a sociologist's or any other person for that matter.)
Honestly, I am a bit confused about what you are saying in your second paragraph, and I'd rather not comment on it until I understand what you are saying. What makes her "technically correct"? How do you know that she is "silently ignoring nearly every crucial aspect of the problems she's addressing"? What does she do to show that "she is misunderstanding and/or misinterpreting the situations she's addressing"?
Looking forward to your response!
To people calling her a racist: you and I probably agree on a fair number of political issues. I disagree with some assumptions she made in this talk. But if you watch this video and your only takeaway is that she is a racist, I think you you might have missed the forrest for the trees here...
The new way of “winning “ arguments is to call your opponent a racist. That way nobody has to think.
@@mgmartin51That’s exactly what she does in her book. She bashes a specific racial group without substantiating why she’s doing it. And it’s funny, because she preaches in that same book that to argue logically you must carefully state the assumptions you’re making. Woke logic at its finest!
@@OnlyObserving-c6bSince you read her book would you be able to prove your statement logically?
@@duduzilezulu5494 Which statement? I made a few.
This talk is, at its core, about communicating more effectively with each other. Regardless of whether or not you believe this talk is about mathematics, and regardless of your political or personal opinions and beliefs, the speaker is focused on how identifying and categorizing the world can help simplify extremely complicated situations such that the average person can understand them, with particular focus on being able to understand people on the opposing sides of binary arguments to facilitate productive conversations and solve the problems causing said arguments.
With that in mind, I suggest anyone outright dismissing or condemning the opinions of anyone else (including the speaker) in the comments might do well by themselves, and the people with whom they are arguing, to revisit the talk. You don't need to agree, bur that doesn't mean you shouldn't be respectful (if not considerate) and listen.
Your first paragraph sums it up perfectly.
The reason her approach and others like it are so important is because the issues are so explosive. You just have to say "Trump " or "gay marriage" and anger and hatred seethes and we need a solution for this because the alternative is too nasty for all of us.
Awful. Was this supposed to be about mathematics?
This woman is an excellent speaker. I don't necessarily agree with everything she says, and I also think she prioritises some things over others that I would not, but I found her talk very insightful.
Spoons make us fat because they make food easier to eat,scooping the last of the ice cream,gravy etc from the bowl.
Can we talk about math, and not politics?
"No."
The point was you can apply maths to understand different viewpoints in politics. Therefore thinking like a mathematician.
She was pushing propaganda all along, and we all saw it, we all felt it, and here we are, denouncing it. That's it. If there was a point to it, it vanishes the moment you realize she has a political agenda. [at @@101yayo]
I was going to view this video for a minute or two but ended up listening to its entirety. This has opened me up to a much more in-depth way of processing information. Thank you Ms. Cheng.
To all those hating on this video because of the liberal leaning political examples, consider this:
Suppose you are a mathematician. You're an intelligent individual, so you study prime numbers and how they relate to the million dollar Riemann Hypothesis. One day, you go to a colleague's lecture, but the numbers in the examples he gives are all prime which are one less than a power of 2, which you would know as Mersenne primes. After the lecture, you go to your office, deeply disturbed. You hate Mersenne primes. You conclude that the lecture was rubbish and choose not to waste your time thinking about the techniques presented in the lecture.
This is a ridiculous scenario, of course. But by focusing your attention on the examples which you dislike, you have missed the meat of this lecture. Many of you think the point of this talk is to "shove liberal ideology down your throat." Clearly Dr. Cheng is left leaning, but the thesis of this talk is not left-leaning.
Instead, what Dr. Cheng demonstrates are techniques which can allow us to think more clearly about topics from everyday life. In particular, the diagrams she presented are extremely helpful for analyzing why something happens. I'm not being very specific about the techniques because they're in the video if you want to learn them. You may not agree with the examples she gave, but if you try to apply the same techniques to different examples, they will still work. They allow us to be critical of a world in which it seems that everyone is trying to manipulate us. It's important to do this to all aspects of our lives whether we are on the left, on the right, or just somewhere else.
The youtube comment-section needs more people like you
In simple terms: you don't need to agree with what she says in order to find value in the method and technique she presents.
Did I get it right?
@@nikolarajkovic3558 Yes, this is the moral of the story! Thank you!
No, the moral of the story is: you shouldn't unnecessarily bring your political / radical views (no matter what side of the coin they fall) into an educational lecture which has nothing to do with them. Its annoying and needlessly distracts from whatever your main point happens to be. The moral of the story is that we shouldn't be forced by the lecturer to wade through their political views to get to the meat of their argument.
So,Basic skepticism is a difficult thing? Makes sense,when you are so politically motivated.
Finally I see a lecture where someone makes a case that mathematics is about learning how to think. For someone with abstract enough cognition it's obvious and even sometimes frustrating, seeing everybody arguing instead of thinking, getting carried away with emotion and misinterpreting or cherry picking data that fits someone's worldview.
If your worldview consists of large, general ideas that you don't have a definition of then you don't know where you are. And those large, general ideas make you stay ignorant and feel safe at the same time.
It's quite possible to think without understanding anything about mathematics
And your response is a great example of that.
I said: "mathematics is about learning HOW to think" not "mathematics is about learning TO think".
@@henrykkaufman1488 Thanks for your reply.
I know HOW to think, only not in that way. Maths is learning how to think in a particular way, it's a system of reasoning, and many people just don't "get it". Fortunately it's quite possible to live a successful life without maths. A great many people are perfectly intelligent yet helpless when it comes to maths so they choose a career and a life without it. Mine was in journalism.
And no other subject that I know of triggers such strong reactions of loathing in so many people. They (we) may in a minority yet their (our) number is still signiificant. All those people know HOW to think.
A friend with whom I get on very well is passionate about maths. Two years ago she tried to explain certain points to me, and for 6 weeks we exchanged FB messages and emails. Then she told me she was very sorry (and she was) but she couldn't help me because she didn't understand how my brain worked. But she readily acknowledges that it does. We often have some interesting exchanges on all sorts of topics (NOT maths!) and she values my judgement on them.
@@xavierkreiss8394 None of my comments here suggested that someone without mathematical knowledge doesn't know how to think at all, or that mathematical, rational thinking is the only way to think. I mostly pointed out that it is only rational thinking that makes communication possible. A fact that, I suspect not incidentally, this conversation is an example of.
All cognition is emotional first and rational second. You are also sometimes carried away by emotion and are unable to see how that is affecting your rationality. Happens to everyone.
"Three types of priviledge"
I've been tricked.
Unfortunately a dislike from me. Sounds like you're preaching rather than teaching, completely switched me off I'm afraid.
She lost me at "Broccoli is delicious..."
I couldn't bear watching this until the end.
What is your framework for falsifying white privilege?
The title is misleading.
Right. Cause how to think would be too inviting.
@38:28 "we all feel everyday sexism all the time" - really?
Looking at the comments, I see a trend of people frustrated about the involvement of politics in what should be a scientific talk. And, taking a leaf out of Eugenia's talk, this makes perfect logical sense if science is apolitical. As Ian Hacking articulates, and Foucault more broadly, this is not the case and it is very much impossible to divorce science from the sociopolitical world in which it is conducted. The most obvious example that anyone engaged in scientific research will tell you is that one of the greatest concerns for a scientist is FUNDING. You can't do science without funding. And funding comes from sources with sociopolitical priorities, e.g. the government sets priorities about what is important. It could be something as innocuous as, "We need more stroke research", so scientists ask more scientific questions about stroke. Fantastic! Or, it could be something like, "We need to make scientific advancements to make military-grade lasers a reality", so scientists ask more scientific questions about that. Even "advancing human understanding of the universe through science is important" is a political stance, and not all humans share that stance.
I think some more content about what science is, its relationship to epistemology, and how it is situated in broader society would be helpful to understand how science is inextricably tied to politics.
Science is conducted by humans; each human is born and raised in a society with a dominant culture and with a particular worldview. This worldview shapes the types of scientific questions we ask. For example, "To what extent do white, black, and Asian children in North America differ in intelligence, as measured by IQ?" is a perfectly legitimate scientific question--and similar studies have been conducted in the past. This question is predicated on the sociopolitical worldview that race exists and that race is a meaningful category by which to distinguish intelligence. I won't argue the pros and cons of this worldview, but I do argue that this scientific question arises from this particular sociopolitical worldview and it is by this worldview that the results of the study would be interpreted.
You're missing the point of a lot of comments - I suspect on purpose. The title doesn't mention that this is a political talk and the topic could have very well be presented without any involvement of her personal political opinions. RI is purposefully misleading it's audience.
You breezily ramble on about science but the subject is math. You failed. But thanks for letting us know that "Science is conducted by humans."
@@dixonpinfold2582 I was more responding to people's points about this video being in context of a science channel. But yes, you are correct that I failed to split this particular hair between pure math and science (let's not get into "Mathematical Sciences"). In certain contexts, I'd agree it's an important distinction. I don't think it's so important in this context of a science channel and the speaker's "scientific affiliations". But, to correct your beautifully pedantic gripe, "Mathematics is engaged by humans."
@@SolWake Oh, come off it. "Science is conducted by humans" quotes perfectly the start of your last paragraph. Cheers.
@@dixonpinfold2582 Yes, it is. And I acknowledged your point.
The point was you can apply maths to understand different viewpoints in politics. Therefore thinking like a mathematician.
I was panicking with my homework... I just needed to remember why I choose this career.
The comments on this thread amaze me. She used assumptions of privilege that are based on a mountain of statistical data. She said nothing about blame except that she thought any group of attributes of power superior to another should probably bear more responsibility to try to ease conflict between them. She also said that her thought could be argued.
She never once used the word "woke."
So I am very curious as to how in such a short few years that in the word "woke" has become a common word, what logical chain presented to you by whatever media you watch, read and/or listen to has led you to such an extreme reaction? Does the very mention of a phrase or certain phrases automatically elicit the label, "woke"? What is your personal full definition of "woke"? Is this a Pavlovian reaction or is there a mental logical chain that leads to the conclusion to apply the label? What does "woke" stand for to you? For those who have such an intense reaction to it, it seems to be being used as an "all things evil" label. How did that occur? What phrases used in the video immediately brought forth that label? Inquiring minds want to know.
There's a linguistics term called "thought terminating cliches" which is a good explanation of this and many comments threads. Essentially, by throwing out these cliches, the person essentially shuts down any further critical thought processes and shuts down further debate. Everyone is guilty of this, not just one group of people, but it's most seen play out in real time in comments threads.
I suggest "Using Category Theory to Analyze Society - with Eugenia Cheng" as a more precise title that would bring a more interested and receptive audience. People with differing political views will relate "How to Think" with the political views of the video, causing them to think more negatively about all the contents of the video.
Great feedback, thanks!
At the time you have commented, has the title not specified that the talk was about how the think like a mathematician?
Love the way you think - very helpful.
It's putting set theory into more better use.
@@xCorvus7x It did and still does at the time of writing this late response.
She seems to be disguising some rather strong moral opinions within the confines of a talk about pure mathematics.
@@Stroheim333 did you grok her presentation?
Its not really pure mathematics when its applied. Might need to go back the your outrage buddies in 4Chan.
My thoughts exactly, this presentation would have been so much better without the bias coming from her personal views!
2:00 fake fake news...the fact that this term somehow makes sense is perhaps one of the top 10 scary things in the world today.
One would think that 'fake fake news' is just 'news', but apparently some people make fake 'fake news' in order to see if people can distinguish between them and 'news'.
Please look at Tim Pools youtube channel, he is left of center but still a very intellectual honest person, focusing on objective facts and valid reasoning.
A combination that sadly is becoming less common with every passing day.
I think you will find some very interesting perspectives on the fake news allegation that often is tossed around today.
@@NetAndyCz Applying your logic something and I'm kinda thinking god made Trump as a test to determine how intelligent humans have evolved.
Fake news is not news. News is something that actually happened recently. There is a huge amount of censorship of news though.
@@MikeVeracity If I point to motorcycle and tell you that it's a secret portal through time and space that leads to the kingdom of spacelord Ubetere does not turn the motorcycle into a magic portal.
It simply a wrong, false, incorrect statement. The motorcycle still is a motorcycle, something that shouldn't even be questioned.
It's probably a much better use of time to question my mental health.
Now, if someone points their arm towards something and says #fakenews without presenting further evidence, it does not mean.....
Most accusations of fake news do not come with supporting evidence.
But as fake news is considered so evil, racist, sexistic, Islamophobic. So who dares to defend truth? You will only be next person found guilty of wrong thinking and rolled in tars and feathers by the media and Twitter mob, you will be fired from your job, your friends don't dare to speak to you, as the financial situation gets worse without a job your wife will divorce and your house sold in the process.
Quite a brilliant way to implement censorship, much more effective than the soviet union.
And we were prepared to nuke our planet to avoid the soviet union - but now we are allowing something much worse to poison the core of our free society, the freedom of speech.
So, please, fall in line and denounce fake news, who wants to be a racist?
This lecture wins the award for packing the most flame-war inducing topics into the shortest time. Brilliant! Well done Eugenia! Enjoy reading the comments. 😉 (seriously though, as a “cis” white rich male, I learned a new perspective on category theory from this. Ordering the book! Thanks!)
She constantly disregard basic logic, you can't use any part of your assumption as a part of the proof of the assumption, that's called circular logic.
Also, other times her political views are treated as axioms and the results will of course be in line with the axioms used. Compare classical vs non Euclidean geometry to understand why that methodology is bullocks.
Please go ahead and subscribe to whatever dangerous political views that want to destroy the western civilization you wish to subscribe to.
Our society is still free, or at least until the neo marxists like this lady have taken over.
But please don't blame your views on mathematics, as correct math had next to no part in this lecture.
@@NomenNescio99 She didn't use assumptions to prove assumptions. She didn't prove anything. She talked about frameworks of thinking. She also stopped and recognized that someone with an opposing view could take things a different way, but with a framework people with opposing views can have a more thoughtful discussion. All I'm seeing you do is get angry and cling to your views, not really unpacking things and providing thought or substance.
As always, an excellent RI lecture, in particular the parts about forcing oneself to read the outraged (and outrageous) online comments written by ill-informed people.
Plenty of examples here!
So many commenters, in a lather, because using logic and precision to examine timely, contemporary issues - with rigor! - has dismantled one argument or another they recognize themselves as having, at some point, dogmatically made!
Do they re-examine their own arguments? Or the fallacies they’ve consciously or unconsciously employed on the road to deploying these now-dismantled arguments?
No! They take offense, cry, fault the host, fault the presenter, and again deploy the fallacies she decries - exactly as expected! Bravo, guys … [slowclap.wav] …bravo.
Good point! As I read comments in RUclips, I do find that I constantly need to remind myself to read without being judgmental. There's a number of benefits: It helps me to understand multiple points of view and to often learn new information. Both benefits are important to personal growth. I could be wrong, my views could be too narrow. Tell me new information, tell me what your view of the world looks like, and I may change my mind. I may be able to join in on a discussion I didn't know existed.
> Do they re-examine their own arguments? [...]
> No! They take offense, cry [...]
I enjoyed reading this great piece of irony. Thank you for that. Always remember that it is the social justice types that dogmatically try to force their world view onto others (or get them fired or even assaulted) and cry every time one of these "straight while males" has an opinion they don't like.
If you are big on introspection, please do reconsider why it is okay to judge people because of their sexuality, skin color and sex.
You wouldn't know intellectual rigour if you fell into a lake of it. You're simply a poser.
Well done. Way to deal with a poser. @@yourinternetfriend6778
Mathematics is not only about numbers, .mathematicians are also human being.I am really impressed how she explained society issues, thinking by concept of mathematics, and trying to understand by everyone point of view. The people of world really needs this type of knowledge to understand eachother, without creating hate.
She gets political because that is an area of society that seriously needs more logic instead of emotional argument and opinion entitlement...I am skeptical about the optimism claim though.
Dear RI, please, less of that, more of actual science
4:39 What many people actually do is to conflate Mathematics (an umbrella term for a group of learning disciplines) with Arithmetic (A specific learning discipline under mathematics that has to do with numbers).
'Learning disciplines'?
Isn't that quite vague a term?
Please, if you will, elaborate on why you see the different mathematical disciplines this way.
@@xCorvus7x Because it's defined that way and has been commonly used that way for the last few thousand years. The word _Mathematics_ itself is Greek in derivation and means learning/knowing/studying. Biblio mathema (Books on Mathematics) have been written since ancient Greece and very few of them have to do strictly with numbers (mostly shapes, natural law, argumentative dialogues and postulates).
Because Mathematics is any methodology or set of systematic rules developed toward the ends of acquiring accurate new information in it's application (i.e. a learning discipline or a discipline that helps one learn).
So for example: Geometry deals with shapes. Arithmetic deals with numbers. Logic deals with what follows reasonably from a premise (irregardless of the validity of the premise). And these are all Disciplines under the header of Mathematics.
@@The1Helleri
Thank you very much for your response and this education (I feel that this should be at least mentioned in school, somewhere along the way).
I just realise that without mathematical tools, empirical studies don't make sense, so mathematics actually seems to incorporate all that is needed to learn, in some way or another.
I liked how you used basic fundamentals of logic and math to address real life issues. While some may find the examples potentially polarizing, i think that the choices made must have been thoughtful and I defer to your better judgment and find it brave and commendable. If we can look beyond the examples, the approach is something that I identify with and bears similarities to what I am trying to do, albeit you do it in a far more precise manner. I really respect and identify with what you are doing. Keep up the good work. First time, I've come across your name and video but already, I can see the caliber and dedication. Kudos. Gambatte ne.
In the overabundance of potentially good stuff to hear, I think I'll trust the comments and stop what in the intro seemed a good lecture about how to *avoid* identity politics in the public discourse.
The danger of theory without quantification, well demonstrated here. You can let yourself feel like you are being logical and justified when all you are doing is hiding your prejudices in a logical framework. The true power of logic is to take your hypothesis, eg. That “the people in power should be the ones to make the changes.” And see if that can work out logically in a wider system, given the other observable facts like human nature. If your hypothesis requires a fallacy to work out or ends in a contradiction then you should rework the hypothesis and retest.
Yes, the dumbest things I've ever heard have come from smart people who have devised complex logical systems, but have neglected to adequately test them against reality.
this is the dark side of the mind it self because, this elements characteristic can create new frame depending the non count hable characteristic elements bring ups so any divergent arrows bring up changes bring downs many arrows. and convergent arrow circuntance is when phenomenon of values happens. this is on godel hard problem. and hard math paradox problems. everything become wrong if before wholes of essential stuff was right , maybe just because a butterfly fisics particle theorem. math not necessary have meaning until you put it in the model some says.
R.B. Nice way of putting it. It is either happening more or I’m becoming more aware of it.
@@jamesmaybury7452 You put it pretty well to begin with mate.
My favourite example is when William Lane Craig said there are 3 meta levels to suffering. Then he applied this logic to animal suffering. Of course he is a Christian so he has to somehow justify the belief that we have dominion over the animals and can do whatever we want to them, anyway...
He said the top layer of suffering is meta-awareness of the suffering, so while a pig may suffer, it doesn't realise that it's suffering and thus does not really suffer.
I'm paraphrasing of course, but essentially he used logic to disprove the fact that animals can suffer. Of course a SCIENTIST would just do some brain scans and compare behaviour between us and other animals and INSTANTLY conclude that it's all the same shit and we probably suffer in much the same way.
Smart people >.
@@r.b.4611 We do have dominion over animals that's just a fact.
However to say a animal does not suffer is idiotic, and easily testable.
The philosopher in the room is asking what is the meaning of two? How does two relate to the human condition? How can we possibly concern ourselves with such trivialities as chairs, apples and bananas until we answer the more fundamental question? After all, if a banana or apple is made of large bolts of cloth and filled with beans they are all chairs.
There it goes... the Magnificent Math Ship to the bottom torpedoed by PC !
I assume liberals are not into math
What is math not useful for? Would be my question to my younger self
from min 30 it goes down hill fast, sad.
god bless her for not dancing around politics like it's some kind of swear word. she could have talked about colored blocks or material properties but this is making a much much much better point
Bravely bang on. Sadly most will miss the nuances of what she is saying.
Supposedly rational people proving that they're not... the talk is basically about being neutral - prioritizing logic over emotions, she mentions e.g. how Oprah is more privileged than a poor white man, but they get instantly offended at the mere sight of "privilege" and similar political terms.
You could make a very similar video, with these kind of concepts concepts supporting very different positions. (Right wing positions, for instance.)
She uses concepts from math/logic to elucidate certain political situations, but since she doesn't prove any positions to be true, or refute any positions, this type of thing really doesn't change the political conclusions ppl come to.
A lot of this is pretty intuitive to people as well - they know it but might have a hard time explaining it.
I've read that people don't often make logical mistakes, outside of specially created puzzles. Most often our mistakes are due to perceptual errors: not having the correct information, missing key details, etc.
Your comments stand out for being coherently expressed. Most commenters in support of the lecture seem to have suffered a lot of blows to the head. Thanks.
I get what people are saying, but I appreciate someone playing with bridging cultural values and mathematics/reason. Yes, it can be offensive, but it's a little fun too. It'd be a bit unstimulating otherwise. At least it's not the usual left/right beatdown of dogma we get everywhere else. I wish everyone with a "cause" spoke like that.
If you are here reading the comments: Hi, Eugenia, and thanks for the talk! :]
Sorry....
the math was good...
but some of the socio-political examples had a lot of assumptions / oversimplifications built into them.
To add on:
Also one of THE MOST important things I found missing in her talk, was the weights on the arrows of her diagrams. It's a very crucial point.
If a thing has many factors that doesn't mean all those factors are equally probable, or equally important/relevant.
If someone X says, A -> B --> C
And then she comes in and says oh, it's actually, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H .... all interconnected like a graph. Hence, it's all a very complicated interconnected system. Well we'll have to do a probability/relevance/importance analysis of all those pathways in her graphs. And if in the end, it turns out that the path: A --> B ---> C accounts for let's say 95% of the probability or everyday occurrences, then that someone X is not far off, and her analysis is farther from the practical truth.
This is I feel where her analogies of a social system to a mathematical system, can be improved. But her analogies are very good starting points.
20 minutes in and she obviously wasn't going to talk about math so I stopped watching. Such a load of nonsense, she should be embarrassed about this talk.
1.1k likes landed on the like button from habit. 100%
I randomly land on 32:05 (because of the complains down below). Shocker!
Loved this. Eugenia was brave talking about her professional skills and showing how they help her personally, because we learn a little about her. We don't know everything about her. That makes her in part, vulnerable. Just remember the stupidity graph at the end though. Eugenia is aiming for you to benefit as well as herself. If like me you disagree with some of the conclusions and assumptions made during the talk, it is up to you to be more intelligent in discussing those issues. I really liked this talk because it is a challenge to grow stronger, not just have an opinion. That's exactly what healthy societies need.
Thank you, Professor Cheng. I am a math spouse, and after 27 years I still look for insights into how my wife’s mind works. This will be helpful, I know.
Subtract ideology and you are left with a 3 minute talk.
First time watching a Ri video episode, so disappointed.
I assure you, there are WAY better videos on the Ri channel, including about maths. Check out the two by Matt Parker, for instance.
This one was indeed subpar.
Is this a TED talk or something?
The LOGIC-EMPATHY isomorphism! AWESOME TALK.
I think she is trying to show that maths is not some abstract thing that lives in a bubble on the top of an ivory tower. It's intrinsic in how the world works, even how we think about things. She is making abstract mathematics something you can feel. I don't think there was anything wrong in what she said. Politics, the economy, social structures ... understanding these with mathematics is part of being human, whether you know it's there or not. Sometimes you feel something and you don't know why. She just thinks that maybe you can try to figure out why you feel that way, organise the ideas.
Without abstractions we aren't human. We can't relate. We can't communicate. Language is the first abstraction. Learning language is doing mathematics. Your mind FEELS the rules, when a sentence makes sense and when it won't, when words go together and when they can't.
Ditto music. You feel it.
Ditto morality. You feel it.
Ditto fish swimming. They feel it. They understand fluid dynamics at a different level, by feel. It's like feeling the wind when riding a bicycle.
There is a sense in which our minds are just computers, but instead of number crunching, human minds crunch ideas.
She just trying to show that mathematics is THE basis that allows us to model ideas. It's THE meta-idea.
There is Mathematics behind everything. Everywhere you look, the world, the planets, the stars, the atom, the cell, the eye, we see patterns, and that's all we can see. Is it because there are patterns out there in the world? Or, is it that our limited minds can only see patterns? If something isn't a neat, simple pattern we can't even see that thing. At least I can't.
It's the matrix. Pun intended.
I am all for allowing marriage for _n_ adults. Not sure why it should be just 2.
Why marriage at all?
@@thekaiser4333 A valid question. Because it is handy to check up in hospitals on health of people you care about the most. And there are other legal benefits.
First is the complicated hierarchy more then 2 would cause. Who gets to make the medical decisions, who get the inheritance, ect.. The question is does marriage need any governmental recognition at all? It seems pretty dang convenient to simply automatically assign all these legal responsibilities in one simple contract. Do we want these kind of responsibilities? I think most would say yes, by taking legal responsibility for each other we remove that legal responsibility from society/government.
@@Uhlbelk many things are complicated but that doesn't mean we stop doing them or disallow. Problems with medical decisions etc all apply to unmarried people so if the 2 remaining people can't form consensus then just use the existing structures to solve the problem (doctors, judges?)
@@Uhlbelk I think marriage could be replaced by something else, it is just convenient bundle of rights and responsibilities for two unrelated adults. I think it could be greatly improved by allowing for more people to be part of your close group though. Could assign different people different rights or rank them so someone could override medical decision of another if they disagreed and both were available for consulting...
There should be imho different system for biological parents in place, to ensure the safety. well-being, and proper development of the child. However family as a social unit imho can be greatly expanded from the traditional view of man and woman and (maybe) their kids.
“...and men of a certain type”
I’m sorry, but that is just so absurd a thing to say.
Why don’t you guys apply the last framework about Logic Empathy to criticize your argument about her racism? Is that all you take from this valuable clip?
For those questioning about her talking so much about politics but not numbers, do you understand the main idea / thesis statement of her speech?
About the white male privilege thing. It depends on the environment, how much privilege any given factor grants people. In some industries, being a woman is more advantageous than being a man. And in some countries being white, means you have much bigger chance of getting kidnapped. Like my little brother was, when he visited India.
I also think the benefits of being a "white male" is emphasized way too much in the media all over the western world. When i visit the city center, the middle eastern beggars stare me with an evil eye when i dont give them any money. The beggars seek me out for some reason. I want to tell them _"Just because im white doesnt make me wealthy. I get maybe €500 a year. Also i just came from the homeless foodbank (sorry, im not sure if thats the right word) and i didnt see you there (the foodbank is open, twice a week for 1½ hours)"_ But i dont, because my social skills suck and it would take me several minutes to say that (even typing this comment has taken me well over an hour).
You said everything very well and clearly. Maybe you're not fast but this is one of the most well thought-out comments in the whole section. Your command of language is fantastic. If English is not your first language, then your ability is amazing. I'm an editor and I saw you made no mistakes. You don't need to be so humble. You have my respect.
Those who come to here can understand mathematics is useful. If you could persuade the people who hate maths, then you are great.
I stopped watching after half an hour. I am interested in maths and logic but this turned into a talk about political opinion.
The title of her presentation was "How to think like a mathematician." She applied her background in math to her real world views, and created a pattern of thought based in logic that would allow her to have more clear and productive arguments with people who's views differ from hers. Do you feel that she didn't give a presentation appropriate to the title? Did you spend a half hour watching the video so you could leave a comment?
Peter Curtis I spent half an hour trying to understand the maths. It got harder and harder to ignore her political option, so I just switched off. Hopefully someone else can teach me the same subject matter without subjecting me to all the baggage that came with this lecture.
Yes, it starts off well and goes off a cliff pretty hard.
Yes. Intelligent thinking is three dimensional problem solving. I can look at my own and someone else's needs, and rotate, translate, and/or reflect them around within the larger environment that we are both operating within, to find a single solution that helps us both get something that we need. Maybe not exactly what we were expecting, but something positive towards our goals.
Physical thinking is 1D and is just focusing on one's own body's needs.
Emotional thinking is 2D and focuses on one's own body's needs plus another's body's needs.
But intellectual thinking is 3D and solves the problem of getting both of our needs met in a way that truly works, given the goals of the community/environment that we're in, so that we can effectively get our needs met in a way that helps the third, larger group, get its needs met too.
5 minutes of math and a lot of opinionated bs
Her logic disproves itself with her examples. For example, her rich white male privilege example: Who determines what white is? Who determines how much money is rich? Who determines what constitutes privilege? Individuals determine this based on their state. If they are rich, but not the richest, then they may consider themselves poor. If they are poor but not the poorest, they may consider themselves rich. If they are anglo saxon but have a tan, they may not consider themselves white. If they have one parent that is white and another parent that is mixed race, they may consider themselves white, or mixed, or non-white. This is the key to identity politics, which is why it is a logical fallacy. It is not based on facts, or statistics, or logic. It is based on the individual and the platform they choose.
And using this logic, nobody has the right to disagree with me because you aren't me. Only I have the right to disagree with myself and I choose not to.
I see a lot of comments on here saying "keep politics out of math/science," but I think that's backwards: her talk is all about getting math into politics!
She states her main claim pretty clearly in the part starting at 19:19:
> what we should really do is think about how these things are all connected. and then i think we can think about who has more power in this situation and personally, i think that it's the people who have more power who should take the responsibility to change something and find an arrow to break. but at least, *even if we disagree about that, at least if we've understood this interaction, we can have a more sensible conversation about which arrows should be broken and who should break them.*
Except all she does is list a bunch of factors that play a role in the outcome and does no qualitative or quantitative analysis of how much each of them contributed to the end result. Furthermore, she then takes purely ideological constructs regarding power and oppression and tries to justify the pyramid of oppression (though in this case it looks more like a parallelepiped) with her diagrams. I find this utterly disgusting and a complete misrepresentation of what mathematics is or should be. Mathematics has NOTHING to do with politics and it should stay well clear of it. As an Eastern-European I can tell you that the only academic fields that were NOT destroyed by communist ideology in my part of the world were those that were fortunate enough to have nothing to do with politics, such as mathematics. And now this lady is trying to pervert it with her social justice ideology. SHAME ON HER!
Smart does not equal wise. Another Leftard who builds strawmen and thinks she is tearing it down, not realizing all she is doing is firmly solidifying her confirmation bias. She is not using math, there is no deductive reasoning. She is projecting.
@@fyngolnoldor4891 I feel the emotion, but mathematics *is* part of politics as game theory.
@@peacefroglorax875 I would argue that Game Theory is its own thing and politics uses it sometimes. The converse isn't true: game theory isn't influenced in any way by what has/is/will happen in politics.
You worry me - Eugenia was using the "bunch of factors" completly unevaluated, just as illustrations - her focus was the process, and how it might help resolve differences. I saw no ideolgy in play -the process would work equally well for left or right, indeed it would help them get together@@fyngolnoldor4891
That hair-pin tho :) Tongue in cheek!
What a waste of time. Condescending, deeply lacking in subtlety, very, very, poorly thought out. Shot through with cant. Posturing, pompous, pretentious. 'Just look at how moral and intelligent I am. Feel the quality.' Like a first-year term paper by a mediocre student at a mediocre school. Thanks, Ri, for really letting me down.
Almost everything you watch or consume has embeded ideology in it but some people suddenly seem to really get stuck on her examples, which are just illustrative forf a broader idea.
But even so, the only ideological input I see is her as sumption that ´whomever holds the power is responsible for breaking the chain’ (a moment that she's not even emphasizing that much) which can be indeed a subject of debate.
Instead people are just throwing around the word ‘woke’ like it’s peiorative to get on their high horse.
As a fellow mathematician I find emotions to be natural. Emotions are categorical syllogisms of reality thus born into existence is an afterthought.
And sometimes they aren't about reality at all.
wtf ? lost me...
"born into existence" ???
Those complaining that the video is politically biased need to consider that Eugenia Cheng's personal opinions [though used as examples] are irrelevant to the content she is actually disseminating, which is about setting up sensible framework for analysis PRIOR to any kind of value judgement at all (and how math helps us formulate such).
That irrelevancy (or as one may call it, independence) is the exact reason, why some people (including me) think, that her personal opinions should be left for another lecture. She unnecessarily introduced very controversial claims as assumptions in her examples. Proving those claims would of course take a lot of time (if it is even possible), so I don't think she should make an effort to do that during this talk, but leave it for another, and use more agreeable examples instead. At the very least, she could have given some example from another perspective or clearly marked the boundary between what is math (universal and fundamental, where you can't really disagree) and what is personal opinion.
She I so good, even stand-up quality. This is so an important subject, to introduce mathematics to ordinary life topics. We can find the answers by taking into concern the complexity, not find answers just by simplifying all the time. The best answers can activate the acting of reducing a problem, not activate the blaming as it was the only goal from the beginning.
You're happy with this post? It's incoherent.
This speaker is taking things that are tangentially related to math, and then making very banal statements about them and how they have oblique relevance to some issue close to her heart. Then she acts like her conclusion is mind-blowing and unprecedented. She needs to get over her self.
At what point did you feel she acted as though her conclusion was mind-blowing and unprecedented? The title of her presentation was "How to think like a mathematician". She explained how her background in math helps her engineer a pattern of thought about something she feels is important, without becoming overly biased, or shutting out the possibility of constructive argument. What makes you feel as though she needs to get over herself? Do you disagree with her opinions? Do you disagree with her formula for mapping cause and effect?
@@ezralavaticas I agree with you entirely.She was not giving a list of her beliefs but listing issues people become angry and hateful about.She then demonstrates how complex the issues are and suggests that a variety points are worthy of discussion .For example at no point did she say gay marriage was either right or wrong but she did show that the issue is complex whether you argue for or against.
@@ezralavaticas At what point did you feel she acted as though her conclusion was mind-blowing and unprecedented?
FROM START TO FINISH
The title of her presentation was "How to think like a mathematician".
FAKE TITLE
She explained
SHE EXPLAINED NOTHING, SHE ASSERTED WITHOUT CAUSE
how her background in math helps her engineer a pattern of thought
ISN'T THAT LIKE PROGRAMMING A COMPUTER?
GARBAGE IN -- GARBAGE OUT
about something she feels is important, without becoming overly biased,
IT ISN'T "OVERLY BIASED" WHEN POLITICALLY CORRUPT DOGBRAIN GOOSESTEPPERS DO IT, ONLY WHEN WE HUMAN BEINGS DO IT.
or shutting out the possibility of constructive argument.
WHAT'S SO CONSTRUCTIVE ABOUT NARCISSISM?
What makes you feel as though she needs to get over herself?
HER SILLY PRETENSE THAT POLITICAL PROPAGANDA IS "MATHEMATICAL"
Do you disagree with her opinions? Do you disagree with her formula for mapping cause and effect?
ALL OF THE ABOVE
It's a shame she couldn't have left out 'Identity Politics'!
But if it is a shame for some people, it is probably worth discussing. Even in science there is a place for politics. We just have to find out why it would be a shame. Maybe emotions, maybe internet troll, maybe culture, maybe all. At least you paid attention.
tre bushett yes. Terrible talk
If you had paid attention, you would have noticed that this talk was not at all about the political views that were mentioned.
How analytical thinking can help to understand the world in general and other people in particular, was illustrated with several examples, one of which was a political view which is topic of current debate.
Furthermore, it was mentioned because this particular debate is often led in rather unreasonable ways, which this presentation has hoped to work against by laying out methods which can be helpful to understand other people.
You might be able to catch the late point.
@michael andrews Yes identity politics based on facts vs based on feelings are a vast difference though.
the video is about how to think. though some may not like the way she presented the concept, i think its a good way to describe it. cool video.
Maths can be delicious 😋
She's ridiculous in trying to ridicule opponents to same sex marriage: certainly crossing a limit never crossed to date doesn't imply that all limits will be surpassed but it does legitimately prompts the question what comes next. When she deforms grammar to call "they" a friend, when she suggests that mathematical thinking could settle political issues... she seems to believe that there is one truth/one language that we all should accept unless we are bigots. And it is her position that sounds as bigotry to me.
She started well and promising but ended up in the cuckoo land. You cannot mix maths if "it is my opinion", "I think" and other emotional indecisive comments. Maths is about absoluteness. If you can model anything with maths, it is either true or false. If you think you are right using maths then it is "right" and not perhaps. You cannot say "in my opinion 2+2 = 4"
In my own discipline (Business Systems Analysis) we have "the 5 whys" for trying to understand why something went wrong. I liked the breakdown of the United Express Flight 3411 incident. Now I have to think about how to use the lattice. Liked this lecture -- in spite of all the other comments (a rich, white man wouldn't have been criticised so harshly). The second time I watched it with my wife and 10yo daughter.
Where is the mathematical proof a white man wouldn't be criticized so harshly?
YOU AND Eugenia Cheng criticize white males harshly on the basis of a hateful paradigm of "white privilege" -- as if the civilization that white men created from scratch with no help from the likes of you over the past 1000 years had fallen down out of the sky and white men had merel;y got there first and hogged it all -- so your own words prove conclusively that you're a liar.
Amazing how many of the commenters on this thread don’t realize that math fundamentally helps us to think logically and perhaps we need to get back to applying logic and facts to sift through the hogwash of political discourse especially in US politics ... Some of us seem uncomfortable with confronting the realities of the real world.
+
Paul it has been targeted by outrage trolls. This happens sometimes when the notion of white privilege is mentioned, even in passing. What has happened here is a really go example of targeted trolling. The key to identifying it is the comments are all similar and slightly off topic or at least pushing it of topic. Interesting to someone that has seen this a bit is that it tries to evolve. For instance, you may notice most of them are responding and trying to fight their position. This is a new phenomenon as before they just dumped their comments and ran. But, this also seems more costly as there is less of them doing it. They may have target specific campaigns now because the organised outrage with the shaver commercial was just a swarm of negativity. Its clearly different here.
A brilliant speech. I particularly like her conclusion where she applies logic and empathy to feelings.
The common factor of logic and empathy is that both are non-judgemental. So is pure mathematics.
So to bake a perfect pi, just take judgement out of the recipe and let people choose whether they want to eat their pi with apple sauce, chocolate pudding, powdered sugar, pink icing or even just the pure pi.
But - dammit - let them choose later on and only for themselves. Do not let them stuff their particular version down your throat.
How about a marriage between two brothers? Is that moral? Legal? Why or why not? (These arguments have nothing to do with maths.)
Eugenia's point was highlighting a mathematical method which could focus in on a problem, rather than people shouting at each other as politicians (left or right, red or blue) do.
For my money she did a great job of showing how maths could assist where feelings and senses of right and wrong rage
genuinely enjoyed this talk!
rational thinking gives me a boner
So, what you are saying is, we need to destroy capitalism and abolish the state?
Sadly the extreme left, and almost all of the right, can't identify facts as being true or false. They all need a healthy dose of hard science and math.
No, no it is not. You are the person she is criticising...
@@Uhlbelk I'm a centrist... does this mean I'm correct?
@buoyantair Actually there are statistics showing that white males are more likely than black males to be killed by police. There are many reasons for this too. One is that police are called out for excessive force for racism more often so they tend to use less force on black males.
You are just wrong, so are you ignorant or racist? www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180205134232.htm
Came for a talk on how to think logically, got a lecture on virtue signalling.. xD
that was a talk beyond my expectations
embarrassing
I wish you the very best.
So, you're invited to talk about mathematics ; but you decide to do your entire speech about politics , backed up with a graph which looks a bit like a cube. Wow :-)
The point about power depending on context deserves more attention than just a classroom vs. street analogy. In certain contexts (e.g. social media, a college campus) a perceived lack of "global" privilege (i.e. privilege outside that context) gives you maximal "local" privilege.
Why is she not talking about math?
I did get the feeling she was catering to something , or someone else. The topics just keep going way off to the side. Kinda reminds me of def comedy jam and a female comedian would preach civil rights , but entirely drop the comedy. Getting herself banned not because she talked civil rights , but because she dropped the comedy act . Basically not doing what she was paid for.
Why she did not tell you that 1+1=2
That is a mathematical model relevant to the subject of math. Now if I started telling you my feelings about society, unless a number is involved . It is not relevant
@@janeza382 Depends on your definition of +.
You don’t get anything out of a logical system that you didn’t put into it. The same goes for ideological systems.
Wonderful talk, very well done.
This is politics dressed as science.
@Sergio Díaz Nila It's generally good etiquette to avoid personal attacks when discussing ideas
just yoinked your favorite hyperbolic boring trash talk
Came math, found propaganda.
:o/
Technically she did separate opinions into one category and structure into another. She did seem to give legitimacy to forms of analysis and imply meaning could be found but she said things like "Probably", and "I would" and her points were subtle like the comparison of 6 and 7 in hierarchical analysis. If you want to de-legitimize the system in front of you, you won't find anything by showing that being rich is way more important than all other axis of oppression combined. Pointing out that one form of criticism is illegitimate is helpful to moving on to the relevant problems with this analysis. She did not share her side and her actual criticism may in fact be the argument against people who argue against the moon landings. If there is no way to prove or disprove the usefulness or approach it critically, does it really offer anything? I might propose that an axis of oppression might offer someone an opportunity to find a method of sympathizing, but if sympathy is not enough and if the experience cannot be shared or described to outsiders or overcome, then I might argue something against this form of the theory.
The moral of the story is don't be triggered by pure analysis and measured response. I am not an intersectionalist BTW certainly not the kind that thinks a lack of experience is a permanent sympathy disability.
Yes . Function very much obscured by political bias ... I would never pass this on to a young person
All of you guys may or may not agree. Do you realize that no one has expressed a stance other than me. Too bad I failed and assumed which direction you are coming from and which direction you think the speaker is going. Biased in which way? Which is the wrong way and which is the right way?
example?
Edit: Nevermind, I found it.
Had to stop at 39 min, what a mess at that point.
Not worthy of the Royal Institute . Sad to see the politics infiltrated.
Yeah... I thought I had clicked on a TED Talk... Jeezzz... PC in science makes no science.
@@michaelabbet8920 This isn't the cryptic crossword forum.
Agreed. Smart does not equal wise. Another Leftard who builds strawmen and thinks she is tearing it down, not realizing all she is doing is firmly solidifying her confirmation bias. She is not using math, there is no deductive reasoning. She is projecting.
@@jaredhouston4223 I think the word is commutative or non-' in her case.
What is mathematics?
Unless you have seriously done some philosophy of math and of science you should NOT make statements like "there is no place for politics in mathematics"
No Free Ride, you just trolled a copy of your answer. As a reaction to your use of the word 'leftards':
so many righ'duh'rds feel this is all wrong. That is because they feel they may have power, but no arguments.
"Math is the language of the universe" (myself or somente else that I dont know), and this is probably the deepest phrase anyone can make
She really needs to stop connecting all of her sentences with "and", "or", and :but"
Wait... some chick is going to lecture me, a man, about logic?... THAT'LL BE THE DAY.
31' 09" An utterly preposterous comment stream starts. Well RI, that was my last renewal of membership. I hope the lenders call in the mortgages and put the venerable institution out of its self-inflicted misery.
Very nice discussion about the effectiveness of Pure Mathematics
*To all the people who think that there was too much politics in this talk:*
The political ideas you object to were examples for the application of mathematical, i. e. analytical, thinking, and how it could help to understand the world and other people.
*The speaker has not tried with one word to persuade others of political opinions.*
The speaker has not proselytised any ideas, except for seeking understanding and analyse the positions of other people instead of shouting them down, to improve the climate of any debate.
I wish I could like your comment a couple more times so that it could be on top so that people can read it. I think that I think in the fashion that was demonstrated in this video and in thinking this way about the comments that I have read so far I've come to the conclusion that many of the commenters haven't applied those skills before leaving their comments.
If they did they probably wouldn't be crying so hard about the politics that was only present in this video for about 5 min.
@@anteconfig5391
So it seems.
They have noticed a trigger word/phrase upon which they shut down until the talk moved elsewhere.
Thank you. In this sea of dumbasses, the only clever comment I read.
But Greeks simplify over Macedonia, mocking Macedonian people and others, assimilated over time, turning to think read reason in antagonistic propaganda ideology of Romanticism Philhellene in process contradicting whit Christianity by putting monopoly over ancient. See Greeks do not care to understand Macedonians but Macedonans understands Greeks and have empathy over them by not mocking in process worse things asking for revenge. If only try to understand Macedonians Greeks may be understand their problem of fake nationalism that their politicians made to rule the mob by abstract privilege...