Thanks for watching my latest episode. Let me know your thoughts and opinions down below in a comment. If you like my content and want to support me, consider becoming a paying member of the Coleman Unfiltered Community here --> bit.ly/3B1GAlS
I'm a science person with a bachelor & masters in the biological chemistry field. I have always considered psychology as science until I had to study it myself for the medical entrance exam, and it blew my mind away how vague and contradicting it was, there was literal no to weak proof of theories that were being taught as literal eternal truth and I'm shook it is being taught to students who will be medical doctors.
WiwaytI’m tww wrtbut wrt wwearing wwwwwy wwtwt w wwwtwwwwwwywwwuwwwttttwwwwwttwtwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwtwwwwwuwuuwtwwtwtwwtwuytuiiwwwwwtwwwwwwwwwtwwwwwtwtawuwwwwu we we we ruwtwwwww uuwa wwywwwwwwwyywtwwwwwwwwwwwtwtwtwww Terra wwTara wtwwwwtuww wwwwy you wyou wwwwwttwwwtwuuuwtywtuwwwwtwywetwwttwtuwtwwtewwwwtttwtwwwwwwwwwwwywtwwwwwttttwtwwwwwwywwwwwtwuwwuwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwywuwwwwwwwwwwwwttttwtwwwtwwwttwuwwwwwtwytuwwwwtwtwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ara u
WwttwiI’m wondering wwwwhy wwwere w wwy twwwtwwytuwtwtuwwwttwtywtwtrtwttwwwwwwtwwwtwwtwwywtywwwwttwwtttwwttwtwwwwwwuwuwtyywwwwwy to try try try wtuww twiw uwti wwwwwwy w we’re so wwtso tso rwtt w wwt wawt twt are were wywuwwywwuwwwwwwwa wet wwtawtaw w week w wwwwywtwwwtwtwwwtwuwwwwrwww
@Mathias Rennó Chaves Nope, biology has real hard evidence. I'm from the biology & chemistry field too. From evolution to speciation, there are fossil and bio markers of evidence. U can't claim a random theory in biology and make it a fact.
@Mathias Rennó Chaves physics, chemistry & biology are hard sciences they follow criterias to be called as science which are as follows clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability, to be called as science.(psychology may sometimes have biological and hard science amalgamation but mostly its ideas and theories are vague and doesn't have anything to do with biological core concepts and same is the case with sociology), so these better fit into humanities rather than science category that include all areas of physics, chemistry and biology
Subconscious is only information that is processed without conscious thought. This is what allows us to act out of instinct, which has huge advantages in nature because it can allow you to make decisions and take actions that require speed that simply isn't possible through conscious processing.
My mother died when I was 18 years old, quickly, from brain cancer. I experienced the same thing where I sobbed uncontrollably around 7 years later out of nowhere during a moment that wasn't sad or in the realm of taking care of my dying mother but something about what was currently going on took me back to that moment when I was 18. The odd thing is, when I was taking care of my mother during that time I didn't really cry that much.
Great conversation! Geneticist here-- 23 and me can largely be thought of to genetics what Freud is to psychology. Very influential in communicating a new field to the public, gets the big picture-- but most of the details are wrong (like the "public speaker gene").
I'm ASD/AS and some ADHD symptoms but neither bothered me and I think might help me much in many situations. Even though I can get distracted momentarily I have great working memory and can multi-task much better than most ND people. In watching this on my tablet while streaming on my TV and doing something on my phone right now which is never a problem for me because I'm so used to it. It's not really what you have but how well you're able to adapt and use it to your advantage.
Fellow ADD-er here! I completely relate to what you're saying. My ADD serves me well with the ability to do multiple things, and some of the modes of hyper-focus (where I become obsessed with things) can help me professionally as a graphic designer and an artist. One downside; If you read studies on ADD/ADHD, there is also a heavy correlation between addiction and impulsive behavior. After a long struggle with alcohol, I'm now 3.5 years sober but still indulge in the green with my friends from time-to-time. I do wonder if the ADD is just some form of a blanket diagnosis, or if perhaps I just simply have different levels of cognition. I think about my mom who was diagnosed with Fibromyalgia, long before auto-immune diagnoses appeared in the public domain. Either way, and luckliy, it serves me well professionally although I had struggles learning as young child. It's all good! Take care!
@John Young yeah, I'm a techie and helps me with that a lot but yeah I've been addicted to a lions share of stuff throughout my life so definitely know what that's like. I can't stand the smell or taste of alcohol so if it wasn't for that I'm sure I'd have been an alcoholic too with how easily it's available. Not sure if it was the ADD causing it though. I used to have GAD most of my life and was just self medicating with anything I could get my hands on. Once I got that taken care of I quit almost everything on the spot including heroin as I no longer needed it. Now I can do some weed once in a blue mood but definitely no urge to smoke an 8th a day like I used to just stop I could get out of bed. Labels of syndromes are not that useful, I agree. My mother got diagnosed with MS over 20 years ago and I'm almost 100% it's wrong because she's almost 70 now and perfectly mobile and just has a few annoying things to deal with but nothing like what I've seen other MS sufferers dealing with. Doctors like to think medicine is a science when it's reality it's just an informed art at best and guessing game at worst. I've never had issues learning as a kid but I wasn't exactly normal and burnt out by highschool after that took me a while to get back to being functional. Been great the last couple of years though so can't complain. C'est la vie... Keep up keeping on!
I wonder how useful it is to provide psychological diagnoses in many cases. Like high functioning autism that presents as someone that is just a bit socially awkward. The young people today with all of their labels gives me the impression that their diagnoses are used more as excuses than a starting point to improve. My father got his bachelorette degree in this field in the late 60s and calls it voodoo. He went on to the business field for his Masters.
High Functioning Autism is not just feeling a bit socially awkward. How demeaning and ignorant you are of this very debilitating condition. My daughter has HFA which used to be called Asperger's, her condition affects every single part of her life, not just socially 😡
Diagnosis of neurodevelopmental conditions (like autism) & mental illnesses are arts not sciences & cannot be evidenced as physical conditions can. Many people are diagnosed incorrectly (I used to work in a diagnostic service & saw this many times). Also diagnoses are politicised, become popular & fashionable (like autism). This dilutes understanding & data. If someone really had high functioning autism it should affect someone's life more profoundly than that & cause actual difficulties. But for many with the diagnosis, they don't actually have the condition & so don't have the problems, more just a handy label that can be used like a get out of jail free card or oppression card
My cousin who is now in 40s was never told as child they had autism. Has and drives own vehicle, yes lives with parents still, but has own life. I do not say this snarkily, I am saying it sincerely. Sometimes it is hard for parents to let their child learn how to do life their own way, I was one of those parents myself. I am saying this now in hindsight. May you be always loved on your own journey.💛
@@jayjaydubful that's what I'm getting at. These kids that say they have all sorts of diagnoses seem to simply be poorly adjusted. I can take a quiz that says I'm on the spectrum but I'm fine. I just don't like strangers. Seems very logical. Now being a poorly adjusted human trying to live within society probably does need some help to become a well functioning adult. It just doesn't really mean that they have a life long condition that can be used as an excuse for inappropriate behavior. Temple Grandin is an excellent example of a woman with actual high functioning autism who went on to make something great of herself.
An agent with virtually any goal will also have the goal to survive because it is much easier to achieve your goals if you exist, compared to not existing.
Wait, this has been out for 7 months and I haven’t watched it yet?! Whaaa? How’d I miss it? Yes! Score. I know what I’m listening to when I clean my room tomorrow 😊
Regarding asparagus pee smell. I don’t think that it’s that some people’s smell and others don’t, but rather that some people can smell it, while others can’t. I’ve experienced this directly, standing beside a friend while peeing at the urinals. I said to him “Ah, you had asparagus for lunch”. He looked at strangely and said “How do you know.” And I said “What, you can’t smell it?” His response was “What are you talking about, what smell?”
Regarding art, and for that matter, the current AI language abilities… they’re clearly not generating anything new. Now it can be argued that creativity isn’t doing that either, but there’s something qualitatively different about music before Nirvana and music after. AI is simply shuffling and rearranging existing parts. So to say it’s already on par with human art I think is a massive misunderstanding of what’s happening.
I don't know how you see they _clearly_ don't create anything new, for example the very same uncanny valley of human figures produced by the first midjourney was kinda be to me. In any case, most of humans most of the times copy each other with variations, that's where styles and periods are coming from basically isn't it
Very astute observation, Jared. I suppose one could argue similar for that of Humans, as we take influences from other cultures, other Epochs, and unite those (style, tastes, sounds, instruments, etc) we personally like into a ‘new’. HOWEVER, as I consider this, we do not usually describe such as a new Creative work.. at best, we simply describe it by all its individual parts of influence.. The unique creator is unique because of their ability to create a truly authentic new form of art/ style/ musical composition/ architecture..
@@saintlybeginnings that’s why I said “same could be said about (human) creativity.” However, there’s undeniably a level of self reflection and recursive reasoning, depth insight, which hasn’t even slightly begun in these algorithms. I’m not saying it can’t be done and I may be, from the looks of things lately, wrong but I also think that will take a couple decades still.
@@therainman7777 Sam Altman as well as most other leaders in the field have said this, and after learning a good bit how the systems work and their shortcomings, it seems clear to me.
It is *not true* that most of what we're sure about in the past is false. No, our memories are pretty good. Just far from perfect. I remember where I used to work, what states I've visited, what cars I've owned ... I could go on and on. For the most part, our memories are *not* invented.
Awesome you got to talk with Paul. Just started his book so this is a pleasant surprise! Still waiting for ya to talk with Destiny/Bonnell that's a crossover/dialogue we need to hear. Much respect to you both
In regards to the title of the video, kinda of yes. I got a degree in Psychology, and only look back and ask what was I thinking. I guess since I took AP psychology in high school and did really well, I thought psychology would teach me how to understand human beings and thinking in general better. And like how the guest spoke of studying things like stoicism, Christianity, and self help books were more beneficial than looking at studies from Psychology papers, especially in this age where the thought in the back of your mind is "is this repeatable?"
Agreed. I was high school sophomore fast tracked to university where I studied psychology. Quickly apparent this “science” was built on shifty sand. The Quackademics were very screwed up, confused. Like moths to flame the field attracts the most unbalanced. Just as the police “Force” attracts bully’s. Subsequent yrs I’ve gone to a few therapists only to be significantly poorer & highly disappointed. Mental health is overrated. Misery is the human condition. Prison planet. Evolution is struggle. I accept that. Mother Nature is my daily salvation.
As a student in biotech, I'm really disappointed its not applied to psychology. Which I'm considering as a major to get out of the extensive math requirements. Personally, I don't believe math has a place in biology degree programs. That's what mathematicians could be for in labs. If someone wants to be a TV show writer, they don't require them to understand the technology behind streaming services.
You don't know much about psychology even though you have a psychology degree. The reason why you think psychology is useless is because you don't have experience in applied psychology.
Coleman, I think just about every adult knows what it is like to go to the computer for one thing and then get sidetracked doing another thing. Go upstairs for something and get caught doing another. Totally normal.
If you have someone in your life that gives you honest feedback - you are blessed. Outside persepective is at least equal and probably more important than inner if you are interested in getting to the truth. We bullshit ourselves CONSTANTLY to justify our own thoughts, feelings and behaviors. Think about this - most people live their entire lives without seeing themselves from the outside. Imagine if you were unknowningly filmed all day long and had to watch that film at the end of the day - don't you think you would be shocked? Have you ever heard your voice recorded? The point is that we are social beings but really have NO IDEA how the world sees us, not really. It's sad, but I think it's good for self-preservation. If we really knew how we were viewed we would probably go crazy or end it all.
I agree with all you say except the last bit. I think many people are tortured by self perception & are viewed more lovingly by others. At (good) funerals its possible to see how other people view someone & often its beautiful & it feels sad that the person wasn't there to hear it.
@@jayjaydubful I agree with you that it goes both ways. We are our own worst critic for sure. I agree that we don't see the good in ourselves that others see in us. However, I also believe that we don't see the bad (or the faults if you prefer) within us that others can plainly see. If you have someone in your life that can give you an honest appraisal of both, you're one of the lucky ones :)
Instant rejuvenation without sleep would be an absolute crown jewel. Consider an analogy to pain felt during a toothache. Without any dental work, the pain drags and drags and drags in agony. But with the right anesthetic a dentist can remove that tooth in a matter of minutes, and thus reduce the total time felt in pain quite a bit. Nobody misses the days when toothaches ruined entire weeks - We want it over and done with. Same is true for insomnia. Almost nothing good comes from insomnia.
Hi Coleman, I highly suggest you interview Roberto Kastrup, who founded Analytic Idealism. I think he has the most satisfactory solution to the hard problem of consciousness is an all around brilliant human being.
Ai is simply a VC marketing term for a tool that relies on unlimited access to the internet archives to plagiarize without guilt nor shame. It's a digitalized form of putting monkeys behind typewriters to generate, occasionally, coherent texts.
"There might be some mysteryes that our brain as a tool is ill suited to actually solving" Sure, but no. That's why we created formal languages which we can use to describe behavior. Our brain wasn't made to understand calculus either, or quantum phisics, which is completely counter intuitive to our senses, yet we created mathematical models that are simply right. And when a problem is too big, as in Agoustine's bucket analogy, we can break it in a million pieces before solving it, even if one man can't fit all inside his mind. Yeah, we have our limits, but I find this definition of the limit of our capacity to understand short sighted.
How to make a typical day feel longer: get a neuralink V4.1 and give yourself bipolar disorder. You’ll have days that feel extraordinarily long, but you’ll also have entire months flash by like nothing. You’ll also have typical days if you’re lucky. The pendulum swing between mania/hypomania and depression seems to create a very wide spectrum of time perception. For me at least. Depressed days generally feel longer, but at the same time anxiety felt during hypomanic or manic episodes can make time slow quite a bit (which is one type of mixed phase... feels manic-y, yet somehow things move slow with anxiety, and it kind of stops you in your tracks. It’s very, very hard to describe.) Anxiety-free hypomanic days generally fly by pretty quickly. Manic psychosis is a completely unique time spectrum. Will psychosis ever be a topic on this podcast? It’s very rare, but it’s even less understood.
It would've been great it you and Bloom actually had a conversation about whether psychology is a real science. Only your first question addressed this. Misleading video titles are extremely annoying!
So outside of a chromosomal breakage during mitosis, you will get exactly 50% of your genes from each parent. Under no circumstances will you get something like 70% from one parent and 30% from another parent. That’s just not the way it works. When you create the gametes each gamete gets half of the chromosomes from the somatic cells. And then, when the two gametes meet, you have a full set.
I have a graduate degree in psychology, and close friends in the field. It is quite diverse, everything from nonsense pseudoscience to very tight science. You cannot make a summary judgment. It is just careless thinking to treat it as all being of the same character. It isn't.
1:30:00 Here you guys are discussing the distinction between legitimate mental illness and personality/character defects. In the case of the former, the subject is afflicted; in the case of the latter, the subject is the affliction.
Psychology is a term used for the study of the 'mind and brain. It requires at least a 'middle class' awareness of neurology that is the acrhitectural layout of the brain. It is not a science unless there are physically existing variables. These productions do not supply that. There are many books and psychological models. They contradict them selves. I don't buy any of the books, but I did do the academic reading list and I did provide the physical qualification for what i wrote in my paper. I have not seen this done in mainstream media.
ChatGPT is bad at context. It seems to forget what the overall point of a conversation is fairly regularly, and even hallucinates entire conversations that didn't, in fact, occur. That's where we're going to be stuck for a while, I believe.
The source has never mattered in contemporary music (well slight over statement) but I’ve have always been frustrated that the author of classic songs was never mentioned in the music of Elvis for example. It would just be Hound Dog by Elvis Presley. Additionally, there is already a lot of auto tune and tech manipulating what we hear and this will explode. Perhaps there’ll be a renaissance in raw acoustic music…
I've become more alligned with David Deutsch on the problem of consciousness. Our minds are universal explainers, different than chickens or any other animal. It's a lack of knowledge, not a hard limit that has kept us from understanding.
Coleman, regarding the consciousness issue, may I suggest you look into the work of Antonio Damasio...he is a very famous neuroscientist and his explanations I would suggest are more advanced than that of Pauls....the root of it is homeostasis...the same force that has governed life since bacteria
Science is a conceptual creation of the human mind. Psychology is the study of the mind that conceptualized science. The concept of science exists within a particular operation of the human mind. The mind precedes science. The mind is greater than science. Science is a limited parameter within human thinking. Psychology is, IMO, often an attempt to reduce the mind to fit the parameters of science. The question "Is Psychology a Fake Science?" presumes that the parameters of science are sufficient to explore, judge and quantify the parameters of the human mind. IMO. the question places science above the mind, which is ludicrous because the mind is of primary necessity to conduct any scientific inquiry. To make the mind subject to science is to deify science, which will dehumanize the mind.
For the strongest case for worrying about alignment please google the AI Alignment startup from Connor Leahy called Conjecture. Misalignment is a small but increasing probability for a game over scenario, so its worth taking very seriously. The discussion here is based on intuition, and its clear neither of you haven't really read into alignment.
I was fascinated by their discussion about whether or not a person is the best knower of his or her own mind. It sounds like Freud did not believe that. I agree that most people, most of the time, do not have much insight into their own motivations and that an outside observer-one who knows them intimately-may often be a better analyst. But I do believe that an individual *in principle* can become the best expert on their own mind. This may be done through contemplative practices (meditation, contemplative prayer, etc), psychedelics, or any other psychospiritual experience. It’s just that most people will never do that at any deep level. The humanistic psychologists (Maslow, Rogers, etc) strongly believed each of us contains our own wisdom to heal our minds. That’s not to say we can always do it alone; a good humanistic therapist is a neutral reflecting pool that does not analyze the client, as if they were more expert on the clients’ mind, but rather listens openly in a way that helps the client meet their own mind. The therapist draws out the wisdom that the client didn’t know they had. This is a much more empowering philosophy of psychology, in my view, and if adopted by the mainstream, would result in more compassionate and humane treatment of those with acute mental suffering-and those with the more ordinary kind of sufferings, too.
It just seems to me that these kind of contentions are unfalsifiable and not scientific, but rather post hoc attempts to fit certain assumptions into evolutionary theory. It’s definitely a nice story, and it sounds plausible, but those types of statements are just opinions (in my opinion lol)
@@mbmurphy777 Coleman presents as a smart guy but you can clearly see he's out of his waters. I'm surprised that he's viewed as an expert by his followers.
@titaniumskunkogkush4365 I've been following him for years. Never considered him an expert in regards to any of the conversations he's had. Maybe knowledgeable. The guest is the supposed expert
@@titaniumskunkogkush4365 I'm not sure you know much about psychology if you think Coleman doesn't know much. I teach psych. He's very up on things, and able to talk at this high level with one of our most respected psychologists in this conversation.
The asparagus thing can change which leads me to believe it’s not a cut and dried genetic variant. I had the issue until about 10 years ago and now I don’t. Unless they changed asparagus which is possible like choosing to grow a specific variety, maybe a GMO, that doesn’t cause the issue for anybody. Seems fairly simple and more likely that a single gene can be manipulated or bred out of a plant than humans having a single gene directly responsible for it.
Two important points about A.I. First, it's not (generally) open source so we can't look at it's internal coding and determine that someone didn't hand-write code to make it better understand specific quirks about language. Therefore we can't make any accurate statements about the Large Language Models learning language differently from us. Second, and _this is the important one from the perspective of a software developer_. These things aren't intelligent, they're massive auto-complete engines. Given a prompt, they look at everything they've been trained on and pick the best answer by weight. This means that if we give them a task, but we've included the Matrix, Terminator, Logan's Run, etc in their educational material, we may not like what we get as an answer. Imagine if two adjacent cities each launched an LLM based AI in order to automate the city. Imagine if they decided that, in order to properly care for their own city, they had to take resources from the other city (say potable water). You could legitimately have two AIs at war with each other by ramming their automated vehicles into the other cities vehicles (automated or not).
Psychology is not a science by the criteria for science -- key among them: objectivity and quantification. Psychology is about subjectivity (else it is biology). And quantification of mental happenings (belief, attitudes, happiness...) has no rationally agreed on or methodologically sanctioned units of measurement. Full stop.
Humans have a soul. And how about spirtuality. Sometimes I know things... Call this person....but it makes no sense to me... then later find out. I should have done... not for myself but the other person needed it. Suddenly getting this urge to pray for someone... later finding out... it was nessesary. Humility.. is being aware we know a lot less then we think we do. Learning to love, to live out of peace.. honoring nature, in communication with God... Is what matters the most. Is not about knowledge but about true and real connecting.
Hasn't Tomasello explained how languages are learnt without inate structure in his book Constructing a Language? The context of human learning is richer, with an understanding of the intention behind an utterance plugged into the mix. The evolutionary factor underlying language learning isn't inate grammatical structure, it's a broader adaptation to cultural learning involving shared attention and copying that humans possess but non-human primates do not.
He 's just wrong on his analysis of where those quotes came to be. Gpt came up with that because it will simply spit out text to any input. Gpt is constantly recommending me books that doesn't exist, usually when I ask if there are books about some combination of arcane subjects. When I look up those books a funny thing sometimes happens, I'm able to locate the original post from which the string of text that was presented to me as the title of the book, usually somewhere on github. It's just random. When gpt answers "I can't do that", it's not the gpt model that is doing that, but the filter. There's a filter before and after any query sent to gpt that will handle these more personalized reponses. It handles anything that violates their terms of service, errors in output, little adjustments to make the experiense better, more conversational stuff... It's great, but it's not magic.
Why non-biologists should not discuss DNA: you always get 50 percent of your DNA from each parent absent a weird defect in the process. But with siblings it is correct that it is only usually 50 percent and possible results range from 0 to 100. I was unable to find the distribution curve.
Professor Bloom addresses your second point. There are enough genes in the human genome that, barring twins, it would take an enormous statistical outlier for the percentage of shared DNA between siblings to stray very far from 50 percent. I would be very surprised if that distribution curve wasn't very narrow.
@@stonecoldscubasteveo4827 Yeah, you are correct. You’re basically calculating a sampling distribution with a very large number of samples, which goes into the denominator when calculating the variance. Extremely large denominator => extremely low variance.
Psychologists and the general population should take Popper’s criticism seriously, most of psychology is unfalsifiable. But that does not mean that it is based on no evidence/empiricism and a good psychological theory strives for the plausible and probable. And in certain cases it actually predicts the scientific. A better example than the unconscious is Freud’s attention to transference and counter transference which neural scientists can now point to as real, likely associated with mirror neurons and has a paradoxical function of human consciousness. We are fools to overlook the implications of it. But psychology is riddled with vague issues that fall outside of science like “normalcy” which is often a social and ethical question, or “health” which can be disputed, or “maturity” etc. I think Psychologist should be humbled by Popper. At the same time it is a HUGE mistake to dismiss psychology and psychotherapy. It is one of the best tools we have. When psychoanalytic psychology was knocked off its pedestal, for example, much more ideological philosophies have been employed to take its place and fill the void.
Most psychology studies are highly correlational. There are serious attempts to control for variables, but dealing with real living humans means not all variables can be controlled for. And even then, because the real world is full of variables outcomes may not match lab tests. So yeah...psychology is an imperfect, soft science.
When speaking of "nature" vs. "nurture", there's a critical factor in how people turn out which is commonly overlooked: Individual agency "Nature" comprises what one is initially equipped with, while "nurture" is the situational conditions one has to navigate. However, what ultimately determines the particulars of how people turn out is their own freely made choices within their range of available options.
PS: We have absolutely nothing in common with computers. They exist but they don't live. And computers have no more musical genius than a piano or saxophone. PPS: Mother knew all my faults came from Dad.😉 (Green Fire, UK) 🌈🦉
Psychology is a field made up of subjectively shaped theories held up by interpreted implications of occasional hard data. It should be considered a branch of philosophy that functions much like a religion. This is not to say that it doesn’t have use value. I think it has made many insights that have proven helpful, but it has also produced total fantasies. Blum talks about popular psychology that one might get in a Ted talk or self-help book. Those two also vary in quality and credibility. But I think they have a far better record than the science of psychology.
Agreed. I’ve always considered it more an art than a science. Like in painting, there are general rules for form, color, shading, perspective, proportion, etc., that don’t always apply to the work in question. The best psych can offer are general rules of thumb. Pretty useful, but not nearly enough to grant psychology the standing and influence it currency wields, especially in courts of law.
1:26:49 "... symptoms a detriment in any society...paranoid schizophrenia.." Actually schizophrenia is seen as spirit possession in many societies and in some is seen as a blessing. The "possessed" are seen as potential oracles. So not a detriment neccessarily.
If we want to solve complex social issues, psychology and psychiatry have a lot LESS to offer than other social sciences such sociology, political science & criminology. A macro analysis is always more valuable, in my humble opinion.
I think it is foolish to dismiss a "survival" instinct as something that AI can't have simply because we evolved it and the AI didn't. If this argument had merit suicide wouldn't be a thing. My reasoning is that if we can negate the survival instinct through intelligence through consciousness than it suggest that an AI could adopt a survival instinct by the same intellectual processes that evolved beings adopt suicidal tendencies. We have no basics to state a being can't nor wouldn't adopt a desire to survive. Secondly even if this was a minority result given how prevalent suicide is among humans it could be common enough among AI that it becomes a problem.
I'm only really commenting on the defense of psychology as a science here. Bloom's acknowledgement of the problems with the field is good and his examples are fine. The issue for me is that discovery of a phenomenon itself is insufficient to make any field scientific especially where there are essentially deal breakers. Replication cannot be overstated how vital this is to the scientific method and the other is falsifiability. Because of the less hard nature of psychology the field needs to work even harder than the chemistry and physics (hard science) at replication but in reality they field is in the totally opposite direction.
Current "AI" (read, really advanced algorithms) is not conscious. its not even close. Not in the same category, planet, universe. The Models "Know" nothing they're not capable of knowing. They don't "learn" anything they generate statistic tables. This conversation is embarrassing.
not sure memory is so elusive; I have plenty of memories of places in childhood that were absolutely dead-on-- specific places that I liked, and so on, and that I drove to decades later without looking at a map, for instance. I find Bloom too doctrinaire on minimalism in psychology in general.
Thanks for watching my latest episode. Let me know your thoughts and opinions down below in a comment. If you like my content and want to support me, consider becoming a paying member of the Coleman Unfiltered Community here --> bit.ly/3B1GAlS
Love your t-shirt! The colour is great on you. What brand is it??
I'm a science person with a bachelor & masters in the biological chemistry field. I have always considered psychology as science until I had to study it myself for the medical entrance exam, and it blew my mind away how vague and contradicting it was, there was literal no to weak proof of theories that were being taught as literal eternal truth and I'm shook it is being taught to students who will be medical doctors.
WiwaytI’m tww wrtbut wrt wwearing wwwwwy wwtwt w wwwtwwwwwwywwwuwwwttttwwwwwttwtwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwtwwwwwuwuuwtwwtwtwwtwuytuiiwwwwwtwwwwwwwwwtwwwwwtwtawuwwwwu we we we ruwtwwwww uuwa wwywwwwwwwyywtwwwwwwwwwwwtwtwtwww Terra wwTara wtwwwwtuww wwwwy you wyou wwwwwttwwwtwuuuwtywtuwwwwtwywetwwttwtuwtwwtewwwwtttwtwwwwwwwwwwwywtwwwwwttttwtwwwwwwywwwwwtwuwwuwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwywuwwwwwwwwwwwwttttwtwwwtwwwttwuwwwwwtwytuwwwwtwtwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ara u
WwttwiI’m wondering wwwwhy wwwere w wwy twwwtwwytuwtwtuwwwttwtywtwtrtwttwwwwwwtwwwtwwtwwywtywwwwttwwtttwwttwtwwwwwwuwuwtyywwwwwy to try try try wtuww twiw uwti wwwwwwy w we’re so wwtso tso rwtt w wwt wawt twt are were wywuwwywwuwwwwwwwa wet wwtawtaw w week w wwwwywtwwwtwtwwwtwuwwwwrwww
I'm a biologist and see the same thing in biology.
@Mathias Rennó Chaves Nope, biology has real hard evidence. I'm from the biology & chemistry field too. From evolution to speciation, there are fossil and bio markers of evidence. U can't claim a random theory in biology and make it a fact.
@Mathias Rennó Chaves physics, chemistry & biology are hard sciences they follow criterias to be called as science which are as follows clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability, to be called as science.(psychology may sometimes have biological and hard science amalgamation but mostly its ideas and theories are vague and doesn't have anything to do with biological core concepts and same is the case with sociology), so these better fit into humanities rather than science category that include all areas of physics, chemistry and biology
Subconscious is only information that is processed without conscious thought.
This is what allows us to act out of instinct, which has huge advantages in nature because it can allow you to make decisions and take actions that require speed that simply isn't possible through conscious processing.
Coleman, it's really great to see you win him over with the quality of your questions. I think he really enjoyed being your guest. I know I did.
My mother died when I was 18 years old, quickly, from brain cancer. I experienced the same thing where I sobbed uncontrollably around 7 years later out of nowhere during a moment that wasn't sad or in the realm of taking care of my dying mother but something about what was currently going on took me back to that moment when I was 18. The odd thing is, when I was taking care of my mother during that time I didn't really cry that much.
Great conversation! Geneticist here-- 23 and me can largely be thought of to genetics what Freud is to psychology. Very influential in communicating a new field to the public, gets the big picture-- but most of the details are wrong (like the "public speaker gene").
Bloom caused Coleman to think about whether or not he actually loves his girlfriend. That was an amazing moment at 19:02
I'm ASD/AS and some ADHD symptoms but neither bothered me and I think might help me much in many situations. Even though I can get distracted momentarily I have great working memory and can multi-task much better than most ND people. In watching this on my tablet while streaming on my TV and doing something on my phone right now which is never a problem for me because I'm so used to it. It's not really what you have but how well you're able to adapt and use it to your advantage.
Fellow ADD-er here! I completely relate to what you're saying. My ADD serves me well with the ability to do multiple things, and some of the modes of hyper-focus (where I become obsessed with things) can help me professionally as a graphic designer and an artist. One downside; If you read studies on ADD/ADHD, there is also a heavy correlation between addiction and impulsive behavior. After a long struggle with alcohol, I'm now 3.5 years sober but still indulge in the green with my friends from time-to-time. I do wonder if the ADD is just some form of a blanket diagnosis, or if perhaps I just simply have different levels of cognition. I think about my mom who was diagnosed with Fibromyalgia, long before auto-immune diagnoses appeared in the public domain. Either way, and luckliy, it serves me well professionally although I had struggles learning as young child. It's all good! Take care!
@John Young yeah, I'm a techie and helps me with that a lot but yeah I've been addicted to a lions share of stuff throughout my life so definitely know what that's like. I can't stand the smell or taste of alcohol so if it wasn't for that I'm sure I'd have been an alcoholic too with how easily it's available. Not sure if it was the ADD causing it though. I used to have GAD most of my life and was just self medicating with anything I could get my hands on. Once I got that taken care of I quit almost everything on the spot including heroin as I no longer needed it. Now I can do some weed once in a blue mood but definitely no urge to smoke an 8th a day like I used to just stop I could get out of bed. Labels of syndromes are not that useful, I agree. My mother got diagnosed with MS over 20 years ago and I'm almost 100% it's wrong because she's almost 70 now and perfectly mobile and just has a few annoying things to deal with but nothing like what I've seen other MS sufferers dealing with. Doctors like to think medicine is a science when it's reality it's just an informed art at best and guessing game at worst. I've never had issues learning as a kid but I wasn't exactly normal and burnt out by highschool after that took me a while to get back to being functional. Been great the last couple of years though so can't complain. C'est la vie... Keep up keeping on!
You sound like every other human 👍
I wonder how useful it is to provide psychological diagnoses in many cases. Like high functioning autism that presents as someone that is just a bit socially awkward. The young people today with all of their labels gives me the impression that their diagnoses are used more as excuses than a starting point to improve.
My father got his bachelorette degree in this field in the late 60s and calls it voodoo. He went on to the business field for his Masters.
High Functioning Autism is not just feeling a bit socially awkward. How demeaning and ignorant you are of this very debilitating condition. My daughter has HFA which used to be called Asperger's, her condition affects every single part of her life, not just socially 😡
Diagnosis of neurodevelopmental conditions (like autism) & mental illnesses are arts not sciences & cannot be evidenced as physical conditions can. Many people are diagnosed incorrectly (I used to work in a diagnostic service & saw this many times). Also diagnoses are politicised, become popular & fashionable (like autism). This dilutes understanding & data. If someone really had high functioning autism it should affect someone's life more profoundly than that & cause actual difficulties. But for many with the diagnosis, they don't actually have the condition & so don't have the problems, more just a handy label that can be used like a get out of jail free card or oppression card
My cousin who is now in 40s was never told as child they had autism. Has and drives own vehicle, yes lives with parents still, but has own life. I do not say this snarkily, I am saying it sincerely. Sometimes it is hard for parents to let their child learn how to do life their own way, I was one of those parents myself. I am saying this now in hindsight. May you be always loved on your own journey.💛
@@jayjaydubful that's what I'm getting at. These kids that say they have all sorts of diagnoses seem to simply be poorly adjusted. I can take a quiz that says I'm on the spectrum but I'm fine. I just don't like strangers. Seems very logical.
Now being a poorly adjusted human trying to live within society probably does need some help to become a well functioning adult. It just doesn't really mean that they have a life long condition that can be used as an excuse for inappropriate behavior.
Temple Grandin is an excellent example of a woman with actual high functioning autism who went on to make something great of herself.
An agent with virtually any goal will also have the goal to survive because it is much easier to achieve your goals if you exist, compared to not existing.
Wait, this has been out for 7 months and I haven’t watched it yet?! Whaaa? How’d I miss it? Yes! Score. I know what I’m listening to when I clean my room tomorrow 😊
Regarding asparagus pee smell. I don’t think that it’s that some people’s smell and others don’t, but rather that some people can smell it, while others can’t. I’ve experienced this directly, standing beside a friend while peeing at the urinals. I said to him “Ah, you had asparagus for lunch”. He looked at strangely and said “How do you know.” And I said “What, you can’t smell it?” His response was “What are you talking about, what smell?”
agreed. I looked into this a while ago after a friend said he'd never heard of the phenomenon.
Yes. I can't believe Coleman got this wrong
It's both -- there's a gene for producing it, and there's a gene for smelling it.
@@jayjaydubful his humanity is exposed. AGI Coleman wouldn't have made that mistake.
I really love the way he speaks
Coleman, this is another reason I watch you posts, where else would I see this discussion?
I really appreciate prof. Bloom, would definitely tune in
Regarding art, and for that matter, the current AI language abilities… they’re clearly not generating anything new. Now it can be argued that creativity isn’t doing that either, but there’s something qualitatively different about music before Nirvana and music after. AI is simply shuffling and rearranging existing parts. So to say it’s already on par with human art I think is a massive misunderstanding of what’s happening.
I don't know how you see they _clearly_ don't create anything new, for example the very same uncanny valley of human figures produced by the first midjourney was kinda be to me.
In any case, most of humans most of the times copy each other with variations, that's where styles and periods are coming from basically isn't it
Yeah I definitely disagree that they’re “clearly not creating anything new” and I’m not even sure how you would claim to determine that m
Very astute observation, Jared.
I suppose one could argue similar for that of Humans, as we take influences from other cultures, other Epochs, and unite those (style, tastes, sounds, instruments, etc) we personally like into a ‘new’.
HOWEVER, as I consider this, we do not usually describe such as a new Creative work.. at best, we simply describe it by all its individual parts of influence.. The unique creator is unique because of their ability to create a truly authentic new form of art/ style/ musical composition/ architecture..
@@saintlybeginnings that’s why I said “same could be said about (human) creativity.” However, there’s undeniably a level of self reflection and recursive reasoning, depth insight, which hasn’t even slightly begun in these algorithms.
I’m not saying it can’t be done and I may be, from the looks of things lately, wrong but I also think that will take a couple decades still.
@@therainman7777 Sam Altman as well as most other leaders in the field have said this, and after learning a good bit how the systems work and their shortcomings, it seems clear to me.
It is *not true* that most of what we're sure about in the past is false. No, our memories are pretty good. Just far from perfect. I remember where I used to work, what states I've visited, what cars I've owned ... I could go on and on. For the most part, our memories are *not* invented.
I fully agree with you. I'm surprised more people didn't point this out.
That was nice, I am surely going to check out his new book.
Awesome you got to talk with Paul. Just started his book so this is a pleasant surprise!
Still waiting for ya to talk with Destiny/Bonnell that's a crossover/dialogue we need to hear. Much respect to you both
In regards to the title of the video, kinda of yes. I got a degree in Psychology, and only look back and ask what was I thinking. I guess since I took AP psychology in high school and did really well, I thought psychology would teach me how to understand human beings and thinking in general better. And like how the guest spoke of studying things like stoicism, Christianity, and self help books were more beneficial than looking at studies from Psychology papers, especially in this age where the thought in the back of your mind is "is this repeatable?"
Agreed. I was high school sophomore fast tracked to university where I studied psychology. Quickly apparent this “science” was built on shifty sand. The Quackademics were very screwed up, confused. Like moths to flame the field attracts the most unbalanced. Just as the police “Force” attracts bully’s.
Subsequent yrs I’ve gone to a few therapists only to be significantly poorer & highly disappointed.
Mental health is overrated. Misery is the human condition. Prison planet. Evolution is struggle. I accept that. Mother Nature is my daily salvation.
As a student in biotech, I'm really disappointed its not applied to psychology. Which I'm considering as a major to get out of the extensive math requirements. Personally, I don't believe math has a place in biology degree programs. That's what mathematicians could be for in labs. If someone wants to be a TV show writer, they don't require them to understand the technology behind streaming services.
You don't know much about psychology even though you have a psychology degree.
The reason why you think psychology is useless is because you don't have experience in applied psychology.
Coleman, I think just about every adult knows what it is like to go to the computer for one thing and then get sidetracked doing another thing. Go upstairs for something and get caught doing another. Totally normal.
Yep, totally normal traits are being presented as ADHD. Very convenient to have a big new population to medicate
If you have someone in your life that gives you honest feedback - you are blessed. Outside persepective is at least equal and probably more important than inner if you are interested in getting to the truth. We bullshit ourselves CONSTANTLY to justify our own thoughts, feelings and behaviors. Think about this - most people live their entire lives without seeing themselves from the outside. Imagine if you were unknowningly filmed all day long and had to watch that film at the end of the day - don't you think you would be shocked? Have you ever heard your voice recorded? The point is that we are social beings but really have NO IDEA how the world sees us, not really. It's sad, but I think it's good for self-preservation. If we really knew how we were viewed we would probably go crazy or end it all.
I agree with all you say except the last bit. I think many people are tortured by self perception & are viewed more lovingly by others. At (good) funerals its possible to see how other people view someone & often its beautiful & it feels sad that the person wasn't there to hear it.
@@jayjaydubful I agree with you that it goes both ways. We are our own worst critic for sure. I agree that we don't see the good in ourselves that others see in us. However, I also believe that we don't see the bad (or the faults if you prefer) within us that others can plainly see. If you have someone in your life that can give you an honest appraisal of both, you're one of the lucky ones :)
that intro question & answer was 🔥
He looks like Al Gore's younger brother
Plot twist: he is
Or Brendan Fraser’s older brother…
Disgusting!!
More like the actor in the Beatle juice movie , Jeffrey Jones .
@@ivanpagan5189 I can see that.
Good, thanks!
Instant rejuvenation without sleep would be an absolute crown jewel. Consider an analogy to pain felt during a toothache. Without any dental work, the pain drags and drags and drags in agony. But with the right anesthetic a dentist can remove that tooth in a matter of minutes, and thus reduce the total time felt in pain quite a bit. Nobody misses the days when toothaches ruined entire weeks - We want it over and done with. Same is true for insomnia. Almost nothing good comes from insomnia.
Hi Coleman,
I highly suggest you interview Roberto Kastrup, who founded Analytic Idealism. I think he has the most satisfactory solution to the hard problem of consciousness is an all around brilliant human being.
Is he related to Bernardo kastrup?? He also likes analytical idealism
Ai is simply a VC marketing term for a tool that relies on unlimited access to the internet archives to plagiarize without guilt nor shame. It's a digitalized form of putting monkeys behind typewriters to generate, occasionally, coherent texts.
"There might be some mysteryes that our brain as a tool is ill suited to actually solving"
Sure, but no. That's why we created formal languages which we can use to describe behavior. Our brain wasn't made to understand calculus either, or quantum phisics, which is completely counter intuitive to our senses, yet we created mathematical models that are simply right. And when a problem is too big, as in Agoustine's bucket analogy, we can break it in a million pieces before solving it, even if one man can't fit all inside his mind.
Yeah, we have our limits, but I find this definition of the limit of our capacity to understand short sighted.
How to make a typical day feel longer: get a neuralink V4.1 and give yourself bipolar disorder. You’ll have days that feel extraordinarily long, but you’ll also have entire months flash by like nothing. You’ll also have typical days if you’re lucky. The pendulum swing between mania/hypomania and depression seems to create a very wide spectrum of time perception. For me at least. Depressed days generally feel longer, but at the same time anxiety felt during hypomanic or manic episodes can make time slow quite a bit (which is one type of mixed phase... feels manic-y, yet somehow things move slow with anxiety, and it kind of stops you in your tracks. It’s very, very hard to describe.) Anxiety-free hypomanic days generally fly by pretty quickly. Manic psychosis is a completely unique time spectrum. Will psychosis ever be a topic on this podcast? It’s very rare, but it’s even less understood.
very good episode my man
It would've been great it you and Bloom actually had a conversation about whether psychology is a real science. Only your first question addressed this. Misleading video titles are extremely annoying!
I made this remark after listening to the first hour. I'm unsure whether to listen to the rest of this episode.
So outside of a chromosomal breakage during mitosis, you will get exactly 50% of your genes from each parent. Under no circumstances will you get something like 70% from one parent and 30% from another parent. That’s just not the way it works. When you create the gametes each gamete gets half of the chromosomes from the somatic cells. And then, when the two gametes meet, you have a full set.
Wonder if more people look like their fathers? or mothers? That would be an interesting poll to see results of.
I have a graduate degree in psychology, and close friends in the field. It is quite diverse, everything from nonsense pseudoscience to very tight science. You cannot make a summary judgment. It is just careless thinking to treat it as all being of the same character. It isn't.
I want to know what Plaul Boom has to say on the matter.
1:30:00
Here you guys are discussing the distinction between legitimate mental illness and personality/character defects. In the case of the former, the subject is afflicted; in the case of the latter, the subject is the affliction.
Wow. I love this...
Most professional definition of a crossover I’ve ever seen Lmao
Psychology is a term used for the study of the 'mind and brain. It requires at least a 'middle class' awareness of neurology that is the acrhitectural layout of the brain. It is not a science unless there are physically existing variables. These productions do not supply that. There are many books and psychological models. They contradict them selves. I don't buy any of the books, but I did do the academic reading list and I did provide the physical qualification for what i wrote in my paper. I have not seen this done in mainstream media.
yes it is, coming from a psychology student)
It's a science the way sociology is a science . . .
@@mikesmith542 a pseudoscience with a replication crisis.
@@mikesmith542 No. If you, like me, had to read complex studies on the aetoliogy of ADHD you clearly wouldn't say that.
Just because the mind is more slippery to pin down with precision compared to something like physics doesn't mean it's not a real science.
@@austenpoppy558did you read the results of the many labs 2 study?
ChatGPT is bad at context. It seems to forget what the overall point of a conversation is fairly regularly, and even hallucinates entire conversations that didn't, in fact, occur. That's where we're going to be stuck for a while, I believe.
Its literature and philosophy not science
Yes
Great convo!
Convoy? 🤔
Did anyone else notice that his voice sounds exactly like David Costabile, aka ‘Wags’ from the show Billions?
The source has never mattered in contemporary music (well slight over statement) but I’ve have always been frustrated that the author of classic songs was never mentioned in the music of Elvis for example. It would just be Hound Dog by Elvis Presley. Additionally, there is already a lot of auto tune and tech manipulating what we hear and this will explode. Perhaps there’ll be a renaissance in raw acoustic music…
I've become more alligned with David Deutsch on the problem of consciousness. Our minds are universal explainers, different than chickens or any other animal. It's a lack of knowledge, not a hard limit that has kept us from understanding.
LOL, so Chomsky really *is* wrong about everything all the time? What a surprise (not) 😀
Coleman, regarding the consciousness issue, may I suggest you look into the work of Antonio Damasio...he is a very famous neuroscientist and his explanations I would suggest are more advanced than that of Pauls....the root of it is homeostasis...the same force that has governed life since bacteria
Modern psychology is on the same level as medieval alchemy or phrenology.
argue your cocksure claim
Science is a conceptual creation of the human mind. Psychology is the study of the mind that conceptualized science. The concept of science exists within a particular operation of the human mind. The mind precedes science. The mind is greater than science. Science is a limited parameter within human thinking. Psychology is, IMO, often an attempt to reduce the mind to fit the parameters of science. The question "Is Psychology a Fake Science?" presumes that the parameters of science are sufficient to explore, judge and quantify the parameters of the human mind. IMO. the question places science above the mind, which is ludicrous because the mind is of primary necessity to conduct any scientific inquiry. To make the mind subject to science is to deify science, which will dehumanize the mind.
This is an interesting line of thought.
For the strongest case for worrying about alignment please google the AI Alignment startup from Connor Leahy called Conjecture. Misalignment is a small but increasing probability for a game over scenario, so its worth taking very seriously. The discussion here is based on intuition, and its clear neither of you haven't really read into alignment.
Nails Piaget perfectly, says "I hope I'm pronouncing that right" 😀
I was fascinated by their discussion about whether or not a person is the best knower of his or her own mind. It sounds like Freud did not believe that.
I agree that most people, most of the time, do not have much insight into their own motivations and that an outside observer-one who knows them intimately-may often be a better analyst. But I do believe that an individual *in principle* can become the best expert on their own mind. This may be done through contemplative practices (meditation, contemplative prayer, etc), psychedelics, or any other psychospiritual experience. It’s just that most people will never do that at any deep level.
The humanistic psychologists (Maslow, Rogers, etc) strongly believed each of us contains our own wisdom to heal our minds. That’s not to say we can always do it alone; a good humanistic therapist is a neutral reflecting pool that does not analyze the client, as if they were more expert on the clients’ mind, but rather listens openly in a way that helps the client meet their own mind. The therapist draws out the wisdom that the client didn’t know they had. This is a much more empowering philosophy of psychology, in my view, and if adopted by the mainstream, would result in more compassionate and humane treatment of those with acute mental suffering-and those with the more ordinary kind of sufferings, too.
It just seems to me that these kind of contentions are unfalsifiable and not scientific, but rather post hoc attempts to fit certain assumptions into evolutionary theory. It’s definitely a nice story, and it sounds plausible, but those types of statements are just opinions (in my opinion lol)
@@mbmurphy777 Coleman presents as a smart guy but you can clearly see he's out of his waters. I'm surprised that he's viewed as an expert by his followers.
@@titaniumskunkogkush4365Expert at what?
@@rogerward801 he's an expert at everything. That's what.
@titaniumskunkogkush4365 I've been following him for years. Never considered him an expert in regards to any of the conversations he's had. Maybe knowledgeable. The guest is the supposed expert
I find Psychology somewhat interesting, however to an extent it also sketches me out. I still think sometimes ignorance really is bliss.
Coleman doesn't really know much about psychology. It's evident in this video.
@@titaniumskunkogkush4365 I'm not sure you know much about psychology if you think Coleman doesn't know much. I teach psych. He's very up on things, and able to talk at this high level with one of our most respected psychologists in this conversation.
Dude , I am subscribed with the bell ... and i get NO NOTIFICATIONS about your vids !
The asparagus thing can change which leads me to believe it’s not a cut and dried genetic variant. I had the issue until about 10 years ago and now I don’t. Unless they changed asparagus which is possible like choosing to grow a specific variety, maybe a GMO, that doesn’t cause the issue for anybody. Seems fairly simple and more likely that a single gene can be manipulated or bred out of a plant than humans having a single gene directly responsible for it.
Two important points about A.I. First, it's not (generally) open source so we can't look at it's internal coding and determine that someone didn't hand-write code to make it better understand specific quirks about language. Therefore we can't make any accurate statements about the Large Language Models learning language differently from us. Second, and _this is the important one from the perspective of a software developer_. These things aren't intelligent, they're massive auto-complete engines. Given a prompt, they look at everything they've been trained on and pick the best answer by weight. This means that if we give them a task, but we've included the Matrix, Terminator, Logan's Run, etc in their educational material, we may not like what we get as an answer. Imagine if two adjacent cities each launched an LLM based AI in order to automate the city. Imagine if they decided that, in order to properly care for their own city, they had to take resources from the other city (say potable water). You could legitimately have two AIs at war with each other by ramming their automated vehicles into the other cities vehicles (automated or not).
I like him a lot, always have.🥂
Psychology is not a science by the criteria for science -- key among them: objectivity and quantification. Psychology is about subjectivity (else it is biology). And quantification of mental happenings (belief, attitudes, happiness...) has no rationally agreed on or methodologically sanctioned units of measurement. Full stop.
Humans have a soul.
And how about spirtuality.
Sometimes I know things...
Call this person....but it makes no sense to me... then later find out.
I should have done... not for myself but the other person needed it.
Suddenly getting this urge to pray for someone... later finding out... it was nessesary.
Humility.. is being aware we know a lot less then we think we do.
Learning to love, to live out of peace.. honoring nature, in communication with God...
Is what matters the most.
Is not about knowledge but about true and real connecting.
Coleman is always so stoic, At the end I can't tell if he's tired or just annoyed.
It's just a mild form of autism that Coleman has. He's still a smart guy.
Love love love Catch-22. A must read
Mental illness does not exist. Thomas Szasz died in 2012 but Peter Breggin is still alive; you might like to interview him.
Hasn't Tomasello explained how languages are learnt without inate structure in his book Constructing a Language? The context of human learning is richer, with an understanding of the intention behind an utterance plugged into the mix. The evolutionary factor underlying language learning isn't inate grammatical structure, it's a broader adaptation to cultural learning involving shared attention and copying that humans possess but non-human primates do not.
Animals, insects have complex languages science is only beginning to broach. “Anthropomorphic” has been the most ignorant term in human history.
I'm sure Bloom knows about Tomasello's stuff; he's probably just not terribly convinced by it.
This video has so many ads that it’s hard to watch. I get two ads about every 5 minutes which is unfortunate because I like watching your videos.
Adblock. I don't see any.
@@saracorbin1152 Thanks I will try it!
He 's just wrong on his analysis of where those quotes came to be.
Gpt came up with that because it will simply spit out text to any input. Gpt is constantly recommending me books that doesn't exist, usually when I ask if there are books about some combination of arcane subjects. When I look up those books a funny thing sometimes happens, I'm able to locate the original post from which the string of text that was presented to me as the title of the book, usually somewhere on github. It's just random.
When gpt answers "I can't do that", it's not the gpt model that is doing that, but the filter. There's a filter before and after any query sent to gpt that will handle these more personalized reponses. It handles anything that violates their terms of service, errors in output, little adjustments to make the experiense better, more conversational stuff... It's great, but it's not magic.
Why non-biologists should not discuss DNA: you always get 50 percent of your DNA from each parent absent a weird defect in the process. But with siblings it is correct that it is only usually 50 percent and possible results range from 0 to 100. I was unable to find the distribution curve.
Professor Bloom addresses your second point. There are enough genes in the human genome that, barring twins, it would take an enormous statistical outlier for the percentage of shared DNA between siblings to stray very far from 50 percent. I would be very surprised if that distribution curve wasn't very narrow.
@@stonecoldscubasteveo4827 Yeah, you are correct. You’re basically calculating a sampling distribution with a very large number of samples, which goes into the denominator when calculating the variance. Extremely large denominator => extremely low variance.
You misunderstood his point. He was discussing the heritability of traits like general intelligence, not the heritability of DNA.
Very interesting.
Yes! You said grok💗
Psychologists and the general population should take Popper’s criticism seriously, most of psychology is unfalsifiable.
But that does not mean that it is based on no evidence/empiricism and a good psychological theory strives for the plausible and probable.
And in certain cases it actually predicts the scientific. A better example than the unconscious is Freud’s attention to transference and counter transference which neural scientists can now point to as real, likely associated with mirror neurons and has a paradoxical function of human consciousness. We are fools to overlook the implications of it.
But psychology is riddled with vague issues that fall outside of science like “normalcy” which is often a social and ethical question, or “health” which can be disputed, or “maturity” etc.
I think Psychologist should be humbled by Popper. At the same time it is a HUGE mistake to dismiss psychology and psychotherapy. It is one of the best tools we have.
When psychoanalytic psychology was knocked off its pedestal, for example, much more ideological philosophies have been employed to take its place and fill the void.
Most psychology studies are highly correlational. There are serious attempts to control for variables, but dealing with real living humans means not all variables can be controlled for. And even then, because the real world is full of variables outcomes may not match lab tests. So yeah...psychology is an imperfect, soft science.
When speaking of "nature" vs. "nurture", there's a critical factor in how people turn out which is commonly overlooked:
Individual agency
"Nature" comprises what one is initially equipped with, while "nurture" is the situational conditions one has to navigate. However, what ultimately determines the particulars of how people turn out is their own freely made choices within their range of available options.
Drake ? , how about Ray LaMontagne or Kevin Morby or the band the Growlers or even the Black Crowes or the Steepwater Band ( just to name a few) ...
No wonder I don't watch your podcast, dood this isn't TV I can't abite commercial every 5 min 😢
I don't think we necessarily kid ourselves. Life is complicated and many folk genuinely just goof. 🥴
PS: We have absolutely nothing in common with computers. They exist but they don't live. And computers have no more musical genius than a piano or saxophone. PPS: Mother knew all my faults came from Dad.😉
(Green Fire, UK) 🌈🦉
How much data would ChatGPT need if it only had to speak at the level of a 3 year old?
"Only"
1:29:50 full name of the psychiatrists mentioned?
I've said this sense I was achild
Step 1 to avoid being taken over by AI : don't anthropomorphise AI. There is no step 2.
The question I want asked is gender actually real, or just a concept that exists only in the mind.
Psychology is a field made up of subjectively shaped theories held up by interpreted implications of occasional hard data. It should be considered a branch of philosophy that functions much like a religion. This is not to say that it doesn’t have use value. I think it has made many insights that have proven helpful, but it has also produced total fantasies. Blum talks about popular psychology that one might get in a Ted talk or self-help book. Those two also vary in quality and credibility. But I think they have a far better record than the science of psychology.
Agreed. I’ve always considered it more an art than a science. Like in painting, there are general rules for form, color, shading, perspective, proportion, etc., that don’t always apply to the work in question. The best psych can offer are general rules of thumb. Pretty useful, but not nearly enough to grant psychology the standing and influence it currency wields, especially in courts of law.
1:26:49 "... symptoms a detriment in any society...paranoid schizophrenia.."
Actually schizophrenia is seen as spirit possession in many societies and in some is seen as a blessing. The "possessed" are seen as potential oracles. So not a detriment neccessarily.
All mental health diagnoses are social constructs....perhaps?
If we want to solve complex social issues, psychology and psychiatry have a lot LESS to offer than other social sciences such sociology, political science & criminology. A macro analysis is always more valuable, in my humble opinion.
Yet every civilization has failed…
There are so many ads on this video...
📍1:08:15
Psychology is not a "fake" science, it is a soft science.
Anyone who has studied a STEM subject would regard it as junk science
Just like a half pregnance is soft.
I think it is foolish to dismiss a "survival" instinct as something that AI can't have simply because we evolved it and the AI didn't. If this argument had merit suicide wouldn't be a thing. My reasoning is that if we can negate the survival instinct through intelligence through consciousness than it suggest that an AI could adopt a survival instinct by the same intellectual processes that evolved beings adopt suicidal tendencies.
We have no basics to state a being can't nor wouldn't adopt a desire to survive. Secondly even if this was a minority result given how prevalent suicide is among humans it could be common enough among AI that it becomes a problem.
The Psychology of Fake Science would also be interesting.
I'm only really commenting on the defense of psychology as a science here. Bloom's acknowledgement of the problems with the field is good and his examples are fine. The issue for me is that discovery of a phenomenon itself is insufficient to make any field scientific especially where there are essentially deal breakers. Replication cannot be overstated how vital this is to the scientific method and the other is falsifiability. Because of the less hard nature of psychology the field needs to work even harder than the chemistry and physics (hard science) at replication but in reality they field is in the totally opposite direction.
Red isn't just the magic color of sexuality. It is the color of the root chakra..... Linked to sexual organs
So is psychology a science or not?
You will always share 50% of your DNA with your parents its only the siblings that differ
Good talk. Though it did somehow cause my brain to make up an imaginary 80s song called "Calculus Chicken"...
Bro go hacked
Why am I fixated on the observation that wire in Bloom‘s ear has loop in it and I want to straighten it out 😂…I guess it’s subconscious.
It's sigh-kee not syke
Current "AI" (read, really advanced algorithms) is not conscious. its not even close. Not in the same category, planet, universe. The Models "Know" nothing they're not capable of knowing. They don't "learn" anything they generate statistic tables. This conversation is embarrassing.
yes!
as livia soprano said, its a racket for the jews.
not sure memory is so elusive; I have plenty of memories of places in childhood that were absolutely dead-on--
specific places that I liked, and so on, and that I drove to decades later without looking at a map, for instance.
I find Bloom too doctrinaire on minimalism in psychology in general.