So interesting note here: My wife is currently in school for Forensic Psychology a is also a Type 1 diabetic. After a particularly grueling day, she will often experience hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). Considering that her most grueling days often require the most critical thinking (tests, writing papers, etc), it stands to reason that she has engaged System 2 more than ususal. And, since system 2 consumes more glucose, that would explain the consistent hypoglycemia. Neat! (well, diabetes isn't neat, but this relationship is).
Interesting thought. My phsychology professor (I study Social Work) told us that people with autism use their system 2 far more than people without autism. (Or at least that was a theory he talked about). Combining that with you saying that learning philosophy is like trying to train your system 2, one could come to the conclusion that people with autism generally speaking could have a natural affinity or talent for philosophy. Edit: Of course, who is autistic and who isn´t is based on socially constructed ideas of the "normal"
Wow, great video Olly. I wonder how often it happens, that system 1 jumps in and gives a spurious answer and we just accept it as true. But then later we come across arguments against that answer, that demand system 2 step in. But instead of reexamining the problem from the start with system 2, instead we put system 2 to work trying to prove our earlier answer, as if it were the innocent until proven guilty.
@Claire Rosee It resonated with me because it touches at what philosophy really is. There have been misconceptions about Philosophers since Socrates but the essence of Philosophy to me is to think.
Hooooly shit. Now I understand why reading a text in a language I barely understand is so much more _physically_ exhausting than reading the same text when I can intuitively understand the words. It actually needs more energy. Wow. Great video, thanks!
The last phrase in this video reminded me of Ancient Greece, I believe there was a school who would not allow anyone who had not studied Geometry for it was with Geometry that they trained their "system 2". Just the thoughts of Mathematician with hopes of learning philosophy. Awesome video, and great Channel. I find you very insightful. Thank you.
Do we try to avoid intuitive answers in philosophy? Much of philosophy seems dependent on intuitions as a starting ground, and often intuitions are only challenged because they conflict with other intuitions. I'd like it if you did a video that looked at the role intuitions play in philosophy.
We should avoid intuitionism in logic because it either a) leads to a justificatory problem in the form of a circularity charge (you can't know intuitively that you know something by intuition), or a regress (if P1 stands for the proposition "there are some things known by intuition," then if to justify P1 we point to P2 "that P1 is intuitively justified," because these propositions aren't logically equivalent, we require a P3 to justify P2 and so on ad infinitum, or b) you have to draw on a psychologistic theory of logic that sees us solving the problem of our intuitive faculties by analyzing mental processes that occur when we are using our scientific reasoning. B is also open to a circularity problem, as well as general skeptical and relativistic worries. That's why I'm generally in line a Peircean view of reasoning that uses Occam's razor and cuts out intuition and psychology in reasoning/logic altogether, and relies on public signs of reasoning to draw objective conclusions from inferences.
I don't think that I understand what you're asking, but I will say that I reject scientism, and I don't think that a Peircean logic of science entails scientism.
So glad you made this video, loved it and i really really hope there will be a part two or some kind of more in-depth analysis on the matters you spoke about. Also cheers for the patreon supporter and his question, so interesting. Oh and just to let you know, there is a small cut near the end of the video.
I love Thinking, Fast and Slow. Its insights literally changed my life and defined the direction I would pursue my work in grad school. One quick thing on the Daniel is a librarian thing (and on the systems in general): Just about nobody knows the base-rate of farmers, bankers, librarians, what have you in the world. It wasn't until I read the book that I learned that there were still more farmers in the US than librarians (a surprise given how many libraries are in the U.S. and the increased mechanization of agriculture). So it's not so much that system 2 in this case is lazy--it doesn't know where to begin. So it defaults to the heuristics that tend to work 99% of the time (in this case a mix of stereotype and availabilith biases). It's an important distinction because it allows us to separate questions that can be solved with additional education (like how base-rates work and what the applicable statistics are) compared to those that are more stubborn to additional information ("who should I vote for?")
One thought; You said near the end of the video that you can practice using System 2 by studying philosophy. The problem with this statement is the fact that philosophy in itself can be a trap as it might increase confirmation bias and your tendency to rely on system 1. This happens a lot when it comes to politics; people mistakenly believe that they're being objective when in fact they're just interpreting facts through their personal ideological lens. What is needed, IMO, is the realization that there are many such lenses that can be applied to any specific issue/question.
Very late to the conversation, but it may be more apt to say one can practice using System 2 _while_ studying philosophy, rather than _by_ studying it, emphasizing that the practice is still a thing to do in itself rather than something that will happen as a byproduct of studying a particular subject.
+Vaibhav Gupta meh, it just annoyed me how he could make illogical decisions that then worked out for him. Maybe it's just the first generation that didn't do it for me, because every time it felt like the plot boiled down to Spock saying "this is the logical decision", bones saying "screw logic!" and then Kirk found a perfect solution that made everything magically better.
I'm not studying philosophy in college Didn't do it at school as it wasn't a subject. But I'm a self taught philosopher. I'm not a philosopher but I'm studying about all of myself to train my brain power and speed.
Great question from the Thorns. I have tried expressing this same opinion as the one you used as, "People believe what they can't help believing, according to their reasoning abilities and the information they've been given."
I appreciate this Kahnman book specifically being covered and I still appreciate the ~> 20 minute video releases and not only b/c of nostalgia (identified bias)
So many great points that I wish more people knew about in our culture :1 Thinking is an excellent practice and it maintains a healthy and diverse form of perceptual existence.
I see this quite a lot in many places, that 'system 2', the rational, effortful, the deliberate and careful ways of thinking, will correct our moral missteps and errors in reasoning. That if we were thinking more carefully about things we would live in a better society as we would be more effective at getting true belief instead of the more emotive and simplistic ways of thinking we are used to. But I have recently become disillusioned with this idea after reading a study titled "Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government". In it they look at how people interpret scientific evidence. The two hypotheses they used were (summarized) 1. that people who use system 2 reasoning more will come to accurate judgments, and 2. that people will pick out evidence that supports our identity and relationships with people to keep our identity and relationships intact and coherent. In the experiment they had two groups, in one they got a description of a scientific experiment in which they would have to make a calculation (system 2) about what conclusion should be drawn. In this group the description was of a study of a new cream for skin rashes. The trial was randomised and people would either get the skin cream or a placebo and their rash either improved or not. These results are given as raw numbers and the test is to see if the participants interpreted the results properly as it was a math problem. The numbers are designed so that there is a simple system 1 solution, and if the participant was thinking carefully they would find the true, system 2, solution. It tests if you are good at math problems.People who are good at numbers are good at this sort of problem, they get the right answer, and the people who aren't so good don't. Then comes the important bit. They give another group the same exact numbers, the exact numbers. The difference comes when the participants are told that these numbers are from a study on gun control measures introduced to a state and a comparison state had not implemented the measures and that the numbers were of the instances of crime. The numbers are the same as those given for the rash and so the correct answer the same. The Experimenters identified whether the participants were Democrat of Republican. If system 2 (here represented by numerical thinking) or the tendency to use system 2 gets true beliefs then the result should be the same as in the group that were presented the numbers as skin cream. One result that you could expect is that groups that people who think more deeply about things should get better results. Another result that you could expect is that it won't make a difference. But what happened was a even more depressing finding. That if you are, say, a liberal, and so more inclined to believe that gun control is a good thing, or republican, and so more inclined to believe that gun control is a bad thing, it's not that you just ignore evidence, it's that you are more biased the higher your numeracy is. The the more able you are to use system 2 the worse you are at interpreting the evidence. They conclude that if a part of your identity is at stake, your ideology, your relationships, etc. System 2 thinking will hinder you because you are motivated to reinforce your position. So, umm, help. This could also be a good suggestion for why philosophy is the way it is. help
Late to the conversation but chiming in because it's interesting. It seems to me that the results of the study challenge the value of predictions derived from a simplistic apprehension of just the System 1 / System 2 model. I note that the hypotheses you summarized were bore out in the results - the people with greater System 2 capability honed in more effectively on a judgment supporting their identity and relationships. Accuracy not in objectivity, but in group cohesion. It doesn't make sense when System 2 is expected to just produce more objectively accurate judgments adhering to the facts at hand, but it does when you consider the functional capabilities of System 2 (rather than an expected product) in the context of what motivates a person to produce judgments of what quality, and to what end. System 2 is a means, not an end, and the end reached by it will be determined by other factors. So the study could then be seen as opening the question of how do we describe and study systems of motivation, especially in conjunction with the System 1 / System 2 model of method to arrive at judgment. Given that high level System 2 functioning _can_ produce more objectively accurate judgment _or_ more acute bias, what factors sway the result in the moment?
Hello Olly, I have a couple of observations about this video.1) Daniel Kahneman has a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, which is an economics prize administered by the Nobel foundation, but it is not a Nobel prize. This may appear to be just nitpicking, but considering that Nobel prizes award "prestige" to scientists, we have to consider that some of the sciences that do receive a Nobel prize (let's say, physics), have much more solid status epistemologically than economics, and more importantly, are less affected by political ideology and policy making (other actual Nobel prizes, like Literature or Peace, are actually of course much more ideological and determined by politics). In fact, if I were to guess, that a psychologist is rewarded for "having integrated insights from psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human judgment and decision-making under uncertainty", should be considered by all accounts ideological for someone believing at least partially in the fundamentals of the critique of political economy; that is on the one hand, presenting him as "Nobel prize winning" is wrong ("Nobel laureate" is not), and it has certain effects which I am sure you would recognize 1.1) This criticism ultimately binds to the uses of "cognitive x" to finally grant scientific status based on reductionism to an alleged science: say, making "cognitive psychology". But psychology should be examined on its owns merits. Why does it have to do with the above? Because the reification of the homo oeconomicus subject into a psychological, decision-making subject is an essential feature of the ideology of political economy, which ties into the fact that deconstructing political economy actually requires a deconstruction of that most rich of collections, psychology; 2) I guess that because Thinking fast and slow is a science communication effort, it decided to recur to a metaphor; however, by labeling such metaphors as systems, are we not in the risk of reification, not only from us as readers, but that the researcher actually intuitively treats them as separate. Can one say, for example, that "system 1" may be broken, but no "system 2"? How about the other way around? What is their relationship? Most importantly, if they are one and the same, how do we know which lane we are on? To suggest two systems in order to argue that we have a brain which has both ready-made answers and intuitive responses apart from its actually analytical mechanisms seems kind a stretch; also, by labeling them just "system 1" and "system 2" they are put equal, but they appear very different in their features. 3) Especially with the example of the librarian and the farmer, there is something like a risk of confusion. That is: anyone just thinking will actually come to the conclusion: "well, being quiet, tidy, meek, neat and, organized, is not part of the concept of being either a librarian nor a farmer", so this premise is irrelevant for the question. Then, you use the fact that a random person is much more likely to be a farmer than a librarian. Perhaps it is just me, but your explanation feels to imply that in spite of being all of those things, he is still more likely to be a farmer, and is not the right way to approach the issue, 3.1) this ties into anther thing: coming to this conclusion only requires that one is trained in logic (not being an expert, just trained), which I guess would form part of "system 2". This of course brings us to the question: if "system 2" is trained into, as you say at the end, are we just simply talking about trained an untrained brains. That is: do we have a proper frontier between thinking just about the brain and the education it receives?; 4)finally, talking about scientific ideology, there is the hypothesis of these two systems being the result of adaptation. Adaptationist bias is probably the most common form of ideology amongst practitioners of biology, and by extension scientists untrained in it but somehow attempting to be "materialistic and scientific". So: our brains are material objects which have been and currently are subjected to the mechanisms that cause evolution, only one of which adaptation, which isn't the most common, nor the fastest: there is random mutation, there are chain gene networks, as I believe evolutionary developmental biology labels them; and there are of course exaptations. Adaptation is the most recurred to because it falls straight into the "survival of the fittest" motive (which you actually have acknowledged in your Marx and Darwin video to be problematic), but it is by no means the only possible explanation. 4.1) The way you present this has to be mentioned: you say that our brains evolved in a context in which you required fast responses, as do any other animals, so perhaps what I am reading as a typical adaptationist bias (that animals change into the changes they need, which can lead to a Lamarckian representation intuitively) is something slightly more refined: I guess that what you are saying is the fact that we kept a vestigial structure even as we developed a more refined analytical one. But still: calling someone out on adaptationist bias is a valid observation. 4.2) Most importantly, theories for the scientific method based on hypothesis accommodating better a certain fact (like, proposing adaptation for the discovered aspects of thinking) have a host of epistemological problems. Popper falsificationism, sociological accounts of science like Thomas S. Kuhn, lack-of-an-actual-method Feyerabend ideas, constructivism in the Bachelardian sense, Althusserian's "dialectical materialism" and the transformation of ideology into science (which I adhere to most), are all different attempts to account for actual scientific knowledge that do not fall into the problems of the traditional scientific method rationale; albeit, they are works in progress and have problems of their own.
I agree with your conclusion (the importance of honing one's thinking skills, and the sometimes - too often, in the case of psychology - neglected importance of philosophy), but even though the literature on judgment, decision making, and how they can go wrong has been immensely successful (even leading to the Nobel memorial prize in Kahnemann's case), it's interesting to note that this tradition isn't uncontroversial in psychology. I refer you to Lopes (1991; doi: 10.1177/0959354391011005) for a critical account of this research school and its methods and assumptions. Keep up the good work!
You authoritatively state that the "major theme" in MOBY DICK is "revenge;" aside from such assertion being an poignant snapshot of "bias," I would enjoy discussing the book with you.
@@laurencedavid-raynault6880 My attempts at answers to those questions would be "A study in obsession, the meaning one derives from it and its ultimate futility" and "It's definitely a good book, but it helps if you like reading long passages of whale facts". Though I would recommend taking both of those answers with a pinch of salt, because they are both subjective and probably coloured by it having been a while since I read the book :p
I just had a thought, what if the Anchoring Effect is also a by product of being a social species. It is also advantageous for us to read a social environment and adapt to it quickly, so for example if the girl you fancy mentions she likes chocolate, your brain will grab that information and adapt to the conversation and possibly even coerce you into getting her chocolates later to try and win her affection.
If the cheeky math around 2:25 grabbed you, here's the solution. Bat + ball =1.10. Let's call bat X, and ball Y. X+Y=1.10. We also know that Y(Ball)+1=X(Bat). Substituting (Y+1) for X gives us the equation (Y+1)+Y= 1.10, we can remove the parentheses and simplify, 2Y+1=1.10. Remove the 1 from each side, leaves us with 2Y=.10, and divide by 2 gives us Y=.05. The ball is .05, the bat is 1.05, all works out nice.
The fact that someone knows the major themes of a particular book doesn’t really illustrate the point that thinking in general takes practice, but the multiplication example does. In the case of being able to quickly call up the themes of Moby Dick, the particular fact that was the answer to the particular question just happened to be something that they had already transferred to their memory so that they could recall them quickly. In some cases the multiplication example does illustrate your point, because some people don’t know the answer because they remember the answer the particular problem- instead, they just have gotten used to doing multiplication quickly, which is a case of developing a particular kind of thinking as a skill, by practice. Some others might know the answer to 13 X 17 by memorization (for instance, any single-digit times single-digit multiplication problem, I just remember from memorizing the times tables in school, which isn’t the same as developing my ability to think through the process of multiplication). The case of calling up the themes of Moby Dick is different in that it can only be achieved by memorization. If you haven’t read Moby Dick or you don’t know what the themes are, then no amount of thinking, no matter how good and practiced at it you are, will magically make the answer pop into your head. Anyway, interesting take!
I really think you should've introduced the terminology of "cognitive ease" that's at the heart of the main point of "Thinking Fast And Slow", according to the author it's what causes phenoma such as "anchoring". Eye-Opening book to me, definetly recommended to everyone. I also think it would be a great starting point for a video on the relationship of objective truth and scientific theories (as you mentioned, your brain isn't split into 2 systems, but it's convienent/valuable for our purposes to think of it as such).
I was hoping for a take on the 1980s "This is your brain on drugs" commercial. An egg cooking video that compared the different methods of egg cookery to understanding various philosophies and philosophers. Stoicism is just a raw egg in your flat, stale beer. Still nutritious and allows for the focus on gaining the courage to start the day, perhaps by moving on to beer 2. Nietzche would be Balut. Hume is a Scotch Egg replacing Black Pudding for a full and completely earned, not privileged, Full English Breakfast. JBP would be a sous vide omelette that wasn't given enough time to set. Heidegger is pickeled eggs.
Well, I believe that COLLIDING BIASES could be helpful.. but only to those who are open-minded. It will test one's own held beliefs and check if one holds on to the same conviction. I love this topic because my brains often work with SYSTEM 2. For years, I have trained my brain when should I be using snap decisions and what matters demand SERIOUS THINKING. Thanks a lot for another helpful topic.
Humanity and its lack of empathy combined with logic is why we have lots of problems in other words feeling must be included in all decisions but it also must not be a sole solution only through both feeling nd logic can a serious conclusion be taken seriously
About glucose and the brain, you might want to take a deeper look? This is what I have read, feel free to correct any misunderstandings I might have acquired: Some cells in our body can only run on glucose, red blood cells and the thinner branches of brain cells are two important examples. The reason is that they for various reasons can't extract energy using oxygen (aerobic). Ketones (the energy-carrying fat-based alternative to glucose) can only be utilized aerobically. However, when glucose is broken down anaerobically, it ends up as lactic acid. This is then converted into glucose again by the liver in a process called Gluconeogenesis, which can get the energy needed from ketones. Thus although some cells do need glucose, the glucose is not instantly used up, but to a certain degree recycled, and the energy for that cycle can ultimately come from fat. We need some replenishing of glucose, but not as much as most assume. This makes very much sense, we know the body can't store very much glucose, and that we can use it up quite quickly. If we didn't have other energy sources for our brains, we'd be basically brain dead the first time we couldn't carb up...
I believe there are varying levels of belief, and that the language we have to describe those levels is insufficient. I might say "I believe that I can fly", but that doesn't mean that I *actually* believe it. And if I did, I'd likely be mad. But the assertion that beliefs can be chosen is itself a thing that one can believe in, and if I believe strongly enough that I can choose to believe in things, this creates a sort of circular logic that I find to be valid despite its circuity. I believe that I can choose to believe things. That doesn't mean that it's always an easy thing to do. Some beliefs are harder to adopt than others. But if something is plausible, it's easier to believe in general, and therefore easier to adopt as an individually held belief. I might say "I believe I can fly" and really mean "I want to believe I can fly", while deep down I believe that I can't. But something more nebulous like, "I believe it's going to be a good day" doesn't create the same cognitive dissonance that merely wanting to believe something does. It is therefore easier to get to that point of actually believing it, because the cognitive dissonance is experienced as a sort of friction on the way towards belief.
Kinda find the topics quite informative & enriching.. Bias may also refer to 'prejudice'..i think as you were explaining philosophy, you were actually drifting your theories towards psychology..am not sure if you're aware of it.. i really appreciate your episodes. Thanks a lot..
Interesting video! Thanks! :) This isn't really a question about this video, though, but it's something I was wondering if you could answer. So at what point do we know that our subjective experiences are real? If someone is schizophrenic, they can have conversations for years with people they've imagined who don't exist. They can see things that aren't there. So one could argue if the 2 of us see it along with you, it's real. But if only you're seeing it, it's not. That's not always true, though, is it? Sometimes one person will see something no one else saw, but that doesn't mean it wasn't real. On the other end of things are mass delusions, where many people say they saw something that is later said to have never happened. Religious experiences come to mind as an example. Many people can all say they saw the same thing, a burning bush or a vision, and it could still be counted as never happening. To take the question to a further example, you look at the idea proposed by the movie The Matrix, where the whole world is a lie. Even though everyone in that world agrees on what's happening, they're all wrong. The "real" world is outside their capacity to experience on a conscious level. They're all laying in pods providing energy for their robot overlords, but none of them realize it. So what does it take to say that our experiences are real? Subjective experiences can't be validated even when shared with other people, so how do we know that anything we're experiencing is real? What possible proof could we offer to say this world is what we think it is? That the office party we threw happened at all? That the friend I'm talking with on the phone even exists? At what point can our subjective experiences be proven? And are there even any truly objective experiences, something we can point to and say "This is REAL."? If so, what would be an example of an objective experience? You've probably answered these questions in videos somewhere along the way, and sorry for that if I'm asking a redundant question. I was just thinking about this tonight, and was wondering what philosophy has to say about it. Thanks for your videos!! They are intriguing.
I was able to think my way out of a fixed delusion recently. I started by saying, "My problem is thinking. I think I am a kind of messiah." Then I said, "Seeing is a deeper problem, because I perceive cues in the world that reinforce my delusion." But finally I said, "The ultimate root problem I have is in looking. When I look at the world I look for things that will reinforce my notion that I am a kind of messiah. If I look for something that isn't there, I will be disappointed. But if I only look for the sake of seeing whatever actually happens to be in the world I can never be dissatisfied." The Buddha said, "All of life is unsatisfactory," and while I don't believe that is true, I do believe that dissatisfaction often comes by looking for something in the world that is not there, not that one should not look for things in the world, but that he should practice great care when looking.
I think of this as an example of pattern recognition. It exists more often in people with psychosis, delusions, or unique perceptual experiences. It can lead to loose association of ideas, creative thinking, storytelling, and putting together pieces to get things before others by a small set of clues. However, if someone is stressed, traumatized, wants to believe something, or their imagination goes with the wrong clues towards something grandiose, paranoid, intrusive, or anxiety or ego based with a sureness that isn't doubtable, that when things can be hijacked. I suppose that's my definition of a delusion, a non-doubtable idea with a lot of emotional intensity behind it where if given all facts, or talking to everyone else meant no one else saw it, the answer would be just as intense. Self awareness of our own brains seems to be the antidote to delusions, anxiety, where they come from, in desire for the story, feelings inflicted upon by environment or the brain itself, or societal constructs that aren't fairly examined, and just taken as the default "normal". With that ability to know sometimes someone feels wrong and they may not always know why, but it's a worthy pursuit. And that even the most "objectively" intelligent of all brains can piece together clues wrongly, or get hijacked and colonized by other actions and thoughts. Without shame, but motivation to figure things out. Hey, I've been quite wrong before, but that's the only time you have the opportunity to learn and be better. Even when the answer is painful, its still part of the puzzle.
@@emily-hj2hh Thank you for the well-thought out reply. You're right. It is all a puzzle. We can keep laughing till doomsday as long as we get in the right headspace. I have a blog called Susurrus Waking, if you want to check it out. Peace.
Oxytocin (the "love hormone") is a nonapeptide hormone synthesized in the supraoptic and paraventricular nuclei of the hypothalamus. Oxytocin has an effect on uterine smooth muscle contraction, blood pressure, memory, learning capability, nursing, sexual and feeding behavior. Oxytocin and vasopressin stimulate the release of insulin and glucagon from the pancreas. Multi organelle effects of oxytocin make it as important hormone in body. Studies have found that administering oxytocin into the body reduces blood glucose levels - i.e. glocuse becomes absorbed from the blood stream by cells in the body to use it as energy (via the action on insulin which rises with increasing oxytocin levels). Studies have also found that administering glocuse into the blood stream (through the process of eating cake for example) reduces oxytocin levels. The stress hormone Cortisol works oppositely to Oxytocin - raising blood glucose levels. Actually the two hormones work in partnership: Cortisol releasing glucose from fat stores in the body in response to a threat for example, and then through exercise in respose to the treat Oxytocin is released to trigger energy absorbtion into muscle cells for example... ...A problem is though that although we find sugary foods rewarding (due to the energy) consuming lots of sugary foods - which we aren't adapted to do as historically sugar was a scarce commodity - can mess up our metabolism and have the effect of chronically raising the levels of the stress hormone Cortisol. A by-product of this is that other hormones that increase in response to stress like dopamine become chronically increased as well, which can contribute to depression psychosis... Constant stress or reward effects the nucleus accumbens in the brain - a main centre for reward (it is stimulated by cocaine and dopamine) and a region of the brain that plays an important role in reinforcement of addictions. Over-stimulation reduces reward receptors in the nucleus accumbens - this is a contributor to 'burn-out' and depression following chronic stress or excessive stimilation by cocaine for example. Direct stimulation via electrodes has been found to reduce severe depression.
Thanks for making this video, I really enjoied it! I actually never find another Philosophy channels do this sort of thing, like videos about the philosopher. So great job, really! By the way do you have any tips for starting a philosophy youtube channel? Thanks!
Hi Ollie, I loved that episode! Just a side note to put this topic in a historico-philosophical context: Henri Bergson probably would have referred to "system-1-thinking" via his notion of "intellect", whereas he would have identified "system-2-thinking" with "intuition". I haven't read Kahnemann yet. However, judging from what you say in the video, Bergson seems to have expressed very similar ideas vis-á-vis thought. I wonder if you have read Bergson and what you think about drawing this analogy. Cheers!
Thoughts: I think a lot of system 1 is affected by the limbic system, the amydala, the lizard brain. Fight, flight, freeze, fawn, anxiety and trauma responses. Addiction and dopamine reward systems that help to easily combat feeling bad, and produce a high stronger than glucose, or a relaxation of the chemicals that affect the amygdala. If someone has been through a lot of unsafe situations, feelings of emotional neglect, or just has a more sensitive nervous system, experiences otherness, witnesses others going through the same, that can easily cement connections and memories that can be triggered by reminders, even if the situation is safe. Some lead to fast thinking, a greater analysis of risk factors, but others thyroid issues, anxiety, panic, all the system clusters labeled by psychiatrists as illness (which can unfortunately produce more of a sense of otherness, especially with intersecting identities, cultural experiences, some socially advantageous for bad reasons, that still appear and are repeated.) Breast feeding and white matter does have some to do with how fast that second system can work, and the brain can communicate between it's parts. Nutrition and actions during pregnancy and early life experiences. But these are not always true, can correlate, and are not always predictors or determinants. I do think the one thing you can do to reward system two is try to abandon having to be right, and indemnifying with beliefs, but put the priority in understanding - of people, self, and the world, and try to self reflect, soothe anxieties and emotions and not always go to the first decision. And, obviously, self care like sleep, as much safety and fulfilling self conversation, food for that part of the brain intellectually, and literally with protein and complex carbohydrates or fiber that have not so short of a burst as glucose, are better absorbed and released, and don't have the crash after, and the addiction of simple sugars. Stay away from addictive behaviors, without demonizing and obsessing, focus on passions and areas where your brain excels and works best - whether that's visual, metaphorical, kinesthetic and while moving, auditorily, and use that as a portal to understand the world. It's worth practising and repeating what are not strengths, but valuing the unique complexity of your own brain and trying to understand it, take care of it, and use it wisely, while knowing you will never fully know, trying to meet others as equals to see what wisdom you can get from them - even if its only to test out their ideas and determine they're all wrong. I like to read the writings of other minds. Speak to them about how their own system works. Watch their actions to see if it matches up with their words. Practice my own thinking, and use the world as the stage and labratory to do so, write and paint and see what comes out I may not know was there. But..I'm not sure I agree of the language that one part of the brain is lower. I do think there is one part that would be considered lower that is quite important, besides quick impulse reactions in an unsafe situation, because those unfortunately do exist, especially more for some than others. And that perhaps is what some would call a bit of moral bias, empathy, and disgust at things that I would say is.. good. Though it can get hijacked with propaganda, scapegoating, phobias, hatred. I am happy that in people something stirs when they see someone else being horribly mistreated. That it is hard to live with themselves if they do that. I guess it might be considered higher to have a deep philosophical talk with onesself about what is good or bad..but I've seen philosophers get it wrong. So many times. Honestly, the ones most studied most of the time. About just the ways to treat others, and who counts as worthy of good treatment, and what that looks like. Rationally or logically trying to condone things that are wrong, talking only to other "philosophers" or sitting in ivory towers away from connection. I'd hope if someone sees another being hurt, or oppressed, it triggers a reaction of pain or disgust. When one person is in power and the other isn't, and it's done to inflict pain on purpose, or by neglect and narcissism. That it would trigger an emotional response. I know someone who tests on the range of psychopathy, but says that he has good values that rationality governs. He is very interested in constantly talking about himself, but I can recognize love and connection, and he is very intelligent. But now..is a non mask wearer while being a doctor and essential worker who didn't lock down. Hey, it's America. Just thought I'd write this as the world is missing on some empathy, in the hopes it resonates with someone. Pattern recognition can lead people with emotional language in stressful times into creatively awful mindsets. Imagination filling the gaps and "family" being those who are hated by similar people, repeating the same mythos told for centuries for no reason but control and meeting that other, with a fear response and the declaration that they are less and dangerous. But. Pattern recognition can also link one idea to another. Create amazing stories with meaning and truth, or find a similarity, a "form" to truth. I've found that when my brain and my heart sync up, I'm in the right place. We do have neurons in our heart and gut, so maybe it's literal. But love just feels good, and acting for good does when it makes sense for the whole, when your truth is being lived and it logically aligns. For me. For others, maybe not. But hey, we don't know, and I like the qualitative where you try to ask and listen without having a hypothesis, because your mind can only do so much by itself. It's plastic though, and scientists were wrong with they determined that plasticity only lasted for a time. Some don't have the time or the motivation to exercise it, the self esteem, the energy, the level of safety and getting out of that amygdala. I don't see non-human animals as lower, but why not have that uniquely philosophizing brain without using it. As a species we've had some interesting motivations and actions that it might be easier to look away from, or..human to. But if we do, they will always repeat, until we've destroyed what of the earth is left, and ourselves. Can't understand the whole part by just looking at the bits we like. Testing these ideas, constantly trying to understand and feeling vast empathy and connection, I've still come up with that otherness from first memory. But to any other youtube essayists out there thinking and feeling consantly, especially lately, trying to see the only good side of anything, which is maybe growing, figuring out your own mistakes, loving, giving, being true, finding truth, staying unknowing, skeptical, critically thinking, casting out the mental colonization of any ideas that are just there to be reinforced for control and superstition, phobias and violence, pulling out the splinters of other people's actions and words..your cool. Keep figuring it out. And take care.
i see a connection to the character Roquentin in Sartre's "Nausea". the metaphor you illustrate could be used to explain Roquentin's sensory hallucinations as a malfunction of the system 2 aspect over-analysing phenomena which ought to be expediently carried out by system 1. Do you find any parallels between the theories you are describing in this video and Phenomenology?
It's funny because with the librarian question instead of instantly thinking librarian I instantly thought "don't answer it's a trick". I guess I've been watching too many videos about riddles and whatnot haha. Does this mean if I was on trial for a crime I should wear a T-shirt with a low number on it?
The wierdest part was that I guessed ghandi was 79 before he explained. I just used prior knowledge of average life expectancy at the time and images I've seen of him.
Your librarian-farmer example doesn't quite work if you consider Bayesian analysis which takes into account the likelihood of a hypothesis being true given some data (e.g. personality).
I'm a librarian, and I'm not neat, tidy, organized, or meek - although I'll cop to quiet. I know lots of librarians, and few of them fit this stereotype. So when presented with that question, I immediately started pondering how those qualities might benefit a farmer. Certainly neat, tidy, and organized would be helpful in farming and in running a business of any kind.
Everyone lives on and bound by their individual knowledge and awareness. However both knowledge and awareness are equivocal, one's reality may be another's illusions. Reality can be seen as time considering life itself is measured by time which is an illusion, I became interested in philosophy after watching the movie Lucy I began to love wisdom.👌
Great video! However, it's not true that Kahnemans theory is merely methaphorical. There actually are models that directly map Kahnemans S1 and S2 theory onto ways in which the brain processes information. Most notable is Bernard Baars famous Global Workspace model of consciousness. This model tells us that S2 or consciouss processing is slow, deliberate, logical etc. because the neural information has to be globally distributed throughout the brain so that other parts can also use this information. On the other hand, S1 or unconsciouss processing is fast, frequent, emotional etc. because the neural information only has to be processed locally in a specific area of the brain. Consequently, it's a mistake to say that the dual process theory from Kahneman is 'merely' methaporical.
So this video is stating that the reason system 2 is so rarely used is because glucose used to be scarce, and we evolved brains to conserve as much of it as possible? That does seem to me like an intuitive answer, and it does make intuitive sense. But then again, perhaps intuition isn't fully correct in this matter. While I think that the scarcity of glucose could be a part of it, who's to say that there aren't other factors involved with the way we think?
Hi Olly, big fan of the channel. I was wondering whether you might wish to do a video on the topic of drug laws and the political philosophy behind it. I briefly looked at researching this for my thesis but found a rare consensus among philosophers that current strict laws (e.g UK laws) are unjustified from a variety of different philosophical approaches. This is not to say that the question is settled or any less urgent. It is my view that the current imprisonment of individuals for nonviolent self-regarding behaviour, disproportionately from lower income backgrounds, perpetuating cycles of poverty and drug use is a very serious issue that deserves our attention. What do you think?
I've heard metaphors like this before, talking about a fast system 1 and a slow system two, but I've always found that I don't seem to fit the idea that we defer to system 1 when possible. I find that I always seem to go to system 2 very quickly if not immediately. It is very annoying for people since when someone asks what seems to be a simple question with a simple answer, and then I go off on a tangent about what I'm thinking, how things work, and how I'd imagine we'd get to the answer.
So during sentencing in a criminal case defense attorneys should presumably pepper their final arguments with very small numbers, no matter how unrelated to the length of prison sentences, and the prosecuting attorney with very high numbers. Or do judges not finalize sentences for long enough afterward and after encountering so many other numbers that it wouldn't make a difference?
I think this I why I come off as dim in a lot of subjects. I don't like to answer questions without context. Farmer or librarian? That depends on a lot of factors. How old was Gandhi when he died? I don't know, when was he born? This also gives me terms to explain why I take so long to go grocery shopping. "This is the only brand I can afford, I need this but it was created unethically in ways that probably resulted in death, does this make me as bad as a murderer? A contributor to an unjust system? Or a victim of the system? All this over children's socks and I've got another dozen things on my list to go," (The only store in my town is a Walmart, hence the socks on the grocery list). I normally end up quiting before I'm done because I've gotten too enraged or dejected. Then comes the ethical quandary, to use or not to use the self checkout?
In the US at least: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are somewhere between 150-200 thousand librarians [1] depending on who you count as a librarian. In contrast, there are over 2 million 'agricultural workers' [2]. So, even if 90% of librarians had those qualities, and only 10% of agricultural workers did, Daniel is still slightly more likely to be a farmer. In reality though, I would expect that librarians aren't that much more likely to fit the stereotype than farmers, if at all. If instead: 50% of librarians fit the stereotype, and 30% of farmers do, then Daniel is six times more likely to be a farmer. [1] www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11b.pdf [2] www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat15.pdf
Hey Ollie, I know you've mentioned Nietzsche before and had a short video on his concept of the Ubermensch, but I don't recall you have done a full length video on him. Might you consider this? And do you have any quick opinions on him you'd like type out? Thank you SO MUCH for what you do and for being so great at viewer interaction!
So from what I have researched about philosophy and as of yet is that the main objective of the teaching is to understand wright from wrong and guilt from innocence and that you enjoy better to share sexual pleasure with other more than you do with yourself and that is to defy the act of temptation.
I wonder if it's actually true that quiet farmers are still more numerous than quiet librarians. I'm not sure the person acting on impulse is necessarily wrong in this situation. Perhaps the demands of farming prevent one from developing qualities we think of as quiet and meek. Librarians are mostly at-will workers and perhaps the job attracts quiet people because you can't be particularly noisy while on it. I'm not sure we have enough information to say definitively that there are really more quiet and meek farmers than librarians. I guess it's a job for a social scientist to design a survey we could hand out to farmers and librarians.
Hi. Intersting subject, but with some sterotypes ;) What make you conclude in past, the only use of brain can be for fast decision, like tiger come, run ? Its also likely possible to imaginate a lot and hard relationship to manage with other people, and a social hierarchy or not we will never know cause no writing. Also nothing to conclusion the brain of philosopher is fundamental different (in relation our title). We know brain of musician is different and visible when we examine it, but i didn't have knowledge specific on philosopher brain (and i will be curious about the definition of philosopher would be employed ;) ) But globaly i appreciate the video and its good... in opposite of my bad english :) Good continuation
What you say is very debatable from a more specialized scrutiny. You may know Gerd Gigerenzer, who showed that is actually statistics and statical education to help with biases... Also Joshua Greene’s studies show that kantian deontology is more connected to system 1 than previously thought ... I’d love to say that the goal of philosophy is to improve system 2 but this claim is controversial
Good work! But as you are just using metaphorical meaning of 'system 1' and 'system 2', I think it's more accurate to title the video as 'what happens to a philosopher's thinking habit'. People who are interested in this video might want to know what are the irreversible biological changes to their brain when they learn more philosophy. But that is not really expressed in this video. (Are there any neuroscientists scanned philosopher's brain to figure out the difference between them and others? It would be interesting if that can be included. But the interpretation of neuroscience results can be easily misunderstood too...)
That question may prove to be impossible to answer?? Some philosophers have such muddled thoughts that it behooves one to ask if they know what they are thinking??
For the librarian farmer question: you are assuming one already has knowledge that there exists more farmers than librarians. Furthermore, since your critique of someone answering 'librarian' is to cite something outside the bounds of what the question is asking inherently, it demonstrates the Loaded Question Fallacy of your question.
If a person thinks more critically about the question, they could realize before answering that Daniel's traits don't actually provide enough information to answer it correctly. If the person does not know about the statistics on how likely any random person is to be a librarian vs a farmer, they could refrain from answering by reason of insufficient information. The person asked does not need to have the additional information to display a considered response. He's right though, that when my brain produced the snap judgment "librarian", my next move in examining that answer was to recognize that what I really answered wasn't the general "Is Daniel more likely to be a librarian, or a farmer?" but rather "Does Daniel sound more like my preconception of a librarian or a farmer?" Which is a different question, but one which can be easily substituted in - which is the point of what Olly was talking about. "There is a person named Daniel. Is Daniel more likely to be a librarian, or a farmer?" Without any further information, it's easy to just answer based on number of librarians vs farmers in the world, or guess, or refrain from answering due to a lack of awareness of the relevant statistic. The information describing Daniel as a person, though, does have some influence on the answer _without_ substituting the question (librarians may be more prone to those qualities) but it also primes the brain to substitute in an easier question. Whether he _sounds_ more like a librarian is not the same as whether he more likely _is_ a librarian.
"Brains are pretty important for thinking" - Ollie, 2016
The voice he says it in kills me.
Says him. I haven't had a single braincell since I was born and I turned out just like most humans.
P.S. He is super baby faced in this video even compared to his most recent shaved faced videos. Or at least his cheeks are more slender.
So interesting note here: My wife is currently in school for Forensic Psychology a is also a Type 1 diabetic. After a particularly grueling day, she will often experience hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). Considering that her most grueling days often require the most critical thinking (tests, writing papers, etc), it stands to reason that she has engaged System 2 more than ususal. And, since system 2 consumes more glucose, that would explain the consistent hypoglycemia. Neat! (well, diabetes isn't neat, but this relationship is).
What happens in a philosopher's brain? Bio-chemical reactions. What happens in a philosopher's mind? I don't know.
Yeah, good point mate.
Mr Marten Yeah, but where is the mind?
... I see what you did there. I think (therefore I am).
Brain = Mind. The mind is nothing but a direct product of the brain.
@@capivara6094 yikes
Interesting thought. My phsychology professor (I study Social Work) told us that people with autism use their system 2 far more than people without autism. (Or at least that was a theory he talked about). Combining that with you saying that learning philosophy is like trying to train your system 2, one could come to the conclusion that people with autism generally speaking could have a natural affinity or talent for philosophy.
Edit: Of course, who is autistic and who isn´t is based on socially constructed ideas of the "normal"
I have autism and a lot of this stuff just seems obvious to me so maybe that's why.
Wow, great video Olly. I wonder how often it happens, that system 1 jumps in and gives a spurious answer and we just accept it as true. But then later we come across arguments against that answer, that demand system 2 step in. But instead of reexamining the problem from the start with system 2, instead we put system 2 to work trying to prove our earlier answer, as if it were the innocent until proven guilty.
I like how you structure this presentation, very concise and creative
I didn't even answer the math question, because I didn't feel like pausing the video to think about it.
"There are few better ways to Practice thinking than by Studying Philosophy" ~Favorite Quote of the Vid
@Claire Rosee It resonated with me because it touches at what philosophy really is. There have been misconceptions about Philosophers since Socrates but the essence of Philosophy to me is to think.
Hooooly shit. Now I understand why reading a text in a language I barely understand is so much more _physically_ exhausting than reading the same text when I can intuitively understand the words. It actually needs more energy. Wow.
Great video, thanks!
The last phrase in this video reminded me of Ancient Greece, I believe there was a school who would not allow anyone who had not studied Geometry for it was with Geometry that they trained their "system 2". Just the thoughts of Mathematician with hopes of learning philosophy.
Awesome video, and great Channel. I find you very insightful. Thank you.
Do we try to avoid intuitive answers in philosophy? Much of philosophy seems dependent on intuitions as a starting ground, and often intuitions are only challenged because they conflict with other intuitions. I'd like it if you did a video that looked at the role intuitions play in philosophy.
We should avoid intuitionism in logic because it either a) leads to a justificatory problem in the form of a circularity charge (you can't know intuitively that you know something by intuition), or a regress (if P1 stands for the proposition "there are some things known by intuition," then if to justify P1 we point to P2 "that P1 is intuitively justified," because these propositions aren't logically equivalent, we require a P3 to justify P2 and so on ad infinitum, or b) you have to draw on a psychologistic theory of logic that sees us solving the problem of our intuitive faculties by analyzing mental processes that occur when we are using our scientific reasoning. B is also open to a circularity problem, as well as general skeptical and relativistic worries.
That's why I'm generally in line a Peircean view of reasoning that uses Occam's razor and cuts out intuition and psychology in reasoning/logic altogether, and relies on public signs of reasoning to draw objective conclusions from inferences.
I don't think that I understand what you're asking, but I will say that I reject scientism, and I don't think that a Peircean logic of science entails scientism.
I already explained that.
The one about the genius? I wasn't sure what you were asking me.
Ummm okay...
1:50 no whats happend is that my brain knows that its a trick question so it casually picks the non intuitive answer...
So glad you made this video, loved it and i really really hope there will be a part two or some kind of more in-depth analysis on the matters you spoke about.
Also cheers for the patreon supporter and his question, so interesting.
Oh and just to let you know, there is a small cut near the end of the video.
Thanks! Small cut - what do you mean?
At 9.20-9.23 the video cuts to the end. But if you manually click on the 9.24 it shows correctly.
Is it only for me?
I think so? Not happening for me
Philosophy Tube Weird... RUclips is probaly just being RUclips i guess. :P
I love Thinking, Fast and Slow. Its insights literally changed my life and defined the direction I would pursue my work in grad school. One quick thing on the Daniel is a librarian thing (and on the systems in general): Just about nobody knows the base-rate of farmers, bankers, librarians, what have you in the world. It wasn't until I read the book that I learned that there were still more farmers in the US than librarians (a surprise given how many libraries are in the U.S. and the increased mechanization of agriculture). So it's not so much that system 2 in this case is lazy--it doesn't know where to begin. So it defaults to the heuristics that tend to work 99% of the time (in this case a mix of stereotype and availabilith biases). It's an important distinction because it allows us to separate questions that can be solved with additional education (like how base-rates work and what the applicable statistics are) compared to those that are more stubborn to additional information ("who should I vote for?")
How come you don't call us philosofans anymore?? :(
yeah it's sad X(
+
Because peers are not fanatics ❤
and love dies
One thought;
You said near the end of the video that you can practice using System 2 by studying philosophy. The problem with this statement is the fact that philosophy in itself can be a trap as it might increase confirmation bias and your tendency to rely on system 1. This happens a lot when it comes to politics; people mistakenly believe that they're being objective when in fact they're just interpreting facts through their personal ideological lens.
What is needed, IMO, is the realization that there are many such lenses that can be applied to any specific issue/question.
Well said
Very late to the conversation, but it may be more apt to say one can practice using System 2 _while_ studying philosophy, rather than _by_ studying it, emphasizing that the practice is still a thing to do in itself rather than something that will happen as a byproduct of studying a particular subject.
How about the harmonious integration of both systems 1 and 2, such that the brain's operating systems are in a state of equilibrium?
Picard > Kirk
Hello
YES! I never liked Kirk.
kirk in original was good but yeah picard is better.
+Vaibhav Gupta meh, it just annoyed me how he could make illogical decisions that then worked out for him. Maybe it's just the first generation that didn't do it for me, because every time it felt like the plot boiled down to Spock saying "this is the logical decision", bones saying "screw logic!" and then Kirk found a perfect solution that made everything magically better.
Sisko>Picard
7:46 "Thinking takes practice. And there are few better ways to practice thinking than to study Philosophy" 👏
I'm not studying philosophy in college
Didn't do it at school as it wasn't a subject. But I'm a self taught philosopher. I'm not a philosopher but I'm studying about all of myself to train my brain power and speed.
Great question from the Thorns. I have tried expressing this same opinion as the one you used as, "People believe what they can't help believing, according to their reasoning abilities and the information they've been given."
Love how clear and concise you are
The Major theme of Moby Dick is whales/whaling
alexsxe massive dick
Hearing "keep coming back to the start" after she came out is..... an experience
I appreciate this Kahnman book specifically being covered and I still appreciate the ~> 20 minute video releases and not only b/c of nostalgia (identified bias)
So many great points that I wish more people knew about in our culture :1 Thinking is an excellent practice and it maintains a healthy and diverse form of perceptual existence.
A good experiment imo to show you can't simply choose what to believe is trying to walk of a cliff without feeling fear, trying to believe you'll fly.
I see this quite a lot in many places, that 'system 2', the rational, effortful, the deliberate and careful ways of thinking, will correct our moral missteps and errors in reasoning. That if we were thinking more carefully about things we would live in a better society as we would be more effective at getting true belief instead of the more emotive and simplistic ways of thinking we are used to. But I have recently become disillusioned with this idea after reading a study titled "Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government".
In it they look at how people interpret scientific evidence. The two hypotheses they used were (summarized) 1. that people who use system 2 reasoning more will come to accurate judgments, and 2. that people will pick out evidence that supports our identity and relationships with people to keep our identity and relationships intact and coherent.
In the experiment they had two groups, in one they got a description of a scientific experiment in which they would have to make a calculation (system 2) about what conclusion should be drawn. In this group the description was of a study of a new cream for skin rashes. The trial was randomised and people would either get the skin cream or a placebo and their rash either improved or not. These results are given as raw numbers and the test is to see if the participants interpreted the results properly as it was a math problem. The numbers are designed so that there is a simple system 1 solution, and if the participant was thinking carefully they would find the true, system 2, solution. It tests if you are good at math problems.People who are good at numbers are good at this sort of problem, they get the right answer, and the people who aren't so good don't.
Then comes the important bit. They give another group the same exact numbers, the exact numbers. The difference comes when the participants are told that these numbers are from a study on gun control measures introduced to a state and a comparison state had not implemented the measures and that the numbers were of the instances of crime. The numbers are the same as those given for the rash and so the correct answer the same. The Experimenters identified whether the participants were Democrat of Republican. If system 2 (here represented by numerical thinking) or the tendency to use system 2 gets true beliefs then the result should be the same as in the group that were presented the numbers as skin cream.
One result that you could expect is that groups that people who think more deeply about things should get better results. Another result that you could expect is that it won't make a difference. But what happened was a even more depressing finding. That if you are, say, a liberal, and so more inclined to believe that gun control is a good thing, or republican, and so more inclined to believe that gun control is a bad thing, it's not that you just ignore evidence, it's that you are more biased the higher your numeracy is. The the more able you are to use system 2 the worse you are at interpreting the evidence.
They conclude that if a part of your identity is at stake, your ideology, your relationships, etc. System 2 thinking will hinder you because you are motivated to reinforce your position.
So, umm, help.
This could also be a good suggestion for why philosophy is the way it is.
help
Late to the conversation but chiming in because it's interesting. It seems to me that the results of the study challenge the value of predictions derived from a simplistic apprehension of just the System 1 / System 2 model. I note that the hypotheses you summarized were bore out in the results - the people with greater System 2 capability honed in more effectively on a judgment supporting their identity and relationships. Accuracy not in objectivity, but in group cohesion.
It doesn't make sense when System 2 is expected to just produce more objectively accurate judgments adhering to the facts at hand, but it does when you consider the functional capabilities of System 2 (rather than an expected product) in the context of what motivates a person to produce judgments of what quality, and to what end. System 2 is a means, not an end, and the end reached by it will be determined by other factors.
So the study could then be seen as opening the question of how do we describe and study systems of motivation, especially in conjunction with the System 1 / System 2 model of method to arrive at judgment. Given that high level System 2 functioning _can_ produce more objectively accurate judgment _or_ more acute bias, what factors sway the result in the moment?
Hello Olly, I have a couple of observations about this video.1) Daniel Kahneman has a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, which is an economics prize administered by the Nobel foundation, but it is not a Nobel prize. This may appear to be just nitpicking, but considering that Nobel prizes award "prestige" to scientists, we have to consider that some of the sciences that do receive a Nobel prize (let's say, physics), have much more solid status epistemologically than economics, and more importantly, are less affected by political ideology and policy making (other actual Nobel prizes, like Literature or Peace, are actually of course much more ideological and determined by politics). In fact, if I were to guess, that a psychologist is rewarded for "having integrated insights from psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human judgment and decision-making under uncertainty", should be considered by all accounts ideological for someone believing at least partially in the fundamentals of the critique of political economy; that is on the one hand, presenting him as "Nobel prize winning" is wrong ("Nobel laureate" is not), and it has certain effects which I am sure you would recognize 1.1) This criticism ultimately binds to the uses of "cognitive x" to finally grant scientific status based on reductionism to an alleged science: say, making "cognitive psychology". But psychology should be examined on its owns merits. Why does it have to do with the above? Because the reification of the homo oeconomicus subject into a psychological, decision-making subject is an essential feature of the ideology of political economy, which ties into the fact that deconstructing political economy actually requires a deconstruction of that most rich of collections, psychology; 2) I guess that because Thinking fast and slow is a science communication effort, it decided to recur to a metaphor; however, by labeling such metaphors as systems, are we not in the risk of reification, not only from us as readers, but that the researcher actually intuitively treats them as separate. Can one say, for example, that "system 1" may be broken, but no "system 2"? How about the other way around? What is their relationship? Most importantly, if they are one and the same, how do we know which lane we are on? To suggest two systems in order to argue that we have a brain which has both ready-made answers and intuitive responses apart from its actually analytical mechanisms seems kind a stretch; also, by labeling them just "system 1" and "system 2" they are put equal, but they appear very different in their features. 3) Especially with the example of the librarian and the farmer, there is something like a risk of confusion. That is: anyone just thinking will actually come to the conclusion: "well, being quiet, tidy, meek, neat and, organized, is not part of the concept of being either a librarian nor a farmer", so this premise is irrelevant for the question. Then, you use the fact that a random person is much more likely to be a farmer than a librarian. Perhaps it is just me, but your explanation feels to imply that in spite of being all of those things, he is still more likely to be a farmer, and is not the right way to approach the issue, 3.1) this ties into anther thing: coming to this conclusion only requires that one is trained in logic (not being an expert, just trained), which I guess would form part of "system 2". This of course brings us to the question: if "system 2" is trained into, as you say at the end, are we just simply talking about trained an untrained brains. That is: do we have a proper frontier between thinking just about the brain and the education it receives?; 4)finally, talking about scientific ideology, there is the hypothesis of these two systems being the result of adaptation. Adaptationist bias is probably the most common form of ideology amongst practitioners of biology, and by extension scientists untrained in it but somehow attempting to be "materialistic and scientific". So: our brains are material objects which have been and currently are subjected to the mechanisms that cause evolution, only one of which adaptation, which isn't the most common, nor the fastest: there is random mutation, there are chain gene networks, as I believe evolutionary developmental biology labels them; and there are of course exaptations. Adaptation is the most recurred to because it falls straight into the "survival of the fittest" motive (which you actually have acknowledged in your Marx and Darwin video to be problematic), but it is by no means the only possible explanation. 4.1) The way you present this has to be mentioned: you say that our brains evolved in a context in which you required fast responses, as do any other animals, so perhaps what I am reading as a typical adaptationist bias (that animals change into the changes they need, which can lead to a Lamarckian representation intuitively) is something slightly more refined: I guess that what you are saying is the fact that we kept a vestigial structure even as we developed a more refined analytical one. But still: calling someone out on adaptationist bias is a valid observation. 4.2) Most importantly, theories for the scientific method based on hypothesis accommodating better a certain fact (like, proposing adaptation for the discovered aspects of thinking) have a host of epistemological problems. Popper falsificationism, sociological accounts of science like Thomas S. Kuhn, lack-of-an-actual-method Feyerabend ideas, constructivism in the Bachelardian sense, Althusserian's "dialectical materialism" and the transformation of ideology into science (which I adhere to most), are all different attempts to account for actual scientific knowledge that do not fall into the problems of the traditional scientific method rationale; albeit, they are works in progress and have problems of their own.
I agree with your conclusion (the importance of honing one's thinking skills, and the sometimes - too often, in the case of psychology - neglected importance of philosophy), but even though the literature on judgment, decision making, and how they can go wrong has been immensely successful (even leading to the Nobel memorial prize in Kahnemann's case), it's interesting to note that this tradition isn't uncontroversial in psychology. I refer you to Lopes (1991; doi: 10.1177/0959354391011005) for a critical account of this research school and its methods and assumptions.
Keep up the good work!
FINALLY someone gave a reasonable estimate of Captain Kirk's ability to lead a Starship crew!
You authoritatively state that the "major theme" in MOBY DICK is "revenge;" aside from such assertion being an poignant snapshot of "bias," I would enjoy discussing the book with you.
@@laurencedavid-raynault6880 My attempts at answers to those questions would be "A study in obsession, the meaning one derives from it and its ultimate futility" and "It's definitely a good book, but it helps if you like reading long passages of whale facts". Though I would recommend taking both of those answers with a pinch of salt, because they are both subjective and probably coloured by it having been a while since I read the book :p
I just had a thought, what if the Anchoring Effect is also a by product of being a social species. It is also advantageous for us to read a social environment and adapt to it quickly, so for example if the girl you fancy mentions she likes chocolate, your brain will grab that information and adapt to the conversation and possibly even coerce you into getting her chocolates later to try and win her affection.
This was a surprisingly very entertaining and educating episode. Thanks!
If the cheeky math around 2:25 grabbed you, here's the solution. Bat + ball =1.10. Let's call bat X, and ball Y. X+Y=1.10. We also know that Y(Ball)+1=X(Bat). Substituting (Y+1) for X gives us the equation (Y+1)+Y= 1.10, we can remove the parentheses and simplify, 2Y+1=1.10. Remove the 1 from each side, leaves us with 2Y=.10, and divide by 2 gives us Y=.05. The ball is .05, the bat is 1.05, all works out nice.
If you ever have extra time, I'd love to see a video on your take of the ubermensch.
Right here! :) ruclips.net/video/3EqorjVSdUI/видео.html
...even better!
Philosophy is a conscious effort not to think superficially which is a healthy exercise for everybody.
One of the best yet. Thanks for this.
The fact that someone knows the major themes of a particular book doesn’t really illustrate the point that thinking in general takes practice, but the multiplication example does. In the case of being able to quickly call up the themes of Moby Dick, the particular fact that was the answer to the particular question just happened to be something that they had already transferred to their memory so that they could recall them quickly. In some cases the multiplication example does illustrate your point, because some people don’t know the answer because they remember the answer the particular problem- instead, they just have gotten used to doing multiplication quickly, which is a case of developing a particular kind of thinking as a skill, by practice. Some others might know the answer to 13 X 17 by memorization (for instance, any single-digit times single-digit multiplication problem, I just remember from memorizing the times tables in school, which isn’t the same as developing my ability to think through the process of multiplication).
The case of calling up the themes of Moby Dick is different in that it can only be achieved by memorization. If you haven’t read Moby Dick or you don’t know what the themes are, then no amount of thinking, no matter how good and practiced at it you are, will magically make the answer pop into your head.
Anyway, interesting take!
I think this my favorite video by you. Has a lot of reall substance to it.
Excellent video.
Thanks for the Great information
I really think you should've introduced the terminology of "cognitive ease" that's at the heart of the main point of "Thinking Fast And Slow", according to the author it's what causes phenoma such as "anchoring". Eye-Opening book to me, definetly recommended to everyone. I also think it would be a great starting point for a video on the relationship of objective truth and scientific theories (as you mentioned, your brain isn't split into 2 systems, but it's convienent/valuable for our purposes to think of it as such).
I was hoping for a take on the 1980s "This is your brain on drugs" commercial. An egg cooking video that compared the different methods of egg cookery to understanding various philosophies and philosophers.
Stoicism is just a raw egg in your flat, stale beer. Still nutritious and allows for the focus on gaining the courage to start the day, perhaps by moving on to beer 2.
Nietzche would be Balut.
Hume is a Scotch Egg replacing Black Pudding for a full and completely earned, not privileged, Full English Breakfast.
JBP would be a sous vide omelette that wasn't given enough time to set.
Heidegger is pickeled eggs.
nice vid i really liked the sleep metaphor!! that's literally what a habit means eh. our thoughts/believes r like repeated random habits
1:48 lesson: Philosophers ain't stereotype. They're open thinkers.
Really interesting channel. Subscribed. Hope to grab MOAR KNOWLEDGE (so I can infinitely annoy my system 1...and that of my friends').
Awesome, welcome to the little community!
Well, I believe that COLLIDING BIASES could be helpful.. but only to those who are open-minded. It will test one's own held beliefs and check if one holds on to the same conviction. I love this topic because my brains often work with SYSTEM 2. For years, I have trained my brain when should I be using snap decisions and what matters demand SERIOUS THINKING. Thanks a lot for another helpful topic.
Great video, great summary of the book!
Humanity and its lack of empathy combined with logic is why we have lots of problems in other words feeling must be included in all decisions but it also must not be a sole solution only through both feeling nd logic can a serious conclusion be taken seriously
wisdom that philosophers seek
About glucose and the brain, you might want to take a deeper look? This is what I have read, feel free to correct any misunderstandings I might have acquired: Some cells in our body can only run on glucose, red blood cells and the thinner branches of brain cells are two important examples. The reason is that they for various reasons can't extract energy using oxygen (aerobic). Ketones (the energy-carrying fat-based alternative to glucose) can only be utilized aerobically. However, when glucose is broken down anaerobically, it ends up as lactic acid. This is then converted into glucose again by the liver in a process called Gluconeogenesis, which can get the energy needed from ketones. Thus although some cells do need glucose, the glucose is not instantly used up, but to a certain degree recycled, and the energy for that cycle can ultimately come from fat. We need some replenishing of glucose, but not as much as most assume. This makes very much sense, we know the body can't store very much glucose, and that we can use it up quite quickly. If we didn't have other energy sources for our brains, we'd be basically brain dead the first time we couldn't carb up...
I believe there are varying levels of belief, and that the language we have to describe those levels is insufficient. I might say "I believe that I can fly", but that doesn't mean that I *actually* believe it. And if I did, I'd likely be mad.
But the assertion that beliefs can be chosen is itself a thing that one can believe in, and if I believe strongly enough that I can choose to believe in things, this creates a sort of circular logic that I find to be valid despite its circuity. I believe that I can choose to believe things. That doesn't mean that it's always an easy thing to do. Some beliefs are harder to adopt than others. But if something is plausible, it's easier to believe in general, and therefore easier to adopt as an individually held belief.
I might say "I believe I can fly" and really mean "I want to believe I can fly", while deep down I believe that I can't. But something more nebulous like, "I believe it's going to be a good day" doesn't create the same cognitive dissonance that merely wanting to believe something does. It is therefore easier to get to that point of actually believing it, because the cognitive dissonance is experienced as a sort of friction on the way towards belief.
Kinda find the topics quite informative & enriching.. Bias may also refer to 'prejudice'..i think as you were explaining philosophy, you were actually drifting your theories towards psychology..am not sure if you're aware of it.. i really appreciate your episodes. Thanks a lot..
i was today years old when i considered the effect of the availability of glucose on critical thinking
"Who should you vote for?" should be a 'System 1' for the US this year.
Cue 4 years later...
Interesting video! Thanks! :)
This isn't really a question about this video, though, but it's something I was wondering if you could answer.
So at what point do we know that our subjective experiences are real? If someone is schizophrenic, they can have conversations for years with people they've imagined who don't exist. They can see things that aren't there. So one could argue if the 2 of us see it along with you, it's real. But if only you're seeing it, it's not. That's not always true, though, is it? Sometimes one person will see something no one else saw, but that doesn't mean it wasn't real.
On the other end of things are mass delusions, where many people say they saw something that is later said to have never happened. Religious experiences come to mind as an example. Many people can all say they saw the same thing, a burning bush or a vision, and it could still be counted as never happening.
To take the question to a further example, you look at the idea proposed by the movie The Matrix, where the whole world is a lie. Even though everyone in that world agrees on what's happening, they're all wrong. The "real" world is outside their capacity to experience on a conscious level. They're all laying in pods providing energy for their robot overlords, but none of them realize it.
So what does it take to say that our experiences are real? Subjective experiences can't be validated even when shared with other people, so how do we know that anything we're experiencing is real?
What possible proof could we offer to say this world is what we think it is? That the office party we threw happened at all? That the friend I'm talking with on the phone even exists? At what point can our subjective experiences be proven? And are there even any truly objective experiences, something we can point to and say "This is REAL."? If so, what would be an example of an objective experience?
You've probably answered these questions in videos somewhere along the way, and sorry for that if I'm asking a redundant question. I was just thinking about this tonight, and was wondering what philosophy has to say about it.
Thanks for your videos!! They are intriguing.
I was able to think my way out of a fixed delusion recently. I started by saying, "My problem is thinking. I think I am a kind of messiah." Then I said, "Seeing is a deeper problem, because I perceive cues in the world that reinforce my delusion." But finally I said, "The ultimate root problem I have is in looking. When I look at the world I look for things that will reinforce my notion that I am a kind of messiah. If I look for something that isn't there, I will be disappointed. But if I only look for the sake of seeing whatever actually happens to be in the world I can never be dissatisfied." The Buddha said, "All of life is unsatisfactory," and while I don't believe that is true, I do believe that dissatisfaction often comes by looking for something in the world that is not there, not that one should not look for things in the world, but that he should practice great care when looking.
I think of this as an example of pattern recognition. It exists more often in people with psychosis, delusions, or unique perceptual experiences. It can lead to loose association of ideas, creative thinking, storytelling, and putting together pieces to get things before others by a small set of clues. However, if someone is stressed, traumatized, wants to believe something, or their imagination goes with the wrong clues towards something grandiose, paranoid, intrusive, or anxiety or ego based with a sureness that isn't doubtable, that when things can be hijacked.
I suppose that's my definition of a delusion, a non-doubtable idea with a lot of emotional intensity behind it where if given all facts, or talking to everyone else meant no one else saw it, the answer would be just as intense. Self awareness of our own brains seems to be the antidote to delusions, anxiety, where they come from, in desire for the story, feelings inflicted upon by environment or the brain itself, or societal constructs that aren't fairly examined, and just taken as the default "normal".
With that ability to know sometimes someone feels wrong and they may not always know why, but it's a worthy pursuit. And that even the most "objectively" intelligent of all brains can piece together clues wrongly, or get hijacked and colonized by other actions and thoughts. Without shame, but motivation to figure things out. Hey, I've been quite wrong before, but that's the only time you have the opportunity to learn and be better. Even when the answer is painful, its still part of the puzzle.
@@emily-hj2hh Thank you for the well-thought out reply. You're right. It is all a puzzle. We can keep laughing till doomsday as long as we get in the right headspace. I have a blog called Susurrus Waking, if you want to check it out. Peace.
Oxytocin (the "love hormone") is a nonapeptide hormone synthesized in the supraoptic and paraventricular nuclei of the hypothalamus. Oxytocin has an effect on uterine smooth muscle contraction, blood pressure, memory, learning capability, nursing, sexual and feeding behavior. Oxytocin and vasopressin stimulate the release of insulin and glucagon from the pancreas. Multi organelle effects of oxytocin make it as important hormone in body.
Studies have found that administering oxytocin into the body reduces blood glucose levels - i.e. glocuse becomes absorbed from the blood stream by cells in the body to use it as energy (via the action on insulin which rises with increasing oxytocin levels).
Studies have also found that administering glocuse into the blood stream (through the process of eating cake for example) reduces oxytocin levels.
The stress hormone Cortisol works oppositely to Oxytocin - raising blood glucose levels. Actually the two hormones work in partnership: Cortisol releasing glucose from fat stores in the body in response to a threat for example, and then through exercise in respose to the treat Oxytocin is released to trigger energy absorbtion into muscle cells for example...
...A problem is though that although we find sugary foods rewarding (due to the energy) consuming lots of sugary foods - which we aren't adapted to do as historically sugar was a scarce commodity - can mess up our metabolism and have the effect of chronically raising the levels of the stress hormone Cortisol. A by-product of this is that other hormones that increase in response to stress like dopamine become chronically increased as well, which can contribute to depression psychosis...
Constant stress or reward effects the nucleus accumbens in the brain - a main centre for reward (it is stimulated by cocaine and dopamine) and a region of the brain that plays an important role in reinforcement of addictions. Over-stimulation reduces reward receptors in the nucleus accumbens - this is a contributor to 'burn-out' and depression following chronic stress or excessive stimilation by cocaine for example. Direct stimulation via electrodes has been found to reduce severe depression.
Love this book, changed my life
Thanks.. brilliant topic & conclusion!
Thanks for making this video, I really enjoied it! I actually never find another Philosophy channels do this sort of thing, like videos about the philosopher. So great job, really! By the way do you have any tips for starting a philosophy youtube channel?
Thanks!
Hi Ollie, I loved that episode! Just a side note to put this topic in a historico-philosophical context:
Henri Bergson probably would have referred to "system-1-thinking" via his notion of "intellect", whereas he would have identified "system-2-thinking" with "intuition".
I haven't read Kahnemann yet. However, judging from what you say in the video, Bergson seems to have expressed very similar ideas vis-á-vis thought. I wonder if you have read Bergson and what you think about drawing this analogy. Cheers!
thank you for making these videos.
Do extroverts tend more toward using the System 1?
Thoughts:
I think a lot of system 1 is affected by the limbic system, the amydala, the lizard brain. Fight, flight, freeze, fawn, anxiety and trauma responses. Addiction and dopamine reward systems that help to easily combat feeling bad, and produce a high stronger than glucose, or a relaxation of the chemicals that affect the amygdala. If someone has been through a lot of unsafe situations, feelings of emotional neglect, or just has a more sensitive nervous system, experiences otherness, witnesses others going through the same, that can easily cement connections and memories that can be triggered by reminders, even if the situation is safe. Some lead to fast thinking, a greater analysis of risk factors, but others thyroid issues, anxiety, panic, all the system clusters labeled by psychiatrists as illness (which can unfortunately produce more of a sense of otherness, especially with intersecting identities, cultural experiences, some socially advantageous for bad reasons, that still appear and are repeated.) Breast feeding and white matter does have some to do with how fast that second system can work, and the brain can communicate between it's parts. Nutrition and actions during pregnancy and early life experiences. But these are not always true, can correlate, and are not always predictors or determinants.
I do think the one thing you can do to reward system two is try to abandon having to be right, and indemnifying with beliefs, but put the priority in understanding - of people, self, and the world, and try to self reflect, soothe anxieties and emotions and not always go to the first decision. And, obviously, self care like sleep, as much safety and fulfilling self conversation, food for that part of the brain intellectually, and literally with protein and complex carbohydrates or fiber that have not so short of a burst as glucose, are better absorbed and released, and don't have the crash after, and the addiction of simple sugars. Stay away from addictive behaviors, without demonizing and obsessing, focus on passions and areas where your brain excels and works best - whether that's visual, metaphorical, kinesthetic and while moving, auditorily, and use that as a portal to understand the world. It's worth practising and repeating what are not strengths, but valuing the unique complexity of your own brain and trying to understand it, take care of it, and use it wisely, while knowing you will never fully know, trying to meet others as equals to see what wisdom you can get from them - even if its only to test out their ideas and determine they're all wrong.
I like to read the writings of other minds. Speak to them about how their own system works. Watch their actions to see if it matches up with their words. Practice my own thinking, and use the world as the stage and labratory to do so, write and paint and see what comes out I may not know was there. But..I'm not sure I agree of the language that one part of the brain is lower. I do think there is one part that would be considered lower that is quite important, besides quick impulse reactions in an unsafe situation, because those unfortunately do exist, especially more for some than others. And that perhaps is what some would call a bit of moral bias, empathy, and disgust at things that I would say is.. good. Though it can get hijacked with propaganda, scapegoating, phobias, hatred.
I am happy that in people something stirs when they see someone else being horribly mistreated. That it is hard to live with themselves if they do that. I guess it might be considered higher to have a deep philosophical talk with onesself about what is good or bad..but I've seen philosophers get it wrong. So many times. Honestly, the ones most studied most of the time. About just the ways to treat others, and who counts as worthy of good treatment, and what that looks like. Rationally or logically trying to condone things that are wrong, talking only to other "philosophers" or sitting in ivory towers away from connection. I'd hope if someone sees another being hurt, or oppressed, it triggers a reaction of pain or disgust. When one person is in power and the other isn't, and it's done to inflict pain on purpose, or by neglect and narcissism. That it would trigger an emotional response. I know someone who tests on the range of psychopathy, but says that he has good values that rationality governs. He is very interested in constantly talking about himself, but I can recognize love and connection, and he is very intelligent. But now..is a non mask wearer while being a doctor and essential worker who didn't lock down.
Hey, it's America.
Just thought I'd write this as the world is missing on some empathy, in the hopes it resonates with someone. Pattern recognition can lead people with emotional language in stressful times into creatively awful mindsets. Imagination filling the gaps and "family" being those who are hated by similar people, repeating the same mythos told for centuries for no reason but control and meeting that other, with a fear response and the declaration that they are less and dangerous. But. Pattern recognition can also link one idea to another. Create amazing stories with meaning and truth, or find a similarity, a "form" to truth. I've found that when my brain and my heart sync up, I'm in the right place. We do have neurons in our heart and gut, so maybe it's literal. But love just feels good, and acting for good does when it makes sense for the whole, when your truth is being lived and it logically aligns. For me. For others, maybe not.
But hey, we don't know, and I like the qualitative where you try to ask and listen without having a hypothesis, because your mind can only do so much by itself. It's plastic though, and scientists were wrong with they determined that plasticity only lasted for a time. Some don't have the time or the motivation to exercise it, the self esteem, the energy, the level of safety and getting out of that amygdala. I don't see non-human animals as lower, but why not have that uniquely philosophizing brain without using it. As a species we've had some interesting motivations and actions that it might be easier to look away from, or..human to. But if we do, they will always repeat, until we've destroyed what of the earth is left, and ourselves. Can't understand the whole part by just looking at the bits we like.
Testing these ideas, constantly trying to understand and feeling vast empathy and connection, I've still come up with that otherness from first memory. But to any other youtube essayists out there thinking and feeling consantly, especially lately, trying to see the only good side of anything, which is maybe growing, figuring out your own mistakes, loving, giving, being true, finding truth, staying unknowing, skeptical, critically thinking, casting out the mental colonization of any ideas that are just there to be reinforced for control and superstition, phobias and violence, pulling out the splinters of other people's actions and words..your cool. Keep figuring it out. And take care.
I love you Olly!
Whoops, i blame my ADHD for mispelling your name so many times
Great read.
i see a connection to the character Roquentin in Sartre's "Nausea". the metaphor you illustrate could be used to explain Roquentin's sensory hallucinations as a malfunction of the system 2 aspect over-analysing phenomena which ought to be expediently carried out by system 1. Do you find any parallels between the theories you are describing in this video and Phenomenology?
It's funny because with the librarian question instead of instantly thinking librarian I instantly thought "don't answer it's a trick". I guess I've been watching too many videos about riddles and whatnot haha. Does this mean if I was on trial for a crime I should wear a T-shirt with a low number on it?
great video!
Thanks!
The wierdest part was that I guessed ghandi was 79 before he explained. I just used prior knowledge of average life expectancy at the time and images I've seen of him.
Dude, this video probably changed how I look at a lot of things
Your librarian-farmer example doesn't quite work if you consider Bayesian analysis which takes into account the likelihood of a hypothesis being true given some data (e.g. personality).
I'm a librarian, and I'm not neat, tidy, organized, or meek - although I'll cop to quiet. I know lots of librarians, and few of them fit this stereotype. So when presented with that question, I immediately started pondering how those qualities might benefit a farmer. Certainly neat, tidy, and organized would be helpful in farming and in running a business of any kind.
6:18 Then the question should be what does the bankers' bonuses have to do with you? Is it negative bias maybe?
Everyone lives on and bound by their individual knowledge and awareness. However both knowledge and awareness are equivocal, one's reality may be another's illusions. Reality can be seen as time considering life itself is measured by time which is an illusion, I became interested in philosophy after watching the movie Lucy I began to love wisdom.👌
This video is excellent!
Good stuff Mate!
Great video! However, it's not true that Kahnemans theory is merely methaphorical. There actually are models that directly map Kahnemans S1 and S2 theory onto ways in which the brain processes information. Most notable is Bernard Baars famous Global Workspace model of consciousness. This model tells us that S2 or consciouss processing is slow, deliberate, logical etc. because the neural information has to be globally distributed throughout the brain so that other parts can also use this information. On the other hand, S1 or unconsciouss processing is fast, frequent, emotional etc. because the neural information only has to be processed locally in a specific area of the brain. Consequently, it's a mistake to say that the dual process theory from Kahneman is 'merely' methaporical.
System 1 has so much potential when time is needed to make a decision. Is there a way to improve it so we are less influenced by bias?
So this video is stating that the reason system 2 is so rarely used is because glucose used to be scarce, and we evolved brains to conserve as much of it as possible? That does seem to me like an intuitive answer, and it does make intuitive sense. But then again, perhaps intuition isn't fully correct in this matter. While I think that the scarcity of glucose could be a part of it, who's to say that there aren't other factors involved with the way we think?
Oh yeah, you could definitely be right there :)
Very informative 👏🏼
Hi Olly, big fan of the channel. I was wondering whether you might wish to do a video on the topic of drug laws and the political philosophy behind it. I briefly looked at researching this for my thesis but found a rare consensus among philosophers that current strict laws (e.g UK laws) are unjustified from a variety of different philosophical approaches. This is not to say that the question is settled or any less urgent. It is my view that the current imprisonment of individuals for nonviolent self-regarding behaviour, disproportionately from lower income backgrounds, perpetuating cycles of poverty and drug use is a very serious issue that deserves our attention. What do you think?
I've heard metaphors like this before, talking about a fast system 1 and a slow system two, but I've always found that I don't seem to fit the idea that we defer to system 1 when possible. I find that I always seem to go to system 2 very quickly if not immediately. It is very annoying for people since when someone asks what seems to be a simple question with a simple answer, and then I go off on a tangent about what I'm thinking, how things work, and how I'd imagine we'd get to the answer.
So during sentencing in a criminal case defense attorneys should presumably pepper their final arguments with very small numbers, no matter how unrelated to the length of prison sentences, and the prosecuting attorney with very high numbers. Or do judges not finalize sentences for long enough afterward and after encountering so many other numbers that it wouldn't make a difference?
Powerful
Love this video
I think this I why I come off as dim in a lot of subjects. I don't like to answer questions without context. Farmer or librarian? That depends on a lot of factors. How old was Gandhi when he died? I don't know, when was he born? This also gives me terms to explain why I take so long to go grocery shopping. "This is the only brand I can afford, I need this but it was created unethically in ways that probably resulted in death, does this make me as bad as a murderer? A contributor to an unjust system? Or a victim of the system? All this over children's socks and I've got another dozen things on my list to go," (The only store in my town is a Walmart, hence the socks on the grocery list). I normally end up quiting before I'm done because I've gotten too enraged or dejected. Then comes the ethical quandary, to use or not to use the self checkout?
That's an awesome video!
but what is the likelihood of a Daniel with those qualities being a librarian or farmer?
In the US at least:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are somewhere between 150-200 thousand librarians [1] depending on who you count as a librarian. In contrast, there are over 2 million 'agricultural workers' [2].
So, even if 90% of librarians had those qualities, and only 10% of agricultural workers did, Daniel is still slightly more likely to be a farmer. In reality though, I would expect that librarians aren't that much more likely to fit the stereotype than farmers, if at all. If instead: 50% of librarians fit the stereotype, and 30% of farmers do, then Daniel is six times more likely to be a farmer.
[1] www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11b.pdf
[2] www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat15.pdf
Hey Ollie, I know you've mentioned Nietzsche before and had a short video on his concept of the Ubermensch, but I don't recall you have done a full length video on him. Might you consider this? And do you have any quick opinions on him you'd like type out? Thank you SO MUCH for what you do and for being so great at viewer interaction!
If I may ask just curious do u have a degree in philosophy or u r amateur ? cuzz u r really good at spreading philosophical thoughts nd ideas thanks
Yeah it says at the start - got my MA from St Andrews
When we read a awesome book, then Olly makes a video about.
So from what I have researched about philosophy and as of yet is that the main objective of the teaching is to understand wright from wrong and guilt from innocence and that you enjoy better to share sexual pleasure with other more than you do with yourself and that is to defy the act of temptation.
I wonder if it's actually true that quiet farmers are still more numerous than quiet librarians. I'm not sure the person acting on impulse is necessarily wrong in this situation. Perhaps the demands of farming prevent one from developing qualities we think of as quiet and meek. Librarians are mostly at-will workers and perhaps the job attracts quiet people because you can't be particularly noisy while on it. I'm not sure we have enough information to say definitively that there are really more quiet and meek farmers than librarians. I guess it's a job for a social scientist to design a survey we could hand out to farmers and librarians.
Hi. Intersting subject, but with some sterotypes ;) What make you conclude in past, the only use of brain can be for fast decision, like tiger come, run ? Its also likely possible to imaginate a lot and hard relationship to manage with other people, and a social hierarchy or not we will never know cause no writing.
Also nothing to conclusion the brain of philosopher is fundamental different (in relation our title). We know brain of musician is different and visible when we examine it, but i didn't have knowledge specific on philosopher brain (and i will be curious about the definition of philosopher would be employed ;) )
But globaly i appreciate the video and its good... in opposite of my bad english :)
Good continuation
Good stuff, as always! Hope you're doing well in London (I'm trying not to be jealous, I love London). :)
What you say is very debatable from a more specialized scrutiny. You may know Gerd Gigerenzer, who showed that is actually statistics and statical education to help with biases... Also Joshua Greene’s studies show that kantian deontology is more connected to system 1 than previously thought ... I’d love to say that the goal of philosophy is to improve system 2 but this claim is controversial
Good work!
But as you are just using metaphorical meaning of 'system 1' and 'system 2', I think it's more accurate to title the video as 'what happens to a philosopher's thinking habit'. People who are interested in this video might want to know what are the irreversible biological changes to their brain when they learn more philosophy. But that is not really expressed in this video. (Are there any neuroscientists scanned philosopher's brain to figure out the difference between them and others? It would be interesting if that can be included. But the interpretation of neuroscience results can be easily misunderstood too...)
That question may prove to be impossible to answer?? Some philosophers have such muddled thoughts that it behooves one to ask if they know what they are thinking??
For the librarian farmer question: you are assuming one already has knowledge that there exists more farmers than librarians. Furthermore, since your critique of someone answering 'librarian' is to cite something outside the bounds of what the question is asking inherently, it demonstrates the Loaded Question Fallacy of your question.
If a person thinks more critically about the question, they could realize before answering that Daniel's traits don't actually provide enough information to answer it correctly. If the person does not know about the statistics on how likely any random person is to be a librarian vs a farmer, they could refrain from answering by reason of insufficient information. The person asked does not need to have the additional information to display a considered response.
He's right though, that when my brain produced the snap judgment "librarian", my next move in examining that answer was to recognize that what I really answered wasn't the general "Is Daniel more likely to be a librarian, or a farmer?" but rather "Does Daniel sound more like my preconception of a librarian or a farmer?" Which is a different question, but one which can be easily substituted in - which is the point of what Olly was talking about.
"There is a person named Daniel. Is Daniel more likely to be a librarian, or a farmer?" Without any further information, it's easy to just answer based on number of librarians vs farmers in the world, or guess, or refrain from answering due to a lack of awareness of the relevant statistic. The information describing Daniel as a person, though, does have some influence on the answer _without_ substituting the question (librarians may be more prone to those qualities) but it also primes the brain to substitute in an easier question. Whether he _sounds_ more like a librarian is not the same as whether he more likely _is_ a librarian.