00:18 "Heuristics" are straight-forward rules of thumb that we develop based on our past experiences. they are cognitive tools that help make quick decisions or judgments. 00:26
It's more like he's channeling Edmund Husserl, who taught about Phenomenology early in the 1900's Germany. What's important about this message is EVERYBODY is unique. All Knowledge is relative to the individual.
00:37 For example, rather than spending time deciding what to wear every day, you might have some default outfits. Or when faced with a lunch menu with room many options, you may opt for what you've enjoyed in the past. 00:50
00:03 "Every day you make decisions and judgments. Sometimes you're able to think about them carefully, but other times you make them on the fly using little information. 00:18 this is where Heuristics come in. 00:18
I'd be careful saying the world is less violent than ever before but I see your point and this is an awesome video. The animation is a wonderful touch. Great job.😃
Why? Is your reasoning evidence based or merely what your brain believes based on the information it’s been fed? What are your mental shortcuts? What are your biases? What media do you consume, that may lead to faulty conclusions about the amount of violence that actually exists?
@ Alphacentauri819, Rather than begging the question, consider the fact of "reasoning evidence" on the fallacious statement of "the world is less violent than ever before" which is oversimplified and subject to interpretation. In the past 20 years (1:05) communication around the world has increased dramatically with vasts amounts of information readily available (e.g: internet, news, social media etc.) to serve as evidence but in the past century (1:00) less proof is accessible and lots of events happened that most people probably would never heard about or forgot; not forgetting that a lot of events were never recorded. We also need to redefine the concept of "violence". Are we talking about armed conflicts between nations, violent crime rates, systemic violence or structural forms of violence (e.g: poverty, inequality)? While some forms of violence (e.g: large-scale wars) have decreased in recent decades, other forms (e,g: domestic violence, state-sponsored violence or terrorism) may have remained high or even increased. Now, what do we mean by "ever before"? This is a very long time and comparing different eras (e.g: ancient history, medieval times or the modern era) is impossible. In some periods of history, violence was endemic however this does not mean the present is free of significant violence or suffering. To view current events in a more favorable light than the past is a form of optimism bias. Rather than directly engaging with @ nathanmadonna9472, you commit an Ad Hominem and shift focus away from and dismissing the actual statement and towards their supposed flaws (Appeal to Bias) without actually addressing it and without offering evidence yourself (Burden of Proof) but imply their reasoning is likely influenced by biases or faulty information (Overgeneralisation).
1:39 In fact, a slew of other heuristics can lead us to mistaken conclusions; and it doesn't matter how smart or well-educated you are. Anyone can place too much trust in the mental shortcuts they use to make sense of the world - take this example.
I agree-but the example about pre-selecting outfits (at 0:40) isn’t technically heuristics b/c it is not technically “cutting corners” cognitively, in my opinion, b/c you are merely making decisions about your outfit in advance, so that you won’t have to make that decision as you get ready. In other words, you might go through extensive, resource-intensive decisions about your outfit on the evening before going to work, so that would not meet the definition(s) of heuristics, I don’t think.
2:39 But in multiple studies, physicians routinely get this wrong, overestimating the likelihood that their patient actually has the disease. Psychologists call this the "Representativeness Heuristic". People assume People assume an individual case is more representative than it actually is. 2:53
01:24 That's examples of violence that are so readily available, we just naturally assume the world is more violent today. But in fact, the world is more peaceful today than ever before in human history. 01:34
Good point. The presenter doesn't know what he's talking about and actually is taking is subject-matter for granted. How do I know? Here's a test: If you can't replace the word "heuristics" with another simple word, you haven't understood the subject-matter or the presenter has done a bad job. Conclusion: the presenter has done a bad job.
2:25 In fact, based on the prevalence of the disease and the test result, we can be 99% sure he doesn't have the disease. This is because the odds of getting of a positive result, 1 in 10, are much higher than the odds of actually having the disease, 1 in 1000. 2:39
This is so absolutely wrong, the doctor already did diagnosis. So at that point the actual chances of a statistical 1 in a 1000 prevalency would have already dropped significantly,. Saying you can be sure to say a patient doesn't have the disease because of a possible 10% false positive and putting it in relation to the prevalence statistic and the just dividing their difference is such a logical fallacy and ludicrous. It is evident that this youtuber does not understand medical diagnosis or prevalency. It is a disgrace honestly.
00:24 Life would be exhausting if we had to deliberate over every one of the hundreds of choices we make every day. So instead we use our heuristics as shortcuts to make judgments about the world around us.
That example with the false positive medical test is not accurate at all. If a doctor was randomly testing people regardless of symptoms, perhaps it would make sense. But if you have a medical problem sever enough to go get a test, and the doctor is concerned enough to order that test, and the result comes back positive, you'd better not be 99% sure that the test is wrong. What kind of advice is that?
The minimum probability that you don't have the disease is 10%, but we can safely assume that the actual odds against you having the disease are higher still. If we assume that it's closer to 20%, that's a far cry from 99%, but still a one in five chance you're totally fine. The appropriate course of action here is to do another test (or two), to reduce the odds of being treated for a disease you don't have.
It is good advice. You wouldn't want to go through a mastectomy only to realize you never had breast cancer. Be aware of the false positive rate and choose a treatment accordingly.
I agree the video's example would make sense only if the 10% false positive rate were based on testing random people. As you said, if it were based on people tested for medical reasons, I expect the false positive rate would go down.
Much like intuition, heuristics is a shortcut to making a decision. Essentially, it's a more logical way of going from point A to point G, H, I, J, sometimes even all the way to Z.
2:03 Let's say a person tests positive for a rare disease, one that only one-in-a-thousand people have. What is the likelihood that he has the disease? Most of us would say that the likelihood is very high based on the test results alone. But what if the result was inaccurate 10% of the time. The false positive rate is 10% - a common number in medical tests. Then it is highly unlikely our patient has the disease. 2:25
this doesn't make sense to me. If the false positive rate is 10% and a person tests positive, the likelihood of having the disease would be 90% not? If the video would be correct here there would be no point doing such a test since a negative result is likely correct and a positive result (according to the video) is likely incorrect. That would mean that the result is negative regardless of the outcome of the test. Hence why do the test if that were correct?
It's so weird how I got here. I watched 2001 a space odyssey and wanted to know why the A.I in the movie was called hal 9000. Turns out it's an acronym for Heuristically Programmed ALgorithmic Computer. I had no idea what heuristically meant so I googled it and ended up here.
01:09 Heuristic reasoning might lead us to think that the world is more violent today than it has been in the past. Every day we're confronted with images of tragedy in the news and on social media. We might reasonably assume that the world is more violent today than ever before, using what's called an "availability heuristic". 01:24
00:50 Heuristics aren't about the perfect decisions or judgment, just about making one quickly. Heuristic play a role in our reasoning about the broader world too. As an example, consider the rate of violence in the world in the past century. Is the world more or less violent in the past 20 years than previously?
Heuristics are only helpful when there is huge uncertainty and frequency observations cannot be made to help make a decision but one is needed! The example you made about violence and war can actually be measured in numbers and frequency over the century to compare how violent the world is on average so in that case heuristic thinking can form biases and inaccurate results!
Arthur Schopenhauer did study dialeticity heuristic: how people argue to each other looking for won the speech but without get reasonable. In The Art of Always Being Right (book).
@@natemills9030 I'm a bit intrigued about your comment. I see our biases come from our heuristics as heuristics are quick decisions avoiding having to gather all evidence from all possibly different perspectives before making our decisions. In other words, our biases are embedded into our heuristics. Is this the way you see it or how else do you see the difference between "heuristics" and "biases"?
I think that intuition is more of using alot of information at once really fast, and heuristics is more like (experiences) that are coded into our brains which we use without thinking. For example, let's say that women have really good intuition in general and they can tell if a man is cheating on them because they can see how they act differently, notice few details, and may have an intuition that they cheating. Heuristics, on the other hand, may be shown when a woman has a friend group where they found out ( or think) that all their boyfriends are cheating on them, so the girl starts to assume that her boyfriend is cheating on her too.
1:34 We may hear a lot of violent events but in terms of raw numbers, fewer people die today in the hands of other human beings than ever before. So that heuristic about how violent the world today is, is incorrect. 1:39
Surely you would need to look at more than cause of death statistics to determine violence in general. Violence does not assume death as the byproduct.
Nice video. Curious though, at the end you talk about the "needing to be humble" in our approach with others and their views. However, I was wondering how you go about avoiding 'moral relativism' with an approach like that? What do you use to buttress against it?
Your morals, for one. I'd like to emphasize that heuristics are about problem solving quickly, often with a lack of information, time, energy, etc. The section about staying humble was referring to how heuristics can be misleading, using stereotypes as am example.
@Learn Liberty SUPER AMAZING VIDEO Completely ruined by Background music Can you Please Please Please Please Please Please re-upload this, with out BG music so i can watch it. I only made it 2 minutes in and that noise was too much. PLEASE uplaod this with out music.
If 1:1000 people chosen at random have that disease, but he was tested for it because he's symptomatic (not chosen at random, but self selected), then the odds he actually has the disease are much higher.
"It's important to be humble about our views." "We have to listen to opinions we may initially consider wrong or even offensive." You sir are cancelled!
jkjkjk, this video is about cognitive development (on here because i'm studying). Please don't make it more than it is. I think his example was really good in explaining availability heuristics (I think in this case is due to group polarization). He's saying that you shouldn't just go based off of what you or others think, do some research with an open mind and find out for yourself!! oh and by the way! Don't fall into a conformation bias :)
Yeah, I'm really trying to figure out how the conclusion posited here makes sense statistically. Based on my understanding of statistics, 10% false positive means that of the subset of positive test results, 10% aren't really positive and 90% are actually positive. The 1 in 1000 stat is irrelevant because he's already in the subset of people who have been tested positive. He has a 90% probability of being positive. I can't think of any way to add multiply or divide 10%, 90% and 0.1% (1 in 1000) to get 99%.
@@jathebest2835 it's hard these days to not assume foul intentintions when I see something so clearly wrong. but I think maybe in this case the guy just honestly made a mistake. Good video otherwise!
"common sense" itself is a heuristic, strategy devised based off previous experience that we use to make quick decisions. Its not about whether its wrong or not, actually its not about being "right" or "wrong" its simply any method we use to make a quick decision. For example, always pick C in a multiple choice question, would be a heuristic
That hospital example was so stupid and wrong... When there is a 90% change the test results are correct, it no longer matters what probability there is for you to have that decease; there's still 90% change for you to have that decease after it's been diagnosed.
When I flip a coin to determine if you have a rare disease, there's a 50% chance that the coin flip misdiagnoses. Ok, it came up heads. Do you now have a 50% chance of having that disease?
No... that's incorrect. I can relate to your view though... violence (in general ) has increased in major Metropolitan areas, where population density is highest, those happen to be the fastest growing areas, as the world's population increases. Population is increasing in rural areas also, but violence is and has always been quite rare in those areas.
That is correct but i will have to disagree with the given example about the world being much peaceful than ever before it's true that the world in the dark ages was ruled by the sword and every man was for himself but if we consider the militant forces of destruction of our present time such as nuclear weapons of mass destruction we will come to see that our world of today isn't a safer place , and it's still pretty much ruled by force
You're wrong. He said "violence", not danger or threat of force. He specifically said human beings dying at the hands of other humans i.e. VIOLENCE, is less than at any other time in history. I'm not sure if that's true, but certainly in the last 100 years I think it must be.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I am here because of thinking fast and slow book... :)
Me
Same
Wannabe CEO, right?
Hahaha, exactly
Me too ❤
Punch Line: "Recognizing the flawed nature of your thinking is a bold first step to challenging it."
I find that many people are very good at finding the flawed thinking of others and letting them know very loudly.
00:18
"Heuristics" are straight-forward rules of thumb that we develop based on our past experiences. they are cognitive tools that help make quick decisions or judgments. 00:26
00
0.0
A sort of mental rat-run maybe.
this low-key is targeting flat-earth believers
Coli2vain..it wasn't even low key. And it was actually doing the very thing it was explaining.
It also attacked me who is a banana-shaped earth believer..
Coli2vain Oh no, how sinful!
@@jathebest2835 atleast it's semi round but long ..
It's more like he's channeling Edmund Husserl, who taught about Phenomenology early in the 1900's Germany. What's important about this message is EVERYBODY is unique. All Knowledge is relative to the individual.
Thanks. You've opened my eyes to the #SquareEarth.
It's actually a stationary plane. More and more people are realizing the truth with each passing year.
read the book "Thinking Fast and Slow"
traves troy hence why I ended up here
I have the book. Have not opened yet...I'm hoping its good
that is why i am here
00:37
For example, rather than spending time deciding what to wear every day, you might have some default outfits. Or when faced with a lunch menu with room many options, you may opt for what you've enjoyed in the past. 00:50
00:03
"Every day you make decisions and judgments. Sometimes you're able to think about them carefully, but other times you make them on the fly using little information. 00:18 this is where Heuristics come in. 00:18
Thanks for adding this new word "heuristic" to my brain's vocab!
I was searching for this as a computer science college student, thank you for your information
Glad it was helpful!
Similar, although I've long graduated - I thought I'd watch this as a refresher. Although it's not about AI heuristics, it was an interesting watch :)
@@michellewilliams9772I like seeing so many thoughts on subjects. But how. P vs np. Seems like no
I'd be careful saying the world is less violent than ever before but I see your point and this is an awesome video. The animation is a wonderful touch. Great job.😃
Why? Is your reasoning evidence based or merely what your brain believes based on the information it’s been fed? What are your mental shortcuts? What are your biases? What media do you consume, that may lead to faulty conclusions about the amount of violence that actually exists?
@ Alphacentauri819, Rather than begging the question, consider the fact of "reasoning evidence" on the fallacious statement of "the world is less violent than ever before" which is oversimplified and subject to interpretation. In the past 20 years (1:05) communication around the world has increased dramatically with vasts amounts of information readily available (e.g: internet, news, social media etc.) to serve as evidence but in the past century (1:00) less proof is accessible and lots of events happened that most people probably would never heard about or forgot; not forgetting that a lot of events were never recorded. We also need to redefine the concept of "violence". Are we talking about armed conflicts between nations, violent crime rates, systemic violence or structural forms of violence (e.g: poverty, inequality)? While some forms of violence (e.g: large-scale wars) have decreased in recent decades, other forms (e,g: domestic violence, state-sponsored violence or terrorism) may have remained high or even increased. Now, what do we mean by "ever before"? This is a very long time and comparing different eras (e.g: ancient history, medieval times or the modern era) is impossible. In some periods of history, violence was endemic however this does not mean the present is free of significant violence or suffering. To view current events in a more favorable light than the past is a form of optimism bias.
Rather than directly engaging with @ nathanmadonna9472, you commit an Ad Hominem and shift focus away from and dismissing the actual statement and towards their supposed flaws (Appeal to Bias) without actually addressing it and without offering evidence yourself (Burden of Proof) but imply their reasoning is likely influenced by biases or faulty information (Overgeneralisation).
The idea of heuristics is a very helpful way to get to an answer faster when making decisions that may not allow time for deliberation.
1:39
In fact, a slew of other heuristics can lead us to mistaken conclusions; and it doesn't matter how smart or well-educated you are. Anyone can place too much trust in the mental shortcuts they use to make sense of the world - take this example.
A brilliant example of an informative video. Thanks for the upload!
I agree-but the example about pre-selecting outfits (at 0:40) isn’t technically heuristics b/c it is not technically “cutting corners” cognitively, in my opinion, b/c you are merely making decisions about your outfit in advance, so that you won’t have to make that decision as you get ready. In other words, you might go through extensive, resource-intensive decisions about your outfit on the evening before going to work, so that would not meet the definition(s) of heuristics, I don’t think.
Helping the youtube search heuristics by saying this is indeed a very good explanation :D 5 stars
2:39
But in multiple studies, physicians routinely get this wrong, overestimating the likelihood that their patient actually has the disease. Psychologists call this the "Representativeness Heuristic". People assume People assume an individual case is more representative than it actually is. 2:53
01:24
That's examples of violence that are so readily available, we just naturally assume the world is more violent today. But in fact, the world is more peaceful today than ever before in human history. 01:34
Great video. Still can’t explain heuristics to others in layman’s terms..
How about: "Shortcuts to decision making based on our experience."
Or more simply: "How people make decisions quickly without all the details."
Good point. The presenter doesn't know what he's talking about and actually is taking is subject-matter for granted. How do I know? Here's a test: If you can't replace the word "heuristics" with another simple word, you haven't understood the subject-matter or the presenter has done a bad job. Conclusion: the presenter has done a bad job.
It's just instincts and intuition..the video presents a long overcomplicated explanation. (Heuristics is what an aristocratic smart a** would say lol)
@@miguelmurill1 he says that they are rules of thumb based on past experience.
@@garygnunewzoorevue5748 Ok. Rules of thumb to heuristics--as far as vocabulary goes--is a huge jump. Thanks to the academics.
Ive been talking about this ever since I heard it back in 2014-2015 and I swear I felt like I was being gaslit when I would explain it to people.
What is the song that plays in the beginning? Thank you
There are apps such as Shazam Musixmatch and SoundHound that will listen to a song and then tell you the title.
2:25
In fact, based on the prevalence of the disease and the test result, we can be 99% sure he doesn't have the disease. This is because the odds of getting of a positive result, 1 in 10, are much higher than the odds of actually having the disease, 1 in 1000. 2:39
This is so absolutely wrong, the doctor already did diagnosis. So at that point the actual chances of a statistical 1 in a 1000 prevalency would have already dropped significantly,. Saying you can be sure to say a patient doesn't have the disease because of a possible 10% false positive and putting it in relation to the prevalence statistic and the just dividing their difference is such a logical fallacy and ludicrous. It is evident that this youtuber does not understand medical diagnosis or prevalency. It is a disgrace honestly.
This is so helpful - Thinking fast and slow.
ruclips.net/video/FI2D_JYDbWw/видео.html
Seems more like cognitive dissonance, and understandable ignorance or just plain conditioning as a result of heuristic principle.
00:24
Life would be exhausting if we had to deliberate over every one of the hundreds of choices we make every day. So instead we use our heuristics as shortcuts to make judgments about the world around us.
Up till 17th of Aug, 2021, 132 individuals who disliked this video still considers Earth flat or squared.
That example with the false positive medical test is not accurate at all. If a doctor was randomly testing people regardless of symptoms, perhaps it would make sense. But if you have a medical problem sever enough to go get a test, and the doctor is concerned enough to order that test, and the result comes back positive, you'd better not be 99% sure that the test is wrong. What kind of advice is that?
Unreliable one, but in some cases relevant.
The minimum probability that you don't have the disease is 10%, but we can safely assume that the actual odds against you having the disease are higher still. If we assume that it's closer to 20%, that's a far cry from 99%, but still a one in five chance you're totally fine. The appropriate course of action here is to do another test (or two), to reduce the odds of being treated for a disease you don't have.
It's Bayesian theorem in action, look it up
It is good advice. You wouldn't want to go through a mastectomy only to realize you never had breast cancer. Be aware of the false positive rate and choose a treatment accordingly.
I agree the video's example would make sense only if the 10% false positive rate were based on testing random people. As you said, if it were based on people tested for medical reasons, I expect the false positive rate would go down.
Have to write a paper on heuristics for class, and I didn’t know what it is. Thanks, this saved me lol
This is amazing. Thank u for making it easier for me to study cognitive psychology HAHA
thank you for explaining this in simple terms.
so according to what you said till 1:43 heuristics can be right or wrong?
satchTech yes they can mislead you
Thank you for this 😅 you have cleared my heuristic methods topic now i just want four principles of heuristic method...
Short and sweet and easy to follow. Very interesting video.
Much like intuition, heuristics is a shortcut to making a decision. Essentially, it's a more logical way of going from point A to point G, H, I, J, sometimes even all the way to Z.
2:03
Let's say a person tests positive for a rare disease, one that only one-in-a-thousand people have. What is the likelihood that he has the disease? Most of us would say that the likelihood is very high based on the test results alone. But what if the result was inaccurate 10% of the time. The false positive rate is 10% - a common number in medical tests. Then it is highly unlikely our patient has the disease. 2:25
this doesn't make sense to me. If the false positive rate is 10% and a person tests positive, the likelihood of having the disease would be 90% not? If the video would be correct here there would be no point doing such a test since a negative result is likely correct and a positive result (according to the video) is likely incorrect. That would mean that the result is negative regardless of the outcome of the test. Hence why do the test if that were correct?
The voice of Daniel Pink!
It's so weird how I got here. I watched 2001 a space odyssey and wanted to know why the A.I in the movie was called hal 9000. Turns out it's an acronym for Heuristically Programmed ALgorithmic Computer. I had no idea what heuristically meant so I googled it and ended up here.
ruclips.net/video/FI2D_JYDbWw/видео.html
01:09
Heuristic reasoning might lead us to think that the world is more violent today than it has been in the past. Every day we're confronted with images of tragedy in the news and on social media. We might reasonably assume that the world is more violent today than ever before, using what's called an "availability heuristic". 01:24
ruclips.net/video/FI2D_JYDbWw/видео.html
Clear explanation, much better than my dr explanation in my OB lesson.
00:50
Heuristics aren't about the perfect decisions or judgment, just about making one quickly. Heuristic play a role in our reasoning about the broader world too. As an example, consider the rate of violence in the world in the past century. Is the world more or less violent in the past 20 years than previously?
Heuristics are only helpful when there is huge uncertainty and frequency observations cannot be made to help make a decision but one is needed! The example you made about violence and war can actually be measured in numbers and frequency over the century to compare how violent the world is on average so in that case heuristic thinking can form biases and inaccurate results!
Bro im hear bc i keep misspelling “hru”
Very nice this presentation. Congratulations!!
Beauuuuutiful video, my guy. Thanks for that
Arthur Schopenhauer did study dialeticity heuristic: how people argue to each other looking for won the speech but without get reasonable. In The Art of Always Being Right (book).
This is something that I, as a rational thinker, experience a lot. It's frustrating that you have to explain everything.
I made a quick decision to substitute the word "heuristics" with "biases".
Look into the difference, it's interesting
@@natemills9030 I'm a bit intrigued about your comment. I see our biases come from our heuristics as heuristics are quick decisions avoiding having to gather all evidence from all possibly different perspectives before making our decisions. In other words, our biases are embedded into our heuristics. Is this the way you see it or how else do you see the difference between "heuristics" and "biases"?
So how is heuristics different from intuition?
I think that intuition is more of using alot of information at once really fast, and heuristics is more like (experiences) that are coded into our brains which we use without thinking. For example, let's say that women have really good intuition in general and they can tell if a man is cheating on them because they can see how they act differently, notice few details, and may have an intuition that they cheating. Heuristics, on the other hand, may be shown when a woman has a friend group where they found out ( or think) that all their boyfriends are cheating on them, so the girl starts to assume that her boyfriend is cheating on her too.
Citing this for a Uni essay - thank you!
Our political views can especially suffer from an over-reliance on heuristics. ...
1:34
We may hear a lot of violent events but in terms of raw numbers, fewer people die today in the hands of other human beings than ever before. So that heuristic about how violent the world today is, is incorrect. 1:39
Surely you would need to look at more than cause of death statistics to determine violence in general. Violence does not assume death as the byproduct.
Nice video. Curious though, at the end you talk about the "needing to be humble" in our approach with others and their views. However, I was wondering how you go about avoiding 'moral relativism' with an approach like that? What do you use to buttress against it?
Your morals, for one. I'd like to emphasize that heuristics are about problem solving quickly, often with a lack of information, time, energy, etc. The section about staying humble was referring to how heuristics can be misleading, using stereotypes as am example.
This seemed to be about the pitfalls of heuristics of psychology, but not what a heuristic is.
I feel like crying when I learn something positive
This is a really well planned video.
How could you demonstrate a representativeness heuristic?
Well Done. Thank you. Although I may be using the anchoring bias to come to that conclusion.
Essentially it’s like putting a shovel in your brain and dig out what ever that’s familiar to you.
1:35 c’mon now LL. I’m on your side but you can’t point out decreasing violence and then show a chart of a handful of western European countries.
So what are heuristic
Excellent Explanation.
What is the program name?
"but in fact the world is more peaceful today then ever before" while showing a graph representing...just europe
@Learn Liberty SUPER AMAZING VIDEO
Completely ruined by Background music
Can you Please Please Please Please Please Please re-upload this, with out BG music so i can watch it. I only made it 2 minutes in and that noise was too much. PLEASE uplaod this with out music.
If 1:1000 people chosen at random have that disease, but he was tested for it because he's symptomatic (not chosen at random, but self selected), then the odds he actually has the disease are much higher.
I have an exam today and I need review .
I am here after reading the book thinking fast and slow
Love the video! Thanks :)
ruclips.net/video/FI2D_JYDbWw/видео.html
The voice in this video 😍
short cuts can cut short the outcome.
"It's important to be humble about our views."
"We have to listen to opinions we may initially consider wrong or even offensive."
You sir are cancelled!
Flat earther confirmed
jkjkjk, this video is about cognitive development (on here because i'm studying). Please don't make it more than it is. I think his example was really good in explaining availability heuristics (I think in this case is due to group polarization). He's saying that you shouldn't just go based off of what you or others think, do some research with an open mind and find out for yourself!! oh and by the way! Don't fall into a conformation bias :)
@Learn Liberty. Please correct me if i'm wrong but what type of heuristic is it? availability or representativeness?
It was all going so well until the doctor section 🙈
Yeah, I'm really trying to figure out how the conclusion posited here makes sense statistically.
Based on my understanding of statistics, 10% false positive means that of the subset of positive test results, 10% aren't really positive and 90% are actually positive. The 1 in 1000 stat is irrelevant because he's already in the subset of people who have been tested positive. He has a 90% probability of being positive.
I can't think of any way to add multiply or divide 10%, 90% and 0.1% (1 in 1000) to get 99%.
@@IVespidI I agree with you..maybe he should've explained how the deduction was calculated like that..
@@jathebest2835 it's hard these days to not assume foul intentintions when I see something so clearly wrong. but I think maybe in this case the guy just honestly made a mistake. Good video otherwise!
@@IVespidI Search for bayes theorem
@@gsczo thanks for the tip.
Thank you! Very helpful!
super easy to understand, i like
Excellent!
So heuristics is just an academic word meaning... 'common sense assumptions that might occasionally be wrong.'
Thank God for academia.
"common sense" itself is a heuristic, strategy devised based off previous experience that we use to make quick decisions. Its not about whether its wrong or not, actually its not about being "right" or "wrong" its simply any method we use to make a quick decision. For example, always pick C in a multiple choice question, would be a heuristic
Is Heuristics something similar to making impulsive decisions bruh?
What a fantastic video, thank you.
awesome!!! great video!
Now i dont have to search for the meaning again and again,and can complete my book🤓
Thank you.
This channel will beat prageru.
But…there are more people today, so the percentages are skewed. By how much, hard to say.
Well we were also in world wars in the past sooo what if those were gone, violence would probably have increased.
And THAT, friends, is how a heuristic works.
Cadê aquele assunto do sapato moderna.
who the hell would think that the world is more violent now than ever ?! LOL
Great vid
ruclips.net/video/FI2D_JYDbWw/видео.html
you doodes pretty missed almost everything kool about Heuristics and got then got it confused with statistics.....good effort, bad information.
my man really took a jab at flat earthers
it sometimes sound same as schema
Heuristics are not a bad thing. Without them we'd still be stuck calculating if we should get out of bed in the morning.
I didn't get up today until after noon.
That hospital example was so stupid and wrong... When there is a 90% change the test results are correct, it no longer matters what probability there is for you to have that decease; there's still 90% change for you to have that decease after it's been diagnosed.
When I flip a coin to determine if you have a rare disease, there's a 50% chance that the coin flip misdiagnoses.
Ok, it came up heads. Do you now have a 50% chance of having that disease?
30 flat earthers disliked this video
Title: How to Trigger Flat-Earthers in Under 4 Minutes
😂😂😂
the "violence" example aged like milk
No... that's incorrect. I can relate to your view though... violence (in general ) has increased in major Metropolitan areas, where population density is highest, those happen to be the fastest growing areas, as the world's population increases. Population is increasing in rural areas also, but violence is and has always been quite rare in those areas.
Psychology teacher sent me here
Can we say that heuristics = mental models?
well...quite interesting to look at this in 2020 😂
I am here because of the Science of Self Learning..
That is correct but i will have to disagree with the given example about the world being much peaceful than ever before it's true that the world in the dark ages was ruled by the sword and every man was for himself but if we consider the militant forces of destruction of our present time such as nuclear weapons of mass destruction we will come to see that our world of today isn't a safer place , and it's still pretty much ruled by force
You're wrong. He said "violence", not danger or threat of force. He specifically said human beings dying at the hands of other humans i.e. VIOLENCE, is less than at any other time in history. I'm not sure if that's true, but certainly in the last 100 years I think it must be.
that flat earther who walks on a globe must be a donut earther now