Hey everyone, thanks for checking out our video! This is the first in our brand new series on cognitive biases, featuring the psychologist Laurie Santos (Yale University). We'll be releasing a new video every day this week, so keep an eye out! Tomorrow's on Anchoring :)
+Wireless Philosophy Wow, the Alief video is great, simplified stuff. So why can't the Millennials attending Yale and shouting down Christakis comprehend any of it?
I believe this video is flawed. When I hesitate to pick up a plastic spider in the box with my Halloween decorations, it is because I am aware that there is a very small, but still real, possibility that a real spider has crawled into the box and that I am mistakenly picking it up thinking it is plastic. Once I have picked it up and confirmed it is plastic, I have no continuing stress over holding it in my hand, which seems to refute to notion of an alief. If the alief theory was applying to this situation, I'd continue to feel stress while holding the plastic spider. Similarly, a person might refuse to eat a brown shaped you tell them is chocolate when it looks like poop, because there is always the risk, however, incredibly small, that some one is playing a very bad practical joke or that by some unknown and highly improbable series of events, real poop is being presented as chocolate. I expect once they take a bite and confirm it is chocolate, they no longer are more likely to refuse to continue eating it. Finally, with the see-through bridge, we all know that glass is brittle and weak, and we all would reasonably hesitate to step out on a glass walkway over a deadly fall. The see-through bridge looks like the bottom is made of glass. I've stood on such things before, and my stress was always based on the fact I did NOT know for sure that the surface I was standing on was every bit as solid as concrete or cement or whatever an opaque bridge might be made of. The narrator claims we know for sure, intellectually, that the see-through walkway is safe or we would not be on it. That's false. We do risky things for the adrenaline rush all the time. We go on rollercoasters at carnivals where we rely on the mechanical skills and safety awareness of carnies, and in my experience, part of the adrenaline rush is not just the speed/momentum of the ride, but the knowledge that if anyone made a slight error in assembly or maintenance, I could die. In fact, we all know that bridges have failed, walkways have failed, supposedly unsinkable ships have sunk, people have died on rollercoasters at major theme parks and at carnivals, yet we still cross bridges, walk on walkways, sail in ships, and ride rollercoasters. It is NOT because we intellectually know them to be safe, but that we know the risk presented is very, very small. However, our reaction to a risk is a product of BOTH the size of the risk and the severity of the consequences. Death is such a severe consequence that even a very, very tiny risk can create a fear and stress reaction. I will say we can develop emotional callouses to fear and stress reactions, which explains why our palms are not sweaty when we drive on the freeway. If you take a person from a remote tribe who never rode in a car, and put him in the passenger seat doing 75mph on the freeway, you can bet his palms will be super sweaty. Anyway, I agree belief is a complicated issue, but I'm not at all convinced by this presentation that the proposed alief / belief dichotomy adequately models what is happening psychologically. I mean, the narrator seems to suggest we ALL know that the grand canyon walkway is statistically safer than standing on a sidewalk, but before seeing this video, I knew no such thing. Moveover, taking one walkway that has never had a death is a too small a sample to use for comparative statistical analysis. A more appropriate comparison would be to take all the deaths at all the walkways over scenic vistas in the world and compare that to all the deaths of pedestrians on sidewalks, and I would bet money the walkway deaths are MORE than zero if you did that. Ultimately, it's just a flawed presentation to the extent it tries to sell us on the idea that this is how our minds work, with aliefs and beliefs. It would have been better if it had been more clearly framed as saying, "Some one proposed this alief/belief dichotomy, and I'll now explain what they meant by aliefs, though it is not entirely clear this is actually how the mind works, it is just one proposed model." Instead, the video seems to present aliefs as if they actually are proven to exist, which is wrong.
@@non_being Also, bear in mind what a MODEL is... it is a theoretical way of explaining something. Models are pretty much always wrong, but we keep improving them, making them more accurate but never completely accurate (e.g., Einstein's model for physics improved upon Newton's model) Further, modeling is not a constant process of improvement where each new model is better than the last, but is a wandering in which we often must back-track. Model after model is made, turns out not to be an improvement but a false path, then is abandoned, then we move onto a new model. That is still progress. So the inclusion of the concept of an "alief" in the model of consciousness is by no means true, nor is is necessary an improvement. Odds are, it is a false path that will ultimately be abandoned. I think you, and many on here, suffer from an authoritarian bias wherein if academia presents a "model" to you, you irrationally assume it to be fact, to be valid, to be true, when that's just not how models work. It is useful at predicting future events or it is not, that's the only real test for a model. And you don't assume a model is useful until it has been thoroughly tested and scrutinized. Just on first hearing of this "alief" explanation, I came up with apparent flaws in this model, weaknesses. Rather than actually explaining how any of those weaknesses were flawed, you ignored them all and suggested my concept of how people act in situations, based on how I act in those situations, is worthless so no need to even consider my points. But, again, that means you are suggesting that most people who pick up a plastic spider continue to feel stress even after holding it and confirming it is plastic. Really? You want to take that position? Hmmm... Interesting... I think that says a lot about you, actually.
Thank you for this accessible explanation. What some call conscious vs unconscious reasoning. I’ve had trouble explaining to myself and others why we intellectualize one way, yet act another, and the concept of our Aliefs summarizes this.
This video was incredible, I’ve been finding it so hard to engage with my university work this term but this was so clear and easy to follow it’s really helped. Thanks a lot :))
Except the book he published has little to no scientific evidences for claims he made. If anything, it is just a dichotomous concept of his self-help philosophy
Skydivers have a says Ng that "knowledge dispels fear". As a tandem skydive instructor with an interest in psychology and the human condition I have long considered my work to be helping individuals transcend their instinctive but irrational ALIEFS in favour of their scientific, knowledge based BELIEFS. More over, I suspect that each time an individual practices transcending ALIEFS in favour of beliefs, they are evolving into a more modern, more conscious human being. I haven't be able to explain this quite as succinctly as I can now thanks to your video. :-)
+Katê, you have assumed wrong. I dare even say almost no one has problems with it, other than maybe people who humanize everything and I mean every goddamned little thing.
It’s a experiment Where do you replace your hand with a plastic hand and block your real hand with a door so you can’t see it and when someone smashes your hand with a hammer you actually react or even if you do it
I had been trying to explain this "cognitive and rational knowledge being eclipsed by emotional erroneous beliefs" thing that had been causing me and the people around me so many problems. Maybe this video doesn't solve the issue, but words are powerful handles of our reality. Maybe this will help us understand that we all experience this, and that it's also a hard thing to overcome. Thank you. I'm hooked.
Something significant that has to be said is that calling a person racist and punishing them based on their alieves is wrong.We can't change our alieves,and thus shouldn't be punished for having a wrong alief.
+Thanos Grivas So say someone screams "Help! That thief stole my bag!" and I see a black guy with a bag and tackle him to the ground while the real theif gets away. Should I be punished? Not trying to make a point, just wondering what your take on that is.
PaddyMacNasty Obviously you should be punished since you tackled an innocent man,BUT the punishment should be significantly lowered if you can prove that you did it by mistake(alief or not you wanted to help,not hurt).It is impossible to control our alieves but we should be able to control ourselves to the point that these alieves don't cause any *significant* harm.But if you could somehow prove that i have a cognitive bias against black people then there should be no punishment,unless that bias affects others in a significant way(basically,if i ACT in a racist way i should be punished,but if i THINK in a racist way when it doesn't affect others and i can't even control it,i shouldn't be punished) I was just pointing it out because i have seen too many ''feminists'' attack men because they think that society ''trains'' men to act in a more masculine and abusive/controling way(ex.giving girls dolls to play with while giving boys guns,trucks and action figures).Even if society ''trained'' men(spoiler allert:it doesn't) to act in a more controlling way,the bulk of the effort should go towards changing society itseld to raise both genders equaly instead of punishing these ''sexist'' men.
I would also like to add to my last point that even if you DO harm others because of alieves,the punishment should be lowered and we should investigate what caused these alieves instead of focusing on the punishment of those who have said alieve.
+Thanos Grivas I don't think lowering accountability would help anyone in that situation. Alieves should not be used as an excuse to justify incorrect behavior.
I suspect aliefs are also involved in how we treat men and boys for example. Consider how the sexes are treated differentially in prison, for example, on the same crimes.
Some very good stuff. The more souls we awaken, the more positive vibration we create and the more positive and enlighten the World becomes. A beautiful cause and effect relationship.
+Jurij Fedorov You obviously didn't pay attention and came into this with a cognitive bias that prevented you from listening and learning. Cognitive biases are not emotions, they are cognitive biases. Maybe research the meaning of each and you'll begin to see the difference.
I despise the name "alief". The idea implies that beliefs are inherently or by definition rational, and they sure are not. What a shame. I like these videos though.
It doesn't imply that. It takes the distinction between conscious and subconscious reactions, that are normally only analyzed in the short term and generalizes them to different time frames. It merges several stratified ideas about cognitive dissonance, rationality vs irrationality, etc. Also, conscious ideas don't need to be "true" to be rational and the video never makes that claim.
I don't think that the scenario's where you are put at risk are "perfectly" irrational. You are after all being subjected to sense data indicative of a high risk situation, even though you are consciously aware of the various mitigating factors such as (in the most extreme examples) the scenario itself is a wholly fictional or imagined construct. Ultimately you are still being presented with live perceptual evidence that you are at risk. Discounting live sense data without the cognitive processing time to perform a rational analysis may even be considered an irrational, possibly dangerous act (should other unanticipated factors come into play), leaving it to you to retrospectively come to a the rational decision that you need not have been scared, after the fact.
Arational simply means there is no stated relationship to rationality, it could either be rational or irrational, but it is not trying to conform to either. Your fear of the fall is not the product of an attempted rational process it is produced without recourse to reason. Irrational means contravening rationality: an arational process might produce an irrational behaviour or state of affairs. The fear response is arational as it does not use reason to formulate responses, its responses may either be rational (i.e. run from this tiger) or irrational (you're going to fall from this skywalk).
While the example of a white American consciously acknowledging equality with Black Americans, yet subconsciously maintaining an 'alief' of superiority, can be instructive, it's crucial to proceed with caution. We must not overlook the role of personal responsibility and individual moral agency in favor of attributing actions or decisions solely to unconscious biases acquired from societal influences. Indeed, societal factors and subconscious prejudices exist, but it's critical not to sideline the importance of individual choice and the potential for personal evolution and transformation. An excessive focus on subconscious biases might unintentionally undermine the significance of personal responsibility, thereby potentially cultivating a society in which individuals don't feel liable for their actions because they ascribe their behaviors to external influences or subconscious biases. An overemphasis on subconscious biases can risk underestimating the individual's power and responsibility.
The fear that the safe bridge will break when you are on it is the same dynamic, but on the other side, of the feeling you get when you place a bet in a casino. You COULD win... LOL ...but you won't, of course! Could this "aleif" be a contributing factor in addictions? You KNOW you will lose, but you ALEIF you will win!
I have NO IDEA how you can mix up the instincts that a toddler has (fear of heights) with basic generalizations. People make generalizations because they sometimes have to act on very little information. You cannot truly hold a belief on those generalizations if you aren't convinced they're true. Acquired tastes are NOT an instinct. Very bad example.
THE SKYBRIDGE IS NOT PERFECTLY SAFE - YOU CAN'T CLAIM PROBABILITY ZERO OF NO ENGINEERING ACCIDENT OCCURRING EVEN THOUGH THE CHANCES ARE PROBABLY VERY SLIM - THEREFORE IT IS NOT TOTALLY IRRATIONAL TO HAVE SOME FEAR - IT'S THE MAGNITUDE OF FEAR THAT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED OR REJECTED THAT IS THE BIG QUESTION
+Logan Bird just watched, but it does not contradict my proposition. The video emphasizes the knowing is only the half way, and I add, it needs the skill of some psychological therapy or skill to improve it. Nonetheless, the knowing is still the first step to have a battle with it. Otherwise, we have excuses to stay in racist all the time because of our ignorance and impossible to change ourselves.
so my fear of geckos is just an Alief! you see when i was about like two or three years old i saw my mother screaming as load as she could when she saw one in the kitchen thus i became ridiculously afraid of them :P
Bottom line, we have social behaviors and we have internal beliefs and sometimes those things conflict. As long as your social behavior is not detrimental to others, you are fine to think and feel whatever, right? So don't do or say mean things or unethical things to people who are different to you, as per societal and legal expectations of all of us, and it's all good right? It seems to me there is a serious stretch of imagination and creative linguistics going on to try and prove out the idea that someone may not like the differences they notice in others and that if you can confirm or "accept" this information, you now have a reason to mitigate their bias actions with some kind of preemptive rules of engagement. Basically, it seems to me that people like this presenter are trying to push social ideology onto the rest of us. Pushing an agenda which first diminishes our thinking to some basal, primitive element then claims we must "rise" above our lower level thinking by taking some particular actions. Funny thing, religion already does that for us. And it doesn't force us or demean us in the process. If you want people to behave in a morally upright manor, you need to get them attached to a moral principle which does not come from some academic theory. The answer to the issues of "cognitive bias" is found in the practice of genuine faith in Judaeo-Christian traditions. People should do better at their faith to get better at morals and behaving in a morally upright way. Science folks, whether hard or soft fields of expertise should recognize the value of religious participation and advocate for more of it.
Is good example of this someone that strongly believe in Christian God, but has no actuall rational proofs for that? He was just brought up that way and now he's stuck.
Ironic that in a video discussing cognitive biases, that both examples she uses are highly political (eg sex and race). The fact that she chose these particular politically loaded examples from the total set of possible examples, the majority of which would be considered apolitical, speaks to her own personal bias. Especially considering that not only are apolitical examples more numerous relative to political examples, but are also superior in their illustrative qualities for the exact reason that they are LESS likely to provoke any existing biases of the listener. To be fair, she likely thinks nothing of it as academia has become an echo chamber of precisely these ideas. Yet another mindless mouthpiece for her ideology masquerading as a free thinking intellectual. Completely destroyed her credibility IMO. (Alright fellow commenters, bring on the HATE🤪)
Beliefs are something the Bible says to add knowledge to. "Add to your faith knowledge." So, in the area of racism, I believe that there are almost no real differences between me and people of other physical skin colors (I won't call them races, because there is only one human race in reality). I know for a fact that I have obliterated any racial bias completely from my life, because racism has two major problems: 1. It is based on science denying stupidity 2. You cannot be racist and love Jesus Christ.
![CRITICAL THINKING - Cognitive Biases: Anchoring [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NFiDdbquWJY/mqdefault.jpg)
![CRITICAL THINKING - Cognitive Biases: Anchoring [HD]](/img/tr.png)
Hey everyone, thanks for checking out our video! This is the first in our brand new series on cognitive biases, featuring the psychologist Laurie Santos (Yale University). We'll be releasing a new video every day this week, so keep an eye out! Tomorrow's on Anchoring :)
+Wireless Philosophy
Interesting series, I'm looking forward to more videos of it!
Can we get some sources on studies done about alief?
+A Ton Sure, here is a great reference: philpapers.org/rec/GENAAB
+Wireless Philosophy Wow, the Alief video is great, simplified stuff. So why can't the Millennials attending Yale and shouting down Christakis comprehend any of it?
They are simply brilliiant!! :-) Keep 'em coming!
man these videos are so underrated they deserve more credit that most nonsense on youtube
I believe this video is flawed. When I hesitate to pick up a plastic spider in the box with my Halloween decorations, it is because I am aware that there is a very small, but still real, possibility that a real spider has crawled into the box and that I am mistakenly picking it up thinking it is plastic. Once I have picked it up and confirmed it is plastic, I have no continuing stress over holding it in my hand, which seems to refute to notion of an alief. If the alief theory was applying to this situation, I'd continue to feel stress while holding the plastic spider. Similarly, a person might refuse to eat a brown shaped you tell them is chocolate when it looks like poop, because there is always the risk, however, incredibly small, that some one is playing a very bad practical joke or that by some unknown and highly improbable series of events, real poop is being presented as chocolate. I expect once they take a bite and confirm it is chocolate, they no longer are more likely to refuse to continue eating it. Finally, with the see-through bridge, we all know that glass is brittle and weak, and we all would reasonably hesitate to step out on a glass walkway over a deadly fall. The see-through bridge looks like the bottom is made of glass. I've stood on such things before, and my stress was always based on the fact I did NOT know for sure that the surface I was standing on was every bit as solid as concrete or cement or whatever an opaque bridge might be made of. The narrator claims we know for sure, intellectually, that the see-through walkway is safe or we would not be on it. That's false. We do risky things for the adrenaline rush all the time. We go on rollercoasters at carnivals where we rely on the mechanical skills and safety awareness of carnies, and in my experience, part of the adrenaline rush is not just the speed/momentum of the ride, but the knowledge that if anyone made a slight error in assembly or maintenance, I could die. In fact, we all know that bridges have failed, walkways have failed, supposedly unsinkable ships have sunk, people have died on rollercoasters at major theme parks and at carnivals, yet we still cross bridges, walk on walkways, sail in ships, and ride rollercoasters. It is NOT because we intellectually know them to be safe, but that we know the risk presented is very, very small. However, our reaction to a risk is a product of BOTH the size of the risk and the severity of the consequences. Death is such a severe consequence that even a very, very tiny risk can create a fear and stress reaction. I will say we can develop emotional callouses to fear and stress reactions, which explains why our palms are not sweaty when we drive on the freeway. If you take a person from a remote tribe who never rode in a car, and put him in the passenger seat doing 75mph on the freeway, you can bet his palms will be super sweaty. Anyway, I agree belief is a complicated issue, but I'm not at all convinced by this presentation that the proposed alief / belief dichotomy adequately models what is happening psychologically. I mean, the narrator seems to suggest we ALL know that the grand canyon walkway is statistically safer than standing on a sidewalk, but before seeing this video, I knew no such thing. Moveover, taking one walkway that has never had a death is a too small a sample to use for comparative statistical analysis. A more appropriate comparison would be to take all the deaths at all the walkways over scenic vistas in the world and compare that to all the deaths of pedestrians on sidewalks, and I would bet money the walkway deaths are MORE than zero if you did that. Ultimately, it's just a flawed presentation to the extent it tries to sell us on the idea that this is how our minds work, with aliefs and beliefs. It would have been better if it had been more clearly framed as saying, "Some one proposed this alief/belief dichotomy, and I'll now explain what they meant by aliefs, though it is not entirely clear this is actually how the mind works, it is just one proposed model." Instead, the video seems to present aliefs as if they actually are proven to exist, which is wrong.
@@non_being Also, bear in mind what a MODEL is... it is a theoretical way of explaining something. Models are pretty much always wrong, but we keep improving them, making them more accurate but never completely accurate (e.g., Einstein's model for physics improved upon Newton's model) Further, modeling is not a constant process of improvement where each new model is better than the last, but is a wandering in which we often must back-track. Model after model is made, turns out not to be an improvement but a false path, then is abandoned, then we move onto a new model. That is still progress. So the inclusion of the concept of an "alief" in the model of consciousness is by no means true, nor is is necessary an improvement. Odds are, it is a false path that will ultimately be abandoned.
I think you, and many on here, suffer from an authoritarian bias wherein if academia presents a "model" to you, you irrationally assume it to be fact, to be valid, to be true, when that's just not how models work. It is useful at predicting future events or it is not, that's the only real test for a model. And you don't assume a model is useful until it has been thoroughly tested and scrutinized. Just on first hearing of this "alief" explanation, I came up with apparent flaws in this model, weaknesses. Rather than actually explaining how any of those weaknesses were flawed, you ignored them all and suggested my concept of how people act in situations, based on how I act in those situations, is worthless so no need to even consider my points. But, again, that means you are suggesting that most people who pick up a plastic spider continue to feel stress even after holding it and confirming it is plastic. Really? You want to take that position? Hmmm... Interesting... I think that says a lot about you, actually.
Cognitive Biases are fascinating, please complete the playlist on it!
+Jey_s_TeArS Thanks! We will be releasing a new video every day (6-7 videos total) at noon.
Thank you for this accessible explanation. What some call conscious vs unconscious reasoning. I’ve had trouble explaining to myself and others why we intellectualize one way, yet act another, and the concept of our Aliefs summarizes this.
Congratulations, Laurie. Your video is very clear and your delivery is really listener-friendly.
Thank you.
This video was incredible, I’ve been finding it so hard to engage with my university work this term but this was so clear and easy to follow it’s really helped. Thanks a lot :))
This seems like an alternative model for what Daniel Kahneman calls "System 1".
Except the book he published has little to no scientific evidences for claims he made.
If anything, it is just a dichotomous concept of his self-help philosophy
How is an alief different fro an implicit bias or an autonomic response? What use is this new category?
Skydivers have a says Ng that "knowledge dispels fear". As a tandem skydive instructor with an interest in psychology and the human condition I have long considered my work to be helping individuals transcend their instinctive but irrational ALIEFS in favour of their scientific, knowledge based BELIEFS.
More over, I suspect that each time an individual practices transcending ALIEFS in favour of beliefs, they are evolving into a more modern, more conscious human being.
I haven't be able to explain this quite as succinctly as I can now thanks to your video. :-)
My reaction is one of disalief
I believe the plastic hand one was a bad example as I have no problem smashing those.
You are not everyone
+Katê, you have assumed wrong. I dare even say almost no one has problems with it, other than maybe people who humanize everything and I mean every goddamned little thing.
It’s a experiment Where do you replace your hand with a plastic hand and block your real hand with a door so you can’t see it and when someone smashes your hand with a hammer you actually react or even if you do it
I had been trying to explain this "cognitive and rational knowledge being eclipsed by emotional erroneous beliefs" thing that had been causing me and the people around me so many problems. Maybe this video doesn't solve the issue, but words are powerful handles of our reality. Maybe this will help us understand that we all experience this, and that it's also a hard thing to overcome.
Thank you. I'm hooked.
Something significant that has to be said is that calling a person racist and punishing them based on their alieves is wrong.We can't change our alieves,and thus shouldn't be punished for having a wrong alief.
+Thanos Grivas So say someone screams "Help! That thief stole my bag!" and I see a black guy with a bag and tackle him to the ground while the real theif gets away. Should I be punished? Not trying to make a point, just wondering what your take on that is.
PaddyMacNasty Obviously you should be punished since you tackled an innocent man,BUT the punishment should be significantly lowered if you can prove that you did it by mistake(alief or not you wanted to help,not hurt).It is impossible to control our alieves but we should be able to control ourselves to the point that these alieves don't cause any *significant* harm.But if you could somehow prove that i have a cognitive bias against black people then there should be no punishment,unless that bias affects others in a significant way(basically,if i ACT in a racist way i should be punished,but if i THINK in a racist way when it doesn't affect others and i can't even control it,i shouldn't be punished)
I was just pointing it out because i have seen too many ''feminists'' attack men because they think that society ''trains'' men to act in a more masculine and abusive/controling way(ex.giving girls dolls to play with while giving boys guns,trucks and action figures).Even if society ''trained'' men(spoiler allert:it doesn't) to act in a more controlling way,the bulk of the effort should go towards changing society itseld to raise both genders equaly instead of punishing these ''sexist'' men.
I would also like to add to my last point that even if you DO harm others because of alieves,the punishment should be lowered and we should investigate what caused these alieves instead of focusing on the punishment of those who have said alieve.
+Thanos Grivas I don't think lowering accountability would help anyone in that situation. Alieves should not be used as an excuse to justify incorrect behavior.
+Thanos Grivas
Yes we can?
Please do more on this topic. This video is a good introduction but what is the science part of it? How can we overcome it and stuff like that?
overcome through self awareness.
Thank you so much, I've been looking for this for my clients and friends for years.
@wireless Philosophy can you please tell us your sources? i would like to red more about biases. can you suggest any books?
literally have a final in a couple hours thanks sm
making Korean subtitles for this video....complete! Great video by the way :)
I suspect aliefs are also involved in how we treat men and boys for example. Consider how the sexes are treated differentially in prison, for example, on the same crimes.
I went to school in the Alief Independent School District (near Houston, TX). I firmly believe that... I am now confused.
Alief = prejudiced, irrational beliefs, which you may attempt to suppress.
isn't alief close to phobia? Irrational. what is a critical difference between both?
Psych 101 at Iowa State?
Some very good stuff. The more souls we awaken, the more positive vibration we create and the more positive and enlighten the World becomes. A beautiful cause and effect relationship.
This video was brilliant :)
There is actually another word for alief, "emotions".
+Jurij Fedorov You obviously didn't pay attention and came into this with a cognitive bias that prevented you from listening and learning. Cognitive biases are not emotions, they are cognitive biases. Maybe research the meaning of each and you'll begin to see the difference.
I despise the name "alief". The idea implies that beliefs are inherently or by definition rational, and they sure are not. What a shame. I like these videos though.
It doesn't imply that. It takes the distinction between conscious and subconscious reactions, that are normally only analyzed in the short term and generalizes them to different time frames. It merges several stratified ideas about cognitive dissonance, rationality vs irrationality, etc. Also, conscious ideas don't need to be "true" to be rational and the video never makes that claim.
very gooood. waiting for more!
@wireless thinking
so aliefs are created from exposure and repetition or are they ingrained to us? thank you
Arational is spelled with one R. Arrational is not a word. Other than that this is an awesome video.
So make up another word because the word belief doesn't cover it?? How arrational.
I don't think that the scenario's where you are put at risk are "perfectly" irrational. You are after all being subjected to sense data indicative of a high risk situation, even though you are consciously aware of the various mitigating factors such as (in the most extreme examples) the scenario itself is a wholly fictional or imagined construct. Ultimately you are still being presented with live perceptual evidence that you are at risk. Discounting live sense data without the cognitive processing time to perform a rational analysis may even be considered an irrational, possibly dangerous act (should other unanticipated factors come into play), leaving it to you to retrospectively come to a the rational decision that you need not have been scared, after the fact.
Excuse me if I am wrong, isn't it irrational* or arational*?
Arational simply means there is no stated relationship to rationality, it could either be rational or irrational, but it is not trying to conform to either. Your fear of the fall is not the product of an attempted rational process it is produced without recourse to reason. Irrational means contravening rationality: an arational process might produce an irrational behaviour or state of affairs. The fear response is arational as it does not use reason to formulate responses, its responses may either be rational (i.e. run from this tiger) or irrational (you're going to fall from this skywalk).
While the example of a white American consciously acknowledging equality with Black Americans, yet subconsciously maintaining an 'alief' of superiority, can be instructive, it's crucial to proceed with caution. We must not overlook the role of personal responsibility and individual moral agency in favor of attributing actions or decisions solely to unconscious biases acquired from societal influences. Indeed, societal factors and subconscious prejudices exist, but it's critical not to sideline the importance of individual choice and the potential for personal evolution and transformation. An excessive focus on subconscious biases might unintentionally undermine the significance of personal responsibility, thereby potentially cultivating a society in which individuals don't feel liable for their actions because they ascribe their behaviors to external influences or subconscious biases. An overemphasis on subconscious biases can risk underestimating the individual's power and responsibility.
Anybody think of an example of a positive Alief?
The fear that the safe bridge will break when you are on it is the same dynamic, but on the other side, of the feeling you get when you place a bet in a casino. You COULD win... LOL ...but you won't, of course! Could this "aleif" be a contributing factor in addictions? You KNOW you will lose, but you ALEIF you will win!
I have NO IDEA how you can mix up the instincts that a toddler has (fear of heights) with basic generalizations. People make generalizations because they sometimes have to act on very little information. You cannot truly hold a belief on those generalizations if you aren't convinced they're true. Acquired tastes are NOT an instinct. Very bad example.
THE SKYBRIDGE IS NOT PERFECTLY SAFE - YOU CAN'T CLAIM PROBABILITY ZERO OF NO ENGINEERING ACCIDENT OCCURRING EVEN THOUGH THE CHANCES ARE PROBABLY VERY SLIM - THEREFORE IT IS NOT TOTALLY IRRATIONAL TO HAVE SOME FEAR - IT'S THE MAGNITUDE OF FEAR THAT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED OR REJECTED THAT IS THE BIG QUESTION
Fiery Cushman. What a name.
Você é brasileira?
So can I do something about my racist aliefs?
Arrational or irrational. And I am irritated about how this video tries to promote a coined terminology rather than the idea.
one can substitute another?
The question is, how do we control our Alief?
You don't.
+Charles Calapsss if we have chance to know our specific Alief, then we can try to defy it with our rationality.
No. Did you watch the G I Joe fallacy?
+Logan Bird just watched, but it does not contradict my proposition. The video emphasizes the knowing is only the half way, and I add, it needs the skill of some psychological therapy or skill to improve it. Nonetheless, the knowing is still the first step to have a battle with it. Otherwise, we have excuses to stay in racist all the time because of our ignorance and impossible to change ourselves.
Actually, the video emphasized knowing isn't even NEAR half the battle. It might as well do nothing.
Aliefs are the beliefs of the natural man. You must be born again to conquer them!
so my fear of geckos is just an Alief! you see when i was about like two or three years old i saw my mother screaming as load as she could when she saw one in the kitchen thus i became ridiculously afraid of them :P
how about sollution ?
It's just saying:"you need to be born in another universe with a better luck"
Bottom line, we have social behaviors and we have internal beliefs and sometimes those things conflict.
As long as your social behavior is not detrimental to others, you are fine to think and feel whatever, right?
So don't do or say mean things or unethical things to people who are different to you, as per societal and legal expectations of all of us, and it's all good right?
It seems to me there is a serious stretch of imagination and creative linguistics going on to try and prove out the idea that someone may not like the differences they notice in others and that if you can confirm or "accept" this information, you now have a reason to mitigate their bias actions with some kind of preemptive rules of engagement. Basically, it seems to me that people like this presenter are trying to push social ideology onto the rest of us. Pushing an agenda which first diminishes our thinking to some basal, primitive element then claims we must "rise" above our lower level thinking by taking some particular actions. Funny thing, religion already does that for us. And it doesn't force us or demean us in the process.
If you want people to behave in a morally upright manor, you need to get them attached to a moral principle which does not come from some academic theory. The answer to the issues of "cognitive bias" is found in the practice of genuine faith in Judaeo-Christian traditions. People should do better at their faith to get better at morals and behaving in a morally upright way. Science folks, whether hard or soft fields of expertise should recognize the value of religious participation and advocate for more of it.
I suspect an overly broad definition of the term "cognition" is at play here.
here
Is good example of this someone that strongly believe in Christian God, but has no actuall rational proofs for that? He was just brought up that way and now he's stuck.
How can you not mention evo-psych here?
I was kidnapped by aliefans
Ffs imagine having to pay $40000 a year to have your kid listen to this fictional, utterly useless and not in any way proven nonsense.
grow a brain
Ironic that in a video discussing cognitive biases, that both examples she uses are highly political (eg sex and race). The fact that she chose these particular politically loaded examples from the total set of possible examples, the majority of which would be considered apolitical, speaks to her own personal bias. Especially considering that not only are apolitical examples more numerous relative to political examples, but are also superior in their illustrative qualities for the exact reason that they are LESS likely to provoke any existing biases of the listener. To be fair, she likely thinks nothing of it as academia has become an echo chamber of precisely these ideas. Yet another mindless mouthpiece for her ideology masquerading as a free thinking intellectual. Completely destroyed her credibility IMO. (Alright fellow commenters, bring on the HATE🤪)
So... When is your video coming out to give better examples?
Beliefs are something the Bible says to add knowledge to. "Add to your faith knowledge." So, in the area of racism, I believe that there are almost no real differences between me and people of other physical skin colors (I won't call them races, because there is only one human race in reality). I know for a fact that I have obliterated any racial bias completely from my life, because racism has two major problems:
1. It is based on science denying stupidity
2. You cannot be racist and love Jesus Christ.
Fiery Kushman
Cough first cough
We know you had Trump on your mind 😂
Added that woke crap in the end 😢