What is Reddit's opinion of Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

So I have been reading the book Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment, and I can't help but see that this is a real time example of "Group Noise".

If we put all these pundits in a room and they all independently choose who should be number one without knowing what other pundits would pick who you can probably end up with a close representation of who should actually be number one. But the fact that these lists are all public means they are probably being affected by a lot of social influence, which could be contributing to a noise in judgement. Thats why in a span of 2 weeks (with no NEW DATA emerging) Wright's position has shifted so violently.

I can only hope the Canadiens are able to make this decision free of influence, and they have a as "noiseless" a process as possible to make their right choice.

Book for reference: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B08KQ2FKBX/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?\_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

So now you are relegating your decision making process to an emotional personal dislike of Patterson ignoring his objective scientific qualifications, track record including the long hauler network and infectious disease experience.

Following that approach rather than objective, disciplined analysis of objective criteria is a poor approach to decision making according to Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman in his recent book on decision making "Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment" https://www.amazon.com/Noise-Human-Judgment-Daniel-Kahneman-ebook/dp/B08KQ2FKBX/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?gclid=Cj0KCQiA2ZCOBhDiARIsAMRfv9Lr1yBm0zWWIQvKcfBv1m2IAmQkEoW4ZMgDRSHegzc_NssbUpbwbiYaAoc0EALw_wcB&hvadid=557218191574&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9004326&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=10271606715646672976&hvtargid=kwd-1027354362441&hydadcr=27857_14486543&keywords=noise+kahneman&qid=1640271809&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEyWE9BWTdGT1JEVFI3JmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwNDE2ODkyTTZDWjRWTTVENEdVJmVuY3J5cHRlZEFkSWQ9QTAyNTc4NzQzNzY2WVFUWDUzMkpJJndpZGdldE5hbWU9c3BfYXRmJmFjdGlvbj1jbGlja1JlZGlyZWN0JmRvTm90TG9nQ2xpY2s9dHJ1ZQ==

Thank you for submitting to /r/SmallYTChannel. You have spent 3λ to submit here, making your current balance 0λ. /u/wwllol, please comment !givelambda to the most helpful advice you are given. For more information, read the FAQ.

Video data:

Channel Data:

^/u/SmallYTChannelBot ^made ^by ^/u/jwnskanzkwk. ^PM ^for ^bug ^reports. ^For ^more ^information, ^read ^the ^FAQ.

>The Dunning-Kruger effect is a form of cognitive bias in which we humans tend to believe we know far more than we think . . . Put differently: You do not know what you do not know.
>
>The current media environment aggravates this dangerous tendency because media figures are supposed to have emphatic takes on everything immediately. Disastrous! Brilliant! Those are the responses that get clicks and eyeballs. It is a whole lot less sexy to say “We actually don’t have enough information to tell,” or even “It’s a close call.”
>
>This plays out all the time in breaking-news situations, most recently with the pause in the distribution of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. People with zero expertise in public health, immunology or any other relevant body of knowledge pounced. “Dr. Fauci, the CDC and the FDA are all wrong!” Well maybe they are, but novices do not have most of the information needed to make an informed opinion.

​

>When news of this sort breaks — especially when it involves topics about which political pundits have no prior experience — several things should happen. Experts in the field, not political reporters, should step forward to provide insight. Reporters should be asking the right questions, not pontificating based on incomplete data. They should be wary of their own confirmation bias and other cognitive mishaps. They should inform the public as to how the decision was made and why.
>
>In short, the media needs to know what it does and does not know before it grades government officials on their performance. Chances are, Fauci, the world-renowned expert in immunology, has better judgment about the ethical and scientific issues surrounding a pandemic.