Try the custom AI to help you find products that Reddit loves.
Jaynes. I actually remember a sentence from the first chapter (probably not an exact quote, but I can't be bothered to go find my copy), "When asked, 'What is consciousness?' people become conscious of consciousness, and believe that consciousness of consciousness to be what consciousness is. This is not the case."
It's engaging and well-written, but his theory wasn't all that influential in the long run. The brain is so much more complicated than left brain/right brain...We as humans definitely have a friction between our logical minds and our impulsive instinctive minds, but it's deeper than they believed back then.
An interesting modern read would be Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman...He's a Nobel prize winning economist who has done a lot of work about human decision making in an attempt to figure out how it drives economic decision making. He's coming at it from a completely different direction, but if anything, that makes his stuff more interesting.
> I have a theory that your brain tries to "automate" processes and to do them subconsciously when it feels confident enough about it.
You should read the book Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman - excellent read that I would highly recommend. I think you'd find the book interesting, and it discusses this topic in depth.
Look up Behaviorial Economics.
In particular, I recommend this book:
Also, here's another:
Endowment Effect: This is the tendency for us to value things we already own more than things we don't own. This is partly why loot boxes work, especially when they show they are "rare." You may not pay directly for a rare loot box, but if you already earned one... buying a key to open it is less problematic for many.
I've personally spent a lot of time on Less Wrong, but... I do have to admit that it's kind of an insular place using their own made-up jargon to promote strange ideas. Overall I approve of it and don't put much stock in the usual criticisms, but I wouldn't direct people to it if I wanted to convince them of anything.
Instead, I'd direct them to the book Thinking, Fast and Slow. It's just as accessible as Less Wrong's better-written posts, it covers a lot of the same stuff, and it's written by someone with the credentials to back up their claims.
And best of all, it includes regular examples that demonstrate your own biases to you. Examples like this, where you can actually catch your own brain making a mistake, are more likely to get through to someone who doesn't believe in, say, racial or gender bias.
If you want to learn about the other 99 cognitive biases people are unwittingly carrying around (perhaps you, too), check out Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow.
Recommending a book: Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, which dispells the rigid binary dichotomy between "logic" and "feeling" as modes of decision-making and makes a strong case for the importance of intuition. Fantastic book (either it or the author won a Nobel, IIRC), and it really helped me and changed my life.
I am more inclined to believe that racism in Singapore stems from tribal instinct of humans. Highly recommend reading this book: Thinking fast and slow. So it's probably hard to see that humans behave a lot like animals. Lots of us like to use think instinctively and emotionally. This is why philosophy which encourages rational thinking is so unpopular every since centuries ago.
So people being people, when we see something we disagree with (like my comment), you might get emotionally aroused. And when you are emotionally aroused, do you act emotionally? Do you resort to ad-hominem and classify 'me' as an idiot? So what's the difference when a kid sees someone from another race and stereotype them and even resort to ad hominem?
>Chinese kids say a nasty comment to Malay kids by stereotyping "malays are ..."
>Reddit users say a nasty comment to boomers by stereotyping "boomers are ..."
>Singaporean judge comments from non-singaporeans by stereotyping "xxx are ...."
If you are the only person in a group with a distinct trait, will you get special treatment?
>Only female in class
>Only angmoh in the platoon
>Only bald person in the workplace
Herd mentality has always existed. If you possess a distinct trait and you are just one person, it is easy for a bully to pick on you.
Tell your next 5 hires that only 3 will remain after 90 days of competition. You will be hired for 100% of the pay of the job for 90 days.
After 90 days, the best 3 get a sign on bonus to stay, and the bottom 2 get moved to another role that they fit (if they do), or moved out.
That should test for the intangibles you seek.
You cannot predict results based on gut feel.
Read this if you think otherwise -->
Brain 1 reacts immediately based on past learned behaviors. This is our subconscious mind making snap decions based on previous information.
Brain 2 is able to slow things down, recognize there is something to think about to influence brain 1s decision. If this happens enough times in a pattern you will teach your brain 1 to make different decisions.
Seems like brain 2 was heavily activated for you and took over where brain 1 is normally in control for most people.
I work in ems and it's really easy to forget that the only people I see are the ones who get hurt. It's really biased and nothing close to a large random sample. I think it's sort of similar to watching Parler posts (and the other extreme groups). Whatever percentage of content that makes up for you, it's now part of your sample.
So for me I need to remember that no, most people don't get into car accidents or have their arm lopped off from farming equipment every week. It's a really, really rare occurrence despite the fact that I often see it.
The guy who wrote Thinking, Fast and Slow does a really good job of explaining how our brains are lazy and we form heuristics. For anyone interested in that.
The Toupee effect is a metaphor for the more descriptive and academic availability heuristic. Heuristics in general are worth looking into, might change the way you think about how robust your decision making processes are. Cheap on the second hand market https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
I've thought about this in relation to "Thinking Fast and Slow", which describes brains as having both System 1 and System 2 types. System 1 is reactionary and System 2 is thought-oriented.
I believe that rubber duck debugging and pair programming work well because the longer you work on a problem the more you stuff into your brain as an "assumption" and when you have to explain to someone how the program should work you are forcing yourself to dig deep with your System 2 brain and avoiding what you thought was sacred ground.
The research tells us that more people can more intuitively and more accurately do 8 x 5 and 5 x 7 and 8 x 4.5 = 4 x 9 and hold the results in their head using multiplication tables they learned as small children then can do 7/8 vs 4.5/5 without making a mistake.
Even if 7/8 is easy for you then running the other maths as a sanity check is a good way to avoid embarrassing brain farts.
Thinking, Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman explains how people get stuff like this wrong and how to avoid such mistakes.
I would recommend the book, Thinking Fast and Slow
It talks about why we make the kinds of mistakes and knee-jerk reactions we do, and how we can train ourselves to be cognizant of our biases.
You are right. You could narrow your research to activities like day trading, forex, future markets, leverage and etc. Both for stocks and crypto. I'm an economist and I was recently studying behavioural economics.
Psychology is amazing. Take a look at this book if you haven't. You have a great research ahead and I can also smell a PhD coming soon. Good luck, bro.
Have them read:
Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow.
A New York Times best-seller. This author won a Nobel Prize in Economics. He's no slouch.
I've recommended this to a number of patients who come into therapy "not believing" in unconscious / preconscious. A thick book, this read provides a great deal of evidence to substantiate the two different thought processes: "Slow" (which we therapists would call "conscious") and "Fast" (unconscious).
>However, read several people that had the HD6## series and felt that they preferred the Schiit sound when doing A/B testing.
Were they properly volume leveled, double blind testing? I doubt it. Meanwhile the measurements indicate that both of these amps are so freaking accurate that they are easily arguable to be noise and distortion free within the range of human hearing.
I recommend reading Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow
His research applies to the influence of cognitive biases on all types of decision making, and how it affects us in our everyday lives. Once you grok the science of it, you would never again even think about relying on personal testimonials about how these well measuring solid state amps sound. lol
Thank you so much man, reading your comment filled me with joy.
> I remember when I found it I almosy instintly knew what it was and how important it was
The book Thinking Fast And Slow goes over how our brains make this instinctive judgement about whether something is right or wrong and in which situations it's best to "trust your gut" and in which situations you should actually slow down and think this through.
>That could just be a distinction between fast and slow intuitions. How do you know the slow thinking isn't also guided by intuitions, just "smarter" intuitions?
I guess some definitions are in order. An intuition is by definition something that occurs below awareness and is very fast, on the order of milliseconds. My dictionary says:
>the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning • a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning
Intentional thinking is, by definition, slow. I highly recommend Kahneman's book, Thinking: Fast and Slow.
>Do you fault him for this lapse of energy?
Yes, of course I do, and I hope you do too. Hannibal Lector is a monster and has no place in civil society.
I can feel your frustration.
There are a couple of books about this type of error we make as humans. I think this book seems to explain these things very well (but I am only 30 pages in - did someone already read this and can confirm):
Philosophy is such a massive field, it can be hard to know where to start and I've barely touched the surface with what I've read. I'd recommend looking up the major categories of philosophy, what they mean and then searching on /r/askphilosophy for recommendations in that category.
Some of it can be really hard to dig into - and can seem very impractical. I like reading about Stoic philosophy and Buddhist philosophy(through a secular lens) because I find they are centered around direct day-to-day life and they focus on "living well".
I'm starting to look into reads within Ethics as that is really fascinating and I feel practical. However, I don't have any recommendations there yet.
Psychology is also so huge. I'd start with some pop-psychology to get excited about some of the concepts and more practical findings before moving on to straight up college psychology textbooks. I started out with a lot of books on psychological applications in business, sales, persuasion, identifying scams and all that. Then later on I picked up some college textbooks and read through those.
Try this one for some really fun and practical reading in psychology: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
i don't think its all bad until you get to the transhumanism singularity wonky stuff
thinking about things rationally (ie when deciding which charity to donate to), and knowing cognitive biases to be aware of them are good tools
that's why you see people like bill gates go for the lowest cost for saving human life ratios, investing in vaccines and malaria prevention in subsahara africa
obviously not all things can be boiled down to numbers (something like human goodness or happiness), but there are still some pieces of knowledge that aren't throwaway IMO that are spread through lesswrong
edit: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555 is a much better resource if you want to learn about human biases and rationality without the wankery of lesswrong
Speaking of identity politics, I actually used to identify as a Libertarian once. I was also a sophomore in high school.
Free Market^TM economics has been dead for 30 years. Try putting down the Ayn Rand and picking up this.
> The point of the forms and classes fit more with our intuition, our way of understanding the world
I think the challenge is in realizing that our intuition isn't all that great at understanding the world. Evolution, quantum mechanics, and many other aspects of nature don't work the way our intuition says they do. We're horrible at gut-level probability assessment, and we don't intuitively understand things like the law of large numbers. Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow is a great book on the subject. Science is one long sustained lesson of how bad our intuition is at understanding the world at large.
I got you fam
It'll change the way you think.
I'm not trying to be all holier than thou, and what not. I just really liked the book and when I read things and really like them I try to push them onto people. When you talked about the internal debate of 'what I know is logically right' and 'what I feel is right' it just triggered me, as that is a big concept of what the book covers.
I say we must choose because that's what our brain is going to do anyways. Our brain, with it's fast, automatic, gut reactions always takes a stance. We can intellectually say that we don't have a high enough certainty of knowledge to form a belief, but on a lower level we've already taken a stance.^1
Now that doesn't mean we need to be closed minded to the alternative or pretend that we have knowledge we don't. A belief is what we think is true based on the knowledge we have, so our beliefs can change just as quickly as we get new knowledge or perspectives.
^1 This is taken from reading Thinking Fast and Slow, a fantastic book on how our brain works and how the shortcuts our brain takes can lead to things like optical illusions, biases, and cognitive illusions. Highly recommend.
Consider this: Would you be surprised to find out that God exists? We are surprised when reality doesn't match our expectations. If we expect to never find out that God exists, that indicates that we already believe that He doesn't.
Sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about. I think you romanticize the physical sciences. Medical research is messy... is that pseudoscience based on feelings? Political scientists apply statistical tools to support their positions. Read literally any journal of political science. I would suggest looking into articles discussing the effect of media bias on voting patterns, which would alarm you (if you believed in stats and political science).
Since you brought up psychology just to disparage it, I would recommend reading Thinking, Fast and Slow.
I didn't get that in my years of education sadly... The closest I got is reading Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, it blew my mind with how susceptible to logical fallacies we are as humans, and made me more aware of that in my daily life. What courses or books do you guys recommend for an adult that never went these classes in school to get started?
Decades of research psychology. Most fameously Taversky and Kahneman.
Also, if we were roughly rational we wouldn't need behavioral economics. And advertising wouldn't be effective.
That is what I'm thinking. The minute the board learns that an AI can run the company for $100,000 a year rather than a CEO at $21 million, the CEO will be irrelevant.
As it is, CEO are irrelevant in most cases. There is a whole chapter here about how useless they are: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
Kahneam basically says that flipping a coin yields as good of results as a CEO's choices.
This article mentions Daniel Kahneman, the renowned psychologist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics. I highly recommend his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" which goes into a lot of detail on cognitive biases.
Thank you for replying, For a simple design if you check any amazon reviews for the product say
you'll see there's Top Reviews and Recent reviews SIDE BY SIDE with rating system for a post about some Product.
That's near to the design I have in mind.
Well I doubt my site will reach the traffic this site gets any time soon but it would most probably get around 5k users worth of traffic.
Sports + tracking could be a big one. Companies like Opta employ huge amounts of labor to track and monitor soccer games, where trackers manually inspect games to curate a set of statistics (touches, passes etc.) Of course, this would need a complimentary device (not a phone) to establish the relationship between a player and a ball (sensor would be inside), but that somewhat depends on how this device is implemented; does it use Bluetooth, NFC or RFID?
Another use could be to detect absence/presence for events, offices and classrooms. And then if you can sync it up with Apple/Android pay, and if these sensors become really cheap, then people could buy things by simply picking them up and tapping a button on the sensor. And once the sensor on the item syncs with the device to confirm payment, you could detach the sensor and put it in a discard box to make these sensors reusable!
Personally, just having a log of things/objects you use each day would be incredible -- similar to Google's timeline feature, it can allow us to relive memories in a richer way as our memory fetching models are very context-heavy (Thinking, Fast and Slow). This log could also potentially be incorporated in an AI model (like Siri's or Google's), so that your home could be more intelligently automated, as you'll probably have patterns to things you do everyday.
People will adjust their expectations for your level which they will intuitively sense right away. What ever extreme judgements exist among the audience the majority statistcally will be of the moderate range with the base line being derived from that immediate intuition of your level.
This is my opinion after reading Thinking Fast and Slow.
Cognitive certainty is a function of the amount of information available. The less you know, the easier to feel certain. Accept that you won't ever be certain of anything again, and that's exactly how it is supposed to be.
Only dumb people are sure because it's so easy to slide into certainty. Sustaining doubt is hard work and it's very uncomfortable, as you probably already know.
Nobel laureate cognitive psychologist Daniel Kahneman has an amazing book on this exact subject. - http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
This link allows one to preview a bit of that book:
I did notice that his Nobel prize was in economics, not psychology...
[edit to add] I've just skimmed the first few pages of the book. The exercise of looking at the photo on the first page of the first chapter is interesting, but the conclusions which the author then tells the reader that they "knew" and "sensed", are both closed assumptions rather than open questions, & are more a reflection of his responses to the photo, than any receptive mindset to the many conclusions that various readers might draw.
> It takes higher level thinking (which requires effort) to unapply an attribute to a member of a class which you already have an existing set of assumptions about.
There's a really great book about that!
>Then explain to me why someone from a different country can come here and verify the stereotype?
So this is like a meaningless question, you get that, right? Like this is even less than an anecdote, this is a random supposition you've thrown out there with no evidence.
>I think you're just completely against any sort of differences in race. You don't want to acknowledge it.
First of all, we could go into a long debate about how race is a phenotypic trait with basically no demonstrable biological relevance beyond skin color. I suspect that isn't a worthwhile discussion given your resistance to accepting the facts I've discussed previously. I would point out, however, that I'm not suggesting there are not different cultures and societies, and that people exhibit different behaviors depending on what is normative to where they've been cultured. I have no trouble acknowledging this.
>You're afraid of being called a racist.
On the contrary, I am deeply concerned with people not recognizing their implicit biases. It's not surprising when someone says "I've seen lots of bad Asian drivers," because that's true, they probably have. But they've also seen lots of bad ALL types of drivers...it's just the Asian ones that they internalize into their knowledge base because it conforms to pre-existing beliefs.
If you have any interest at all in exploring your own belief system and how the brain makes errors based on heuristics constantly, I really strongly recommend you pick up a copy of Thinking, Fast and Slow. It is a brilliantly easy to digest book that goes over all kinds of biases that we encounter and create.
> You think the level of stress that a kindergarten teacher is remotely comparable to that of a hedge fund manager?
No, I never said that, and it really wasn't a part of the discussion.
> To even begin the career path of a hedge fund manager, you need to work over 100 hours per week as an analyst while taking massive shit from your superiors.
Wow, you don't say. And what happens to most of those guys?
> you better hope you performed better than the many other analysts who graduated from top tier schools like the Ivies and MIT, otherwise you're out of the game.
No kidding. And what determines your relative performance level at that point?
Oh, yeah. Luck.
If you don't believe me, I'd invite to read this book. There is a chapter in there in which he discovers exactly that.
Anyway, everything you're saying really seems to assume that I accused hedge fund managers of not working hard. I never said anything the sort. Yeah, I get that they work a millions hours a day and ride to work in their limousine uphill both ways and all that. That doesn't justify their insanely inflated incomes relative to anyone else. It doesn't mean they're more valuable than a kindergarten teacher.
>Purely because idiots
Everyone does things like this. It's how our brains work. If your brain stopped doing these short cuts you wouldn't be able to function in our society.
You should read this book someday.
Your brain is just tired. It's comes and goes as you use it, but don't fret that the stupid is here to stay. Do something less brainy or something fun that sucks you in bit to give your brain a breather to recharge. You'll be brilliant again in no time!
Edit: If you get super curious about it, you might also check out the book Thinking Fast and Slow. http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555/ It talks a lot about how your brain kinda has two parts, one which runs on auto all the time and a the thinkier part that has a limited battery that needs to recharge every now and again.
> let the free market fix your health care prices.
Doesn't work that way. Healthcare isn't an elastic expenditure, meaning, you cannot chose or not chose to use healthcare (well, I guess you can but out of obvious reasons it isn't the same as deciding which car to buy).
"Free markets" are an illusion anyway, because markets aren't rational because the actors in it (humans) aren't rational. So maybe we can kick the entire idea of the "intelligent" and "wise" market finally to the curb.
If you're curious how humans make decisions, I highly recommend reading Daniel Kahnemann's "Thinking fast and slow", he also talks about the markets there.
I did economics and highly recommend it. A few years out and I'm at 100k with a secure job now and promising career. I had a similar academic situation as you but decided to just stay at a state school where tuition was free. I don't know if I would have accepted it (because of the financial costs) but I wish I would have applied to some Ivy leagues and considered it more.
As a side, studying behavior economics contributed greatly to me leaving the church. Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel prize in economics and I'd highly recommend his book: Thinking, Fast and Slow.
Ultimately my advice is to remember that you're going to win in the end on this one so make it a priority to keep a good relationship with your parents. They'll probably be upset when they find out; they might start yelling; just stay calm, don't get angry back. Keep telling them that you love them and want to have a good long term relationship with them.
Seems like a lot of effort to show something that should be completely obvious to anyone with half a brain...
>Wikipedia cites this famous logical illusion as the best illustration of what cognitive scientists call "The Conjunction Fallacy."
> Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.
> Which is more probable?
> Linda is a bank teller.
> Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
This is from Thinking, Fast and Slow
Everyone everywhere should:
Watch An Honest Liar on Netflix
Subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer
Buy Thinking Fast and Slow
Buy The Improbability Principle
Humans are not intuitively good at probability and statistics, because of numerous cognitive biases. -Thinking: Fast & Slow
Yeah this podcast has a nice summary of the most evidence driven ones:
You can also read about the topic more in depth in Nudge - https://mobile.audible.com/pd/Self-Development/Nudge-Audiobook/B0039UR57E?source_code=GPAGBSH1103160002&cvosrc=ppc%20cse.google%20shopping.195512940&cvo_crid=167185622046&cvo_pid=41680864790
And a bordering in academic approach gets deep into theory but is pretty accessible in Thinking Fast and Slow - https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
I like audio as it lets me multitask
This is biological. Colloquially, "the lizard brain."
If you fall in to the trap of the emotional feedback loop (We did it reddit!), it becomes easier and easier to do it again.
Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahnemen (focuses on the Mind, not brain. For brain, I seriously suggest a physiological psych textbook)
Thinking Fast and Slow. Puts me to sleep every time.
> You really don't quite get it. You are too charitable. It is so much worse than you think.
> The only true thing is racism. They don't believe in a blank slate.
If you're talking about the crits, you're right. But I was speaking to leftism more generally. While CRT is a particularly toxic strain of leftism, I don't know that "The Left" is all-in on it—at least not yet. That said, they tend to be sympathetic to CRT's more palatable rhetoric.
But I don't think they realize they're being fed a chocolate coated poison pill. So I see yours as a different, but important, conversation.
> But there is no objective, neutral reality.
> Human objectivity is not actually possible
...are distinct claims which DiAngelo seems to conflate. DiAngelo pretends to do philosophy here, but she's not. She's engaged in pure naked rhetorical power-play.
The first claim refers to the noumenon, and the second refers to the phenomenon.
Life is going to get a lot worse for us all really fast if we don't assume that there is a noumenon we all share. That said, it is critically important to notice we never access it directly, and only come ever come into contact with a heavily mediated, interpreted rendition in the form of our phenomenon. And this is precisely the kind of thing real scientists of mind like Daniel Kahneman and Jonathan Haidt study and teach us about.
There is an objective reality and we're ill-equipped to discover it. But to whatever degree we fail, life can only improve by making that discovery our North Star. If the crits were simply making the point that one in a privileged (or unprivileged, for that matter) position cannot avoid uptaking a set of biased interpretations they then have to error-correct for to more successfully access the noumenon, then that'd be great. But saying "human objectivity is not actually possible" is like saying, "nobody's perfect" and then giving up altogether. Perfection isn't possible, but trying gets you a lot closer.
But to confidently claim "there is no objective, neutral reality" is a move to create an all-purpose, ultra-powerful weapon to knock the legs out from under...well any threatening or unwelcome claim. It's almost certainly wrong, but it could conceivably work; and the cost is that it plunges us all into a pit of schizophrenic nihilism.
So yes, this stuff is as bad as you say it is. You're talking about the tactics of game 2, which I describe here.
Alright it seems that u somehow wants to deny reality
i really don't know why
what I'm reading is the same way that if I say that Nazism and fascism didn't kill so many people and it was just propaganda
you know that the death of 100 million do not count deaths in war right? but let's say that more than 10 million people died in the second world war, still killed more than 90 million people. have you studied "the great famine of russia in 1921"? if not I recommend you to study
i really cant believe someone can be so deniable about the reality
its all propaganda in your mind and communism is the best thing ever, despire the fact hungers of books, newspaper around the world, documentaries and all of it says its not lol
also the history
you believe whatever you want. if there are people who believe even on flat earth, imagine that theres people who believes that communism works and that it didn’t kill people at all lmao
its all propaganda right?
Read these books if u want
There's a great book about how we use two different systems in our brain to make decisions, one fast one that makes snap decisions based off gut feeling and is prone to cognitive biases, and a slower one that makes calculated and rational decisions.
A case study shows the importance of the oribitalfrontal cortex in mediating emotion and rationality in decision making. This young man suffered damage to that area and was no longer able to make decisions through emotion. His "fast system 1" was essentially damaged and could not be accessed, and the consequences of this was striking. Even making the simplest decisions such as having a doctor's appointment on a Tuesday or a Wednesday can take hours of weighing the pros and cons of each option.
My guess would be that system 1 has a lot to do with implicit learning through the cerebellum and basal ganglia. This is where we make associations through repeated experiences that habitualize our thoughts and actions. There is a lot of research on how these systems work. The cerebellum is perhaps one of the best understood systems in terms of how a biologically plausible algorithm can give rise to its implicit learning due to its relatively simple and repeated structure. Supervised learning is a machine learning algorithm that fits very well with this.
Here is an additional paper about the basal ganglia.
I wish I could give you a better answer, but this is what I have for your very thought-provoking question.
Edit: The thread says 4 comments but I only see 3. Is it just me or is everyone else seeing 4? Maybe someone actually blocked me. o_O
>I don't know of anyone ever, outside of a weird vegan coworker, who ever says things like "Oh yeah I used to shop here but now I'm shopping here, i really admire their sustainability."
It may help to be familiar with the Availability Heuristic. If you prefer a more academic approach to these things it may be worth reading Tversky and Kahneman's original paper on it. If not, Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow covers a wide range of biases and heuristics in a very readable way.
>85% would mean a huge majority of conservatives are obsessing over this stuff. That just can't be right
It also may be worth considering how often topics like sustainability comes up in your daily conversations. Anecdotally, I know many conservatives and these types of things rarely come up, but when they do I usually find that they actually do care and just don't feel it necessary to talk about it.
Another not-a-very tangential point is that binge eating can be related to mental/psychological issues including childhood trauma, depression etc. I have not read in detail in any of these topics and so I will refrain from commenting about it.
(1): Thinking Fast and Slow: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
(2): The Power of Habits: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Habit-What-Life-Business/dp/081298160X
(3) I do not remember which book I read for these points. But it is based on peer reviewed scientific research.
Lol.. Come closer so I can see you better... said the big bad wolf to little red riding hood.
You may think you just want to understand these people better but human beings have many subconscious internal biases so it is better to have other metrics (set up by yourself and more importantly others) for measuring how your individual team members are doing. "Restructuring your daily decisions" as the team lead is even better because it is preventative rather than surveys which are reactive by nature. Self-reporting doesn't capture everything accurately even. I do not recommend overly relying on qualitative surveys as the main tool to drive decision-making for individual team members.
My opinion for the original OP is that it is better to practice giving continuous feedback day to day so when it's survey time, one doesn't professionally vomit on it "accidentally". It's also good for continuous improvement. If one had to save everything for the survey it does not seem like a workplace that fosters Psychological Safety Survey results fall into two parts, people who do not feel safe enough to say what they mean and people who are kind of bitter and want to let it out, then there those that skip it altogether. For you (manager), best to work on day-to-day relationships to create a conducive environment where you don't have to ask HR for identities. It's actually strange you wanted identities, and unethical too. If they did not feel safe enough to say it to you just consider that as feedback in itself and be more perceptive and systematic. If something in the survey catches you as a "surprise", that is important data you can use even without knowing who the person is. I recommend reading Thinking Fast Slow and Noise both very valuable for any person, not just the manager but especially for the manager whose day-to-day is filled with heuristical decision-making.
Unfortunately, our brains didn't evolve with inbuilt "science" reasoning & intuition, that's why the West has been doing it for only 600 years or so, and even then, relatively small groups within society.
Yes, you can learn to think more scientifically, but our brains are hardwired to react quickly & intuitively to simple threats, especially to simple and attractive solutions. Politicians and advertising understand this. Simple slogans, problems and simple solutions are how most of us muddle through the day.
How may people frequent lesswrong.com? How many have Thinking Fast & Slow or Influence on their bookshelf? I would wager a very small percentage are even aware of there existence.
I recommend everyone read Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.
^Item&nbsp;Info | Bot&nbsp;Info | Trigger
Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman gives a really deep-dive on these issues, and I mean really deep.
There is a very beautiful approach to life from eastern philosophy that corroborates some of your thoughts here, it is called Pure-land . The goal is to change one's outlook in life, so as to see other people as small Buddhas that we can learn from and appreciate.
There are also many other good reasons to communicate and spend time with different people. Avoiding intellectual in-breeding is one such problem, but spending time not thinking about deep and intellectually stimulating stuff *is* useful because it lets the brain consolidate memories, reinforce skills, and "move" skills from the slow and conscious part of the brain to the much faster unconscious, where they become second nature .
Personally, I don't find conversations with people that compelling, and I just spend time reading papers or math books, playing chess, poop-posting.
You are touching on one of the cornerstones of the human mind. Daniel Kahneman and his colleague introduced the concept of the dual system mind in the popular book 'Thinking Fast and Slow'. In a nutshell there is the conscious deliberate mind and the subconscious automatic mind. All people are walking around more on the autopilot as it's way less resource intensive than the deliberate mind is.
Our deliberate mind can slowly direct the automatic mind by applying consistent pressure / stimulus until a behavior sinks in deep enough to become automatic. But it is more of the coach who takes energy to summon, and we are automatic collection of behaviors at whatever degree of cultivation we've been able to manage throughout our life.
In another book on acting 'Impro' by Keith Johnstone touches on this idea, that bad acting is an overuse of the deliberate mind as opposed to a harnessing of the automatic mind. When someone is delivering a believable performance they are able to do so by channeling the automatic mind since the deliberate mind is very unnatural. As deliberate as you think you are, we are all automatic and automatic behavior is what comes across as normal to us.
So tying this into your thing, music sounds best when it is automatic, and not so much deliberate. Good practice is not necessarily downloading all the correct notes for a perfect rote performance as much as it is consistently applying pressure & stimulus until the behavior of music sinks in deep enough to be executed by the automatic system. That's also why many advanced musicians describe their acts of music making as 'out of body', because in the moment of performance they know how to get the deliberate mind out of the way to allow for the automatic mind to emerge from the subconscious and perform effortless music.
And here is the link to the book I was referring to that explores common sense as a methodology to know things, and why it is a widespread methodology and its flaws.
Thinking Fast and Slow
Indeed, the cases you cite relate to specific application of minority groups in the field, such as the Navajo code talkers. Despite their successful deployment, these weren't integrated units, but segregated for the most part.
When it comes to effective command and control, executive decision-making, creative solutioning to evolving challenges, and breaking through homogeneous group-think, multiple studies have demonstrated (in the private sector) the efficacy of a diverse workforce. Bottom line: Companies that embrace diversity perform better--diversity encompasses viewpoints and perspectives that drive better decisions, and not just the color of skin or personal backgrounds.
A few citations:
I work in a major investment firm and for us, we don't do it if it doesn't profit. We've deployed an aggressive diversity and inclusion program for about 15 years now and like the military, some of our best and brightest come from varied backgrounds that many would find non-traditional.
I wouldn't call the ad virtue signaling. I'd say our diversity in this country is one of the many things that make our country and our military the best and most innovative in the world.
I think I will add this book to the FAQ I am making for a Turkish audience: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
Seriously. Thinking Fast and Slow should be mandatory reading for all 11th graders. Our world would be better for it.
> there's no meaningful evidence to support the existence of unconscious bias.
The life work of Dr. Kahneman says otherwise. His book, <em>Thinking, Fast and Slow</em> is full of studies about different types of unconscious bias. One famous study revolved around the "Linda Problem".
He demanded that they fight to stop the steal and told them to begin by walking down Pennsylvania Avenue. The only way for those people to stop the steal would be to literally fight. Brandenburg was calling for some sort of violence off in the future. There wasn't enough immediacy or specificity.
Just because a conspiracy starts somewhere else does not mean other unrelated people are incapable of furthering that conspiracy through words or actions.
I learned this by attending a few communication courses, and a lot of real life experience. It took years.
A good coach will help you as well, with resources about it. What I wrote is my interpretation, explained in a few words.
A good start when feeling overwhelmed is to google it, it will take you from one to another until it clicks.
I cannot recommend something specific on this topic, but a book like Thinking, fast and slow is a good start to explain the way our brains work, what to do with it, and how it goes back to you.
Came across this article as well: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-mentally-strong-people-dont-do/201705/how-stop-worrying-about-things-you-cant-change
And also TED talks, cannot recommend enough searching for TED talks. Here is one that I found interesting: https://www.ted.com/talks/lani_morris_navigating_the_meaning_of_life
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman sounds like it would be a good read for you. It goes into length about decision making and the different ways people think.
It's called priming.
Recommended book: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
It's about what you're exposed to first; also known as the [Anchoring Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias\)), and it's one of the most troublesome of human biases. You can read about it in <em>Thinking Fast and Slow</em> to get a better understanding, but if you got ten minutes here is a pretty good video explaining it.
Here's a book you might find interesting: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
I was always stressed using a 1M. I do use it a bit now, but only when its advantagious to me. I am a "slow thinker"
I have a ton. I also second u/duncsauce's recommendation. Great book. Probably the most related to the field and goes into generally how society has thought about risk, uncertainty and insurance through time.
While not completely actuary related these are some of my favorite books. Some are economics or data related. I'll keep adding as I think of them.
Check out a book called “Thinking fast and slow” by Daniel Kahneman. It goes into this type of stuff, and how we have two types of systems in our brain that do what you’re describing.
We're talking "Framing." If it does not fit into ones own "Frame" it is rejected. No matter what the logic.
People are NOT logical. You can see that happening dozens of times a day. We all create our own reality, for survival. You see a blue sky, I see a lion charging at us.
You see Trump going bonkers, his base sees him as being attacked by Fake News. Their brains are permanently wired, not sure what it would take to convince them.
This is why everyone goes for the independent voters, they are "swayable", the other two sides, impossible to convince one way or the other.
Actually, let me repeat this, it's pretty important to understand. Based on the latest in understanding the brain, the how that all works.
"You see a blue sky, I see a lion charging at us."
I think the explanation Grey is looking for is something that a lot of people are grappling with today. One of the best explanations I have found for the same is in the book Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. I am sure Grey has probably already read this book before though it is beneficial to look at it in the context of social media and our brains today. For example, the book talks about Systems 1 and 2 of thinking. While system 1 primarily involves our instinctive reaction, system 2 tries to invoke our brain to try to think. The social media today, including reddit etc are all examples of systems trying exploit our system 1 just to get a visceral reaction without us really using our critical thinking. The fact that there are so many podcasts out there can mean that sometimes even long podcasts can be analysed by our system 1s. I most definitely have been guilty of the same in the past.
One of the reasons Facebook is being blamed for elections today can also come out to this. Its not like people haven't had access to information in the past. Nonetheless, the fact that news today is much more instant and dependent on getting us to click or grab our attention means we really don't critically analyse it as much as we should, leading to the rise of fake news and headlines. Another helpful albeit short book about the same which I can recommend is The People VS Tech which is much more recent and gives a much better context to the ideas of system 1 and 2. This is probably one of the context that can help people think about what Grey is doing in a better manner.
Clearly, using more of System 1 can deeply affect the way we think, as that is most definitely more comfortable and doesn't easily challenge our brains.
You're obviously just spouting off ready-fire responses, without actually engaging in a conversation here.
What you linked directly contradicts your statement: "Reason is, and must be, subordinate to emotion."
You could use this: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
Gut feeling, intuition, rationality, biases, decision making and the mental processes behind them is a fascinating study and has served me well in my professional career and my private life. If interested in learning more , then look at this chapter "A Model of Heuristic Judgement" (PDF) ^((1)) by Daniel Kahnerman. He also wrote a very accessible, New York Times bestseller book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" ^((2)) (Amazon link)
Kahneman expands on "dual process theories" - namely, that we rely on both intuition and reason, where one process, intuition, is quick and the other, reason, is slow. There can be troubles at the speed of processing or when one system is wrong. When I was in the military my commander chastised my speed of decision making during a critical situation saying "Major, I need you to function, not compute!". Slow vs fast thinking.
Another interesting look at this topic is this article (PDF) ^((3)) who suggests that "people at least implicitly detect that their heuristic response conflicts with traditional normative considerations. I propose that this conflict sensitivity calls for the postulation of logical and probabilistic knowledge that is intuitive and that is activated automatically when people engage in a reasoning task."
^((1) Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge University Press.)
^((2) Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.)
^((3) De Neys, W. (2012). Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 28-38)
Nu le-am citit pe cele de sus, dar din ce zici, seamănă cu Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow.
I'll add it to my list. Might have to read it after https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
which seems pretty similar as well.
Also at issue is Kahneman's System 1 vs System 2 thinking. Intuition vs rationality. People who think God is just "obvious" are following their intuition, and their intuitive certainty just feels very strong to them, so much so that they can't set it aside in favor of something more rigorous.
And much religious teaching centers on honing this intuition, teaching that it is the truer and more natural way of thinking, what the mind "really" knows. The intellect is, they'll allow, good enough "within its limits" but using your intellect to undermine religious faith is just hubris and foolishness.
Many of the issues I argue against in the world are primary about those who trust intuition more than they should. Religion is secondary, being only a subset of the larger problem. Books like The Black Swan by Taleb, or Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) by Tavris and Aronson show at great length just how limited our intuition actually is, and how it can anchor us to the intuitive and easy answer and hamper our ability to think more critically. But our larger culture consistently teaches people just trust their intuition, because it's supposedly so amazingly prescient, so the science about the limitations of intuition is a hard sell.
I completely agree. There are two topics the whole:
>The most important part is not a conviction but staying alive.
thing reminds me of.
1 - Daniel Khaneman in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow discusses the differences between the experiencing self and the remembering self. Briefly, the way we experience an event is very (very) disconnected from the way we remember and event.
Prioritizing survival of rape suggests that the memory of rape is less painful than the experience of rape itself. Arguments to the contrary get into territory of suicide, which is just as hard to discuss as the topic of rape.
2 - Atul Gawande in his book Being Mortal talks a lot about people diagnosed with terminal illness. For some, the focus of their lives becomes less about survival and more about controlling the narrative of their story, and how they're remembered.
At the point of diagnosis, many people will opt for painful chemo/radiation even for an extremely slim chance of a few extra years/months. Others disregard treatment and focus on controlling the parts of their lives they value the most - friends, family, unfinished projects. The latter group understands they're possibly shortening their lives, but choose to do so in order to retain control of their life story.
>We can say -I'd do this or I'd do that, but we don't know.
You're 100% right. I have no real idea what I'd actually do in the situations this thread talks about. I know what I hope I'd do.
>Let's hope none of us ever find out!!
Thinking, Fast and Slow
> but you're sexist and need to learn about your bias.
There are tons of books on business/decision-making out there which focus on the idea of how unconscious biases can lead to worse outcomes/poor management/lost money. I feel like getting someone to buy into the idea that biases lead to worse outcomes can be a good path to helping them identify biases which may be more uncomfortable to confront initially.
Thinking, Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman
Major New York Times bestseller
Winner of the National Academy of Sciences Best Book Award in 2012
Selected by the New York Times Book Review as one of the ten best books of 2011
A Globe and Mail Best Books of the Year 2011 Title
One of The Economist's 2011 Books of the Year
One of The Wall Street Journal's Best Nonfiction Books of the Year 2011
2013 Presidential Medal of Freedom Recipient
Kahneman's work with Amos Tversky is the subject of Michael Lewis's The Undoing Project: A Friendship That Changed Our Minds
In the international bestseller, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, the renowned psychologist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, takes us on a groundbreaking tour of the mind and explains the two systems that drive the way we think. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and emotional; System 2 is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. The impact of overconfidence on corporate strategies, the difficulties of predicting what will make us happy in the future, the profound effect of cognitive biases on everything from playing the stock market to planning our next vacation―each of these can be understood only by knowing how the two systems shape our judgments and decisions.
Engaging the reader in a lively conversation about how we think, Kahneman reveals where we can and cannot trust our intuitions and how we can tap into the benefits of slow thinking. He offers practical and enlightening insights into how choices are made in both our business and our personal lives―and how we can use different techniques to guard against the mental glitches that often get us into trouble. Winner of the National Academy of Sciences Best Book Award and the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and selected by The New York Times Book Review as one of the ten best books of 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow is destined to be a classic.
Hello! As a medical scientist, I think I can contribute to your perspective on evolution. I've actually seen some of the pseudodata you cite—used to believe it myself—but there's an immense difference between it and the actual evidence.
The interdependent organs you mention can indeed be explained by evolution. Creationists like to cite the example of the bacterial flagellum as an example of irreducible complexity. (A flagellum is a spiral-shaped motor that turns to move cells. If you get rid of one of the proteins making that motor, it doesn't work; some take this as evidence it never could have come to exist through evolution.) What is actually the case is that the flagellum didn't begin as a motor at all. It started out as a proton pump to make energy, and when part of it mutated to create a filament outside the cell, the cell was able to use it as a motor. Over time, the filament that turns evolved from this proto-flagellum, giving us the form we see today. There's a similar explanation for the eye, the heart, and any other organ you can think of. If you've read anything by Richard Dawkins—I recommend The Blind Watchmaker—Dawkins has a fantastic explanation of other structures.
The mathematical model you cite relies on the probability of everything suddenly coming together in a single random event. It doesn't work like that at all. This http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life is a good primer to the probability of life: when you take an immensely small possibility and run an immensely large number of trials (as happened on early Earth), the probability approaches 1.
As for transspecies evolution, there's another mathematical proof for it occurring. We can sequence the DNA of wildly different organisms and find similarities and differences in sequences of DNA that mutate extremely rarely. (This is 16S rRNA analysis, if you want to do a Google search to supplement your reading.) We then run a mathematical analysis and can construct an evolutionary history based on percent similarity. This method verifies that species which we consider similar due to the fossil record, similar body structures, or similar behaviors have similar genetic sequences. The body of evidence supporting evolution is very cohesive, and while it's difficult to find fossil evidence since fossilization is pretty rare, what fossil evidence we do have is thoroughly backed up with rRNA sequencing.
Regarding your second point, you're killin' me, Smalls. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and no hypothesis of a supernatural world has ever passed that bar. Sure, people have stories about gods, fairies, angels, and demons, but the best evidence we have says that these stories are meant to help us confront our fear of death. I personally would rather die comforted by the thought that I won't be gone forever, and I'm sure you would too. But such a story is so good and plays on such deep fears that it propagates and after enough time and enough pretending, people begin to see it as true.
I think a good nail in the coffin of the supernatural is that experiments at the Large Hadron Collider suggest that ghosts don't exist. (Seriously.) I'm not a physicist, so I'm not going to comment on something I have no experience with, but I am taking the experts' word for it—in addition to the fact that there hasn't ever been a single piece of verifiable evidence for the supernatural.
It's hard to dismiss offhand because of cognitive biases, but I would suggest Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" ($7.75 Amazon, also free online but the author seems like such a nice guy) as a good primer to learning how your brain can trick you into believing something clearly false.
While intelligent design or the supernatural are not impossible, they happen to contradict with everything we've observed and all the evidence we have. Based on what we know about evolution, I'd gladly wager my life and my entire bank account against a pack of Skittles that evolution is responsible for human, animal, and prokaryotic origins. I'm slightly more hesitant to bet against the supernatural (like you said, it's compelling) but ultimately, I'd make the same wager. There's just not any proof for either.
Hope this helped! There shouldn't ever be a penalty for asking questions, and I had almost identical reservations to your own. I encourage you to read more about biology if you can, then perhaps email a local 100-level college biology professor to see if they'll explain any questions you still have. They usually are busy but generally nice people who have a vested interest in science literacy.
A chi è interessato consiglio questo libro, se non sbaglio contiene anche il quesito proposto nell'articolo!
This should interest you..
Same dumbass in the video.
Read this book instead:
Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman is a fantastic book about the two systems of thinking if you are interested in learning more.
> What I am saying is more that racism as a whole is not zero-sum, but instead, major parts of American life are zero sum, which makes people resistant to change. I guess my point is one of nuance here.
I can see this line of thinking. People are indeed resistant to change, especially when they think they might lose something. Ever read Thinking, Fast and Slow? The writer is a psychologist that specializes in judgements and decision-making. He ended up winning the Nobel prize for economics for his finding that as we are risk-takers when it comes to gains, we're exactly the opposite when it comes to losses. We will fight tooth and nail to avoid losing something of ours.
> Namely, when people are on a level footing, programs that work toward social justice, like affirmative action, can be unjustly denying someone else success even when they are more deserving based on merit.
Absolutely. But it's only when they have a level footing. When blacks and whites and other races come from the same financial situation, the same education levels, the same crime levels in their neighborhoods, and other factors, then indeed affirmative action would hurt those that were not under it's precepts. The problem is that it's very rarely that even. For instance, even if you improve the school system, if you don't address the poverty levels, those times that other students would have for homework might not be available to the kids. Or they might have to do other things for money that interfere with studies.
It's that unevenness that programs like affirmative action are trying to address. Whether you agree with the strategy or whether you think there are better ways to do that, it is definitively an attempt to bring them up to our footing. If you don't address that inequality and ignore equity, it's like tossing a life preserver to someone that's already sunk under the waves. They're starting from a pretty shitty background, after all. Affirmative action isn't something intended to last forever. Just long enough for that equality to take hold. I'm all for hearing about alternatives that would work better.
> Which is EXACTLY what I would rather see. If BLM was instead "Blacks for social improvement" and instead of fighting for cops to kill less black people, they fought for reform of police violence, I would be happy. If they fought to improve inner-city schools rather than making sure that black kids get more funding than white kids, I would be happy. If they fought for prison reform rather than accusing everyone of racism, I would be happy.
All those are race-agnostic and yet still achieve the goals that BLM is looking for. Approaching those issues without looking at race removes the possibility for people to get an unfair advantage over me where it matters.
I welcome any approach to those problems, but it's imperative that we remember something rather important. They are being KILLED because of some of these problems. They are being jailed more often and for longer. We don't have to follow a strict sequence of events when the cops pull us over to make sure we don't get shot or arrested. These are not problems that are comparable to what's happening to us. And then when we say, "Well, we're suffering too!", it comes across as pretty petty, you know? We are, but it's not nearly on the same level.
Yes, addressing root issues like poverty and education are imperative, and we should be working on solutions right now so that when equity is reached, we can get rid of uplift programs. But I don't think we should throw out those programs unless you have a decent alternative.
You've provided a useful refinement on the value and limitations of intuitive shortcuts, also called heuristics. It makes me wonder what constitutes the threshold for practical use for an ENTP. I'm now reminded to finish reading Thinking Fast and Slow -- but I skimmed enough to get a working understanding. ;-)
Please clarify whether you believe we have no responses to the original question so far because:
Intuitive shortcuts/heuristics as in my OP can never capture the full complexity and are therefore not "useful" (they're "cute word play", as your other post described).
A "useful" shortcut could be created, but it would take more iterations of refinement. As you stated, "there is always an explanation and things are only mysterious because they are not known, not because they are unknowable".
You'd need more refinement of this question before it can be answered, as I've taken some shortcuts in summarizing your refinement of my summary. ;-)
I would recommend a couple of books:
Thinking: Fast and Slow https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555/
The Information https://www.amazon.com/Information-History-Theory-Flood/dp/1400096235
I think you thought he never said anything. He told Adcock he was at school and went to track. At that time, that was what was relevant. When Adnan talked to Adcock, no one knew Hae was abducted or murdered. They were looking for a girl who was, for all they knew, with her boyfriend. Adcock didn't ask Adnan what he was doing all day. He didn't view Adnan as a suspect in a murder and Adnan, if we presume innocence, didn't think of himself as a suspect. School and track is a normal response to provide at 6:30, about an hour after track ended and with no memorable events that day. Right?
In the 2/14/99 report of the 1/25/99 interview with Adnan, O'Shea reported:
>Adnan went to track practice after school and he did not see Hae Lee leave.
That was before anything else happened. It appears that up to that point, no one had asked Adnan what he was doing or where he was after track practice. His story was the same: after school he went to track practice.
Six weeks later, he's called upon to remember what happened later that evening. As far as I know, there is no record of his response to that. There isn't a document from that time that depicts Adnan as having forgotten or not remembering. Police interrogated him for several hours and I don't know what they asked or what he said to them. Do you? The defense notes cut off at the bottom of a page, ending with the end of school. Was there more? We don't know. Do you know?
Someone sort of mocked me for raising the issue of "What I See Is All There Is" I recommend the book, Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, for a deeper understanding of what I'm talking about. This is the assumption that we know the full story based on the evidence that is apparent to us. That assumption is false. There's plenty we don't know. Paraphrasing Donald Rumsfeld, we don't know what we don't know. That means any conclusion we make has to be tentative, not certain. Pretending like what we have before us leads to a 100% certain conclusion in this case is ludicrous and not really demonstrative of understanding sources and evidence.
So there you go. There are contemporary reports from very early on that document Adnan's claim that he was at school then track, there's Adnan's more specific recollection presented under oath at the first PCR hearing. It appears that your insinuation that Adnan never said it is hereby completely falsified.
Now. Your turn: Explain how that is relevant to his guilt or innocence.
The opposite of black and white thinking (I guess you mean reflexive decision-making) isn't indecision, it's informed and reflective decision.
This resource might help you: http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
> For me, RP is like economics. It's a model of human behavior that is built on predictions and patterns.
> TRPers are like economists. There are many "schools" that are built around RP, some of which are more closely aligned with the model (from my perspective) and some of which are not. And just because someone says they are an economist does make them an expert in economics.
> Trying to understand RP just from reading what various TRPers write is as ridiculous as trying to understand economics from what various self-proclaimed economists write.
Actually, I'm mostly referring to the sidebar when I discuss TRP concepts. And comparing TRP to economics is a great example.
Remember why the financial crisis happened in 2008? That's right - flawed ideas of economics. There's tons of literature on how applied neoclassical economics quickly can become a self-fulfilling prophecy which apparently produces results in the short term, but in the long term spells doom.
Same thing applies to TRP. Compare the average TRPer to an investor during the pre-crisis area. The investor buys MBS-funds which seem to pay off infinitely. So he puts more and more money into it, after a while he has invested everything he owns. Sometimes people warn him that his assets are based on mortages that will immediately default, and thus are worthless in the long run. But he points at his current net worth: Can't people see that this is working? Suddenly the entire market crashes do to the innate rotten nature of his MBS funds, and he is left with no assets and a whole lot of debt.
Same thing for the TRP guy. Spends years acting in line with TRP philosophy. It ostensibly works at first, but people are telling him that his behavior will not allow him to reach his goals in the long term. He ignores them and continues his TRP lifestyle. 5 years down the line the woman of his dreams leaves him. She's tired of him dissmissing her and walking away at the slightest hint of anger from her ("Holding frame"), she's tired of him not taking her seriously ("Amused mastery") and she has grown aware of how fragile and insecure his ego is as he seems to interpret anything she says as an insult ("Passing shit tests"). Now the man is fucked.
> Ugh. I hate the direct comparison to PUA. I know little about PUA as a whole (though some of their actions do seem to line up with what I would recommend), but I know I'm not the only RPer who bemoans RP turning into something like "PUA 2.0". RP, to my mind, is not just a new form of PUA. It goes way beyond what I understand of PUA, which really seems to only focus on short-term hookups.
Every single TRP idea existed in the PUA community. The most famous part of the community (popularly seen in "The Game" By Neil Strauss) involved tips and tricks for short-term hookups. The "Inner game" part of the community is pretty much identical to TRP. Just look at videos from RSD (Real Social Dynamics) and you'll find pretty much every TRP concept there.
> Again, you are focusing on the doing and not on the being (which isn't surprising, given that many TRPers make the same mistake). It's back to the old "fake it until you make it" idea. If you know who you need to be (like, say, confident), it can be useful to emulate that quality until you actually express it naturally, but to assume that the faking it is the making it is completely off-base.
I disagree. This is a flawed way of thinking. You cannot emulate confidence until it appears. Confidence is a feeling that makes you act and feel a certain way. We know from psychology that confidence is the result of your experiences within a given field and your interpretation of that. The only thing you accomplish by acting confident is that you get better at... acting like a confident person. Most people see through that easily.
> The end goal of RP is not to "do alpha", it's to "be alpha." If you are being alpha, all the rest of the shit will fall into place.
I understand the differences her between being and doing. But if you are actively (as is promoted in the sidebar) doing "Alpha male stuff" like "Holding frame" or "Amused mastery", then you are actually just teaching yourself a set behavior. You are not actually being authentic and acting in line with your own values - which would be what the idealized "Alpha male" would do.
> I can always tell that someone just attended a class or training by the fact that their actions are so out of alignment with their being.
And this is exactly what I'm talking about! Would that leader "Be" a leader by faking it until he made it?
> My understanding of the "hypergamy" dynamic and how men and women express and feel love differently comes from years of both reading various experts and studies on the subject of human sexuality and from my countless conversations (and relationships) with other people from all walks of life, so it's hard for me to reference something off-hand. I would say that the work of David Buss goes a long way towards validating the idea of hypergamy/polygyny as base sexual drives in humans, so I would check him out for that. Not included in this discussion, but I found that Esther Parel advocates a view of sexuality that confirms the idea of AF/BB, so that's another non-RP source.
I'm familiar with David Buss and evolutionary psychology. And yes, it describes why the impulses men and women have when it comes to sex have evolved. Women have evolved to be more selective because they risk pregnancy, while for men no such mechanism has been adaptive. However, men are also strongly attracted to visual cues of genetic fitness, just like women. There is nothing gender specific about the idea of "Hypergamy" if it is merely defined as the desire for an attractive partner.
> Why is that so hard to believe?
There are plenty of reasons for this in an evo psych perspective. The most important one being that the high SMV man has other opportunities. Unless the woman is equally high in SMV, there's no way for her to know that he won't just pump and dump her, then leave her for a prettier woman. Then she's stuck with a baby and no man to protect her. Bad idea.
But in terms of real life applications, I was referring to the "Branch jumping" idea. Let's say you have a girlfriend. She meets a guy who has a better job than you, is more confident, looks better than you - he is a higher SMV male.
Does she immediately leave you if he hits on her? According to the idea of branch jumping : Yes.
> What people ideally want and what people can realistically get are two totally different animals.
Of course. I mean, If everyone got what they wanted, I'd be a space cowboy. But I'm not, and I'm still quite happy with my career. And just like I'm happy with my career, a woman can be happy with her man even though he's not the perfect man. And a man can be the same.
> Most of life requires trade-offs that result from a cost benefit analysis.
Are you applying classical economical assumptions to human behavior? Because it seems you're talking of humans as rational actors. I recommend this book by Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize winner in economics, which describes why humans do not fall in line with the assumption of the classical "Economic man".
> And it's interesting that you perceive polygamy as the result of patriarchal societies. I would maybe conjecture that you think that, conversely, monogamy is not a result of patriarchal societies? If so, there are many anthropologists who would disagree with you. They see enforced monogamy as something instituted by men for men and not for the benefit of women.
The old-fashioned form of monogamy is patriarchal because women had to marry. They couldn't work or go to school. Modern monogamy is not a patriarchal construct. And since we've already covered evolutionary psychology, it's worth mentioning that humans have an evolved pair-bonding mechanism which includes emotions aimed at keeping the relationship exclusive (Jealousy).
> The assertion that "women wouldn't want to share" presumes a modern setting for mating, which would be a mistake. I guarantee you that, at a time when resources were scarce and survival was a daily question, the concern over "sharing" becomes far less important than the concern over "how do I ensure the survival of my child and myself? How will I ensure that sufficient resources are available for accomplishing that?"
We agree here. If nuclear war ravaged the world tomorrow this would definately be the case.
> Additionally, it must be noted that the whole notion of humans being naturally monogamous, especially for life, doesn't really hold up in either an academic or a real world sense. Clearly, monogamy, especially life-long monogamy, is not the natural order of things for humans (otherwise, we wouldn't have all the conversations about n-counts and cheating and divorce and...). Humans have found that lifetime monogamy can work well for both parties in certain settings, but that does not mean that's what we are wired to do.
We have a drive for pair bonding, that's about it. It doesn't really make sense to talk about a "Natural order of things" with humans, the entire success of our species is contingent on us being adaptive. For a lot of people. life long monogamy will work. For a lot of people, it won't. The reasons why and why not are unique to each case and infinitely complex.
> I could write a book on this. Many authors already have. I don't have time now, but maybe we can get into it at some point. In the meantime, this is probably one of the most explored topics in human sexuality.
Sure, I'm interested.
This is the book the article is referring to Thinking, Fast and Slow
Thinking Fast and Slow
Willpower - I think this one would be overall great for you to manage very little bits of things through the day.
Mindset - I'm going to be reading this one next. I just liked the overall message of it. I hope to use it to to be a leader of something, some other day.
Those aren't as useful unless that's what shows up in your CBS draft rankings. Basically, the theory behind using your league $ values published in your draft room is some behavioral economics. Your league mates are HEAVILY influenced by the anchoring principal. If CBS says Andrew Luck is worth $30, people will naturally bid up to $30 for him. Your edge is by having this sheet and knowing that in your league, Andrew Luck is actually worth $45, or maybe he is only worth $20. Either way, this sheet gives you a huge leg up in maximizing auction value while your league mates are chasing site values which are probably irrelevant if you use custom scoring settings.
Enough people have used this sheet to win their leagues over the years. I cleaned up every Yahoo Pro league I entered last year with ease, so I know the principal works.
Reading this book gave me that idea:
You will love this book.
One of the most interesting and comprehensive books I've read is Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.
I think I reply with seperate comments to it (because each will probably be a long answer)
> 3. When you talk about (...) do you mean that you had no previous experience of that activity and yet, in your short-term-memory state, you could do that activity like you've done it many times previously? You had this natural ability for pretty much everything?
> 4. How much of your long-term memory stayed?
People tell me that "I did everything", stating that I'm naturally the guy that tries out to push everything to the limit. From race driving to Kung Fu Practician (Wing Tsun) to Piano playing to Salsa dancing, I'm kind of the guy that starts with a cool thing and pushes it as far as possible; like going to the race track on an international Rallye competition "just for the fun to see how good I am at it or if it's fun."
So I did KungFu around 14 - 16 years before (I switched to Ninjuitsu in the still-no-context-and-partial-memories 3 years). But I somehow got into Slacklining and Skating on Freelines within these 3 years, so I pushed my skills really, really heavily to a whole new level. (Side note at end of this post to this). When I start new things where I think I'm like a total noob at it - like playing piano - I give it a try without expectations. Then I realize that I probably already learned those skills, too. And I do a checkmark in my memory: "Okay, I can do this, too" and have a grin over my face for like the next couple days and start looking around for another skill that I think is cool to learn.
But, to date, I still can't remember how I got into the accident. I only know that while in the fucked-up-brain-state I was still able to get money from an ATM, to disarm a police officer that was trying to help me after he saw the accident on the half-pipe (maybe he seemed not trustworthy for my passive I!?) and to go to a friend's home to ask his mother for help. While in that situation, I arrived 3 times with the identical questions, so she realized something's wrong and let me in (and wait for him while he was on the way home).
Side Note: There's an excellent book for all ADHD guys that I would recommend reading it. Seriously, it's helping you to be better than everyone. Fuck Ritalin and go for it, you are almost godlike with your superhero power afterwards. It's called Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman describes the human brain as two systems (which is incorrect, there are three systems, but anyways). So system 1 is for him the active, concious "I". If you answer a question and you validate your arguments, that's the thing that's running. So it's the active I where you always know what's going on. But as things are way too complicated to think actively about (brushing your teeth, checking out girls in the bar, threat-prevention, street fight situations) there's something else that's more efficient. The passive System 2 is something like a rasterizer. It constantly is running (like a graphics card), trying to relate things into context. This thing does stuff like conditioning. To break it, try to use a different hand for brushing your teeth or try reading a book or martial arts while being on the slackline (hehe :P).
There will be some day when this system learned the algorithms behind and takes over this functionality. You wake up and realize "Something is different now. But what?". Then there's a random moment of the day where you do something like throwing paper into the paper bin. You realize like "WTF, how did I hit that bin? I didn't even look at it.". That's that type of moment when you figured out that system 2 successfully got an upgrade.
I learned that technique when I was around 9-10 years old. It's honestly a superb way of sorting things intelligently as I think that system 3 (ADHD guy inside you) can access system 2 priorized. So you can say to the ADHD guy: Go for topic x, solve this math formula while you with your concious I can talk to people without interruption. When he's done you got the solution and of course need to write it down immediately - but at least you can focus on topics and people are somehow able to follow up with the discussion. (So, always take a notebook and a pen with you. Most important tool in life.)
That would be a cool line of work, but I'm just a software engineer. I did some graduate studies in computer vision and machine learning though so I had an arm chair interest in psychology. Learning about how the brain works is pretty enlightening. Psychology is clearly a big component of marketing so that's why I brought it up. There are a lot of curious cases like the JC Penny "everyday low sales" fiasco that highlight the importance of understanding the subconscious biases that affect people's thinking.
If you're interested I'd suggest reading Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow. For more of a curiosity-satisfying read checkout Oliver Sacks's books such as The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat.
Along the same lines there's also the famous and excellent article Joshua Foer from the New York Times on competing in a memory competition.
^Smile ^Link ^Bot ^is ^currently ^in ^beta. ^Please ^leave ^feedback ^if ^you ^encounter ^any ^issues.
Please consider using this link to Amazon Smile and Amazon will donate a percentage of the price to the charity of your choice.
^Learn ^more ^about ^Amazon ^Smile ^| ^About ^this ^bot ^| ^Leave ^feedback
I'm going to play devil's advocate for fun.
Did you personally test all (or even any) of the scientific theories you believe in? I suspect not. Other people tested them, and you trust them. You trust the scientists because you understand the approach they use, and you believe that is a good way of gaining knowledge. The ability to believe things that other people have told you is incredibly important. You simply wouldn't have the time or resources to test all those things yourself. Modern knowledge is so vast that no individual could learn it all, let alone test it all. So we delegate to experts and as a society we have access to far more understanding than we ever could alone.
The result is people who are intellectual authorities on particular subjects. Scientists do the work and pass the knowledge on to us. In theory experiments are supposed to be replicated by other independent scientists, but in practice that doesn't always happen. The media report on experiments without the patience to wait for confirmation by other research groups. Sometimes the scientists make mistakes, or even deliberately produce fraudulent results (for example to get competitive research funding). If you haven't already come across it, try reading the Bad Science blog, watching some of Ben Goldacre's videos or reading his books. He is trying to improve science because at the moment there is quite a lot going on which means science (especially medical science) is not living up to the ideals (you can blame the influence of money mostly).
Science is generally very good, and importantly it is self-correcting. When mistakes are made they are acknowledged, claims are retracted and so on. An example would be the recent BICEP observations. Nevertheless, it demonstrates mistakes are made and we should be a little modest about our confidence in scientific theories, especially recent developments.
I also strongly suspect that you suffer biases (same as everyone). Your example of a magic trick was a scenario where your observation threatened your beliefs. You seek to investigate it because the apparent levitation goes against what you believe to be possible. If you read something which fits in nicely with your existing beliefs you are far less likely to subject it to the same level of scrutiny. Suppose you read a news story about a study which found that young children of religious parents had more difficultly distinguishing factual stories from fictional ones. Think hard - would you be as rigorous in investigating the reliability of the claim as if the claim was something like "study finds atheists commit more crime"? It is a bias in all of us to accept too readily things which are consistent with our existing world view. Being aware of your biases helps but you still can't eliminate them. Thinking, Fast and Slow is another good book if you haven't read it. It is all about biases and has loads of interesting psychological experiments that'll help you notice your own weaknesses.
So, in summary, we need to trust other people for a lot of our knowledge. It is just a matter of who to trust. Sure, the scientists are better than the religious leaders, but they are still a long way from perfect. We ought to be a little more carefully in our levels of confidence. Sorry for the long post.
I've not read it yet, but I've heard that "Thinking, Fast and Slow" is a good one on that.
They actually wrote a book about this, whit all the experiment they did and tested ot theory :
Yup, the framing effect as described by Daniel Kahneman in http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
All humans are subject to perceptual biases.
I recommend reading Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow to get a better understanding of how cognitive biases affect all people in everyday decision making (not just with audio equipment).
It's also human nature to believe false information even more when confronted with the truth. That doesn't mean it's a desirable state, or that it can't be unlearned. Or that our society isn't striving to understand the cognitive problems we have and trying to alleviate them for the sake of working together. I'm still trying to rethink what I was taught and to understand where my own thinking processes are malfunctioning. It's a constant struggle, but one I feel is worthwhile.
And to that end, I cannot accept any conclusions that aren't backed by relevant data. For all I know, you're suffering from a cognitive bias, and the more I talk to you, the more it will anger you and make you dig your heels in. And I don't want that at all.
If you are able to find data that directly asks people if they disapprove of mixed marriages, or proves that there is a direct causal relationship between a minority of mixed marriages and disapproval of them, I am more than willing to change my mind.
> Totesin vain että uskova ei ole täysin rationaalinen ihminen, joten hänen rationaalisuutensa kokonaisuutena on hyvä kyseenalaistaa.
On varmaan ihan hyvä kyseenalaistaa ihan kenen tahansa rationaalisuus, jos haetaan tyyppiä jonka ajatukset perustuvat ainoastaan kovaan päättelyyn ja faktoihin, sillä aikamoisilla arvailuilla tämä meidän pääkoppa toimii. Kirjallisuudeksi aiheesta suosittelen Daniel Kahnemanin kirjaa Thinkin, Fast and Slow, se on rahan ja ajan arvoinen teos.
> En tosin ymmärrä miten epärationaalisuus auttaa ymmärtämään muita ja itseään.
Ei usko näitä kahta poiskaan sulje. Toisten ymmärtämiseen riittää mullaisille ajatuksille altistuminen, mikä Suomessa kyllä tapahtuu luonnostaan kunhan ei eristäydy muusta maailmasta (mitä kyllä esiintyy, mutta ei ole yleistettävissä valtaosaan uskovista).
Toisaalta itsensä ymmärtämiseen ja yhtenäiseen maailmankuvaan juuri oman maailmankatsomuksen työstäminen ja opiskelu on hyödyllistä. Jos esimerkiksi tuon jutun nainen olisi ollut johdonmukainen ja oppinut kristitty, ei ennustajaeukko olisi voinut likaisuudella ihan kauheana pelotella saati myydä puhdistusta korkeaan hintaan. Tässä eräs tutkimus aiheen tiimoilta.
I find it odd that you talk about human complexity and in the same breath mention a tool that states there are 24 types of people in the world is accurate.
Also, I would strongly recommend (especially as a person with a background in economics) this book by Nobel Prize winning economist Daniel Kahneman.
> If a boss told me I wasn't allowed to negotiate for my salary anymore I'd quit on the spot and move to somewhere my talents were appreciated.
Well, if you depend on arguing with your boss in order to get a raise and are threatened by substantive performance reviews then you sound like a great employee. I'm sure your "talents" would be missed.
> I've been part of the interview process quite extensively now. Not having a solid idea of a personal interpersonal skills is very indicative of a poor employee, 100% of the time.
First, stop conflating interpersonal skills with interviewing ability. The two are only sort of related. A person who interviews well can also be impossible to work with on a day-to-day basis. It happens all the time.
Second, you're wrong if you think traditional interviews are actually informative, and your anecdotes and delusions are powerless against the might of psychological research which proves it so.
> I would rather have someone good at bullshitting than someone super smart.
Then you would make a terrible hiring manager.
> I can teach someone about the mechanics of the job, I can't teach someone to be able to stand in front of a customer while everything is going to hell, perfectly calm, and tell them it is going to be fine, we'll handle it.
Okay, no, you can't teach a crappy engineer or chemist or whatever to suddenly become better at their profession. But the real question here is why are you sending your technical and research staff out to talk to customers in the first place?
Again, enjoy your second-rate employees because you prioritize people who look and sound good over actual quality of work.
I don't know. Nobel prize in economics winner Daniel Khaneman would disagree. As would probability/math/philosophy legend Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
These are some massively influential books that may change your perspective on the role of luck. You probably won't read them, but I'm still posting them because someone might.
> (very ~~logical~~ intuitive) conclusions
FTFY. This is not to discount the rest of your post (I'm not addressing it), but just because something feels correct intuitively doesn't mean it is, and in this case I seriously doubt the people who came to this conclusion applied any strenuous mental arithmetic (logic/reason) to arrive at it. Rather, they applied some general heuristic and drew a conclusion from associations they'd previously made. This is why pieces of legislation are cleverly named with hard-to-oppose or hard-to-discuss names -- because such names cause people to make intuitive conclusions about it before applying any reason, and make opposition to it sound awful.
The Patriot Act, Affordable Care Act, No Child Left Behind -- opposition to any of these things, whatever the basis, triggers an intuitive conclusion in others based on the name and stated purpose of the piece of legislation. Someone opposing The Patriot Act for whatever reasons would just be seen as "wanting the terrorists to win". Someone opposing No Child Left Behind, for whatever issues they have with it, would be seen as "hating child education".
Someone opposing Affirmative Action would be seen as "being racist", but that's an intuitive conclusion which comes before you apply reasoning and investigate whether racial motivations have anything to do with it. And that's very much not logical.
I have to give thanks to Daniel Kahneman's research on human decision making for making me aware of these distinctions, and apologize to him for butchering it as I relay some of the concepts. He would call this intuitive, heuristic style of thinking "system 1 thinking", and slow mental arithmetic & reason "system 2 thinking".
Thinking fast and slow: http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555
A really great book describing essentially these two systems is Thinking fast and slow by the psychologist Daniel Kahneman.