It is very interesting, and I am not sure how much it is Bayes' influence, that people don't even try but I think, a big part it is, for example when comparing rates of women in professor position in Universities in different countries, for example professors for Mathematics etc. so low in West-Europe and much higher in China or Russia or some East-Europe countries . I do not think that nowadays sexism in West-Europe can be spread in Unis at that mass, so apparently it is still Bayes' phenomenon 😅
I'm an artist and I love this science/math/statistics stuff. I know too many artists who go by their feelings and never seem to look beyond themselves or established beliefs. And you get to interpret their work any way you like. The best novelists were the ones who actually did research and had their minds blown enough to want to write about their experiences. Bayes' rule applies to us artists just as much as it does to scientists. If we artists applied more scientific thought and processes to our art we would only created better work for everyone.
The scientist makes sense of the past, the artist is living and speaking to people in the future. Working together can be very productive in the present due to the way scientists become experts in their fields, and artists formulate ideas by linking expert thought. I think communication is part of the issue. Verbosity can be an enemy of the present It's why I prefer having intellectual discussion with children
In spite of what you will read in ridiculous replies, Bayesian analysis, IS constantly used, not only in scientific evaluation, but also in art and creativity: You CONSTANTLY update your views, vision, analyses. THIS is Bayseain analysis, and HOPEFULLY it occurs constantly in artistic, physical, musical, and ANYthing one does in life. Brains are Predictive organs, LONG evolved to use memory and EVERY novel sensory experience. This includes your internal sensing of your own response, through the physical arousal, the temperature, the subtle hungers your system reports. This includes your relative energy, exhaustion, and all other interoceptive sensations. Of course, THAT means that you CAN Misinterpret, as Pinker implies, things that are less or not associated, which you then correct through continuing Bayesian interpretation of what occurs in all systems - and everything is involved in systems - though, as you see from"Alexbaddy" some systems, including "realizations" can be and ARE illusory. We see evidence that we are prepared to see, and lacunae, lacks, gaps, exist, arise, diminish, grow, disappear, in our lacunae, depending upon whether we are sufficiently critical of OUR OWN conclusions.
My mom was part of a long line of artists. My dad an engineer. It’s interesting how some things I appreciate and approach as an artist and some an engineer.
@@scalbaldyfruub7499 this is true, sometimes complicated questions do have complicated answers, but so long as that complicated answer is based truly on things we KNOW and not just things we guess or assume, it's still the most likely answer
My wife heard the “horse vs. zebra” saying many times in the more than two decades it took before she was properly diagnosed. After seeing over 200 doctors, someone finally figured out that she was a zebra. Since then, she’s received proper care; but it was such a hard path to get there. I wish that more people had considered that zebras do exist.
Yeah. But the point is that nobody can live in a world where all the horses are treated as zebra’s. So although tough on your striped wife and you in this case, it’s best for the majority.
A couple months ago I read 'Enlightenment Now!' by Prof. Pinker. It set me straight about several of my perceived notions with actual facts. It made me much more hopeful about humanity's future.
@@Chris-hw4mq Some did show their true face sure, but a huge percentage still isolated, wore masks, got vaccinated, and so on. And there are other places in the world than the US where things went a lot smoother.
I'm a firm Christian, however I think it's important for everyone to understand when you're crossing from observable rationale to accepting something by faith. If you get that confused, you'll potentially end up ignorant or disappointed.
When I saw that movie, I felt like the boy in the story who travels to another world and then returns, only to find that it was all a dream, until he feels in his pocket and finds a handful of sand.
An adage doctors learned even in Medical schools is "common things occur commonly". It is the most succint intuitive expression of taking into account prior prevalence/incidence in Bayesian rule.
That's an interesting one. But it's also important to realize that rare events do happen sometimes. Earlier this year, my country saw a number of storms that were completely off the charts, completely unprecedented. A total WTF experience. It was incredible. You could almost say "there's a first time for everything" even if that's not quite true.
But even that can be Bayesian. Is it really just a “freak coincidence”? Or is global climate change also affecting the patterns of tropical storm seasons? It stops being a “rare occurrence” to have the hottest summer on record if it’s BEEN the hottest summer on record for five years in a row.
This is why I am not religious. I feel it makes extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. Likelihood of someone coming back from the dead and changing water into wine has a base rate of 0 for me in my experience, so it’s nearly impossible for me to believe in unless I see evidence equally incredible as that. I feel the same is true for many things nowadays… people hear the slightest things and begin making assumptions off of evidence that could just as well mean nothing at all in the context of the topic. Next thing you know it’s being repeated on the news and spreads like fire. I’m not saying I’m not open to believing in things, but I feel the evidence should be irrefutable. If everyone in the world understood the amount of work scientists have done to continuously question and improve their surroundings, maybe they wouldn’t be so quick to believe what they hear right away.
I think you're not religious because you don't lack the strength others do, I'm not religious either but I wonder, should I have not been as strong mentally, would I have been desperate enough to turn to religion? I think many are forced to turn to religion because of their environment and circumstances, the mentally healthier you are, the better your living conditions in the early growing phase of life the less likely you're to ignore inner strength and the more likely you're to seek strength elsewhere
to me mental strength is proportional to brain health, I wonder if there's research regarding brain health comparing those of religious and non-religious people
Describing what in effect is called "common sense" into a formula might be great, but, as he says around 3:15, you'd better know the limits of common sense, or you'd end up closing your eyes to the first scientific approach of simply Observing and Perceiving. Overall I think this is a dangerous formula because there is not a side formula that calculates the limits of application of the Bayes formula.
When computers came into existence it became possible to put Bayes' theorem in motion and calculate how prior probabilities can change over time giving us computational biology and physics. It can even be applied to philosophy, e.g. "God’s Dice: Bayesian Probability and Providence".
Utilitarianism is also great in theory, as a formula for rationality may be, but what are the values and how do you quantify them? But, if applied, the "Golden Rule" makes its value apparent. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." "Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
It's was not enough to "Think Big" by showing the equation for Bayes' Rule. You needed to 'show small' by walking through at least one real world example. As complicated as the world we live in is surely there was one "If a train leaves a station..." example you could have plugged in to the equation at 1:11 that would have given it real meaning to the layman.
Well, if you live in East Africa, the probability of it being a zebra is quite high. And as we get closer to the frontier of current knowledge, the probability of that something not even being an equine gets higher and higher while we still expect it to be some sort of a horse practicing our habitual Bayesian thinking.
You completely missed the point. If you're living in a place where zebras frequently roam, then the Bayesian prediction would be to assume it's a zebra and not a horse
@@TheCelticsAREboss Well, maybe I should've chosen another metaphor, but my point was that most of us live in a place with no zebras, but make general Bayesian assumptions about horses. And this rationale works just fine in normal conditions for most people, but fails for those who get closer to terra incognita of zebra-space where science gets really weird and commons sense is trying to fly out of the window.
@@2bfrank657 It's not flawed if you live anywhere where zebras don't exist, which includes the vast majority of humans on Earth. OP was just quibbling about nonsense. I already explained how Bayesian's rule is applicable to an environment where zebra's frequent. And there is nothing really to explain, at least not the audience that is going to be watching this video, i.e., people living in urbanization or the developed world.
It goes the other way round actually; if there is a lot of sexism in engineering [or surgeons etc] programs then the Bayes rate of women who want to be engineers will be pretty low.
prob. sexism given few women in eng. = (prob. few women in eng. given sexism X prob. sexism) / prob. few women in eng. In my experience, sexism is pretty likely to keep women out of an industry if it is present. IMO, there is a fair bit of sexism still around. prob. there are few women in eng. is pretty much 1, at least for most fields of engineering. What gets tricky is defining what level of sexism we talking about, and also, how little is "few"?
So Bayes Therum comes off as more of a first approach but as part of a tool set. So basically its a balance of data history first, then real world data. Bayes = Prior Data + Current Data + Wisdom
This is a side issue but one that is still Relevant. How much evidence is enough? How do you know that the next piece of the puzzle will not be more significant than the evidence so far. This gets even more of a problem when you are searching in your own memory or you ask a question like have I forgotten to consider some good evidence or argument that I just did not consider. When is enough enough!
One big problem is our tendency to infer causation from correlation. 'If I had not got stuck in traffic, I would have been on that plane that crashed, killing all on board. Who would have looked after my elderly mother then? God must have sent that traffic-jam to save me, because He has a purpose for me. It's a miracle!". As if none of the people that died had families and obligations of their own, and therefore made sure to leave enough time to get to the airport and catch their flight. Which is the more likely explanation: God punished the people who were more conscientious me because He loves my mother more than anyone else's; or I just caught some luck by screwing up? Is life sometimes unfair, or am I special?
I like your women in engineering analysis. The data indicates that women have a high probability of being people oriented and therefor less likely to be object oriented while males have a higher probability of being object oriented. We welcome women in engineering and when i had a few women in my class they were easier to manage, but women are less likely to WANT to be engineers.
Why are we easier to manage? Is it that we are focused on getting the job done rather than wasting time proving who has the biggest dick? Anyway, as a woman I wanted to get a well paid job so I became a chemical engineer. It’s an interesting and rewarding profession, but the money is the primary motivator. Do men want to become engineers for some other reason? I can’t imagine what it could be.
@@dianaf2077 The data indicates that men are more object oriented, so they tend to go into STEM jobs versus people oriented jobs. And for clarification over the span of 4 decades I do not recall any of my engineers attempting to prove genitalia size as they had there hands full with D.E.'s. And I am not aware of any male that would say females are easier to manage, as I was referring to the class management in general.
Umm…check what you wrote in your first post. You wrote “…when I had a few women in my class they were easier to manage.” And I wouldn’t mind if you gave a link to the source of this data that you are quoting.
@@dianaf2077 it is an incomplete sentence when you try to misconstrue it like you did. And to erase any ambiguity about my view, I preferred teaching when females where in the class. And if you are looking for a fight the data is from Dr. Jordan Peterson's research, so go fight with him if you are looking for some drama.
@@johnnychinstrap as an engineer, you will appreciate the important of precision in determining whether a structure a structured entity behaves as we intend it to; and from that point of view, I would suggest that your sentence is not fit for purpose, as it is not clear whether the pronoun 'they' refers to 'women', which was the subject of the preceding clause, or 'the class', as you intended. It certainly caused me to do a double-take. Whilst I would agree that men and women have somewhat different cognitive aptitudes, they are not binary. We all have to deal with objects and we all have to deal with people, and aptitudes are a question of degree. Women are somewhat more agreeable than men, and men are somewhat inclined to obsess about the size of our equipment, but people confound these expectations all the time. However, humans, engineers and scientists included, have a tendency to make rules out of expectations, and science is littered with shameful examples of women whose interest in science was discouraged, whose abilities were not nurtured, and achievements not recognised, by the men in charge of the institutions to which they sought admittance. Rosalind Franklin and Jocelyn Bell, for example, were both overlooked for their contributions to work that won their male colleagues Nobel prizes. A century before they would not even have been allowed into the lab, or the lecture hall. Human potential cannot flourish without nurture and encouragement, seeds cannot grow if they are not planted. Science and engineering may be concerned with objective realities, but they are products of social collaboration, from which no-one should be excluded a priori. We should always remember that one thing that unites us all, whatever our differences, is human fallibility.
Tldr: bet on what is most likely. Be aware that betting on most likely can reinforce stereotypes. Be aware of variables that create betting odds and don't jump to variable that you possess emotional resonance with
I do not get where applying Bayes is problematic. The examples show that applying Bayes is more fair. I do not get how fairness would be in contrast to Bayes inference, as mentioned. Bayes thinking is absolutely correct, wrong application of it is the problem, where people do not wish to consider less probable cases in tasks where it is their responsibility to examine all possible cases.
Pinker neglects to dive deeper into the innumerable biases that misdirect our framing and analysis of the ‘Likelihood’, ‘Prior’ and ‘Evidence’ terms of the Posterior Probability equation.
Annoying that the equation shown at 1:08 is typeset incorrectly. The left-hand side shouldn't be P(A/B), i.e. "probability of (A divided by B)", but P(A|B), i.e. "probability of A conditioned on B". Because A and B are meaningless to the reader, it would even better be stated as P(H|E), i.e. "probability of the hypothesis conditioned on the evidence", or "probability the hypothesis is true, given that we have observed the new evidence". The same applies to the P(B/A) on the right side. Again, it should be P(B|A) or, better still, P(E|H). Otherwise, not a bad exposition, although the digression into the base rate fallacy was a distraction and probably best dealt with separately.
The idea of "if you hear hooves, think horses not zebras" should NOT apply to how doctors treat patients. It reduces the patient to a formula that is too broad and negates the patients unique and individual make up and experience. It is basically diagnosing everyone as a horse regardless. This little horse/zebra thing has caused harm and suffering to so many people and surely allowed some to die.
Hi can anyone explain to me the part of about "10% female mechanical engineers". To conclude whether there is sexism or not, we need to see "how many females wanted to be mechanical engineers in the first place". Why is it so and how to apply Bayesian theorem? Your help is much appreciated!
1) it is not clear how all of the mentioned items are quantified. 2) I think Steven Pinker is probably the only remaining credible public intellectual.
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. James 3:17 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18
Basically Bayes takes the base rates into consideration and failing to do so is a logical fallacy called "base rate fallacy". Even if it is a fallacy there are times where those are useful. We evolved these cognitive biases for a reason. Wisdom requires understanding the limits of one's knowledge and that implies understanding that there is a difference between wisdom and knowledge. Generally speaking a key component in wisdom is context specific. Generally speaking it is irrational to not consider base rates but there are times where depending on the axioms, or the basic assumptions, that it is actually perfectly rational to ignore the base rates or to weight them. The reason is that we can't assume we have perfect information about base rates. As an example in the book "The Bell Curve" there is a controversial chapter which got the author labeled as a racist and while I guess that is a point of view a person could take, I personally looked at it as being something close to empirical proof that there was a systemic bias in terms of education resources available to certain minority groups for decades(several entire generations of people). If we were to look at that same data and first separate by economic status and then other metrics like race, nationality, or whatever, we would see that scores fall back in line like we would expect with a normal distribution. What that means in practical terms is that the majority of people, regardless of sex, race, or whatever, as an example, fall somewhere in the range of slightly below average intelligence to slightly above average intelligence. Things like races, sex, etc are independent of intelligence. What has a far larger impact and will actually move base rates around is economic status. Rich people get better education, on average, than poor people. Even though rich people are no more likely to be intelligent than a poor person they are more likely to be more educated and therefore score higher on just about all academic measures on average.
Sure. Explain it to me like I’m stupid it shorthand for I know nothing about this particular topic but I would like to know, so start off with the basics. Explain it to me like I’m smart is shorthand for I know a great deal about this particular topic and I have one question I would like to ask you but there is no need to start from first principles. For example, if it is the first time I’m playing WOW I would ask you to explain it like I’m stupid. If I’m a neurosurgeon consulting another neurosurgeon about a patient I would say explain it to me like I’m smart. ‘Stupid’ and ‘smart’ are not being used in a judgmental or pejorative way, they’re being used as shorthand to let the explainer know your level of knowledge.
The closed captions made a mistake there: Prof. Pinker was saying "base rate", not "Bayes rate". It's an important concept, but not at all confined to Bayesian probability. In his example of sexism in engineering programs, one critical base rate is the rate at which men and women inherently wish to become engineers. It is "forbidden" in some circles to suggest that this base rate is lower for women than men. This assumption naturally has a huge impact on the conditional probability that there is sexism in engineering programs, given the discrepancies between the genders.
Null hypothesis: The question exposes either a lack of knowledge of English grammar and or vocabulary, or the translation from the original language is inconclusive. And isn’t the Bayes’ Theorem just what the human brain is regularly supposed to do?
It’s cute when people pride themselves on rationality, when placing one’s FAITH in rationality is arguably irrational. And no I’m not religious and I have a background in science so please don’t throw that at me :)
Depending where you live it’s probably more likely to be a Zebra. This axiom in itself shows how stupid it is to determine that a result based upon a series of assumptions is somehow evidence of something.
What's an example of you can apply Bayes' Theorem?
The resurrection of Jesus Christ and the entire reliability of the Gospels, completely falls apart under Bayesian analysis.
@@jameshicks7125 I'm not sure I follow. Can you break it down for me? Thank you.
@@rainking50 likelihood = min, commonality of occurence = 0.
It is very interesting, and I am not sure how much it is Bayes' influence, that people don't even try but I think, a big part it is, for example when comparing rates of women in professor position in Universities in different countries, for example professors for Mathematics etc. so low in West-Europe and much higher in China or Russia or some East-Europe countries . I do not think that nowadays sexism in West-Europe can be spread in Unis at that mass, so apparently it is still Bayes' phenomenon 😅
Por qué no pusieron un ejemplo dentro del video?
I'm an artist and I love this science/math/statistics stuff. I know too many artists who go by their feelings and never seem to look beyond themselves or established beliefs. And you get to interpret their work any way you like. The best novelists were the ones who actually did research and had their minds blown enough to want to write about their experiences. Bayes' rule applies to us artists just as much as it does to scientists. If we artists applied more scientific thought and processes to our art we would only created better work for everyone.
The scientist makes sense of the past, the artist is living and speaking to people in the future. Working together can be very productive in the present due to the way scientists become experts in their fields, and artists formulate ideas by linking expert thought. I think communication is part of the issue. Verbosity can be an enemy of the present
It's why I prefer having intellectual discussion with children
In spite of what you will read in ridiculous replies, Bayesian analysis, IS constantly used, not only in scientific evaluation, but also in art and creativity:
You CONSTANTLY update your views, vision, analyses.
THIS is Bayseain analysis, and HOPEFULLY it occurs constantly in artistic, physical, musical, and ANYthing one does in life.
Brains are Predictive organs, LONG evolved to use memory and EVERY novel sensory experience.
This includes your internal sensing of your own response, through the physical arousal, the temperature, the subtle hungers your system reports. This includes your relative energy, exhaustion, and all other interoceptive sensations.
Of course, THAT means that you CAN Misinterpret, as Pinker implies, things that are less or not associated, which you then correct through continuing Bayesian interpretation of what occurs in all systems - and everything is involved in systems -
though, as you see from"Alexbaddy" some systems, including "realizations" can be and ARE illusory. We see evidence that we are prepared to see, and lacunae, lacks, gaps, exist, arise, diminish, grow, disappear, in our lacunae, depending upon whether we are sufficiently critical of OUR OWN conclusions.
My mom was part of a long line of artists. My dad an engineer. It’s interesting how some things I appreciate and approach as an artist and some an engineer.
Dr. Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Dr. Suess: Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple.
Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is often the best.
@@albarodriguez9406 Correction: The main gist of Occam's Razor is the most likely explanation is the one that makes the fewest number of assumptions.
@@scalbaldyfruub7499 this is true, sometimes complicated questions do have complicated answers, but so long as that complicated answer is based truly on things we KNOW and not just things we guess or assume, it's still the most likely answer
@@goldensunrayspone Or put more simply,
"Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence." As long as the evidence is there, good to go.
What in the ChatBot is this bullshit?!?!?
My wife heard the “horse vs. zebra” saying many times in the more than two decades it took before she was properly diagnosed. After seeing over 200 doctors, someone finally figured out that she was a zebra. Since then, she’s received proper care; but it was such a hard path to get there. I wish that more people had considered that zebras do exist.
Yeah it's a real problem, unfortunately tilted towards saving time and money on average rather than reaching the best outcome in each case.
Since she obviously visited experts I’m mostly surprised they didn’t notice the stripes.
Come on man marrying a Zebra is weird asf
@@ButterflyMatt They did. But they’d lose their jobs and be ostracized if they mentioned them.
Yeah. But the point is that nobody can live in a world where all the horses are treated as zebra’s. So although tough on your striped wife and you in this case, it’s best for the majority.
Please don't spoil these great pieces by putting the music all over everything. It really detracts. Talking and informing is enough.
What is the probability of people not liking music on this video, given that you don't like music on this?
Any clues?
I think the transcription machinery wrote "Bayes rate" when Pinker actually said, "base rate" - a crucial distinction
Every time!
A couple months ago I read 'Enlightenment Now!' by Prof. Pinker. It set me straight about several of my perceived notions with actual facts. It made me much more hopeful about humanity's future.
LMAO didnt you what happened durring the pandemic ? thats the true face of people
@@Chris-hw4mq Well, even so we got through it.
@@Chris-hw4mq Some did show their true face sure, but a huge percentage still isolated, wore masks, got vaccinated, and so on. And there are other places in the world than the US where things went a lot smoother.
@@Catlily5 of course we got through it, and nobody who did not get through it can tell us otherwise!
I'm not saying you shouldn't be hopeful, but Pinker is widely accused of naked data manipulation by social scientists.
One of Profesor Pinnker's best qualities is his clarity of speech.
And his amazing hair 😎👍
@@eddieking2976 he is like A better looking, more refined, and modern beer mug
And his weird history with international pedophile kingpin Jeffery Epstein.
Think more rationally 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Funny how you have a typo on the word speech 😅
Please post more of these by Pinker. He's great!
Think more rationally 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Steven, wouldn't this video be more effective if you had included an example or two? I hope you will do so in a follow-on video.
Prior experience would seem to indicate that; certainly the evidence in teaching shows this is true...I expect the probability to be pretty high
Probably not his fault - it was likely just edited this way.
The music is way too loud.
Who would have thought a class 12 maths formula holds so much meaning. As someone said.... Maths and Nature are the Same. 😊
Or is it. The acuity of our perception of nature, and math's are often the same?
See Gödels Incompleteness Theorem
Think more rationally 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
I'm a firm Christian, however I think it's important for everyone to understand when you're crossing from observable rationale to accepting something by faith. If you get that confused, you'll potentially end up ignorant or disappointed.
Continue carefully updating your past presumptions.
belief is human feature. not everything can stop us making a belief. why do we ever limitting our best feature? we keep experimenting on it
Faith is just a belief in something you have no evidence for (or you would provide the evidence.)
My AB History major class teacher unknowingly taught us this, but in the context of scrutinizing a historical source
When I saw that movie, I felt like the boy in the story who travels to another world and then returns, only to find that it was all a dream, until he feels in his pocket and finds a handful of sand.
Which movie is it?
i wanna know what movie too!
Is it The Neverending Story?
Sounds a lot like Time Bandits. Great movie btw
Think more rationally 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
An adage doctors learned even in Medical schools is "common things occur commonly". It is the most succint intuitive expression of taking into account prior prevalence/incidence in Bayesian rule.
That's an interesting one. But it's also important to realize that rare events do happen sometimes. Earlier this year, my country saw a number of storms that were completely off the charts, completely unprecedented. A total WTF experience. It was incredible. You could almost say "there's a first time for everything" even if that's not quite true.
But even that can be Bayesian. Is it really just a “freak coincidence”? Or is global climate change also affecting the patterns of tropical storm seasons?
It stops being a “rare occurrence” to have the hottest summer on record if it’s BEEN the hottest summer on record for five years in a row.
Convergence to the norm.
This is why I am not religious. I feel it makes extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. Likelihood of someone coming back from the dead and changing water into wine has a base rate of 0 for me in my experience, so it’s nearly impossible for me to believe in unless I see evidence equally incredible as that. I feel the same is true for many things nowadays… people hear the slightest things and begin making assumptions off of evidence that could just as well mean nothing at all in the context of the topic. Next thing you know it’s being repeated on the news and spreads like fire.
I’m not saying I’m not open to believing in things, but I feel the evidence should be irrefutable. If everyone in the world understood the amount of work scientists have done to continuously question and improve their surroundings, maybe they wouldn’t be so quick to believe what they hear right away.
Sometimes the Humana's mind can't realize some evidence
Because he doesn't have that's ability.
@@ameermathkoor7113
It doesn’t have to, we have math and statistics for that.
I think you're not religious because you don't lack the strength others do, I'm not religious either but I wonder, should I have not been as strong mentally, would I have been desperate enough to turn to religion? I think many are forced to turn to religion because of their environment and circumstances, the mentally healthier you are, the better your living conditions in the early growing phase of life the less likely you're to ignore inner strength and the more likely you're to seek strength elsewhere
Religion is for the stronger people if we are being honest
to me mental strength is proportional to brain health, I wonder if there's research regarding brain health comparing those of religious and non-religious people
This channel is amazing! And the Bayes' rule is incredible as well!
This is a great series, I love it
Thank you for explaining that!
Think more rationally 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
The best Big Think videos are those, I think, that show the presenter or speaker continuously. I find the added video clips very distracting.
Yes and ruin the presentation.
The video's CC says "Bayes rate" several times when it should say "base rate".
Today is my maths exam and we have this formula in syllabus
Describing what in effect is called "common sense" into a formula might be great, but, as he says around 3:15, you'd better know the limits of common sense, or you'd end up closing your eyes to the first scientific approach of simply Observing and Perceiving.
Overall I think this is a dangerous formula because there is not a side formula that calculates the limits of application of the Bayes formula.
When computers came into existence it became possible to put Bayes' theorem in motion and calculate how prior probabilities can change over time giving us computational biology and physics. It can even be applied to philosophy, e.g. "God’s Dice: Bayesian Probability and Providence".
A great book to read about this topic is "The Scout Mindset" by Julia Galef
Think more rationally 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Utilitarianism is also great in theory, as a formula for rationality may be, but what are the values and how do you quantify them?
But, if applied, the "Golden Rule" makes its value apparent.
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
"Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
It's was not enough to "Think Big" by showing the equation for Bayes' Rule. You needed to 'show small' by walking through at least one real world example. As complicated as the world we live in is surely there was one "If a train leaves a station..." example you could have plugged in to the equation at 1:11 that would have given it real meaning to the layman.
Well, if you live in East Africa, the probability of it being a zebra is quite high. And as we get closer to the frontier of current knowledge, the probability of that something not even being an equine gets higher and higher while we still expect it to be some sort of a horse practicing our habitual Bayesian thinking.
You completely missed the point. If you're living in a place where zebras frequently roam, then the Bayesian prediction would be to assume it's a zebra and not a horse
@@TheCelticsAREboss Well, maybe I should've chosen another metaphor, but my point was that most of us live in a place with no zebras, but make general Bayesian assumptions about horses. And this rationale works just fine in normal conditions for most people, but fails for those who get closer to terra incognita of zebra-space where science gets really weird and commons sense is trying to fly out of the window.
@@TheCelticsAREboss I think he exactly got the point, and showed that hoof-sound example was flawed, or at least not fully explained.
@@2bfrank657 It's not flawed if you live anywhere where zebras don't exist, which includes the vast majority of humans on Earth.
OP was just quibbling about nonsense. I already explained how Bayesian's rule is applicable to an environment where zebra's frequent.
And there is nothing really to explain, at least not the audience that is going to be watching this video, i.e., people living in urbanization or the developed world.
Think more rationally 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
I've been talking about this for years! (..only amongst friends I hasten to add..) I never knew this was Bayesian thinking.
IMO, this badly needs a few concrete examples in conjunction with that formula.
Posterior probability: 사후 확률, 경험적 확률
Credence: 신빙성
How much credence u had before u look at the evidence
Wow!! Just realised that this is in CBSE's class 12th Maths book. But they never managed to explain it this well...
it simply means you should compare the odds of the evdience with or without the context of hypotheis
Great summary
Always +1 for Steve Pinker
Just not in this case, as he's wrong about it sometimes being desirable to not look at the base rate, such as when looking at crime rate.
It goes the other way round actually; if there is a lot of sexism in engineering [or surgeons etc] programs then the Bayes rate of women who want to be engineers will be pretty low.
prob. sexism given few women in eng. = (prob. few women in eng. given sexism X prob. sexism) / prob. few women in eng.
In my experience, sexism is pretty likely to keep women out of an industry if it is present.
IMO, there is a fair bit of sexism still around.
prob. there are few women in eng. is pretty much 1, at least for most fields of engineering.
What gets tricky is defining what level of sexism we talking about, and also, how little is "few"?
So Bayes Therum comes off as more of a first approach but as part of a tool set. So basically its a balance of data history first, then real world data. Bayes = Prior Data + Current Data + Wisdom
This is a side issue but one that is still Relevant. How much evidence is enough? How do you know that the next piece of the puzzle will not be more significant than the evidence so far. This gets even more of a problem when you are searching in your own memory or you ask a question like have I forgotten to consider some good evidence or argument that I just did not consider. When is enough enough!
As someone with a rare illness, I also agree that doctors need to MORE OFTEN consider zebras.
Bayes theorem assumes IID variables (independent and identically disturbution), doest work when you're dealing with Moriarty Dr Holmes.
How do you side switch without gaslighting yourself into believing you're wrong? Or is that part of it?
Deal with your Bayes answer as a probability, not as a yes or no.
0:06 "Science popularizer" would be a good title for Kurzgesagt
I'm thinking about how Occam's Razor fits into or fits with Bayesian thinking especially when it comes to hypothesis testing and theory formation.
One big problem is our tendency to infer causation from correlation. 'If I had not got stuck in traffic, I would have been on that plane that crashed, killing all on board. Who would have looked after my elderly mother then? God must have sent that traffic-jam to save me, because He has a purpose for me. It's a miracle!". As if none of the people that died had families and obligations of their own, and therefore made sure to leave enough time to get to the airport and catch their flight. Which is the more likely explanation: God punished the people who were more conscientious me because He loves my mother more than anyone else's; or I just caught some luck by screwing up? Is life sometimes unfair, or am I special?
The idea of Bayesian rationality takes me back years ago to Julia Galef.
I like your women in engineering analysis. The data indicates that women have a high probability of being people oriented and therefor less likely to be object oriented while males have a higher probability of being object oriented. We welcome women in engineering and when i had a few women in my class they were easier to manage, but women are less likely to WANT to be engineers.
Why are we easier to manage? Is it that we are focused on getting the job done rather than wasting time proving who has the biggest dick? Anyway, as a woman I wanted to get a well paid job so I became a chemical engineer. It’s an interesting and rewarding profession, but the money is the primary motivator. Do men want to become engineers for some other reason? I can’t imagine what it could be.
@@dianaf2077 The data indicates that men are more object oriented, so they tend to go into STEM jobs versus people oriented jobs. And for clarification over the span of 4 decades I do not recall any of my engineers attempting to prove genitalia size as they had there hands full with D.E.'s. And I am not aware of any male that would say females are easier to manage, as I was referring to the class management in general.
Umm…check what you wrote in your first post. You wrote “…when I had a few women in my class they were easier to manage.” And I wouldn’t mind if you gave a link to the source of this data that you are quoting.
@@dianaf2077 it is an incomplete sentence when you try to misconstrue it like you did. And to erase any ambiguity about my view, I preferred teaching when females where in the class. And if you are looking for a fight the data is from Dr. Jordan Peterson's research, so go fight with him if you are looking for some drama.
@@johnnychinstrap as an engineer, you will appreciate the important of precision in determining whether a structure a structured entity behaves as we intend it to; and from that point of view, I would suggest that your sentence is not fit for purpose, as it is not clear whether the pronoun 'they' refers to 'women', which was the subject of the preceding clause, or 'the class', as you intended. It certainly caused me to do a double-take.
Whilst I would agree that men and women have somewhat different cognitive aptitudes, they are not binary. We all have to deal with objects and we all have to deal with people, and aptitudes are a question of degree. Women are somewhat more agreeable than men, and men are somewhat inclined to obsess about the size of our equipment, but people confound these expectations all the time. However, humans, engineers and scientists included, have a tendency to make rules out of expectations, and science is littered with shameful examples of women whose interest in science was discouraged, whose abilities were not nurtured, and achievements not recognised, by the men in charge of the institutions to which they sought admittance. Rosalind Franklin and Jocelyn Bell, for example, were both overlooked for their contributions to work that won their male colleagues Nobel prizes. A century before they would not even have been allowed into the lab, or the lecture hall. Human potential cannot flourish without nurture and encouragement, seeds cannot grow if they are not planted. Science and engineering may be concerned with objective realities, but they are products of social collaboration, from which no-one should be excluded a priori. We should always remember that one thing that unites us all, whatever our differences, is human fallibility.
Same reasoning can justify confirmation bias (prior "belief" supported by cherry-picking "evidence"). Pinker does suggest this is an issue.
Sometimes the truth is hard to hear. So much so that we make it criminal to speak it.
Tldr: bet on what is most likely. Be aware that betting on most likely can reinforce stereotypes. Be aware of variables that create betting odds and don't jump to variable that you possess emotional resonance with
Think more rationally 👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
What a convoluted explanation. This guy is a professor?
I do not get where applying Bayes is problematic. The examples show that applying Bayes is more fair. I do not get how fairness would be in contrast to Bayes inference, as mentioned. Bayes thinking is absolutely correct, wrong application of it is the problem, where people do not wish to consider less probable cases in tasks where it is their responsibility to examine all possible cases.
and so we have the greatest reason for misunderstanding science...there is no ‘cause and effect’ in the natural world, only probabilities
2:40
Light and L: *Bayesian strategizing activated*
Pinker neglects to dive deeper into the innumerable biases that misdirect our framing and analysis of the ‘Likelihood’, ‘Prior’ and ‘Evidence’ terms of the Posterior Probability equation.
Only so much you can do in 5 minutes.
442 commenters neglected to address the point you made in this reply
me trying to figure out if my crush likes me back or not:
0:01 who are the people in the stars ? Right side
Big fan of pinker.
Good content but the force feed background music is annoying especially when you listen as podcast
Still never hear a single person add any clarity to an issue or question by applying or talking about Bayesian stuff, including Bayesian stuff.
Annoying that the equation shown at 1:08 is typeset incorrectly. The left-hand side shouldn't be P(A/B), i.e. "probability of (A divided by B)", but P(A|B), i.e. "probability of A conditioned on B". Because A and B are meaningless to the reader, it would even better be stated as P(H|E), i.e. "probability of the hypothesis conditioned on the evidence", or "probability the hypothesis is true, given that we have observed the new evidence".
The same applies to the P(B/A) on the right side. Again, it should be P(B|A) or, better still, P(E|H).
Otherwise, not a bad exposition, although the digression into the base rate fallacy was a distraction and probably best dealt with separately.
The idea of "if you hear hooves, think horses not zebras" should NOT apply to how doctors treat patients. It reduces the patient to a formula that is too broad and negates the patients unique and individual make up and experience. It is basically diagnosing everyone as a horse regardless. This little horse/zebra thing has caused harm and suffering to so many people and surely allowed some to die.
The forward slashes used in this video are misleading. :)
Nutritional claims. Like apple cider vinegar cures everything from hangnails to cancer for example. Josie Wales would ask, "How is it on stains?"
Hi can anyone explain to me the part of about "10% female mechanical engineers". To conclude whether there is sexism or not, we need to see "how many females wanted to be mechanical engineers in the first place". Why is it so and how to apply Bayesian theorem? Your help is much appreciated!
1) it is not clear how all of the mentioned items are quantified.
2) I think Steven Pinker is probably the only remaining credible public intellectual.
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. James 3:17
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18
Basically Bayes takes the base rates into consideration and failing to do so is a logical fallacy called "base rate fallacy". Even if it is a fallacy there are times where those are useful. We evolved these cognitive biases for a reason. Wisdom requires understanding the limits of one's knowledge and that implies understanding that there is a difference between wisdom and knowledge. Generally speaking a key component in wisdom is context specific. Generally speaking it is irrational to not consider base rates but there are times where depending on the axioms, or the basic assumptions, that it is actually perfectly rational to ignore the base rates or to weight them. The reason is that we can't assume we have perfect information about base rates. As an example in the book "The Bell Curve" there is a controversial chapter which got the author labeled as a racist and while I guess that is a point of view a person could take, I personally looked at it as being something close to empirical proof that there was a systemic bias in terms of education resources available to certain minority groups for decades(several entire generations of people). If we were to look at that same data and first separate by economic status and then other metrics like race, nationality, or whatever, we would see that scores fall back in line like we would expect with a normal distribution. What that means in practical terms is that the majority of people, regardless of sex, race, or whatever, as an example, fall somewhere in the range of slightly below average intelligence to slightly above average intelligence. Things like races, sex, etc are independent of intelligence. What has a far larger impact and will actually move base rates around is economic status. Rich people get better education, on average, than poor people. Even though rich people are no more likely to be intelligent than a poor person they are more likely to be more educated and therefore score higher on just about all academic measures on average.
WOW ! I got it. The expectation value can be predetermined before you are handed evidence to the contrary !
I believe this boils down to "Feelings" vs. "Data" and whether they can be blended.
😂
Hume taught us what it takes to be rational, Bayes taught us how to be rational
Can someone explain to me what they believe the differences would be between "Explain it Like I am Smart" and "Explain it Like I am Stupid"?
Sure. Explain it to me like I’m stupid it shorthand for I know nothing about this particular topic but I would like to know, so start off with the basics. Explain it to me like I’m smart is shorthand for I know a great deal about this particular topic and I have one question I would like to ask you but there is no need to start from first principles.
For example, if it is the first time I’m playing WOW I would ask you to explain it like I’m stupid. If I’m a neurosurgeon consulting another neurosurgeon about a patient I would say explain it to me like I’m smart.
‘Stupid’ and ‘smart’ are not being used in a judgmental or pejorative way, they’re being used as shorthand to let the explainer know your level of knowledge.
@@dianaf2077 Clear. Most appreciate your response and explanation. I was not exactly sure about the context.
If Bayes probability had been applied to the risk management of climate change 30+ years ago we wouldn't be in the helpless state we are in today.
Has a mathematician ever became a politician?
can someone explain me what he said?? please
Why Scott Adams hit the mark.
Intuition and common sense does the trick.
my teachers and poverty dissuded me to scince graduate so i gradate in commerce
Actually I'm 90% certain that I want to be dichotomy absolutist just so I can go around telling people that "I am a dichotomy absolutist"
I’m struggling with the concept of a “forbidden” Bayes rate.
The closed captions made a mistake there: Prof. Pinker was saying "base rate", not "Bayes rate". It's an important concept, but not at all confined to Bayesian probability.
In his example of sexism in engineering programs, one critical base rate is the rate at which men and women inherently wish to become engineers. It is "forbidden" in some circles to suggest that this base rate is lower for women than men. This assumption naturally has a huge impact on the conditional probability that there is sexism in engineering programs, given the discrepancies between the genders.
Anyone ever debate Pinker? I don't like his eloquent delivery of intentional misrepresentations and it would be nice to see a take down somewhere.
It’s weird to me that this isn’t intuitive for most people…
I very much dislike cliché background soundtracks in vids like this. It’s very distracting.
Null hypothesis: The question exposes either a lack of knowledge of English grammar and or vocabulary, or the translation from the original language is inconclusive. And isn’t the Bayes’ Theorem just what the human brain is regularly supposed to do?
It’s cute when people pride themselves on rationality, when placing one’s FAITH in rationality is arguably irrational.
And no I’m not religious and I have a background in science so please don’t throw that at me :)
Thank you for giving us informative content. God bless you.
i dont get it
Thank you ✨
Does Bayes theorem predate Occam's razor?
I think I can be pretty clever, and I did not understand what you said
"... it's more likely to be a horse." Unless you live in an area with lots of zebras. Likelihood.
Depending where you live it’s probably more likely to be a Zebra.
This axiom in itself shows how stupid it is to determine that a result based upon a series of assumptions is somehow evidence of something.
i think he says "base rate", not "bayes rate", subtitles are wrong
Amazing video
Remove the music please, its distracting
You had me right up until you started proselytizing for affirmative action.
sysetematic bakchodi around my life since childhood
But we're on a Llama far.
You wouldn’t want to know who the good students are, or who the criminals are, either, oh no! - That’s utterly asinine.
I'm waiting the simple explanation of teh next theory, the one that evolved from this; free energy principal by Karl Frinston
Loving the cowboy boots too !
Very informative