ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 มี.ค. 2018
- Experimental psychologist Petter Johansson researches choice blindness -- a phenomenon where we convince ourselves that we're getting what we want, even when we're not. In an eye-opening talk, he shares experiments (designed in collaboration with magicians!) that aim to answer the question: Why do we do what we do? The findings have big implications for the nature of self-knowledge and how we react in the face of manipulation. You may not know yourself as well as you think you do.
Check out more TED Talks: www.ted.com
The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more.
Follow TED on Twitter: / tedtalks
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / ted - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I think that not admitting to having made a mistake is a factor here too.
I saw some subtle squirming, tone-rising and nervous laughter from the girl, and the older guy seemed smarmy and faux-naïve, also cleared his throat, blinked strangely and similar tics. Both of these seem to me to indicate some level of deception, keeping their cover story intact. I may just be projecting since I was aware of the ruse, but the guy was searching hard for the trick after answering at 3:56. Lots of micro-expressions. People aren't necessarily honest when self-reporting.
when you find an experiment you want someone to try on you, but then you realise that your knowledge that the experiment exists makes it impossible for you to take part in it, cause you already know the game
and of course the photographer had to point out that he's a photographer
Robert Targaryen 😂
2:49 Are these pictures of men or women? In this particular selection at 2:49, think they're women with short-ish hair. Later shown, the pictures for this photographer participant are definitely women. What I'm wondering is if the experimenters asked about the sexual orientation of these research participants ahead of time.
I don't think he pointed it out to brag
Choice is an overestimated concept. Most of us were raised to believe in the individual nature of our choices, that we choose our own path, and that we must take responsibility for the consequences no matter what. We’d be surprised to know how much our choices are a product of our environment then simply the product of free will.
Diego Fagundes Even in a certain circumstance your choices will greatly affect the outcome.
I think it's because everbody had to be born in the circumstances and to be affected by them. It wasn't their choices. By the way, free will is kinda an overestimated concept as well.
NovaDream it is true that our choices shape the outcome, but what shapes our choices? Isn’t it a combination of past outcomes? I’m not arguing that the brain does not make the choice, but the choice itself is made by the brain’s reaction to the exterior. The thing is, this is such a complex concept with an unimaginable amount of variables we’ll probably never understand, that we came up with the concept of free will and free choice, which is a way to simplify what actually happens.
Assuming you were raised by people that SUPPORTED the idea of your independence and making your own choices.
Sorry I know I'm a bit late and maybe naive too though do we not in a way have free choice?
I do think to some degree how we were raised affects us but my opinions often vary from my mum, dad, friends etc.
Is it not like when we pick an ice cream flavour, so when we pick an ice cream flavour or even something to wear from our wardrobes, surely that's our choice.
Its people and videos like this, showing whats still out there to learn about human behavior and the brain that inspires me to go into psychology! Loved this!
Interesting although not that surprising, for two reasons. People do not have a habit of having deep discussions, they prefer to have shallow ones. Simply said, most people are shallow, while of course, they hold themselves in high regard. So any opinion they have is probably not based on anything deep. The second, is that people tend to be very emotional about their opinions, not a very good attitude for self reflection. So, again, they dont give themselves the chance to know their own thoughts deeply. I find hope in this technique, it's a way to get people to see the other side and hopefully become more balanced people.
Very good point! I've seen this pattern very often in people. The video combined with your comment really gives me a nice view of how we aim at building our personalities.
Nailed it!
Futures yeah, people really are shallow i have noticed that.. most people don't think deeply on things at all
Futures if they had asked me questions i would certainly know what I had answered..
I do not have deep discussions because I am afraid of judgement and criticism, not because I am shallow. It isn’t enjoyable to express emotion if the person I’m talking to is just going to criticize every aspect of it.
This is astounding! I can't believe people don't notice. I think this just shows how indifferent people are. When a choice between A and B is not so clear-cut, one may find it easy to reason about it either way. I would like to see this experiment repeated with more obvious distinctions, perhaps a yes/no to preferences such as "Do you like X?" and switch them round.
Amazing how we're able to make up stories on the spot to justify a given choice, even if it was not our choice. This is the story here: the ego's propensity to defend and inflate one's answer and oneself. The propensity for self-deception and/or susceptibility to manipulation in humans is staggering. If our ego's continue to lead, we're in trouble.
Woow.. Persian subtitle as soon as possible ♥️♥️ thankks veryy muchh
ممنونممم بخاطر زیرنووویس👏🏽👏🏽
I saw Ted lecture in English class. I found out that we didn't know much about ourselves. There were many difficult English, but the content of the lecture was informative.
1) self-knowledge is more self observation, concerned with the interpretation of our experiences rather than the objective reality, 2) questions are potent (tools) and can be manipulative
Introspection is an intelligence, asking yourself why on a daily basis will give your answer more purpose by leaving it open to refinement. Change is constant, we need to ask ourselves why on daily basis to consciously remind ourselves why we do what we do.
Terrific! Fantastic idea to do this experiment and the results are so interesting.
How is it possible to be fooled with a picture opposite of your choice? He gave you the wrong one, you go "hey, man, do you think I am stupid Give me that!"
Hi! I was just wondering that probably the reason the participants did not notice the switch was because they did not care which photo they chose as their motivation was to get out as quickly as possible.
What I hate about this study is that they present their experimental construct as a finding. They say they found that people make fast decisions and later somehow try to make sense and find random arguments for them. That was the experimental setup. Period.
Also: We take established magician/mentalist tricks that are known to work and draw some random conclusions based on whether they work or not.
If you're asked to make up an opinion on the spot about something that you don't really care about, you can do that. If you're asked for the opposite opinion, you can give that too. That's part of good thinking, and why a teacher might ask two halves of a class to argue for and against a proposition. I think this experiment just shows that people don't have strong, considered opinions on most things. An individual voter may have five or six issues that he is really concerned about. Can those opinions be switched? Those are the ones that matter.
This is somewhat related to "identity congruence". Even though people didn't notice the swap of the pictures, but once they have it in their hands the call for justification comes in, because people suffer a great deal of pain when they realize that they are not living up to their identity. Let's say... someone regard himself or herself as "keen to solidarity " and a situation rises up and a third person points it out "you are keen to solidarity...so do it". The person then does it because not doing implies difference to what the person intrinsecly believes about himself or herself. Justifying the choice has a lot to do with "identity congruence" more than "knowing why the choice "
This could possibly be really helpful when raising children and knowing the right time to ask why instead of the wrong time
This is absolutely brilliant!
Could it not just be as simple as they just weren't paying attention or were too polite to say anything, about the switches or just forgot what answers they chose or didn't really care because it ultimately doesn't matter?
didn't take it seriously (why would you)
Just wanted to get it done so they can go and have lunch?
Thought it was silly a waste of time?
As an Atheists I agree that most people don't have good reasons for their beliefs and don't question themselves about what they think they know.
Crazy prayingmantis If you're an atheist then you are by definition irrational. Only an agnostic position is tenable as the opposite of belief in a Creator, not an atheistic one.
Agnostic is a position that means you think that the mind, existence or will of God is fundamentally unknowable. Agnositicism is a philosophical opinion on the nature of God, not a fence to sit on between atheism and theism.
Atheism/theism is binary switch. If you affirm a belief in a god, you are a theist. If you do not affirm a belief in any god, you are an atheist.
A theist may be agnostic. He may believe that there is a god, and also believe that his god is unknowable or mysterious and/or cannot be definitively shown to exist. Most theists are agnostic.
An atheist may also be agnostic. He may find no reason to believe in any particular stories of gods, and live as if no gods exist, but believe that it cannot be proven for certain. Most atheists are agnostic too.
Gnostic atheism is not irrational. It is someone who does not affirm a belief in a god, and who also thinks that the nature, mind or actions of anything that could be described as a god would theoretically be knowable. That is, if a god has no physical presence, cannot communicate with man and has never had any effect on anything, can he be said to exist?
I wonder how the test with the faces has gone if it was done with autistic people. They tend to have a good eye for details and perhaps notice the change of cards better.
I have a slight form of autism myself and i tend to focus more on details than at what someone says :)
ettvanligtkonto i think i don’t understand why you think I said anything about claiming to do better than anyone at anything.
I confirmed that autistic people depending on their spectrum position, can tend to pay more attention to detail and notice more.
Think before you spread all of your ill manners on the floor, it’s a mess when things get so unorganized.
someone living His response were merely interpreted negativly by you, although i see how easily that can happen it’s not in everyones best interest. Interpreting is half of the words you’re spoken to :)
I have Autism, and I could see the black cards on the black background in the video. I would have challenged them about it.
Can you also do this with politicians?
ToastCrafter ! Im not sure but im think they are people too..at least sometimes so i'd suppose that it is possible xD
Duh! Because the tiny little man inside my head pulled that lever, of course.
this blew me away
I think there are severe limitations as to the usefulness and the domain of applicability of the conclusions in this study 🤨. All it shows to me is that when people don’t really care between two options, that they can rationalize with what they like about the option that is presented at the end of each round of an experiment.
What if instead of pictures of random people they will show participants pictures of known public figures? Or even persons of different gender? What if the political issues that are presented are issues where the respondent has already had the chance to form an opinion? Or opposite options where the impact of the choice is much more important to the respondent, like raising taxes?
And of course, the choices we make are partially influenced by genetics, and partly because of unconscious processes (system 1 - see Kahneman) so we can’t possibly know precisely why we do the things we do. But choice preference really depends on how much difference there is between the two choices and how much emotionally engaged are respondents with the subject. If the don’t care, the choice is unstable and it makes sense to be that way.
I realize now, this setup is actually a good one to detect how important is a choice and a topic for subjects. So I think we can tweak the method and use it for this other purpose. 😱
this explains why gaslighting works
interesting thought, not sure if i get it - can you elaborate pls?
There is no way that zero people caught the bait-and-switch.
I think there's more to learn here in regards to observation and looking properly rather than whether people knowing what they want or like. 'Can't see the wood through the trees' is an expression than comes to mind when judging the participants in the experiment. I think they were making automatic assumptions when they 're-looked' at the face they thought they picked.
I think it has something to do with left right brain phenomena, you know, the same as when you cut a brain in half you get a quiet personality who actually seems to control some parts of the body. I think it also has to do with a lot of people don't develop language and decision making processes that work together but rather apart. Different sections are responsible for different things and don't question when one section makes a certain decision. I feel like I made a mess of explaining that lol
Hose Clamp interesting. So when asked about a political issue, a person might use only (simplifying of course) the seccion of the brain that controls, let's say, familiarity or something like that; therefore not actually thinking about it and just going 'I belong to this group and this group says this so that's my answer'.
I'm sure it's not cientificaly accurate but I think I agree with you.
Yarbloco yes that's my hypothesis and well we've done enough experiments, I'm sure if we combed through enough past experiments it might confirm or deny it.
He is basically describing rationalizing. Going this whole talk without mentioning that is both impressive and a tiny bit of a let down. Overall though, great study and great choice of area
We make choices that will make us later
Very good talk! Never decide before experiencing each side of the argument, makes you a better person
That's actually a very good topic of discussion. I like it.
Two strangers faces, which do you prefer? You don’t really prefer either strongly but its an exercise, you have to come up with a choice, a reason out of the nothingness you are feeling(similar to a UK general election where none of the choices seem decent but if you vote for the smaller parties you basically waste your vote) . The card gets switched. You don’t notice. What would happen if you had the choose between a banana and a lemon then the card was switched? I am guessing people would say hang on i chose a banana not a lemon. So maybe if you are a politician or a political party you want to bang on about the things that clearly differentiate you from the other choices or maybe not? Stay bland and play for all the voters who don’t know they don’t know? Interesting video.
Alan C interesting comment too, I agree
If you give me a $10 bill instead of the $100 you owe me, you'll get punched in the face.
You're right about the fruit (though I'd still wonder how many people wouldn't even mention anything). That leads me to wonder how far in differences between any two selections that the participant would either not mention the switch or not even notice.
Alan C in the same experiment it has shown that there are 12% participants who were clearly certain of there choices even when they were changed because those questions were 🍋 and 🍌 for them. So this tricks works on majority of the population.
@@jaiojha9344
Because we don't want either...either choice handed to us is acceptable and our brains will try to make excuses for the acceptance.
However, if I really love bananas and hate lemons than and you hand me a lemon than I can't accept it.
Rarely I ask myself "why", cos I don't have any answer for this question. Perhaps most of us live spontaneously and even don't judge ourselves, all of us tend to be justified.
This reminds me of the console wars of my childhood. Everyone feels an innate desire to rationalize their decisions/affiliations. This study has interesting implications for politics in the United States, where polarization is worsening. When one party builds its coalition by villainizing and making defamatory generalizations about a particular demographic, that demographic is liable to become more like they are characterized (even if that characterization was dubious to begin with). Perhaps identity politics backfiring is the culprit of recent political upheavals.
Could this have been due to the fact that the choice between the pictures was not important choice and the people were not expecting to be asked why they chose the picture?
This lad is an absolute unit
Mind... Blown.!
4:11 ; by switching he acutally gave her the right one (?) i'm confused now
c4 she picks the left card. He flips them and gives her the other one. The one from the right side.
What does this say about short term memory situation?
people who have uncertainty, its more likeable for change...
y did i decide to watch this instead of studying for my quiz tmr tho huh answer that 1
Are you sure those people in your experiment aren’t just... distracted?
The main idea here is great. I think some of his presentation is either a bit extraneous, or maybe just dry or boringly presented. I would like to see more on just the thing he is trying so hard (and not quite succeeding) to narrow in on. Really, I would love to hear this; So..what should I SAY to elicit a best or most self-formed answer to a question. Mainly towards the end of the video when he is saying "Why do you stay in this relationship?" or "why did you make this decision?". yes I get this , have for a while now, that memory can be changed based on how questions are asked. like people told to remember a car crash and saying "What happened to the windows of the car?" well, people will report that windows broke, even when they did not break. So
What is the best way of going about gathering information or just asking a question, but eliminating the potential problems or discrepancies that this guy is bringing up? (inherent in asking loaded questions or leading people on as well) how do I now use this info ? anyone get what I mean??? Please help me out!? 🧐😊 because all I hear from this guy, like many ted talks actually (!) is "Okay, here's a problem you may not have known about!....aaannd that's it, thanks!"
lol
thank you
The sample size in both tests seemed quite small to the deeper inferred conclusion (confirmation bias?) and may have some misattribution errors in the first and degrees of freedom issues with both small samples. However, it was an interesting exercise to demonstrate reactionary responses of a modern society, confounded with over-stimulation, time management issues and a basic need to polarize (belong). If we were able to use the statistics and sample sizes in the latest fiasco with 50M samples from Facebook and say 30% of commenters on YT with another 30% of Twitter one liners, that may scare the heck out of people and lead them to spend a bit more time with the basics of Thinking before and while Acting....instead of Reacting without some prerequisite critical thinking and *_Discernment_*.
Why did Moby decide to do a TED talk?
th-cam.com/video/LDHMjO7UbMo/w-d-xo.html
I am not totally convinced. These various choices are not vastly different. For example, left and right coalitions in Sweden are not as big a difference as Republicans and Democrats in the US, and the coalitions in Sweden would be both to the left for Americans. I think his theory only works when the differences between the choices are small, there are no accurate ways of weighing the choices, or the choices have no obvious detrimental or beneficial consequences.
but how do you measure when the choice difference is small and large?... for example, if there is not the extreme present and people do indeed think within their own versions of left and right, then that is the same amount of difference for them that it is for someone who uses larger scale but for the same purposes... you can use this with the faces as well, if someone is used to only certain specific features and sees them in their everyday life, they become receptive to those kids of features and the differences between them, even though there are much larger difference across other features like for example hair colour but because that is not present in that everyday decision process, it does not come up as strongly in the moment... going back to the political system, if you have as you said larger ideological differences like in US, then the things you compare are larger as well, so on the scale it is comparable with having smaller ideological difference within the left but still have to compare those smaller things on a comparable scale
This is actually pretty good.
This is so similar to the cases of split-brain patients who gave a left-brain explanation of instructions given to their right hemisphere. When shown an instruction to stand up, the side of their brain that didn't see the instruction explains that they were just "stretching their sore legs".
Why do I do what I do? 1. Social anxiety/Peer pressure 2. Aggressive parents 3. Instincts/nature. And......I’d say those are the main reasons.
Yes, I do.
ignore what others think for personal goals unless the goal is to impress others
right now !! i don't know what 'am doing and why 'am watching this meeeh :/
mohamed mo hello My name is Rafael My country is Brazil and the your?
hey Rafael , from EGYPT 🇪🇬
mohamed mo wow very far ofrom here of Brazil.
Come up with something real quick!
Know that you don't know yourself. ....
jan 24639 but do you really?
is to know yourself
and that you can't know
More often than not I know it before you do.
Hmm how does confirmation bias fit into that?
When given a "fact" (you picked _this_ face or _this_ political stance), people are making stories about it without considering the possibility that the "fact" conflicts with past "facts" that they've been presented with, because those facts are no longer available by memory or otherwise. People, therefore, are looking for reasons to confirm their present position rather than considering all the evidence that they've formerly had that rejects their present belief.
"At first I was seduced by the stories they tell themselves of who they are, the reasons they do the things they do.
I needed to know why they make the decisions they make... and the longer I looked for an answer, the more I realized...
They don't.
They are deceptively simple; once you know them their behavior is quite predictable.
Most of them are soft, they waiver between love and pride.
Of course there are the exceptions: the ones that are irredeemable, but none of them are truly in control of their actions."
-Westworld S2
14:10
I do realize on a regular basis that I am making up reasons and mention that to my conversation partner. If anyone doesn't notice anything after having brought up the topic they are most likely in denial or really ignorant. But I strongly doubt that most people that know about this mental weakness would lie to themselves much more afterwards. I think some of the experiments are using people's trust in the people asking the questions(stuff like" I must've misunderstood the question" clearly shows that the participants were assuming that the questioner is legitimate and not someone shifting their answers) I also would like to know how much the people changing their political beliefs actually thought about their decisions ( though I realize that thinking more about politics might also give more arguments for understanding the other side) since usually people make up their mind about stuff. I can't see my car enthusiastic friend be pro speedlimits for example.
Or my usually left leaning teacher suddenly being convinced that he answered pro fully free market in test.
A tool for good or for evil?
All knowledge is provisional.
A little bit of misattribution error and a dash of cognitive dissonance.
Pretty awesome stuff right here !
Ahh why am I here again?
jan 24639 naw seriously lmao
It's about what you do, not where you are
Are they uploading the same videos, again and again? Because I have watched this before more than one year
In today's world of cognitive bias it is so hard to engage people and get them to consider another point of view. This is a very interesting study. The human mind is a mess!
3:58 "You like the smirky look better." ...ꜱᴍɪʀᴋꜱ...
13:30 to 13:42
I used this while getting candy from my sisters candy bowl as far as I can remember :D insteda of asking i went just straight there and took the candy I wanted but noone ever noticed.
Read the title too fast and thought it said Jordan Peterson
Me too.... me too
Brilliant!
Doublethink: The philosophy of logically thinking through the complexities of an issue, while blatantly glossing over the most fundamental of logic. Consciously replacing truth with a lie, while simultaneously forgetting the lie had ever existed.
I do what I do because I did do what I done. Doing what I did do showed me why I done goofed.
Im maybe wrong but i think You didn’t manipulate them :/ , you just gave them the photo they wanted, they choose left, you give them the hidden right, which is left :/
Cause Television runs people's lives without them really knowing it. They wouldn't know anything or anyone he's talking about unless they seen it or them on TV. Just Watch a film called (Network) Howard Beal will tell you the truth about Television, but what's crazy is the things he says are still True in today's time even though it is a movie, but they never remade this film I wonder why🤔
television runs lives! (hm i dont watch TV) watch this film! (so do you want TV to run my life?)
I have no idea...
MOM! HOW DO I KNOW WHAT I KNOW?
I didn't get a word
"Who am I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" in Jackie Chan's voice.
what did u say what do i do it why we did it what we did it？
I'm not in agreement with his thesis.
This seems to be a problem of society having a collective deficiency of observation, conviction (think about this), perhaps self confidence (if you understand what I mean by this as it pertains to this talk then you do and if you don't you don't, I don't care to bother explaining), and education.
We've gotten smarter as a whole due to the advent of the internet while sacrificing facets of our cognitive abilities.
I think that the people that "fell" within the bullseye the tests were attempting to hit are people that can definitely find a way to better their understanding of self and making cognitive improvements, but haven't.
There are definitely those out there, like this gentleman noted, that performed as outliers in these experiments and that is the kind of person we should be striving to be.
The body only carries the mind and so the mind must be the figurative muscle we are always exercising. These experiments prove that, and I believe this person was interpreting the experiment without taking some of the things I've mentioned into account. As the old logical addage goes: Correlation does not equal causation. I think his results aren't being interpreted correctly in taking an optimal mind into account and not weaker ones and this isn't an insult to anyone of the participants, it's a call for all of us to improve ourselves in the mental domain because I believe as humans, we're better than what this series of experiments attempts to tell us of ourselves.
Why do kids like candy? You may explain with a lot of child psychology, their innate brain survival techniques, but to them, they want candy because it is yummy. Your interpretation may be more accurate and true, but it is not true, relatively to the child's point of view.
Try to reason for your subject choices in high schools. Most probably that reason was different from what you originally thought of when you choose it.
The TED guy's point of view wasn't that human are weak and need to strengthen their mind, but to tell you that your choices or other people's choices are not only affected by their knowledge or state of mind, but also by the environment or time delay or other factors.
To put it simply, don't explain your choice, answer the question again every time you're to face, ignore the choice you've made and re-answer it again.
Thus the reason I don't fill out random questionnaires..😒
If anybody has a moment, WILL YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE I DON'T GET ANYTHING HE's SAYING....😭😭😭
POOOOFFFFF *MINDBLOWN
I get it but I don't get it.
Conclusion: Know that you don't know yourself (or at least not as much as you think you do)
Interesting!
Isn't this more of reflection on Swedish people being passive and unquestioning?
Cool
These are the same kind if people who buy Supreme
I would defenitely say wtf u tryna trick me?
Weird, I picked the opposite every time.
14:39
I really wanted to watch this video....
or.. did I?
And what do we learn from this? That the majority of people are easily lead and centrism is the most balanced position.
Doppelgänger battles - Psychology:
Jordan Peterson vs Petter Johansson
To obtain THICC anime women.
Some Dude with Opinions hello guy I'm ofrom Brazil my names is Rafael and you?
Mass Extinction do you want learn portuguese?
Mass Extinction dude we need to look back at what's already been done, it is possible to get energy from clouds and pulse it through the ground.. it was done over 100 years ago. there is more then enough for everyone
but i noticed.
The guy that said that he would have approached that girl in the bar rather than the other one is lying!!. He's a Swede, he wouldn't have approached any stranger to start with!!! (unless he is completely drunk, in which case the decision he made was not very conscious anyways) Skål!
Tedtalks but does tedlisten? :-(
I learned this from Kung fu panda 3