Three most common biases that shape your worldview: 1. Confirmation Bias: Finding evidence to confirm our existing beliefs. 2. Dunning-Kruger: Thinking we know more than we do. 3. Cognitive Dissonance: New information contradicting our existing beliefs. How to resolve them: 1. Take inventory of your own biases. 2. Evaluate your sources. 3. Speak out.
Yes. The exact three that I came up with. Simple, direct explanation that could be greatly expanded upon across many different topics. In order to make a decision to formulate an opinion you need to be able to consider counter arguments and be willing to accept them when they go counter you your belief. Fee will means the ability to chose providing there is no force upon you making you lean. If you can't equally weight a subject due to bias which is a powerful force, you don't have free will. Excellent talk Dr!!
This guy is absolutely 100% correct. I to have been recently been observing a ton of this bias thinking in politics. Clearly one side is throwing out ideas and spreading and ideology that is completely illogical and will not increase living standards for most people. But the ignorance or bias of the people only having one perspective and not really educated on the true reality at hand allows them to believe in the crap since it makes them feel better emotionally.
It's a very important topic because science is still full of hubris among such biases listed in video and more... Many make their data align with their beliefs/hypothesis instead of making their hypothesis in line with the facts. The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. "X must be fake, because I believe Y is fake..." is widely used fallacy... You see it from flat earthers to people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is the poster child for it. This can be seen in Graham Hancock TED Talk, the meteor impact crater in Greenland proves his scientifically accurate impact hypothesis is true, but because it doesn't align with the conventional beliefs and textbooks, which are outdated, TED Talks has put a bazillion warnings on his video trying to make people not believe that it's true. And then you see people using fallacy to try and discredit the 23+ scientists that state, in a peer-reviewed paper, that octopuses are either not native to Earth or they're from the future... because they don't fit into this planet's and evolutionary time table because they alter their RNA primarily which means their DNA evolves *extremely* slow as a trade off. But because aliens haven't been interviewed from the Oval Office and because there's no publicly recognized time machine either "this theory is obviously false!" The following quote sums up the history of science: Regarding an important idea or truth: "...First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -- Arthur Schopenhauer
I found three JoJo references in this video 1. Do you believe in gravity? 2. I'm meteorologist aka weather report 3. Will it rain for my daughter's wedding? Yes, snails and poisonous frogs
Confirmation Bias: to find evidence to support and confirm our existing beliefs. Dunning-Kruger: to overestimate what we knew/ underestimate what we didnt know. Cognitive Dissonance: new information contradicts our existing beliefs. Solution: take inventory of personal biases, evaluate our sources that we derive information from, and speak out loud.
I highly recommend a podcast called "You Are Not So Smart" (he also has two books). It's all about cognitive bias & logical fallacies. Great explanations, examples, and interviews with experts, along with advice how to deal with those biases and fallacies. =)
Cognitive bias & logical fallacies are such highly under rated subjects/topics. They should be taught in school itself. It's literally how our minds work. What could be more important than that?
what is even more dangerous is that there are people willing to take advantage of people's biases to profit themselves, even to the detriment of humanity.
Cognitive bias is humanities greatest flaw, personally I believe it is the cause of the majority of our problems. The scientific method was designed specifically to combat this issue, and look at the leaps forward we have accomplished. Imagine if learning how to deal with cognitive bias was addressed in our education, how much better would the world be? How much are we holding ourselves back due to the majority of people not even knowing these problems exist within our own minds?
Belief systems and biases? Well, we all have them. Science is merely the methodology by which one obtains data; data is always neutral, and all data must be interpreted. Science itself does not draw conclusions based on the data that it produces, nor can it; it is people who draw conclusions, and no person is absolutely unbiased, and wrong assumptions about the data will always lead to wrong conclusions. We all have the same data: the same rocks, the same trees, the same stars, the same archaeology, history, and so on, but the secularist and the Christian each start their investigations with different presuppositions. Our presuppositions inform our worldviews, and it is our worldviews that drive us to make vastly different conclusions based upon the evidences that we see, and conclusions are neither scientific nor unscientific, rather, conclusions are merely a reflection of the individual’s concept of the data as filtered through his worldview - this is how one person can look at a particular data set and conclude “common descent,” while the Christian looks at the same data set and concludes “common Designer.”
A very important TED talk dealing with common sense, something we as a population seems to be struggling with far too often these days. I've literally been talking about people's perceptions of certain issues based on their preferences of media consumption and their surrounding environment. J. Marshall Shepherd has nailed it with this one, and I'd really love to see this discussion play a part to wider audiences other than those of us that choose to watch these TED talks. It really doesn't do all that much good to present these important talks to the same crowd that already (for the most part) understands and agrees with these views. We desperately need to find a way for them to reach a more "global" audience and find ways to present the information effectively to those that will undoubtedly question the facts of any given issue. Also, I believe that it's healthy for ANY fact or issue to be questioned, no matter the subject matter or how long it's been established, that's how we as a species break through the norms and find new ways to innovate and solve these immediate problems. The problem we're facing today is a not-so-new force known as "Propaganda", which is normalizing the term "Fake News" into the complete opposite of what its intent was. I've derailed this comment enough already, but I've left my position. A really great talk by the way!
I agree, cognitive bias is humanities greatest flaw, personally I believe it is the cause of the majority of our problems. The scientific method was designed specifically to combat this issue, and look at the leaps forward we have accomplished. Imagine if learning how to deal with cognitive bias was addressed in our education, how much better would the world be? How much are we holding ourselves back due to the majority of people not even knowing these problems exist within our own minds?
Science is too far away from the general public. "Nonbelievers" do not discuss this matter with scientists but with "believers", in other words, the arguments they hear are confirmatory bias as well, like: everywhere is getting hotter and hotter! Also, the media is the usual way to learn about climate change and the media (in general) is a very nice place to find these biases because it "sells"! One of the ways, in my opinion, is what TED does, bring scientists to the public! Keep it up!
The problem is that the public doesn't deal with science with that much devotion. And the "public" for that matter will certainly never see this great talk
A meteorologist talking about psychology... and getting it a little bit wrong. Here are a couple of corrections (apologies if others have already posted about this). 1. Confirmation Bias = the tendency to be more likely to accept new information if it confirms our existing beliefs and less likely to accept new information if it contradicts or otherwise calls into question our existing beliefs. (He got this one pretty close to correct, but glossed over it). 2. Dunning-Krueger Effect = both overestimating your own knowledge and expertise and underestimating your own lack of knowledge and expertise. The biggest kicker of it, though, is that in order to accurately understand your own lack of knowledge and expertise, you have to have exactly the knowledge and expertise that you lack (catch 22). 3. Cognitive Dissonance = accepting/holding two contradictory ideas/beliefs at the same time, *and being psychologically stressed (even if only a little) by the contradiction*. The term specifically refers to the psychological stress, not the two contradictions. This is as opposed to Doublethink, which means accepting/holding two contradictory ideas/beliefs at the same time, and *not* suffering psychological stress due to the contradiction. People often miscategorize Doublethink as Cognitive Dissonance (I used to do so quite often myself), but they are, in fact, different-though-related issues. Doublethink is often a result of compartmentalizing different beliefs to only "count" (if you will) in certain specific areas of life and not in others. Beyond that, science isn't a belief system, it is a methodology for discovering information about the universe. However, scientifically-based beliefs do constitute a belief system, which is why (for those who have commented about this before) not all scientists believe that climate change is made worse by human activity. However, what is notable is that the percentage of *climate* scientists (those who specifically use science to study climate) who believe in climate change, and that climate change is both caused and made worse by human activity, is significantly higher (by "significantly" I mean that the percentage difference is larger than the margin of error). Also, I think the biggest reason people don't trust scientists (other than because some have been *taught* not to trust them) is that scientists often tell us things that contradict what we already believe. Go back to bias #1 and now you have a recipe for not believing what scientists tell us. And if we frequently disbelieve what scientists tell us, then we end up with a growing distrust of scientists in general. Perpetuate that over the larger population and over a period of time and you get a society that has an increasing distrust of scientists. It would help if we did a better job of teaching people what science truly is (and isn't), and how to understand scientific knowledge. It would help more, I think, if we would teach our children (at all) about cognitive biases like these, and teach them the critical thinking skills necessary to combat them. Anyway, there are much better presentations of cognitive bias available on TH-cam (and elsewhere) than this video. People could start, for example, with "SciShow Psych" and "Crash Course: Psychology" just to get some basic primers.
In my own experience, when I ask someone if they believe in climate change, it’s not a matter of is climate change happening, but rather is climate change really happening as fast as all of the people with a ton of degrees say it is and is it really as dire and imminent as they say it is and should we be as scared as they want us to be? I’m not a scientist or meteorologist or any other of the “ists” and don’t know a thing about climate change yet my initial urge when I hear someone preaching about climate change, is to push back and be skeptical of it and tune the person out, but I can’t for the life of me find the source or root of this belief or bias I have and why I do this. The only possible thing that I can scrape together to make sense of why I do this and that is that climate change carries with it the connotation of stuck up rich people with way too many degrees who think they’re better and smarter than the average lay person and they’ve taken up this almost god like role of saying the earth from the stupid eaters, the heathens and so on. Then you have your hippies who also see themselves as enlightened woke people of their lifetime who are also operating under the auspices of saviors of the earth. So for me personally it’s me inherently rebelling against that, because people by nature, don’t like being told what to do, and that they’re doing something bad by people who fly around in private jets and own more cars than characters in their name or by people who have purple hair and smell like onions and have unshaven armpits who scowl at you when they see you buying something plastic.
Didn't know I was waiting for this, but I feel like a weight has been lifted. Now, I can just direct people here and borrow as needed for some difficult conversations ♡ Woo! 2019. Building bridges.
Yeah, I was a bit confused about what this represented as well, for a second I actually thought this represented the amount of time they spoke about the subject
It is interesting to me that the concept of "the radius of understanding" was used; it seems like a relabelling of the concept of a "horizon of understanding" by Hussrl
Ppl in the comments think TED is biased because it produces science-backed lectures? If you don't like the facts, that's your problem. Not TED's. It's your bias that you need to check. Not the bias of the lecture. That is unless you're able to produce actual incorrect information in a TED talk and proving it to be incorrect. Unlikely.
when i watched this and pondered the human condition and how silly we really are, and we are a silly bunch by anyone's terms....i watch this and i think about an old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"... scientists can lead peoples to knowledge, but its up to them to take it in and use it as prescribed. sadly, the line between reality and belief has been blurred. i think like this: strength wins the battle, courage is for when the strength is gone. i believe in nothing. i know things. reality is this: if something only exists because one believes, then it is a subjective thought and does not exist. and somehow, with that, i feel completely grounded and unafraid of the world around me and nature.... but the people on this planet freak me out.
@ J. Marshall Shepherd you perfectly used all 3 biases in your speech! The subject is not "settled" as fact. Here is one of your peers..... Richard Lindzen from MIT en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Graham Hancock's Ted Talk comes to mind, even after the Smoking Gun of the crater in Greenland proving the impact happened, they still have his videos spammed full of warnings... Saying it's not true...
kulik03 you need to stop using the term liberal, if scientists and innovations are liberal propaganda, then you are on the opposite on the spectrum meaning you are wrong in most cases. Isn’t it funny that someone narrow minded person has never invented anything because you don’t like science and don’t believe in it.
tobanga 2.2K245 Blog/Climate Posted Oct 12, 2018 by Martin Armstrong An independent audit of the key temperature dataset that is being used by climate models has exposed more than 70 problems with the data which render it “unfit for global studies.” Problems include zero degree temperatures in the Caribbean, 82 degree C temperatures in Colombia and ship-based recordings taken 100km inland. The audit has concluded that the studies are deliberately exaggerating temperatures to support a theory of global warming utilizing global averages that are far less certain than what is being forecast. The audit has revealed “that climate models have been tuned to match incorrect data, which would render incorrect their predictions of future temperatures and estimates of the human influence of temperatures.” Furthermore, the Paris Climate Agreement adopted 1850-1899 averages as “indicative” of pre-industrial temperatures is “fatally flawed.” The entire Paris Climate Agreement has an agenda to eliminate effectively the advancement of society and attempt to reset the clock to the pre-Industrial Revolution. This entire theory that before the Industrial Revolution, our planet’s atmosphere was somehow pristine and uncontaminated by human-made pollutants has been also proven to be completely bogus.
This Theory applies to Spiritual experiences as well. We are so much tied by our own dogmas, and often misinterpreted belief systems that we can't perceive reality when it actually happens. For me, this happened with Sahaja YOGA, A seemingly simple looking Mother is the solution for all the human woes and She delivers a magic which literally each and everyone can experience for ourselves. But how many takers there? There is slow silent revolution that's taking place and it has nothing to do about affluence, position or background! Child like innocence & curiosity is the need of the hour!
The comparison used is an "apples to oranges" comparison. When I climb to the top of a building and drop a ball... I can see for myself the ball drops. However, there are multiple scientists who disagree on climate change (as it relates to Global Warming). It's not as easy to see (for the layman) as dropping a ball. So the difference I think is the proof that one can determine for themselves. So now I am left to "who do I trust" to give me the truth. So for this particular case, call it bias if you want, but I believe it's more than bias.
@@danlightened just because people post information doesn't make it true. You do realize in the late 70's they were talking about the next ice age and they were trying to figure out how to warm the planet. For the past 20+ years, they have been talking about global warming and climate change and how much trouble we will be in 8 years, or 10 years, or 12 years. And guess what? We are all still here. So like I said, there may be piles of papers on the subject, but it doesn't make it true. (Also, there have been stories about how some so-called scientists have doctored the data to make it fit their bias - also not true - also not science.)
Our own personal biases are one thing however when the majority of the public consumes science through mainstream media which is notoriously misleading and at odds with what scientists are staying. Sensationalised science isn't reliable either. Maybe if we had a more reliable source more people could suspend their disbelief and tune into their own misconceptions and biases
It's not great, it's a far cry from the worst. At least it looks pretty. And he quoted his source ahead of time. There is no way to get to the bottom of something like this, without getting to the bottom of the paper itself
Gummy Noodles It's a terrible graph for a few reasons. • There's no scale. It could be showing 90% scientists vs. 50% public or could be zoomed in and showing 10% scientists and 5% public. Really dishonest people will cut off the base of the bars to exaggerate a difference, so it could be 90% scientists and 85% public. • It doesn't say what the questions were. Animal research is useful? Animal research should be banned? • It does not reference its specific source, only the organisation who gathered the data. But they conduct thousands of polls. There's no way to check the information except to spend time hunting around and take a guess at what it's referring to. The point of a graph is to present the information to you, not to leave you with the job of spending an afternoon trying to find out what he was talking about. When you see such a useless graph as this, you should assume that those details have been deliberately omitted in an attempt to deceive you, because that's how propagandists use graphs. It could have been created by an honest but stupid graphic designer. Nevertheless, you will be misled less by being sceptical than by being gullible.
Science is a belief system. Yes, it's easy to say that gravity works and you can tell the weather, but the deeper you look into the roots of science the more you see things that are just there by definition or are just straight up believes, only that one calls them axioms, theories or hypothesis, in which you have to believe.
You're asking the wrong question, to the wrong people. The question is not "Do you believe in climate change"; it is "Why has climate change become a question of political hysteria?" I'm not a climate sceptic, but I'm very much a 'political hysteria' sceptic. Let me know when you're able to address my concerns.
Notice (at ~2:40) the survey question is "climate change is mostly due to human activity," while the way Shepherd states it is "humans are contributing to climate change." Obviously. "mostly due to" and "contributing to" are very different constructs. Kinda supports the notion that scientists are unreliable.
Issuing an advisory, to most people, does sound like a downgrading of a storm. Why? Because the word, as used in their normal lives, isn't one of urgency. To them, it means to just keep an eye out, and not a call to action that something important is about to happen. The forecasters need to be more aware of the level of education of the people they are speaking to. And to speak to them on their level initially (by saying that this storm is going to get worse), while simultaneously educating them on what a storm advisory actually is from a storm watch according to the weather service. And if you think about the general population, a winter storm watch does SOUND more harmful than a winter weather advisory. After all, you are only saying it as if it is "advice" to people and that is what they hear. Advice. Not a warning.
Cognitive bias: Houston gets 34 inches of rain per year. How much does eastern Montana get? Only 10". People will have the bias that Texas is the desert, not Montana.
He gives polls at the beginning about the differences between scientists and the public on climate change, then spends the rest of the video explaining why you really shouldn’t trust them--But doesn’t appear to realize it. Fascinating.
D.J S in kpop if you like someone from a particular group then he is your bias, here bias is another form of bae(before anyone else) but bias is commonly used in kpop so yeah😂hope this explanation helped
What are you referring to when you mention Animal Research at 2:03? That scientists are more supportive of torturing animals for research than the average citizen? That's not a question of being informed, it's a question of morality. The bias that's coming into play is that some scientists' work relies on the torture of animals so they are more likely to compromise their morality on that matter.
What is never discussed is the fact that, when graphed, climate change almost exactly follows a graph of population growth in the past 125 years. Climate change IS due to human activity. The activity of producing too many people.
Ha. He basically said the city of Altanta shut down the city based on 'faulty belief systems'. If a city shuts down in anticipation for a winter storm that they don't normally get, they're getting that info from forecasters and weather agencies. Wouldn't that mean if weather warnings increase in severity yet the prediction was WRONG, it's not the receiver but the provider of the information who has to carry that burden?
Here's something else you're probably biased about: Eating animals. Nowadays we don't rely on eating animals for survival and it could therefore be considered cruel. Just because we all were brought up to believe violently killing another feeling creature for our taste preferences is normal, natural and necessary, doesn't make it any less unnecessary and cruel. If you agree that animals are not objects or goods, please consider leaving them off your plate.
The interpretation of the data that suck the scientific method provides is a belief. The data given the scientific method being done correctly is of course not necessarily categorized as a belief however once you interpret that data you are now engaging in a subjective belief system.
YES as Malcom Gladwell once labeled these people with Information asymmetry TV PUNDITS. They are prone to make wrong predictions on politics, media etc because they obtain their information from merely reading SNS comments and watching TVs
Maybe expand your radius of input beyond TED talks, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, and late-night comedy shows. Maybe also listen to news media that actually tell the other side, including Richard Lindzen, MIT Climatologist prof emeritus, and Roy Spencer and Jeff Christie, NASA climatologists, who don't believe in the extreme climate change models that have consistently been PROVEN wrong in their predictions.
Three most common biases that shape your worldview:
1. Confirmation Bias: Finding evidence to confirm our existing beliefs.
2. Dunning-Kruger: Thinking we know more than we do.
3. Cognitive Dissonance: New information contradicting our existing beliefs.
How to resolve them:
1. Take inventory of your own biases.
2. Evaluate your sources.
3. Speak out.
Thank you !
Thank you
you are a god, this was one of my homework questions lol!!
I love you omg thank you bestie you're amazing
@@ocaiseeyoulmao same I'm doing it rn.😂😂
3:32 Confirmation Bias
4:40 Dunning-Kruger Effect
5:02 Cognitive Dissonance
You just saved my life
Ye
lifesaver ;)
You have SAVED my life.
You are a G
first ted talk i've watched in 2019, and this was pretty good. definitely thought provoking.
For me it was also the first ted in 2019! Happy new year :)!
@@enlightedjedi thank you! Happy new year as well! Best wishes xo
Meh
Same, first one of the year, really strong one too. Happy new year.
MacKenzie B my first video of the year too!
Yes. The exact three that I came up with. Simple, direct explanation that could be greatly expanded upon across many different topics. In order to make a decision to formulate an opinion you need to be able to consider counter arguments and be willing to accept them when they go counter you your belief. Fee will means the ability to chose providing there is no force upon you making you lean. If you can't equally weight a subject due to bias which is a powerful force, you don't have free will. Excellent talk Dr!!
to talk about personal bias and self-awareness are so noble and honorable. thank you.
This guy is absolutely 100% correct. I to have been recently been observing a ton of this bias thinking in politics. Clearly one side is throwing out ideas and spreading and ideology that is completely illogical and will not increase living standards for most people. But the ignorance or bias of the people only having one perspective and not really educated on the true reality at hand allows them to believe in the crap since it makes them feel better emotionally.
Takes a lot of guts to confess you’re parttaking in conformation bias. Self-reflection is always a good thing.
Especially if you spent most of your life believing something else. Then it is already hard to commit to yourself that you may have been wrong.
@@mrniceguy4277 Yes.
Ego is the ennemy
good and important topic. thanks for sharing TED.
It's a very important topic because science is still full of hubris among such biases listed in video and more...
Many make their data align with their beliefs/hypothesis instead of making their hypothesis in line with the facts. The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
"X must be fake, because I believe Y is fake..." is widely used fallacy... You see it from flat earthers to people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is the poster child for it.
This can be seen in Graham Hancock TED Talk, the meteor impact crater in Greenland proves his scientifically accurate impact hypothesis is true, but because it doesn't align with the conventional beliefs and textbooks, which are outdated, TED Talks has put a bazillion warnings on his video trying to make people not believe that it's true.
And then you see people using fallacy to try and discredit the 23+ scientists that state, in a peer-reviewed paper, that octopuses are either not native to Earth or they're from the future... because they don't fit into this planet's and evolutionary time table because they alter their RNA primarily which means their DNA evolves *extremely* slow as a trade off.
But because aliens haven't been interviewed from the Oval Office and because there's no publicly recognized time machine either "this theory is obviously false!"
The following quote sums up the history of science:
Regarding an important idea or truth:
"...First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -- Arthur Schopenhauer
I want more of those NASA forecast
AyunaAni probably it will cost you
I found three JoJo references in this video
1. Do you believe in gravity?
2. I'm meteorologist aka weather report
3. Will it rain for my daughter's wedding? Yes, snails and poisonous frogs
doing gods work
We've entered an age were people expect they are being lied to.... welcome to the result
Thanks for letting me know to expand my my radius.
Confirmation Bias: to find evidence to support and confirm our existing beliefs.
Dunning-Kruger: to overestimate what we knew/ underestimate what we didnt know.
Cognitive Dissonance: new information contradicts our existing beliefs.
Solution: take inventory of personal biases, evaluate our sources that we derive information from, and speak out loud.
Nice, thanks. More talks on cognitive bias & logical fallacies please
I highly recommend a podcast called "You Are Not So Smart" (he also has two books). It's all about cognitive bias & logical fallacies. Great explanations, examples, and interviews with experts, along with advice how to deal with those biases and fallacies. =)
psychology books !
Cognitive bias & logical fallacies are such highly under rated subjects/topics. They should be taught in school itself. It's literally how our minds work. What could be more important than that?
gosh this one was good. Thank you, Dr. Shepherd.
what is even more dangerous is that there are people willing to take advantage of people's biases to profit themselves, even to the detriment of humanity.
Cognitive bias is humanities greatest flaw, personally I believe it is the cause of the majority of our problems.
The scientific method was designed specifically to combat this issue, and look at the leaps forward we have accomplished.
Imagine if learning how to deal with cognitive bias was addressed in our education, how much better would the world be? How much are we holding ourselves back due to the majority of people not even knowing these problems exist within our own minds?
Watching this show since October 2015
Belief systems and biases? Well, we all have them. Science is merely the methodology by which one obtains data; data is always neutral, and all data must be interpreted. Science itself does not draw conclusions based on the data that it produces, nor can it; it is people who draw conclusions, and no person is absolutely unbiased, and wrong assumptions about the data will always lead to wrong conclusions. We all have the same data: the same rocks, the same trees, the same stars, the same archaeology, history, and so on, but the secularist and the Christian each start their investigations with different presuppositions. Our presuppositions inform our worldviews, and it is our worldviews that drive us to make vastly different conclusions based upon the evidences that we see, and conclusions are neither scientific nor unscientific, rather, conclusions are merely a reflection of the individual’s concept of the data as filtered through his worldview - this is how one person can look at a particular data set and conclude “common descent,” while the Christian looks at the same data set and concludes “common Designer.”
This guy is awesome! Charismatic, humorous and informative.
I'm an expert in the Dunning-Kroger effect. This video confirms it. No need for me to learn more.
A very important TED talk dealing with common sense, something we as a population seems to be struggling with far too often these days.
I've literally been talking about people's perceptions of certain issues based on their preferences of media consumption and their surrounding environment.
J. Marshall Shepherd has nailed it with this one, and I'd really love to see this discussion play a part to wider audiences other than those of us that choose to watch these TED talks. It really doesn't do all that much good to present these important talks to the same crowd that already (for the most part) understands and agrees with these views. We desperately need to find a way for them to reach a more "global" audience and find ways to present the information effectively to those that will undoubtedly question the facts of any given issue.
Also, I believe that it's healthy for ANY fact or issue to be questioned, no matter the subject matter or how long it's been established, that's how we as a species break through the norms and find new ways to innovate and solve these immediate problems. The problem we're facing today is a not-so-new force known as "Propaganda", which is normalizing the term "Fake News" into the complete opposite of what its intent was.
I've derailed this comment enough already, but I've left my position.
A really great talk by the way!
I agree, cognitive bias is humanities greatest flaw, personally I believe it is the cause of the majority of our problems.
The scientific method was designed specifically to combat this issue, and look at the leaps forward we have accomplished.
Imagine if learning how to deal with cognitive bias was addressed in our education, how much better would the world be? How much are we holding ourselves back due to the majority of people not even knowing these problems exist within our own minds?
Science is too far away from the general public. "Nonbelievers" do not discuss this matter with scientists but with "believers", in other words, the arguments they hear are confirmatory bias as well, like: everywhere is getting hotter and hotter! Also, the media is the usual way to learn about climate change and the media (in general) is a very nice place to find these biases because it "sells"! One of the ways, in my opinion, is what TED does, bring scientists to the public! Keep it up!
Not too sure about the talk, but the PowerPoint was absolutely on point^^ 10/10
The problem is that the public doesn't deal with science with that much devotion. And the "public" for that matter will certainly never see this great talk
A meteorologist talking about psychology... and getting it a little bit wrong. Here are a couple of corrections (apologies if others have already posted about this).
1. Confirmation Bias = the tendency to be more likely to accept new information if it confirms our existing beliefs and less likely to accept new information if it contradicts or otherwise calls into question our existing beliefs. (He got this one pretty close to correct, but glossed over it).
2. Dunning-Krueger Effect = both overestimating your own knowledge and expertise and underestimating your own lack of knowledge and expertise. The biggest kicker of it, though, is that in order to accurately understand your own lack of knowledge and expertise, you have to have exactly the knowledge and expertise that you lack (catch 22).
3. Cognitive Dissonance = accepting/holding two contradictory ideas/beliefs at the same time, *and being psychologically stressed (even if only a little) by the contradiction*. The term specifically refers to the psychological stress, not the two contradictions. This is as opposed to Doublethink, which means accepting/holding two contradictory ideas/beliefs at the same time, and *not* suffering psychological stress due to the contradiction. People often miscategorize Doublethink as Cognitive Dissonance (I used to do so quite often myself), but they are, in fact, different-though-related issues. Doublethink is often a result of compartmentalizing different beliefs to only "count" (if you will) in certain specific areas of life and not in others.
Beyond that, science isn't a belief system, it is a methodology for discovering information about the universe. However, scientifically-based beliefs do constitute a belief system, which is why (for those who have commented about this before) not all scientists believe that climate change is made worse by human activity. However, what is notable is that the percentage of *climate* scientists (those who specifically use science to study climate) who believe in climate change, and that climate change is both caused and made worse by human activity, is significantly higher (by "significantly" I mean that the percentage difference is larger than the margin of error).
Also, I think the biggest reason people don't trust scientists (other than because some have been *taught* not to trust them) is that scientists often tell us things that contradict what we already believe. Go back to bias #1 and now you have a recipe for not believing what scientists tell us. And if we frequently disbelieve what scientists tell us, then we end up with a growing distrust of scientists in general. Perpetuate that over the larger population and over a period of time and you get a society that has an increasing distrust of scientists. It would help if we did a better job of teaching people what science truly is (and isn't), and how to understand scientific knowledge. It would help more, I think, if we would teach our children (at all) about cognitive biases like these, and teach them the critical thinking skills necessary to combat them.
Anyway, there are much better presentations of cognitive bias available on TH-cam (and elsewhere) than this video. People could start, for example, with "SciShow Psych" and "Crash Course: Psychology" just to get some basic primers.
In my own experience, when I ask someone if they believe in climate change, it’s not a matter of is climate change happening, but rather is climate change really happening as fast as all of the people with a ton of degrees say it is and is it really as dire and imminent as they say it is and should we be as scared as they want us to be? I’m not a scientist or meteorologist or any other of the “ists” and don’t know a thing about climate change yet my initial urge when I hear someone preaching about climate change, is to push back and be skeptical of it and tune the person out, but I can’t for the life of me find the source or root of this belief or bias I have and why I do this. The only possible thing that I can scrape together to make sense of why I do this and that is that climate change carries with it the connotation of stuck up rich people with way too many degrees who think they’re better and smarter than the average lay person and they’ve taken up this almost god like role of saying the earth from the stupid eaters, the heathens and so on. Then you have your hippies who also see themselves as enlightened woke people of their lifetime who are also operating under the auspices of saviors of the earth. So for me personally it’s me inherently rebelling against that, because people by nature, don’t like being told what to do, and that they’re doing something bad by people who fly around in private jets and own more cars than characters in their name or by people who have purple hair and smell like onions and have unshaven armpits who scowl at you when they see you buying something plastic.
Didn't know I was waiting for this, but I feel like a weight has been lifted.
Now, I can just direct people here and borrow as needed for some difficult conversations ♡
Woo! 2019.
Building bridges.
This is what I've missed from TED. An actual intellectual discussion.
I was expecting something about confirmation bias based on the title and stopped watching as soon as I got the answer I was looking for.
🤣🤣🤣
wow
this is just perfect..
should be top comment
Definitely thought stimulating especially since there is a lot of bias individuals out there
The first and best TEDX in 2019 which I have been watched (if I have mistake someone can correct it 😊)
02:48 Where it starts
Great speaker, great topic
Eloquent and useful to broader range of topics. Great talk.
Thank you
2:17 i know its about relations, but pls but numbers on your diagramms
well the source was pew news, so it must be reliable
Yeah, I was a bit confused about what this represented as well, for a second I actually thought this represented the amount of time they spoke about the subject
Happy new year, y'all!
Go Dawgs! Just started UGA this fall. Awesome Ted talk
To get a good insight into weather climate is changing in a certain area, it’s best to speak with a long time resident, or someone in agriculture.
You probably meant "whether" 😊
Three minutes in and the black guy hasn't spoken about race? It's beautiful to watch.
After further investigation, he has pretty good presentations.
But you did.
Every single person has a worldview that directs their footsteps daily. Can't escape that fact.
very informative to me. Thank you!
Great speech!
Yes all 🐂 💩 but great!
Good talk, but we still need some "TED's basics" playlist for talks that do not contain anything specific
Or it's just me, I dunno
It is interesting to me that the concept of "the radius of understanding" was used; it seems like a relabelling of the concept of a "horizon of understanding" by Hussrl
Great talk!
Ppl in the comments think TED is biased because it produces science-backed lectures? If you don't like the facts, that's your problem. Not TED's. It's your bias that you need to check. Not the bias of the lecture. That is unless you're able to produce actual incorrect information in a TED talk and proving it to be incorrect. Unlikely.
Well said.
great talk! much importance!
Great presentation. Very focused, evidence based and also entertaining.
when i watched this and pondered the human condition and how silly we really are, and we are a silly bunch by anyone's terms....i watch this and i think about an old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"... scientists can lead peoples to knowledge, but its up to them to take it in and use it as prescribed. sadly, the line between reality and belief has been blurred. i think like this: strength wins the battle, courage is for when the strength is gone. i believe in nothing. i know things. reality is this: if something only exists because one believes, then it is a subjective thought and does not exist. and somehow, with that, i feel completely grounded and unafraid of the world around me and nature.... but the people on this planet freak me out.
Worth watching! 👏👏👏👏👏👏
He is excellent!
Hello there
@ J. Marshall Shepherd you perfectly used all 3 biases in your speech! The subject is not "settled" as fact. Here is one of your peers..... Richard Lindzen from MIT
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
oh TED knows about bias very well...
Did you even watch the video my dude? Drop that confirmation bias that lets you deny every other resource, check yourself.
Ted promotes their liberal crap all the time @@utubebad
Graham Hancock's Ted Talk comes to mind, even after the Smoking Gun of the crater in Greenland proving the impact happened, they still have his videos spammed full of warnings... Saying it's not true...
kulik03 you need to stop using the term liberal, if scientists and innovations are liberal propaganda, then you are on the opposite on the spectrum meaning you are wrong in most cases.
Isn’t it funny that someone narrow minded person has never invented anything because you don’t like science and don’t believe in it.
"We need to make the people believe more in scientists"
@@Sannidor you take your truth from majority decisions? how dumb can you be?
tobanga 2.2K245
Blog/Climate
Posted Oct 12, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
An independent audit of the key temperature dataset that is being used by climate models has exposed more than 70 problems with the data which render it “unfit for global studies.” Problems include zero degree temperatures in the Caribbean, 82 degree C temperatures in Colombia and ship-based recordings taken 100km inland. The audit has concluded that the studies are deliberately exaggerating temperatures to support a theory of global warming utilizing global averages that are far less certain than what is being forecast.
The audit has revealed “that climate models have been tuned to match incorrect data, which would render incorrect their predictions of future temperatures and estimates of the human influence of temperatures.” Furthermore, the Paris Climate Agreement adopted 1850-1899 averages as “indicative” of pre-industrial temperatures is “fatally flawed.” The entire Paris Climate Agreement has an agenda to eliminate effectively the advancement of society and attempt to reset the clock to the pre-Industrial Revolution. This entire theory that before the Industrial Revolution, our planet’s atmosphere was somehow pristine and uncontaminated by human-made pollutants has been also proven to be completely bogus.
Very informative talk backed with fact. Truly outstanding.
I think the reason why the public is so sceptical to these sorts of things, is that the public feel that we've been lied to by the " establishment ".
Weather forecasts: 90% of the time, it works all the time.
Bravo
As a European you are confused at first when reading ,Athens, Georgia‘ :D
Great Talk :)
Ironically 75% of the people who speak at TED could really learn a thing or two from this video.
This Theory applies to Spiritual experiences as well. We are so much tied by our own dogmas, and often misinterpreted belief systems that we can't perceive reality when it actually happens. For me, this happened with Sahaja YOGA, A seemingly simple looking Mother is the solution for all the human woes and She delivers a magic which literally each and everyone can experience for ourselves. But how many takers there? There is slow silent revolution that's taking place and it has nothing to do about affluence, position or background! Child like innocence & curiosity is the need of the hour!
The comparison used is an "apples to oranges" comparison. When I climb to the top of a building and drop a ball... I can see for myself the ball drops. However, there are multiple scientists who disagree on climate change (as it relates to Global Warming). It's not as easy to see (for the layman) as dropping a ball. So the difference I think is the proof that one can determine for themselves. So now I am left to "who do I trust" to give me the truth. So for this particular case, call it bias if you want, but I believe it's more than bias.
I bet 1000s of pages of research work regarding global warming must be posted each year. How much more proof do you need?
@@danlightened just because people post information doesn't make it true. You do realize in the late 70's they were talking about the next ice age and they were trying to figure out how to warm the planet. For the past 20+ years, they have been talking about global warming and climate change and how much trouble we will be in 8 years, or 10 years, or 12 years. And guess what? We are all still here. So like I said, there may be piles of papers on the subject, but it doesn't make it true. (Also, there have been stories about how some so-called scientists have doctored the data to make it fit their bias - also not true - also not science.)
Thinking fast & thinking slow... read this book
great message
Our own personal biases are one thing however when the majority of the public consumes science through mainstream media which is notoriously misleading and at odds with what scientists are staying. Sensationalised science isn't reliable either. Maybe if we had a more reliable source more people could suspend their disbelief and tune into their own misconceptions and biases
1:44 Pucci heard that question and that made him reset the universe.
There’s a speck I thought was on my screen but it was just the thingy in the background. Don’t lie, you thought it too.
2:03 this has to be one of the worst graphs I've ever seen...
Why??
It's not great, it's a far cry from the worst. At least it looks pretty. And he quoted his source ahead of time. There is no way to get to the bottom of something like this, without getting to the bottom of the paper itself
Gummy Noodles It's a terrible graph for a few reasons.
• There's no scale. It could be showing 90% scientists vs. 50% public or could be zoomed in and showing 10% scientists and 5% public. Really dishonest people will cut off the base of the bars to exaggerate a difference, so it could be 90% scientists and 85% public.
• It doesn't say what the questions were. Animal research is useful? Animal research should be banned?
• It does not reference its specific source, only the organisation who gathered the data. But they conduct thousands of polls. There's no way to check the information except to spend time hunting around and take a guess at what it's referring to. The point of a graph is to present the information to you, not to leave you with the job of spending an afternoon trying to find out what he was talking about.
When you see such a useless graph as this, you should assume that those details have been deliberately omitted in an attempt to deceive you, because that's how propagandists use graphs. It could have been created by an honest but stupid graphic designer. Nevertheless, you will be misled less by being sceptical than by being gullible.
Yes. We don't even know what are the questions answered
Science is a belief system. Yes, it's easy to say that gravity works and you can tell the weather, but the deeper you look into the roots of science the more you see things that are just there by definition or are just straight up believes, only that one calls them axioms, theories or hypothesis, in which you have to believe.
•G Dragon;
• Jimin;
• Jisoo;
Omg 😂😂😂😂😂
Ceci. that's what i thought because in the background of the thumbnail, it said *uga* but i thought it said *“suga.”*
Listen up radicals.
You're asking the wrong question, to the wrong people. The question is not "Do you believe in climate change"; it is "Why has climate change become a question of political hysteria?"
I'm not a climate sceptic, but I'm very much a 'political hysteria' sceptic. Let me know when you're able to address my concerns.
Notice (at ~2:40) the survey question is "climate change is mostly due to human activity," while the way Shepherd states it is "humans are contributing to climate change." Obviously. "mostly due to" and "contributing to" are very different constructs.
Kinda supports the notion that scientists are unreliable.
Issuing an advisory, to most people, does sound like a downgrading of a storm. Why? Because the word, as used in their normal lives, isn't one of urgency. To them, it means to just keep an eye out, and not a call to action that something important is about to happen. The forecasters need to be more aware of the level of education of the people they are speaking to. And to speak to them on their level initially (by saying that this storm is going to get worse), while simultaneously educating them on what a storm advisory actually is from a storm watch according to the weather service. And if you think about the general population, a winter storm watch does SOUND more harmful than a winter weather advisory. After all, you are only saying it as if it is "advice" to people and that is what they hear. Advice. Not a warning.
Science IS a belief system
Cognitive bias: Houston gets 34 inches of rain per year. How much does eastern Montana get? Only 10". People will have the bias that Texas is the desert, not Montana.
Lol, all 200+ people who downvoted this are perfect examples of Dunning Kruger.
Don't be too negative with your comments!
You don't want them to get disabled.
What kind of comments are being disabled?
He gives polls at the beginning about the differences between scientists and the public on climate change, then spends the rest of the video explaining why you really shouldn’t trust them--But doesn’t appear to realize it.
Fascinating.
If u listen to kpop you will understand the confusion with bias, *damn it*
Exactly, I read the title and I thought,, if he only knew"
I dont understand your comment. Would you mind explaining?
D.J S in kpop if you like someone from a particular group then he is your bias, here bias is another form of bae(before anyone else) but bias is commonly used in kpop so yeah😂hope this explanation helped
Lol! Oh boy...😁
@@sofiavaseva2576 I see. Thanks
What are you referring to when you mention Animal Research at 2:03? That scientists are more supportive of torturing animals for research than the average citizen? That's not a question of being informed, it's a question of morality. The bias that's coming into play is that some scientists' work relies on the torture of animals so they are more likely to compromise their morality on that matter.
非常好=Nice
Do you believe in PewDiePie defeating T-Series?
lol, no. Won't happen
@@EconpLLC sure buddy
So what do you think I don't know good answer at least you're being honest with yourself
What is never discussed is the fact that, when graphed, climate change almost exactly follows a graph of population growth in the past 125 years. Climate change IS due to human activity. The activity of producing too many people.
Ha. He basically said the city of Altanta shut down the city based on 'faulty belief systems'. If a city shuts down in anticipation for a winter storm that they don't normally get, they're getting that info from forecasters and weather agencies. Wouldn't that mean if weather warnings increase in severity yet the prediction was WRONG, it's not the receiver but the provider of the information who has to carry that burden?
Here's something else you're probably biased about: Eating animals. Nowadays we don't rely on eating animals for survival and it could therefore be considered cruel. Just because we all were brought up to believe violently killing another feeling creature for our taste preferences is normal, natural and necessary, doesn't make it any less unnecessary and cruel. If you agree that animals are not objects or goods, please consider leaving them off your plate.
Animal agriculture is also among the top contributers to climate change by the way, even according to the United Nations/IPCC and others.
The interpretation of the data that suck the scientific method provides is a belief. The data given the scientific method being done correctly is of course not necessarily categorized as a belief however once you interpret that data you are now engaging in a subjective belief system.
" wow you certainly know how to earn that pay check "
"expand your radius" thanks for the mindblowing phrase :) #travel #talk2strangers
Why there is always people confused about *belief* and *believe* .
In the 1950s Life Magazine said, scientist had confirmed that we would all die in a Global Cooling !!!!
YES as Malcom Gladwell once labeled these people with Information asymmetry TV PUNDITS. They are prone to make wrong predictions on politics, media etc because they obtain their information from merely reading SNS comments and watching TVs
Did anyone else see the gremlin behind the TEDxUGA sign?
Maybe expand your radius of input beyond TED talks, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, and late-night comedy shows. Maybe also listen to news media that actually tell the other side, including Richard Lindzen, MIT Climatologist prof emeritus, and Roy Spencer and Jeff Christie, NASA climatologists, who don't believe in the extreme climate change models that have consistently been PROVEN wrong in their predictions.
Another misuse of the term "begs the question". It does not raise a question, it doubts the premise of the opposing argument.