@@gormok9300 Overpopularization was selected to "grow the business" by the content creators. They purposefully dumbed down the content to accomodate the midwits.
Exactly what happenned with education and any topic that used to require competence. Making everything dumbed down. Making it very easy to have literal PhDs and experts manipulated by any intellectually competent person to influence public opinion.... Oh well.
I think one of the "you get it or you don't breakpoints" could be when you are explaining why something occurred, and there other person thinks you are defending the occurrence. It's like they think you can only understand something if it directly relates to how you would do things yourself. For example: Person A: "Why do video games today always have to come with microtransactions? I don't like it." Person B: "Companies put microtransactions in games because it makes them more money." Person A: "So just because it makes them more money, that makes it a good idea?
The Oakland A’s (baseball team) are moving from Oakland to Vegas and a bunch of videos explaining why this makes sense have comments that seem to not understand the principle you’re talking about
Ugh I can’t stand interacting with people like that. People like that can only deal with moral issues from an emotional perspective, as opposed to a judicial perspective.
Often person A's question is rhetorical. Their not actually asking why X happens, their just expressing their view that X is bad. If you ask me "why is Brad such a c*nt?", I understand you don't actually want a lecture on evolutionary biology. You're just expressing your bewilderment at his c*ntiness.
Great video brother. Ever since I read the 4 chan post myself, it really got me to change the way I look at people. What's funny is that I have literally seen the "but I did eat breakfast" response on twitter, and I laugh out loud every time.
It's quite the clarifying notion, isn't it? Life is filled with moments of wisdom-gain wherein somebody conveys an idea that broadens our perspective. David is a great font of such wisdom. So is 4chan. I wonder if David likes being in such close proximity to 4chan in a post 🤔
I've seen the question but have had no idea in what subject it was relating to, so I sought out an explanation. Very interesting, but I'd add a little prelude vs just asking that question.
@@Djwyrm thats the thing, asking this question is little more than a trolling technique. It does not test whether people understand conditional hypothetical at all. Of course people can imagine what it was like if they did or did not eat breakfast. But it has nothing to do with anything. So when people are confused why you are trolling them with that nonsense, it has nothing to do with what these morons think. It's sort of like gish galloping. They throw out something stupid, and when people are like, uhh, what? They act like they won something and showed you are are some kind of idiot and laugh, like the the guy we are commenting under. The joke is on them, because they are so stupid they dont understand their trolling is demonstrating their lack of critical thinking skills not the person they are trolling with this question.
A linguist (I can't remember his name) worked with missionaries in some African countries with low literacy rates. A missionary had work for some of the men and he asked them if they wanted worker's insurance. They didn't understand why, so he said; in case you have an accident. They replied with; but we didn't have an accident. One village laughed at him for having a dictionary. They couldn't understand why someone would have words that they don't know the meaning of. They knew all their words because the only words they had were the ones they used regularly. Their illiteracy caused a poverty of words, which led to non-development of abstract ideas like delayed gratification and preparing for the future.
Transmission of ideas is a bigger can of worms. I've talked about it regarding newspeak. If you don't have the language to convey an idea to others, it's like it ceases to be real. Man's spiritual knowledge becomes clouded; the intellect is dimmed. However, there's a flip side with rural Africa; consider how quickly the educated man would die there because he lacks the consequential knowledge necessary for survival.
I'd say its the other way around. Their lack of ability to delay gratification and prepare for the future hinders their ability to conceptualize it in words
This reminds me of a discussion I saw online where someone could not understand how people could want to play as the Empire or the Germans in tabletop gaming and still be decent human beings.
@@AsianTheDomination Without disambiguating which war you mean, it's a true statement! WW1 is much less clear who were the "bad guys". Go back further, and there are plenty of instances where Germans were the "good" guys to most. Being evil in games is fun, though I prefer more nuance than cartoon villain evil. When you can make arguments from the perspective of the evil character that are difficult for the other people around to refute *even from their own moral compass*, it's quite an experience.
I always found the idea of not having a internal dialog strange. Apparently some people do not have any internal voice. I would imagine that would come with issues for impulse control, or thinking out hypothetical situations, but I haven't looked into it too much. I've never met someone who says they do not. Have you?
I don't think I've met anyone in real life. Just people on the internet. There's also afantasia, where a person cannot visualize things in their mind, and amusia, where a person cannot distinguish between different sound frequencies. I feel like both of these things would also have a big impact.
@@DVSPress Wow, I had no idea about Afantasia. I can't imagine living life without being able to visualize things in your mind. I wonder if people who suffer from that could experience things such as nostalgia?
@@DanielMoore3dI don't know if it would be considered a form of afantasia, but I struggle to imagine what I'm reading, whether it's characters or places or whatever is being described, and don't usually generate clear images in my mind, just vage impressions. It certainly impacts certain things with conversations, as I frequently can't put an image or face to what someone is saying unless some other connection is made. However, it doesn't really impact nostalgia as far as I can tell. It's just that different aspects are captured instead of images. My mom (who does NOT struggle to imagine in images, just to be clear) has a lot of nostalgia around smells. Coffee making her think of camping as a kid is her key example.
"But you enjoy the game so you do identify with the main character". Ah yes, I totally identify with the god-killing, head-smashing, neck-chopping character Kratos. He and I are one and the same in our identities and our everyday lives. Oh, and if I hadn't eaten breakfast yesterday, I would've went back to bed lol.
One thing I always notice about "midwits" is that when you make a general statement they always want to point out the exceptions. For example, I may say something like "Purple people really like to eat salad" and a midwit will say "Oh yeah? Well my best friend is purple and she hates salad!" as if that refutes what I'm saying. I'm not saying every purple person who has ever existed likes salad, I'm making a general statement about a trend. I know there are exceptions. That doesn't disprove my thesis.
Yeah I think people that are right in the middle simply can't distinguish between these two. A general trend automatically applies to all the individuals in the group.
@@gulli72 Generally I do like to be precise in my speech but I've noticed it's like casting my pearls before swine. We usually end up in the same "But not all!" anyway. So yes, I would still have that problem and typically do.
You think that is bad try to explain to them the different forms of discrimination to them as Sowell describes it. It is like watching brains break in real time.
Same thread explains event sequencing. The most common example is in police shootings where the deceased is unarmed. [Suspect] shot at police, then ran away, dropping the gun along the way. He reached for his waistband, so the police shot him. Even slightly below average IQ people have a hard time grasping the concept that the police who shot him had no way of knowing he no longer had the gun.
How would they know he did not have a second gun? A possible scenario would be suspect dropping a gun that ran out of ammo and reaching for the spare one. Having multiple guns is quite common among, for example, school shooters. Asking police to risk their lives to save a suspect that was already shooting at them is very wrong. At that point any suspicious movement is enough reason to shoot him. The suspect needs only a fraction of a second to shoot an officer. By the time they would've known if he reached for a second gun - an officer could've been gunned down instead.
@@Telhias That's kinda the point of what I'm saying. The police find out *after* the shooting that he was unarmed, but some people have a hard time grasping that they did not know this when the shooting happened.
I think a lot of people don’t have a fully developed theory of mind. I’ve met so many folks that can’t envision a set of values not their own being held by other people with sincerity, or that someone they are mad at might also be mad at them for inverse reasons.
I thought of something like this that I’ve noticed people struggle with, here’s an example: “My FAVORITE Pink Floyd album is Dark side of the Moon, but the Final Cut is their BEST album.” This makes people’s heads explode. My entire life I’ve been shocked at how difficult it is for people to understand that you can personally prefer something over another thing that you simultaneously consider to be qualitatively better. Anyone else ran into this?
This is why I have notifications on for this channel. Well done. When i was teaching ESL, teaching conditionals was so hard with entire ethnicities whose baseline IQ was just too low, of course there were exceptions as you state but man that was rough to explain to my boss why I had to fail entire nationalities.
Are there really nonnegligible IQ baseline differences between any ethnicities (besides the Ashkenazi people being like 20 points higher than the rest of us)? I was pretty certain the comfy, PC answer also happened to be true here.
@@DVSPress Some searching around again has revealed to me that a more widely accepted number is about 10 points above. Which is still one of the highest averages of all ethnic groups studied. And even the harshest critics of the claim of high Ashkenazi IQ won't claim that they do *not* have significantly higher than average intelligence. Admittedly I haven't heard the mathematical arguments, so I will look more for them.
@@SoarAnthem the answer is yes there are probably relatively large differences between certain ethnicities, but it's academic suicide to study it and you will get no funding. They have been done however. First it should be said that IQ is widely accepted by geneticists to be highly correlated to genetic makeup, about .7 to .9, depending on studies. There were studies done on IQ in both the US and South Africa comparing blacks and whites of all levels of education. These studies seem to indicate that education does seem to give a boost of a few points, twin studies back this up aswell. However africans consistently fall 10-15 points, or roughly 1 std dev. Below whites, regardless of socioeconomic status
This brings me back to the "Is the dress blue/black or white/gold?" I can understand how one could perceive it either way, and even got myself to perceive it both ways, but I know from experience what light shining on black fabric looks like. However, for a lot of people on both sides of the discussion, all that mattered was their own personal perception of the image and not the nature of the object in the image. It's even more troubling when you consider that a digital photograph isn't a completely accurate representation of the actual object it captures.
Ugh, those viral "what color is this thing really" memes are so annoying because I swear like 85% of the responding people just don't understand the concept of accounting for lighting cues when reporting an object's color. Like, they really can't wrap their minds around someone interpreting the *real life object* as a color that doesn't *perfectly match* the pixel color even when said object appears to be in extremely janky, unnatural lighting.
I kept waiting to hear a break point that applied to me and was confused that I didn't until I remembered that as an avid viewer of Rick and Morty my IQ is far beyond most people.
I would even relate this concept to people who have pronouns in their bio. They can't engage with people as individuals so they find knowing what pronouns a person uses useful because it dictates how a person should behave. Whenever someone deviates from their expectation of how that group engages, their first response is to regroup the person, not to treat the person as an individual.
On that vein, it's why people adopt full-platform ideology. They are "Democrat" or "Republican" and so they change their viewpoints to reflect that. I'm very confusing for them to talk to because I'll call abortion reprehensible, understandable (as it satisfies the human need to sacrifice children), and a demographic miracle. By holding three or four perspectives on many issues, I always find that a vast majority of people have only one single view.
@@azzguntherAbortion is reprehensibld but it is also a net positive as it increases genetic quality of the population, this is a take I've found neither side of the aisle can accept even though it is true.
@@Breaddragonsss Original comment I was answering got shadowbanned, so I am not sure if it is worth explaining, but here it goes: Abortion is literally voluntary eugenics and increases the general genetic quality of the population, as overall the people getting abortions are low IQ, poor or otherwise dysgenic. Thus, abortion is a net positive in a large scale - It culls the population of people who would otherwise be dead weights on the welfare system, or worse yet, actively contribute to the rising crime rates.
Very true, PLUS a lot of scientists who know the technical side of their field, but don't understand the philosophy of science or what rational, scientific *thought* looks like!
I can affirm this as someone who grew up in the area with the highest density of engineers in the world. The high-achieving idiocy I saw at my schools always threw me for such a curve. These were people with nothing but an orange in their head, getting great grades and going for careers in any scientific field you can think of. Biochem, sports medicine, you name it. It baffled me. I think it has a lot to do with the parents
One thing I've began to notice about myself and others is extrapolating way too much from my subjective experience. For example, there was a guy explaining how all men have an internal urge to have sex with women other than their spouse and my immediate internal response was to examine my subjective mechanisms and find that I can't find that urge and was about to conclude no man really has that. However, I managed to have enough metacognition to notice I was doing the same thing he had done: extrapolated something from my subjective experience to be an objective feature of being a man. I'm not sure if this is related to IQ at all because it seems more issue of method instead of cognitive process.
This is pretty standard thinking, to be honest. Remodel our expectations on the world on our experiences of it. Yes, they are subjective, but ancient man didn't have access to a wealth of data to make decisions. His survival was via extrapolation, especially when it comes to risk. Believing in a monster that's not there in most cases doesn't negatively affect your survival. Not believing in a monster that IS there will.
@@DVSPress Intuitively I have extrapolated a lot of my understanding about humans directly from my own experience of my own humanity. It is counter-intuitive to stop myself from doing that. That is why I suspect it's not a matter of IQ since higher IQ mostly seems to be higher ability to perform more elaborate intuitive cognitive operations rather than performing counter-intuitive cognitive operations. And I definitely attribute doing something that counter-intuitive to living in the 21st century where we have easy access to an amount of information incomprehensible even to the majority of scholars for as long as there have been scholars. As a storyteller, noticing this has been quite relieving and concerning. Relieving because there's a chance that when my stories don't land with some people it might be due to my subjective understanding of humanity being so alien to the listener or reader. Concerning because I'm worried I'm not able to make characters that are too alien to my humanity. Although, the projects I'm doing now shouldn't suffer from this intrinsic limitation.
I feel like extrapolating is just fine, and when faced with different data/experiences you can change your observation, exactly as you admit to doing. You can't really extrapolate based on things you don't know
I tend to interpret the word "all" as meaning "literally every single one". If someone uses it and says they didn't mean that then they are either bad at English or (more likely IMO) they are dishonestly trying to avoid criticism for saying (for example) "kill all men".
I didn't even need to click on the video to know that you were going to talk about conditional hypotheticals, haha. So glad you chose this video topic :D
My wife always asks me why I play female characters in role playing games and one time I blurted out without thinking, "because I'd rather stare at a chicks ass than a guys ass for hours on end." On a serious note it's scary to think that higher concepts like subject-object distinction is becoming standard in criticism of fiction i.e. someone didn't like that Warhammer 40K said only male physiology could survive the transformation into an Astartes. Piss off.
If you say Pit Bulls are an awful breed you get the canned response my Pit Bull is just great with kids, or it's not the breed it's the owner... Ad infinitum Ad nauseam. Yes there are good Pits out there but over all. Dog Whisperer's Pit killed Queen Latifah dog by the way
Oh yeah exactly.. goddamn that shit gets my blood boiling every time.. because these people will admit to dog breeds being a real thing, greyhounds are bred to be fast, pointers are great for hunting, bloodhounds are great sniffers, etc etc. But when it comes to fighting noo its how they're raised.. no MY LITTLE CUPCAKE never hurt nobody!
The most telling for me is when people conflate their personal preference with either something being objectively the best or being the majority favorite. As though their preferences define reality and everyone else just hasn't realized it yet.
I think maybe it was extra credits, or some other gaming channel made a point that when player see 90% they think 100%, so you should modify the game as such that 90% always hits. I'm like.... No. 90% is 90%.
@@jamescollier9196 I think it's even worse with XCOM because the % on the screen isn't the actual %. There are mods the make it show the actual % or remove the hidden modifiers.
@@DVSPress I remember seeing that video and hating it too. If 90% doesn't really mean 90%, the developer is *lying* to you. It's annoying. I don't appreciate when games put you in a position where optimal choices nevertheless lead to defeat on probability alone though. In most tactical RPGs and really most games generally, there are things you can do to control for low % outcomes and not lose the game on a single bad roll. When you *can* lose the game that way and don't have any countermeasures for it, I just consider it poor design. The numbers should be true, regardless. If the design wants to be needlessly opaque and obnoxious without lying, they could just slap terms like "unlikely", "likely", and "very likely" onto it. What does "very likely mean"? Whatever the dev put under the hood. It's still crummy design in most cases though, because "to hit %" is generally a *rule* of the game. Those should not be obscured, outside of meme/troll games, and players will find out the probability empirically (or via the code) pretty quickly anyway.
As a teacher you know many criminals are criminally 'tarded and who they are is apparent in school. Luckily, it's illegal to discipline students, especially the ones that need it, so they get live their best life causing mayhem until they go to prison
On the issue of the divorce probability, I don't think it's that 40% of marriages end in divorce, so you have a 40% chance of being divorced. More along the lines that if you get married, there is an aggregate 40% chance you might have married the wrong person and the marriage doesn't work out. But you'd also need to take into account the psychology of people who actually do get divorced. You and your spouse may not even be in the same cohort of people who are dysfunctional who even end up getting divorces. There are people who get married and remarried multiple times which ends up skewing things as well.
I've tried to explain to a few people that 0.5 as an answer to the question what is 1 divided by 2, is a representation of what lies on either side of the division point rather than the number that represents the division point itself(which is actually 0, and given enough divisions, you'll find that all numbers lie enveloped in 0), and they just can't comprehend that, insisting to no end that 0.5 is the exact center. On the topic of statistics vs probability, we're planning a move to Nova Scotia, and I've been joking with my daughter that Halifax(that was once devastated by a ship exploding in their harbor) is statistically more likely to be leveled by a ship exploding, but according to probability is far less likely, since it's already happened. The difference between statistics and probability.
@@adanalyst6925 I think I get it. Imagine a street with ten houses in a row, numbered 1 to 10. If we were to divide the street into two halves, we would have 5 houses on each half of the street. But the 5th house wouldn't represent the middle of the street, because then you would have 4 houses before it, and 5 houses that come after it. Instead, the true middle is somewhere between the empty space of the 5th and 6th house, which is nearly impossible to measure - because once again if we were to measure that space and halve the distance, looking for that mid-point, we would end up with the same problem as we did trying to split the street in half. So back to the mid-point of 1, must lie somewhere between 0.5 and 0.6. Between that space is a value of 0.09999+, which must then be divided by two again and the distance found in-between. Do this again and again, and the sum of these fractions will eventually approach zero.
There was a great segment Norm Macdonald did on a radio show where he mentioned that black people generally make less money than white people in America, and the host pushed back saying that there are wealthy black people. She just couldn't wrap her head around the fact that Norm was talking about general group statistics and that the existence of wealthy black people doesn't disprove what Norm said.
I wanted to see if there were any videos on the subject. While I already was aware of most of this I enjoyed how you explained it. This will be handy to refer people to.
Another one I've seen is people not being able to understand the size of cosmological spaces and objects. I've met many people when discussing things like fictional vs battles that think if a character is strong enough to blow up the Earth 100x over that that means they're strong enough to blow up the solar system. Of course in reality our solar system is many orders of magnitude larger than that. Most people think of space as much much much smaller than it actually is. I would go as far as to say the average person's conception of the universe is actually how big our solar system is.
It's a really good science lesson for your kids to get some proportional objects and set them proportionally apart to represent the solar system. You get a beach ball for the sun and a marble for the earth and they end up a football field apart. Space is really really big!
I remember someone arguing with me on a gaming FB page because I asked a hypothetical and they just kept saying it would never happen, completely missing the point.
I think there are cases where an intelligent person, capable of understanding hypotheticals, simply doesn't want to entertain the scenario because they think it's a waste of time (or maybe because they're being dishonest, like Aylee En says). I think it's closedminded of them for sure, but might not necessarily mean they're incapable. The breakfast scenario, on the other hand, obviously can and does happen easily, so it's a little more straightforward in that example that the person just can't conceive of it.
@@SoarAnthem An intelligent person in the situation described would say something along the lines of "I don't want to engage in this hypothetical because it's pointless/won't happen", aka explicitly deny the hypothetical one way or another as worth considering. If the person is just rejecting the statement without acknowledging the hypothetical, I'm doubtful as to whether they're intelligent. They took the time time/effort to respond in some capacity, thus most likely a) they're trolling/being dishonest on purpose or b) they didn't grasp the hypothetical.
Hypocrisy. People don't understand it. I used to think people were being disingenuous, but now I think people are genuinely clueless and don't understand how blatantly contradictory they are. Especially with their values. This goes for the people demonstrating hypocrisy, as well as the ones who call them out on it. I have reached a point where I believe everyone is undergoing serious reaction formation. It's as if everyone preaches the opposite of what they really want and its maddening.
I think at the low level some people don't understand it. I think the influencers are simply immune to it because of their consequentialist morals. It doesn't matter because consistent argumentation isn't how they value anything. The only care about what creates the outcomes they want. "It's good if we do it" is completely consistent with their value system. That's why "wow, imagine if the roles were reversed!" Never works. They only talk about hypocrisy when the other person cares.
Generally, I skip breakfast. In all seriousness, this was actually very interesting. It's WILD to think that some people can't think through conditional hypotheticals
Probability is tricky with regard to divorce because I completely understand why people (mostly men in my experience) get discouraged by the statistics on the phenomenon. When you see that nearly half of marriages end in divorce, and that the vast majority of them are initiated by women, you likely see something that is outside of your control. I think it's possible to understand that the divorce percentage doesn't apply to your specific relationship and set of circumstances in a probabilistic way, but still be very concerned about what those numbers mean for the state of relationships within a society- and therefore your own relationship. Very few people are completely isolated from the social forces that contribute to things like divorce, so I think it's fair to look at the numbers and have some trepidation.
They aren't discouraged by the statistics. They are looking at potential costs. Statistics just give you a ballpark of probability but risk analysis includes costs. Risk is probability and cost. Catastrophic costs can mean even low probability isn't worth the risk.
@@greghamilton9505 Agreed. Though I think we'd have a higher marriage rate if divorce rater were 20% or lower than what it is now. The higher the risk, the more your "risk-adjusted" cost estimate will weight. Another important thing about this particular data point is that most likely, only a small % of people entering marriage do so with the belief that they will divorce that partner or vice versa. Knowing that nearly everyone believes they're correct, but only somewhat more than half are actually correct, should by itself influence one's confidence in how risky a decision it is. Maybe an individual knows something the typical person entering marriage doesn't...but you'd have to be darned sure of that for the global rate to not have at least SOME influence on the individual's estimate.
What about these people that seem to be unable to "see" things (objects) with their "mind's eye" and they are unable to interact with them? They don't have the "inner voice" (inner narrator of sort) either. Is that real or not (misunderstanding of the situation on their part)? Because I can't really, honestly fathom how would such person function in a society, to be honest. But apparently they exist? Literal real life NPCs? Genuinely terrifying.
Yeah there are real people with afantasia (can't visualize), amusia (can't distinguish between sound pitches), and people who lack an internal monologue. I was talking to a friend who has started to believe in a Gnostic concept where some amount of people are spiritless, they lack spiritual knowledge, considered an essential factor in what makes the soul immortal.
@@DVSPress I really wonder how many people do have these "disorders"? Seems like an awful lot.. more than I'm comfortable with, at least. As for the matter of souls - I've once heard someone describe a theory that the amount of souls is actually constant and does not change throughout the ages, the amount of bodies (overall population) on the other hand.. Yeah. Pretty scary to think about, even if not real.
These two kinds of people exist. But they are just ordinary peolpe, not wierd or stupid or evil or anything. Look it up if you don't belive me. They do function slightly different though. For example, those who cannot picture things in their minds generally process grief quicker as they are not haunted by the images of their loved ones, unless they stare at photos of them.
Really really appreciate this vid. I was so confused by the breakfast question. And really appreciate the insight into certain people not being able to understand certain things based on IQ
I love the object vs subject point you make about people who are unable to experience a character or analyze their perspective without specifically identifying as the character. I never thought about it that way, but I remember being very frustrated back in some high school English classes with students who would be completely unable to engage with a book that had an unlikable or even just unique narrator or perspective. It didn’t happen as much in the higher level AP classes, but I never put two and two together and related it back to that distinction. Catcher in the Rye is always a big one. I think it’s fine to become bored or annoyed by characters who aren’t relatable, or not connect with their story, but I was amazed by how many people were simply unable to get past their inability to identify with a character long enough to engage with other parts of the story. It kind of makes sense when you think about modern political engagement and the inability of some people to separate the thread of an opposing argument with their own identification with their own position. Not that they won’t be convinced, but that they can’t even follow the other argument without trying to import their own ID and then being unable to continue the thread when they can’t relate themselves into it
I remember subbing in for a period of an English class years ago (I taught music) and they were reading Catcher in the Rye and so many kids were just not able to get what the characters were talking about. "Why do you think he keeps asking about his girlfriend?" "I don't know. I wouldn't ask that."
6:26 Gonna be a massive pedant for a second: probabilities do apply on individual scales, but only in the sense that if you were to *randomly select* an individual from a large group, the statistic would correctly describe the likelihood of whether the trait applied to that individual. But as soon as you specify the identity of the individual, however, you probably get more information about them (especially if it's you), which narrows down the group to which they belong, which changes the probability, yadda yadda yadda. Probability is fundamentally built on lack of knowledge, and once you have "complete knowledge" of your system, all probabilities collapse to either 0 or 1. Right?
@@a.wadderphiltyr1559 Oh damn. Yeah I did mean to acknowledge that his example makes it clear he understands all this. It's just fun to overanalyze statements out of their context lol (e.g. the sentence fragment at 6:26)
I would have been hungry, distracted, and irritable. Most likely I would have ended up getting a snack at some point in mid-morning. That's why I almost always eat breakfast. The thing about probabilities and groups and how at best there is only a weak correlation as to the group probability applying to a specific member of that group. Causation is in most instances going to have more factors than simple membership within the group. The group probability applies to individuals only in the abstract when all other factors are equal; when in reality all other factors are rarely ever equal. Still that doesn't mean that group probabilities are useless. When you accept the group probability and adopt a self advantageous rule based on that group probability then over the course of years, that rule will still be to your advantage even though in some instances it was not. Think of it as gambling in a casino. The odds are in the house's favor, but that doesn't mean you always lose in every case. It just means that if you gamble long enough you'll lose more than you'll win. It's a question of scale. I remember at being shocked when learning that a significant number of people don't have an internal dialog or can't imagine an object in their mind in the absence of such an object.
Counterfactual thinking is definitely something that is poorly utilized for how many people engage in it; usually people get stuck in the hamster wheel of anxiety (in the classical sense) born of getting stuck on the worst possible outcome of a given situation, basically treating it as if it is guaranteed to happen. That they are "doomed" in so many words. It's like a survivor's bias but only for the negative. I think part of the reason is down to the fact that most people aren't self aware enough to engage in meta analyses concerning their own actions, especially not in their moments of passion. Emotion runs away with them and they don't realize it. Not for lack of ability in many cases, but because this kind of thought process is a muscle that must be trained.
I read "meta analyses" and my first thought was some guy from the internet gathering papers he'd written about his own behaviors and sorting them, synthesizing their data, etc. 😂
The 'not understanding probability' point comes up a lot during the “alien life” argument. Many people argue there simply must be life or intelligent life besides us because of how many universes and galaxies there are. When I try to explain how probability works and then exponential probability and then conditional exponential probability in regards to life being created they simply don’t understand and fall back on “but there are so many other planets”.
But there is life on other planets. I've crossed swords with many, and the radium bullets from my glass rifle have felled many more. Aye, I am not braggart, nor great man of adventure, but...
Can you please try to explain what you mean in a different way? Surely even with the (at this point) hundreds of requirements for a planet to be able to sustain not complex life but just single cell life, the sheer size of the galaxy and universe, life is statistically likely to be out there? No?
@@Drikkerbadevand i mean I am not really going to be able to explain advanced conditional statistics and exponential probability in a TH-cam post. You would need to take some classes or read some statistics textbooks. I can’t really do it justice in a single post. But I’ll do my best The gist is you can’t count the number of planets and galaxies you have to look at each planet and each system independently and then factor in the conditions required for life which includes the necessary conditions being 'given' AND the fact we still can't account for how the DNA replicator is even possible (in addition to considering things like the probability of dissolution, meaning it is more likely for things to dissolve into nothing then to form and become something). The improbability of these conditions being met is exponentially increased given time elapsed for a process to form (such as life which at best estimate took millions of years). Meaning the longer it takes to more unlikely it becomes, most people incorrectly assume the opposite. Then you have to multiply that probability against the number of galaxies. That probably is not increased given the number of Planets. In fact it if you keep expanding it out the number stretches and gets smaller. for example if you say the chance of a replicator is 1 to the 60th power, that means each system would have that BUT you don't just simply multiply it and say 2 planets would be 2 in 10 to 120th power, no you exponentially increase the exponant. Meaning the likelihood of the DNA replicator appearing on 1 planet is 1 in 10 to 60th power (that is a 1 in 10 with 60 zeros chance) it would be 1 in 10 to the 120th power of it happening on 2 planets (and that actually might underplay it). AND that would only account for a DNA replicator. That says nothing evolution until you reach intelligent life (which is quite frankly not calculable). And it is not hundreds of requirements for a life sustaining planet. It is actually near unknowable exactly how many are the minimum required for even single celled organisms. If you start expanding it out to more complex life the probability gets smaller. Conscious complex life forms is basically impossible which is why our case is so miraculous Life is an absolute miracle. It is one of the reasons I even believe in a creator. The only way life formed somewhere else was if the creator intended it to be such. And there is no reason to think he intended it.
On the object vs subject phenomena, I've realised over time that I may have the complete opposite problem, where I cannot "put myself" in the shoes of a character at all. The other day, a friend of mine approached me about participating in a Star Wars tabletop RPG. He asked, "what type of character would you be?" I replied that I would need some time to conceive of a character and his story. He clarified that he was really asking, "what kind of life would YOU lead in Star Wars?" Which took me completely off-guard and I had no answer. It's like the "what superpower would you have" question. My friends can all build these elaborate fantasies around themselves, while I'm struggling to remember something cool a superhero did and saying "that guy's powers were cool, I guess".
I'm not sure this is so much a matter of intelligence ("IQ") as a spiritual problem. I've seen plenty of "intelligent" people who totally fail to understand what you'd think was obvious on various subjects. And I remember a very good homily by a Fr. Dufner where he said something like, "Sin makes you stupid."
"sim dims the intellect" can be found in the catechism of the Catholic Church. In the east they would say it clouds your "nous." The main idea, which I agree with, is that your reasoning faculties are reduced by sin. Think of a heroin addict. We expect him to be crippled in his ability to make rational decisions. Sin is like that. It's like a sickness that needs to be healed, which is an emphasis often missing from some strains of Christianity.
@@DVSPress That heroin remark reminds me of Fr. Don Calloway. Never heard of him until a week or two ago, but man, what a conversion story he has. Look him up sometime if you haven't already heard it.
It reminds me of a news program I watched a long time ago about a guy who ended up paying four times the value of his car on a title loan because he didn't understand how interest worked (And also never paid the principal).
@@DVSPress Oh my goodness, I've seen shows like that too. I work in credit and lending and I once ran into a customer with a credit card debt of around $5,000 AUD, at a rate of 51%. I can't believe it ;-;
Group vs individuals is complex because we tend to really accentuate/find more relevant bad behavior so 10% bad can trigger higher relevance realization because one bad action can cause much more damage than one good action can cause good. So it takes a whole lot of good anecdotes to offset a few bad ones and it isn’t unreasonable to reasonableness test a sweeping generalization against personal experience. Failure to understand this is different than doing that comparison.
Regarding the divorce stat, it's true there is a distinction between the exact conditions you have control over versus the wider trends of society. However, that statistic gives you information about the women in the dating pool, especially when the majority of divorces are initiated by women. It's an indicator of risk; you may make yourself desirable, live up to your expectations as a husband, and still find yourself on the end of a divorce regardless. This is particularly true for matters of personal attachment, where your feelings and emotions may cloud your judgement of a suitable wife. On the whole, you are correct that it is easy to misuse statistics as they apply to one's exact situation, but on the other hand we cannot dismiss when they point to clear and present risks which will be encountered when entering upon certain ventures.
This brings up an interesting angle in human cognitive abilities and the experience/existence of free will. Does the ongoing philosophical discussion of free will actually hinge on the cognitive ability to see and fully understand that choices and consequences are real things that can be changed and rearranged in real time by a cognizant and aware mind? Maybe simple determinism and free will both exist in humans?. NPCs are real.
It's a really interesting question. The idea of free will hinges on the idea that the will can be engaged, but clearly for some people that's severely impaired. This is why defenses like insanity exist. The perception of a punishment being just has something to do with to what degree a person's will is engaged in the act.
@@DVSPress Exactly. Mens rea is the other end of that in law. With intent and knowledge, or incapable of premeditation due to things like insanity/psychosis or brain trauma. It's almost like there is a similarity between a modern digital/binary computing (on/off, yes/no, 1/0) vs quantum computing (on potentially = off, yes potentially = no, 1 potentially = 0, all at the same time) in the human brain as it pertains to adaptive intelligence. Is there a cutoff point OR a mechanism/structure we're missing that allows this ability to hold potential in your mind as something that you can manipulate in real time? Maybe intelligence as we understand it isn't just a bell curve, but 2 separate stacks?
Gotta push back on probability/divorce, there Dave. Your likelihood of your marriage ending in divorce is not the result of two people’s actions, it depends entirely on the whims of your wife, incentivized by a system to divorce you. It is not under your control.
You realize you're still not talking in the realm of probability, right? Maybe you're trying to think probabilistically but none of those things follow.
@@DVSPress I really don’t see how that’s the case. Maybe I’m exposing a deficiency in how I’m thinking about this, but in what way is it different than something we agree is probabalistic, like, say, russian roulette? 1/6 chambers are loaded, and 4/10 women see fit to divorce their partners at some point. Either way, you pays yer’ money and you takes yer’ chances.
@@a.wadderphiltyr1559 what if I told you that every man who was divorced thought he picked the right one? No matter how in love you are, or how good a judge of character you imagine yourself to be, you cannot predict what the future will bring for your relationship. Life throws curveballs at you. Nobody is immune to becoming a statistic. Norman Mailer nailed it: “You never know your wife until you meet her in court.”
@@a.wadderphiltyr1559 That’s exactly the thing- nobody said statistics or probability are random. There’s no such thing as random. The spin of the chamber in russian roulette is a function of physics. The outcome of a marriage is a function of life events. But, if we take it as a given that statistically speaking, 40% of marriages end in divorce, (the real figure is higher but we’ll use Dave’s made up statistic) any given marriage has a 40% chance of failure. It isn’t like there’s a dice being rolled or something, it’s just a question of likelihood. Think of it like betting on a horse. A non-random choice is made, but you are speculating on future events that are unpredictable and there are still odds
@@razzledazzle15 I see where you're coming from and I feel like there's something missing from what he said too, and others point this out in the comments aswell, but again maybe I am just a midwit who simply cannot comprehend statistics and probability the way he can.. I think you simply have to take more factors into account. The 40% overall is quite broad, and does not specify anything about circumstances etc. However if you start counting factors that increase the likelyhood of divorce, like premarital partners, previous divorces, divorced parents and an abusive/abused past etc. You can start thinking more in terms of an probability of your marriage ending in a divorce. Saying it's just flat out 40% is fallacious, because maybe she's young and a virgin from a good conservative family and she has a strong religious background. But it is also wrong saying there's a 0% chance 'because I am in control' (yeah except so is another person, your wife!). Another example is if you're drafted for a war you would never volunteer for every trench raid or to be pointman just because you know that "statistically only 10% of servicemen overall are killed." No, you understand that certain factors increase the likelyhood of something bad happening, like being pointman you will be the first shot in an ambush, and participating in a trench raid means seeking out extremely risky hand-to-hand combat which is very likely to kill you. Likewise you can't think that your risk of death will then be 0% if you sign up to be a truck driver behind the front lines instead, because it is still war (and also the real world) and there will always be things outside of your control.
8:30 "I guess the lowest would be like, 'What are you going to do that's going to change tomorrow?' and they'll be like 'Well I dunno, I don't know what I'm even going to do 2 minutes from now." ...I highly disagree with this example. If you don't have plans or suspect there is any reason for something to be different the next day, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. And, I mean, what exactly is the criteria for that? Is it anything meaningful? Or something pointlessly mundane that doesn't really matter - like if you drink your morning coffee from a different mug at a different temperature? I don't agree with that example.
It's hard for me to understand how this isn't a capability available to all healthy adults. I mean, I experience it all the time, but I don't want to accept that they can't be educated. 😟
Some people are just born dumber. It sucks but life isnt fair. We better start facing this reality because there are less and less jobs fit for people with sub 80 IQ and they're not exactly the part of our demographic we want loitering together on street corners all day. People who think you can train anyone to do anything or that it's a matter of education/proper rearing are just plain wrong. Some people will always be unintelligent even if they get the best school diet etc.
If I hadn't eaten breakfast yesterday, I would have been very hungry and probably pretty tired and cranky, especially since I'm breastfeeding. I know I would definitely have felt impatient, though, as I have dealt with the "late lunch" event many times due to my baby. 😂
I always feel like I'm _PILOTING_ the video game characters in WoW or whatever. Maybe the distant third-person perspective is what lends itself to that, but it's always a loot upgrade for "my guy" or something to that effect.
Digging into this subject again is reminding me how tragically difficult it is to find informed people willing to talk about IQ honestly, charitably and respectfully, holy cow. One of the reasons I think you are such a gem, Dave!! 😊 You and your community both
People generally have no problem with some being intelligent, even brilliant. But they can't handle the existance of stupid people. It reminds me of the university class where the students got really upset when theacher said that half of the class would perform below the median in the upcoming exam. It boggles the mind.
Lol the thing about probability is so true. I play poker and like talking about it so sometime people get curious when they go down this “gambling is bad” line and I say “I don’t like gambling, other than poker” Like yeah I know I stand to potentially lose money but I enjoy that I have control over the odds, possibly enough to win over the long term. And they just cannot get over that each individual action has a probability of failure but cumulatively they don’t with a large enough sample size.
I'm reminded of the time I talked to some poker pros when I lived in Las Vegas. A big thing I took away was that most people have a bankroll that's a small fraction of what they need. Using blackjack as an example, even if you use a method that's "guaranteed" to win over time, when you run out of money the game ends. Casinos know this. People will sit down to play $5 blackjack with $100 - it turns out they need something like $5,000. Probability is going to make them go bust and then the casino gets to keep all the money.
Agree with most however the divorce part needs a bit of clarification. 40% divorce rate. That will rely on the other partner to initiate or follow through with a divorce and in the instance of men it’s mainly the women choosing it. So if across female demographics the divorce rates are still that high then no, as a man statistically you can’t erase the probability. You can mitigate and try your best but ultimately it can be a women’s sole choice. Not yours
The post also elaborated that narrated stories are hard to understand for people like that. Like if you present a narration and in this story one of the characters narrates a story with at least two characters, the people that cannot understand the breakfast question will be unable to understand or follow the story. And the more layers of complexity and characters you add, the harder it will be to understand
This random thought train was a great ride ahah. I think being able to use statistics and sort of Macro data properly is hard to do but it doesn't stop them from trying ahah. Knowing when stats are needed to further an argument and when it is not applicable or reasonable is hard to figure out. Maybe it just comes to understanding how the stat data was made not just citing the end result.
From my experience its not mental IQ that dictates what a person can understand, its "spiritual IQ"...that is, knowing ones place in the world gives one that grounded humility needed for true curiosity. And one needs curiosity in order to understand how things really work. Many people in todays world are dead spiritually and therefore have no curiosity towards discovering what is True.
Graphs are very typical. People don't understand graphs at all. They only look at "line go up" or "line go down" if at all. Color often takes precedence if nothing else. Relating graphs back to physical situations or relating two graphs is also really difficult. Like relating a DT and a DX diagram for a pendulum. Another one is where you've just explained how the water level in a cylinder relates to its volume, and then pose a problem where the volume exceeds the capacity. The water level exceeds the height of the container but because it's a solution to the equation, they can't fathom that being an issue. Oh, another one: people who follow the GPS instead of the road and end up in water or at the bottom of a cliff or in the side of a building.
Another one could be dealing with quantities and estimations. You may ask someone how many people do they think live in a block. Say there are 10 houses on each side of the street. Well, maybe 40 for each side, so 80 people. Just a normal estimation. But you could ask this to someone and get an answer in the several hundreds, or a very low number like 20 people, something that's visibly off
I get your point with the gambler's fallacy, but I think you kinda "strawmaned" the divorce-like arguments. When you have a statistic as high as 40% (and not just 2-3-4%), the assumption is that there are external forces out there that create factors in the environment that lead to that outcome. So with the digging a hole example - it's not at random that 40% of people would be digging a hole. There might be getting artillery shelled - hence the statistic. Than your probability of digging a hole rises as well, regardless of your free choice (if you are also getting shelled). I think this is how (at least smart) people view the situation when they say "there is an X chance of Y, and it might affect me as well" like with the divorce statistic. Otherwise, I really liked the other points.
The key to your statement is that it is not in fact dependent on yourbownnwill, it is also dependent on a nother persons will, who you do not know to the extend you do. You can never say with certainty that your wife will never divorce you
Works both ways with the Baby Boomer scenario, as with any stereotyped group, where the opposite occurs and people will attribute the actions of the individual experiences to the group. Just as there are baby boomers who aren’t able to contextualize the impact of their group vs their individual behavior, there are non-baby boomers who will have a bad experience with individuals and are not able to separate their experience from the group, and end up attributing that experience to the entire group. That’s why a small handful of cops can wrongfully kill a small handful of innocent people in a year, but many will extrapolate the incorrect assumption that hundreds of thousands of cops are targeting innocent civilians daily
I think it is perfectly possible for people to learn to understand things they can't currently, it isn't only IQ limited. We're stuck with the hardware but we can make better software, better language, and practice it more. The ideas can be made easier to understand.
If I hadn’t eaten breakfast yesterday, I’d probably feel a bit sad right now. Since I make breakfast for my household, I’m assuming no one else ate if I didn’t, and I would feel bad for failing to discharge my responsibilities. Alternatively, I’d like to imagine I’d feel grateful that someone else in the household took up the slack and cooked instead.
@@DVSPress I can tell you how I would feel if I had eaten it tho, probably not that hell, I stopped eating breakfast because eating it very early in the morning before going to college was making me feel stomach ache the rest of the day
I’ve long held that the ability to handle nuance is a much better definition of intelligence than how someone does on an IQ test. I don’t care if some psychologist gave you a test once and determined you have an IQ of 200: if you can’t distinguish between the general and the specific then I have zero confidence in your ability to think.
If you're unable to reason what it would be like if you didn't have breakfast, why should you be allowed to vote? How does your vote better the country?
![KRK - ชนิสรา Ft.WanMai , N/A [Official MV] Prod. By Sakarin](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C-WMwwYobcU/mqdefault.jpg)
This makes so much sense in relation to the degradation of many hobbies that were in the past primarily participated by small groups.
why
@@fritzkuhne2055 Over popularization leading to the average IQ of the participant declining steadily overtime.
@@gormok9300 Overpopularization was selected to "grow the business" by the content creators. They purposefully dumbed down the content to accomodate the midwits.
Exactly what happenned with education and any topic that used to require competence. Making everything dumbed down.
Making it very easy to have literal PhDs and experts manipulated by any intellectually competent person to influence public opinion.... Oh well.
Not really a problem with an Elo system.
I think one of the "you get it or you don't breakpoints" could be when you are explaining why something occurred, and there other person thinks you are defending the occurrence. It's like they think you can only understand something if it directly relates to how you would do things yourself. For example:
Person A: "Why do video games today always have to come with microtransactions? I don't like it."
Person B: "Companies put microtransactions in games because it makes them more money."
Person A: "So just because it makes them more money, that makes it a good idea?
Man history class would sound like torture to these people.
The Oakland A’s (baseball team) are moving from Oakland to Vegas and a bunch of videos explaining why this makes sense have comments that seem to not understand the principle you’re talking about
@@DVSPressIt is
Ugh I can’t stand interacting with people like that. People like that can only deal with moral issues from an emotional perspective, as opposed to a judicial perspective.
Often person A's question is rhetorical. Their not actually asking why X happens, their just expressing their view that X is bad.
If you ask me "why is Brad such a c*nt?", I understand you don't actually want a lecture on evolutionary biology. You're just expressing your bewilderment at his c*ntiness.
I had a great breakfast yesterday. Why do people keep asking me that?
Great video brother. Ever since I read the 4 chan post myself, it really got me to change the way I look at people. What's funny is that I have literally seen the "but I did eat breakfast" response on twitter, and I laugh out loud every time.
are you sure they where not trolling??
It's quite the clarifying notion, isn't it? Life is filled with moments of wisdom-gain wherein somebody conveys an idea that broadens our perspective. David is a great font of such wisdom. So is 4chan. I wonder if David likes being in such close proximity to 4chan in a post 🤔
I've seen the question but have had no idea in what subject it was relating to, so I sought out an explanation. Very interesting, but I'd add a little prelude vs just asking that question.
@@Djwyrm thats the thing, asking this question is little more than a trolling technique. It does not test whether people understand conditional hypothetical at all. Of course people can imagine what it was like if they did or did not eat breakfast. But it has nothing to do with anything. So when people are confused why you are trolling them with that nonsense, it has nothing to do with what these morons think. It's sort of like gish galloping. They throw out something stupid, and when people are like, uhh, what? They act like they won something and showed you are are some kind of idiot and laugh, like the the guy we are commenting under. The joke is on them, because they are so stupid they dont understand their trolling is demonstrating their lack of critical thinking skills not the person they are trolling with this question.
A linguist (I can't remember his name) worked with missionaries in some African countries with low literacy rates. A missionary had work for some of the men and he asked them if they wanted worker's insurance. They didn't understand why, so he said; in case you have an accident. They replied with; but we didn't have an accident.
One village laughed at him for having a dictionary. They couldn't understand why someone would have words that they don't know the meaning of. They knew all their words because the only words they had were the ones they used regularly. Their illiteracy caused a poverty of words, which led to non-development of abstract ideas like delayed gratification and preparing for the future.
Transmission of ideas is a bigger can of worms. I've talked about it regarding newspeak. If you don't have the language to convey an idea to others, it's like it ceases to be real. Man's spiritual knowledge becomes clouded; the intellect is dimmed.
However, there's a flip side with rural Africa; consider how quickly the educated man would die there because he lacks the consequential knowledge necessary for survival.
I'd say its the other way around. Their lack of ability to delay gratification and prepare for the future hinders their ability to conceptualize it in words
Thats scary if you live in a democracy
@@DrikkerbadevandI disagree, the people of the cities can, same language, race, religion, culture.
@@BrazilianImperialist No the problem is pretty universal with africans, you even see it in the US
This reminds me of a discussion I saw online where someone could not understand how people could want to play as the Empire or the Germans in tabletop gaming and still be decent human beings.
Matt Colville has an interesting video on this, Playing an Evil Character or some such
Thinking Germans just went crazy and became evil in the 1930's is a 100 IQ take.
but the germans were the good guys
@@AsianTheDomination Without disambiguating which war you mean, it's a true statement! WW1 is much less clear who were the "bad guys". Go back further, and there are plenty of instances where Germans were the "good" guys to most.
Being evil in games is fun, though I prefer more nuance than cartoon villain evil. When you can make arguments from the perspective of the evil character that are difficult for the other people around to refute *even from their own moral compass*, it's quite an experience.
I always found the idea of not having a internal dialog strange. Apparently some people do not have any internal voice. I would imagine that would come with issues for impulse control, or thinking out hypothetical situations, but I haven't looked into it too much. I've never met someone who says they do not. Have you?
I've seen it alot. A certain..section of twitter mocked the idea of having an inner voice.
I don't think I've met anyone in real life. Just people on the internet.
There's also afantasia, where a person cannot visualize things in their mind, and amusia, where a person cannot distinguish between different sound frequencies. I feel like both of these things would also have a big impact.
I think Aydin Paladin did a video on it.
@@DVSPress Wow, I had no idea about Afantasia. I can't imagine living life without being able to visualize things in your mind. I wonder if people who suffer from that could experience things such as nostalgia?
@@DanielMoore3dI don't know if it would be considered a form of afantasia, but I struggle to imagine what I'm reading, whether it's characters or places or whatever is being described, and don't usually generate clear images in my mind, just vage impressions. It certainly impacts certain things with conversations, as I frequently can't put an image or face to what someone is saying unless some other connection is made. However, it doesn't really impact nostalgia as far as I can tell. It's just that different aspects are captured instead of images. My mom (who does NOT struggle to imagine in images, just to be clear) has a lot of nostalgia around smells. Coffee making her think of camping as a kid is her key example.
"But you enjoy the game so you do identify with the main character". Ah yes, I totally identify with the god-killing, head-smashing, neck-chopping character Kratos. He and I are one and the same in our identities and our everyday lives.
Oh, and if I hadn't eaten breakfast yesterday, I would've went back to bed lol.
One thing I always notice about "midwits" is that when you make a general statement they always want to point out the exceptions.
For example, I may say something like "Purple people really like to eat salad" and a midwit will say "Oh yeah? Well my best friend is purple and she hates salad!" as if that refutes what I'm saying. I'm not saying every purple person who has ever existed likes salad, I'm making a general statement about a trend. I know there are exceptions. That doesn't disprove my thesis.
Yeah I think people that are right in the middle simply can't distinguish between these two. A general trend automatically applies to all the individuals in the group.
@@gulli72 Generally I do like to be precise in my speech but I've noticed it's like casting my pearls before swine. We usually end up in the same "But not all!" anyway. So yes, I would still have that problem and typically do.
@@labordayweekend I'm sure there are exceptions, you must have people who you don't have that problem with. Not everyone can be a midwit.
You think that is bad try to explain to them the different forms of discrimination to them as Sowell describes it. It is like watching brains break in real time.
I am fuchsia and I LOATHE salad!!!!
Who is making the exception now?!?!?
😁
Same thread explains event sequencing. The most common example is in police shootings where the deceased is unarmed. [Suspect] shot at police, then ran away, dropping the gun along the way. He reached for his waistband, so the police shot him. Even slightly below average IQ people have a hard time grasping the concept that the police who shot him had no way of knowing he no longer had the gun.
this may be the case some times, but most times it is just malice of people peddling their political beliefs
How would they know he did not have a second gun? A possible scenario would be suspect dropping a gun that ran out of ammo and reaching for the spare one. Having multiple guns is quite common among, for example, school shooters.
Asking police to risk their lives to save a suspect that was already shooting at them is very wrong. At that point any suspicious movement is enough reason to shoot him. The suspect needs only a fraction of a second to shoot an officer. By the time they would've known if he reached for a second gun - an officer could've been gunned down instead.
@@Telhias That's kinda the point of what I'm saying. The police find out *after* the shooting that he was unarmed, but some people have a hard time grasping that they did not know this when the shooting happened.
@@cinemachef Ohh... Sorry. I guess I misunderstood you.
Me: Japanese people eat sushi.
Tard: Not all, I know a Japanese girl who doesn’t eat it.
I think a lot of people don’t have a fully developed theory of mind. I’ve met so many folks that can’t envision a set of values not their own being held by other people with sincerity, or that someone they are mad at might also be mad at them for inverse reasons.
Sure thing, however: what if the other person's beliefs are so retarded it's impossible to conceptualise a logical reason for holding such positions?
But I did eat breakfast yesterday... This must indicate I will go to prison 🙁.
Stop eating breakfast, it's your get out of jail free card.
I thought of something like this that I’ve noticed people struggle with, here’s an example:
“My FAVORITE Pink Floyd album is Dark side of the Moon, but the Final Cut is their BEST album.”
This makes people’s heads explode. My entire life I’ve been shocked at how difficult it is for people to understand that you can personally prefer something over another thing that you simultaneously consider to be qualitatively better.
Anyone else ran into this?
I’ve found this annoying with people who can’t understand why people would like something, if they don’t like it, it must be bad.
I don't like pizza. This offends certain people, as if I were saying that they should not eat it. It's funny how often that response pops up.
Yes, people dont understand how the best anime is Ghost in the Shell, but my favorite anime is Cowboy Bebop. Maybe I have that backwards
Yes
@@DVSPressright so you are in the 70s and below because pizza is the best
This is why I have notifications on for this channel. Well done. When i was teaching ESL, teaching conditionals was so hard with entire ethnicities whose baseline IQ was just too low, of course there were exceptions as you state but man that was rough to explain to my boss why I had to fail entire nationalities.
Are there really nonnegligible IQ baseline differences between any ethnicities (besides the Ashkenazi people being like 20 points higher than the rest of us)? I was pretty certain the comfy, PC answer also happened to be true here.
I think several people have pointed out that given Israel's average IQ it's mathematically impossible.
@@DVSPress Some searching around again has revealed to me that a more widely accepted number is about 10 points above. Which is still one of the highest averages of all ethnic groups studied. And even the harshest critics of the claim of high Ashkenazi IQ won't claim that they do *not* have significantly higher than average intelligence.
Admittedly I haven't heard the mathematical arguments, so I will look more for them.
@@SoarAnthem the answer is yes there are probably relatively large differences between certain ethnicities, but it's academic suicide to study it and you will get no funding. They have been done however. First it should be said that IQ is widely accepted by geneticists to be highly correlated to genetic makeup, about .7 to .9, depending on studies. There were studies done on IQ in both the US and South Africa comparing blacks and whites of all levels of education. These studies seem to indicate that education does seem to give a boost of a few points, twin studies back this up aswell. However africans consistently fall 10-15 points, or roughly 1 std dev. Below whites, regardless of socioeconomic status
@@SoarAnthemNo
This brings me back to the "Is the dress blue/black or white/gold?" I can understand how one could perceive it either way, and even got myself to perceive it both ways, but I know from experience what light shining on black fabric looks like. However, for a lot of people on both sides of the discussion, all that mattered was their own personal perception of the image and not the nature of the object in the image. It's even more troubling when you consider that a digital photograph isn't a completely accurate representation of the actual object it captures.
Ugh, those viral "what color is this thing really" memes are so annoying because I swear like 85% of the responding people just don't understand the concept of accounting for lighting cues when reporting an object's color. Like, they really can't wrap their minds around someone interpreting the *real life object* as a color that doesn't *perfectly match* the pixel color even when said object appears to be in extremely janky, unnatural lighting.
My brother got legit mad when I put it in ms-paint and eye-droppered the blue part.
@@g.e.o.r.g.e...😂😂😂
I'd likely feel regretful over having been irritable during church.
I kept waiting to hear a break point that applied to me and was confused that I didn't until I remembered that as an avid viewer of Rick and Morty my IQ is far beyond most people.
Wubba dubba wub wub
@David Stewart ah yes I see you also a member of this exclusive club
I'm pickle Riiiiiiiiick!
200IQ stuff
@@DVSPress "Translate to English" 😂 I'm so glad TH-cam recognizes that this is, in fact, Supergenius rather than English
"To be fair" etc etc etc.
I would even relate this concept to people who have pronouns in their bio. They can't engage with people as individuals so they find knowing what pronouns a person uses useful because it dictates how a person should behave. Whenever someone deviates from their expectation of how that group engages, their first response is to regroup the person, not to treat the person as an individual.
On that vein, it's why people adopt full-platform ideology. They are "Democrat" or "Republican" and so they change their viewpoints to reflect that. I'm very confusing for them to talk to because I'll call abortion reprehensible, understandable (as it satisfies the human need to sacrifice children), and a demographic miracle. By holding three or four perspectives on many issues, I always find that a vast majority of people have only one single view.
@@azzgunther >it satisfies the human need to sacrifice children
LMAO
@@azzguntherAbortion is reprehensibld but it is also a net positive as it increases genetic quality of the population, this is a take I've found neither side of the aisle can accept even though it is true.
@@Bomberman66Hellcould u elaborate for me I don't get what ur saying may be a little slow lol
@@Breaddragonsss Original comment I was answering got shadowbanned, so I am not sure if it is worth explaining, but here it goes: Abortion is literally voluntary eugenics and increases the general genetic quality of the population, as overall the people getting abortions are low IQ, poor or otherwise dysgenic. Thus, abortion is a net positive in a large scale - It culls the population of people who would otherwise be dead weights on the welfare system, or worse yet, actively contribute to the rising crime rates.
You see this as well with readers\critics that believe writers can only write stories about themselves. The art has to be about the artist.
Something that is scary that I have noticed is that there are quite a lot of scientists who don't understand statistics/probability 😱
Very true, PLUS a lot of scientists who know the technical side of their field, but don't understand the philosophy of science or what rational, scientific *thought* looks like!
Something also scary is every time you bring up statistics somebody had to point out that 'correlation does not equal causation!' *sigh*
I can affirm this as someone who grew up in the area with the highest density of engineers in the world. The high-achieving idiocy I saw at my schools always threw me for such a curve. These were people with nothing but an orange in their head, getting great grades and going for careers in any scientific field you can think of. Biochem, sports medicine, you name it. It baffled me. I think it has a lot to do with the parents
@@AnadonAyleidok im really curious, can you give some examples of the biggest moments of stupidity youve seen from the "smart kids"?
One thing I've began to notice about myself and others is extrapolating way too much from my subjective experience.
For example, there was a guy explaining how all men have an internal urge to have sex with women other than their spouse and my immediate internal response was to examine my subjective mechanisms and find that I can't find that urge and was about to conclude no man really has that. However, I managed to have enough metacognition to notice I was doing the same thing he had done: extrapolated something from my subjective experience to be an objective feature of being a man. I'm not sure if this is related to IQ at all because it seems more issue of method instead of cognitive process.
This is pretty standard thinking, to be honest. Remodel our expectations on the world on our experiences of it. Yes, they are subjective, but ancient man didn't have access to a wealth of data to make decisions. His survival was via extrapolation, especially when it comes to risk. Believing in a monster that's not there in most cases doesn't negatively affect your survival. Not believing in a monster that IS there will.
@@DVSPress Intuitively I have extrapolated a lot of my understanding about humans directly from my own experience of my own humanity. It is counter-intuitive to stop myself from doing that. That is why I suspect it's not a matter of IQ since higher IQ mostly seems to be higher ability to perform more elaborate intuitive cognitive operations rather than performing counter-intuitive cognitive operations. And I definitely attribute doing something that counter-intuitive to living in the 21st century where we have easy access to an amount of information incomprehensible even to the majority of scholars for as long as there have been scholars.
As a storyteller, noticing this has been quite relieving and concerning. Relieving because there's a chance that when my stories don't land with some people it might be due to my subjective understanding of humanity being so alien to the listener or reader. Concerning because I'm worried I'm not able to make characters that are too alien to my humanity.
Although, the projects I'm doing now shouldn't suffer from this intrinsic limitation.
I feel like extrapolating is just fine, and when faced with different data/experiences you can change your observation, exactly as you admit to doing. You can't really extrapolate based on things you don't know
@@Disillusioned_JELlyI doubt its intrinsic
I tend to interpret the word "all" as meaning "literally every single one". If someone uses it and says they didn't mean that then they are either bad at English or (more likely IMO) they are dishonestly trying to avoid criticism for saying (for example) "kill all men".
Your channel is very underrated, you definitely deserve more views and subscribers. I'm sharing this video with as many people as I can.
I didn't even need to click on the video to know that you were going to talk about conditional hypotheticals, haha. So glad you chose this video topic :D
My wife always asks me why I play female characters in role playing games and one time I blurted out without thinking, "because I'd rather stare at a chicks ass than a guys ass for hours on end." On a serious note it's scary to think that higher concepts like subject-object distinction is becoming standard in criticism of fiction i.e. someone didn't like that Warhammer 40K said only male physiology could survive the transformation into an Astartes. Piss off.
There have always been female Astartes. Just give it time.
If you say Pit Bulls are an awful breed you get the canned response my Pit Bull is just great with kids, or it's not the breed it's the owner... Ad infinitum Ad nauseam. Yes there are good Pits out there but over all. Dog Whisperer's Pit killed Queen Latifah dog by the way
Oh man that's a perfect example!
Don't forget "but chihuahuas also bite kids a lot!!!" As if we're comparing stats in the Good Dog Index and not trying to minimize deadly dog attacks.
Oh yeah exactly.. goddamn that shit gets my blood boiling every time.. because these people will admit to dog breeds being a real thing, greyhounds are bred to be fast, pointers are great for hunting, bloodhounds are great sniffers, etc etc. But when it comes to fighting noo its how they're raised.. no MY LITTLE CUPCAKE never hurt nobody!
The most telling for me is when people conflate their personal preference with either something being objectively the best or being the majority favorite. As though their preferences define reality and everyone else just hasn't realized it yet.
Every forum in every turnbased game with % there is a guy complaining about missing a 90% shot :D
I think maybe it was extra credits, or some other gaming channel made a point that when player see 90% they think 100%, so you should modify the game as such that 90% always hits.
I'm like.... No. 90% is 90%.
That's XCOM, baby!
@@jamescollier9196 I think it's even worse with XCOM because the % on the screen isn't the actual %. There are mods the make it show the actual % or remove the hidden modifiers.
To be fair...that still is super frustrating 🤣
@@DVSPress I remember seeing that video and hating it too. If 90% doesn't really mean 90%, the developer is *lying* to you. It's annoying.
I don't appreciate when games put you in a position where optimal choices nevertheless lead to defeat on probability alone though. In most tactical RPGs and really most games generally, there are things you can do to control for low % outcomes and not lose the game on a single bad roll. When you *can* lose the game that way and don't have any countermeasures for it, I just consider it poor design. The numbers should be true, regardless.
If the design wants to be needlessly opaque and obnoxious without lying, they could just slap terms like "unlikely", "likely", and "very likely" onto it. What does "very likely mean"? Whatever the dev put under the hood. It's still crummy design in most cases though, because "to hit %" is generally a *rule* of the game. Those should not be obscured, outside of meme/troll games, and players will find out the probability empirically (or via the code) pretty quickly anyway.
As a teacher you know many criminals are criminally 'tarded and who they are is apparent in school. Luckily, it's illegal to discipline students, especially the ones that need it, so they get live their best life causing mayhem until they go to prison
They need to go back 🌍
this was so sad and so comical at the same time
On the issue of the divorce probability, I don't think it's that 40% of marriages end in divorce, so you have a 40% chance of being divorced. More along the lines that if you get married, there is an aggregate 40% chance you might have married the wrong person and the marriage doesn't work out. But you'd also need to take into account the psychology of people who actually do get divorced. You and your spouse may not even be in the same cohort of people who are dysfunctional who even end up getting divorces. There are people who get married and remarried multiple times which ends up skewing things as well.
Tried multiple times to articulate this in a comment but gave up. I was thinking the same thing.
A lot of dumb people I’ve met can’t understand the idea of different perspectives, and they’ll immediately project themselves unto others
I've tried to explain to a few people that 0.5 as an answer to the question what is 1 divided by 2, is a representation of what lies on either side of the division point rather than the number that represents the division point itself(which is actually 0, and given enough divisions, you'll find that all numbers lie enveloped in 0), and they just can't comprehend that, insisting to no end that 0.5 is the exact center.
On the topic of statistics vs probability, we're planning a move to Nova Scotia, and I've been joking with my daughter that Halifax(that was once devastated by a ship exploding in their harbor) is statistically more likely to be leveled by a ship exploding, but according to probability is far less likely, since it's already happened. The difference between statistics and probability.
This must be the cutoff for me because I don’t understand what you were saying there at the beginning 😅
@@adanalyst6925 congrats you are only below 115
@@adanalyst6925 I think I get it. Imagine a street with ten houses in a row, numbered 1 to 10. If we were to divide the street into two halves, we would have 5 houses on each half of the street. But the 5th house wouldn't represent the middle of the street, because then you would have 4 houses before it, and 5 houses that come after it. Instead, the true middle is somewhere between the empty space of the 5th and 6th house, which is nearly impossible to measure - because once again if we were to measure that space and halve the distance, looking for that mid-point, we would end up with the same problem as we did trying to split the street in half.
So back to the mid-point of 1, must lie somewhere between 0.5 and 0.6. Between that space is a value of 0.09999+, which must then be divided by two again and the distance found in-between. Do this again and again, and the sum of these fractions will eventually approach zero.
There was a great segment Norm Macdonald did on a radio show where he mentioned that black people generally make less money than white people in America, and the host pushed back saying that there are wealthy black people. She just couldn't wrap her head around the fact that Norm was talking about general group statistics and that the existence of wealthy black people doesn't disprove what Norm said.
He had such a cheeky smile :)
Is this why they don't question bad continuity in sequels?
Yes.
What do you mean it doesn't make sense? But it did happen.
@@jorgefoyld8538 It is and always has been, now
Thanks, Doug and Anthony.
I never eat breakfast and therefore already know the answer to the question, which makes me smarter than everybody here!
I wanted to see if there were any videos on the subject. While I already was aware of most of this I enjoyed how you explained it. This will be handy to refer people to.
Another one I've seen is people not being able to understand the size of cosmological spaces and objects. I've met many people when discussing things like fictional vs battles that think if a character is strong enough to blow up the Earth 100x over that that means they're strong enough to blow up the solar system. Of course in reality our solar system is many orders of magnitude larger than that. Most people think of space as much much much smaller than it actually is. I would go as far as to say the average person's conception of the universe is actually how big our solar system is.
It's a really good science lesson for your kids to get some proportional objects and set them proportionally apart to represent the solar system. You get a beach ball for the sun and a marble for the earth and they end up a football field apart. Space is really really big!
My buddy always said "you are not the statistic. You make the statistic"
I remember someone arguing with me on a gaming FB page because I asked a hypothetical and they just kept saying it would never happen, completely missing the point.
I think there are cases where an intelligent person, capable of understanding hypotheticals, simply doesn't want to entertain the scenario because they think it's a waste of time (or maybe because they're being dishonest, like Aylee En says). I think it's closedminded of them for sure, but might not necessarily mean they're incapable.
The breakfast scenario, on the other hand, obviously can and does happen easily, so it's a little more straightforward in that example that the person just can't conceive of it.
It really depends on how realistic the hypothetical is.
@@SoarAnthem An intelligent person in the situation described would say something along the lines of "I don't want to engage in this hypothetical because it's pointless/won't happen", aka explicitly deny the hypothetical one way or another as worth considering.
If the person is just rejecting the statement without acknowledging the hypothetical, I'm doubtful as to whether they're intelligent. They took the time time/effort to respond in some capacity, thus most likely a) they're trolling/being dishonest on purpose or b) they didn't grasp the hypothetical.
I appreciate your channel very much. Great video. It helps in a way
Hypocrisy. People don't understand it. I used to think people were being disingenuous, but now I think people are genuinely clueless and don't understand how blatantly contradictory they are. Especially with their values. This goes for the people demonstrating hypocrisy, as well as the ones who call them out on it. I have reached a point where I believe everyone is undergoing serious reaction formation. It's as if everyone preaches the opposite of what they really want and its maddening.
I think at the low level some people don't understand it. I think the influencers are simply immune to it because of their consequentialist morals. It doesn't matter because consistent argumentation isn't how they value anything. The only care about what creates the outcomes they want. "It's good if we do it" is completely consistent with their value system.
That's why "wow, imagine if the roles were reversed!" Never works. They only talk about hypocrisy when the other person cares.
So THAT’S why I’m helplessly arguing with people in circles….. They’re too stupid!😅
Generally, I skip breakfast.
In all seriousness, this was actually very interesting. It's WILD to think that some people can't think through conditional hypotheticals
Probability is tricky with regard to divorce because I completely understand why people (mostly men in my experience) get discouraged by the statistics on the phenomenon. When you see that nearly half of marriages end in divorce, and that the vast majority of them are initiated by women, you likely see something that is outside of your control. I think it's possible to understand that the divorce percentage doesn't apply to your specific relationship and set of circumstances in a probabilistic way, but still be very concerned about what those numbers mean for the state of relationships within a society- and therefore your own relationship.
Very few people are completely isolated from the social forces that contribute to things like divorce, so I think it's fair to look at the numbers and have some trepidation.
They aren't discouraged by the statistics. They are looking at potential costs. Statistics just give you a ballpark of probability but risk analysis includes costs. Risk is probability and cost. Catastrophic costs can mean even low probability isn't worth the risk.
@@greghamilton9505 Agreed. Though I think we'd have a higher marriage rate if divorce rater were 20% or lower than what it is now. The higher the risk, the more your "risk-adjusted" cost estimate will weight.
Another important thing about this particular data point is that most likely, only a small % of people entering marriage do so with the belief that they will divorce that partner or vice versa. Knowing that nearly everyone believes they're correct, but only somewhat more than half are actually correct, should by itself influence one's confidence in how risky a decision it is. Maybe an individual knows something the typical person entering marriage doesn't...but you'd have to be darned sure of that for the global rate to not have at least SOME influence on the individual's estimate.
What about these people that seem to be unable to "see" things (objects) with their "mind's eye" and they are unable to interact with them? They don't have the "inner voice" (inner narrator of sort) either. Is that real or not (misunderstanding of the situation on their part)? Because I can't really, honestly fathom how would such person function in a society, to be honest. But apparently they exist? Literal real life NPCs?
Genuinely terrifying.
Yeah there are real people with afantasia (can't visualize), amusia (can't distinguish between sound pitches), and people who lack an internal monologue.
I was talking to a friend who has started to believe in a Gnostic concept where some amount of people are spiritless, they lack spiritual knowledge, considered an essential factor in what makes the soul immortal.
@@DVSPress I really wonder how many people do have these "disorders"? Seems like an awful lot.. more than I'm comfortable with, at least.
As for the matter of souls - I've once heard someone describe a theory that the amount of souls is actually constant and does not change throughout the ages, the amount of bodies (overall population) on the other hand.. Yeah. Pretty scary to think about, even if not real.
@@misterkefir that sounds like the basis for a good story..may steal this 😉
@@adanalyst6925 Cheers.
These two kinds of people exist. But they are just ordinary peolpe, not wierd or stupid or evil or anything. Look it up if you don't belive me. They do function slightly different though. For example, those who cannot picture things in their minds generally process grief quicker as they are not haunted by the images of their loved ones, unless they stare at photos of them.
Really really appreciate this vid. I was so confused by the breakfast question. And really appreciate the insight into certain people not being able to understand certain things based on IQ
Anyone a hardcore Seinfeld fan? This made me think of Estelle's "How old would aunt Baby be today?" and Frank's "She never would've made it!" 😅
I love the object vs subject point you make about people who are unable to experience a character or analyze their perspective without specifically identifying as the character. I never thought about it that way, but I remember being very frustrated back in some high school English classes with students who would be completely unable to engage with a book that had an unlikable or even just unique narrator or perspective. It didn’t happen as much in the higher level AP classes, but I never put two and two together and related it back to that distinction. Catcher in the Rye is always a big one. I think it’s fine to become bored or annoyed by characters who aren’t relatable, or not connect with their story, but I was amazed by how many people were simply unable to get past their inability to identify with a character long enough to engage with other parts of the story. It kind of makes sense when you think about modern political engagement and the inability of some people to separate the thread of an opposing argument with their own identification with their own position. Not that they won’t be convinced, but that they can’t even follow the other argument without trying to import their own ID and then being unable to continue the thread when they can’t relate themselves into it
I remember subbing in for a period of an English class years ago (I taught music) and they were reading Catcher in the Rye and so many kids were just not able to get what the characters were talking about.
"Why do you think he keeps asking about his girlfriend?"
"I don't know. I wouldn't ask that."
6:26 Gonna be a massive pedant for a second: probabilities do apply on individual scales, but only in the sense that if you were to *randomly select* an individual from a large group, the statistic would correctly describe the likelihood of whether the trait applied to that individual. But as soon as you specify the identity of the individual, however, you probably get more information about them (especially if it's you), which narrows down the group to which they belong, which changes the probability, yadda yadda yadda. Probability is fundamentally built on lack of knowledge, and once you have "complete knowledge" of your system, all probabilities collapse to either 0 or 1. Right?
I'm not a statistician, someone please hurl me into rectitude if I'm wrong lol
@@a.wadderphiltyr1559 Oh damn. Yeah I did mean to acknowledge that his example makes it clear he understands all this. It's just fun to overanalyze statements out of their context lol (e.g. the sentence fragment at 6:26)
If I haven’t eaten breakfast yesterday I would feel sluggish, irritable, and hungry.
But you did eat breakfast yesterday.
I would have been hungry, distracted, and irritable. Most likely I would have ended up getting a snack at some point in mid-morning. That's why I almost always eat breakfast.
The thing about probabilities and groups and how at best there is only a weak correlation as to the group probability applying to a specific member of that group. Causation is in most instances going to have more factors than simple membership within the group. The group probability applies to individuals only in the abstract when all other factors are equal; when in reality all other factors are rarely ever equal. Still that doesn't mean that group probabilities are useless. When you accept the group probability and adopt a self advantageous rule based on that group probability then over the course of years, that rule will still be to your advantage even though in some instances it was not. Think of it as gambling in a casino. The odds are in the house's favor, but that doesn't mean you always lose in every case. It just means that if you gamble long enough you'll lose more than you'll win. It's a question of scale.
I remember at being shocked when learning that a significant number of people don't have an internal dialog or can't imagine an object in their mind in the absence of such an object.
If I didn't eat breakfast yesterday... I wouldn't notice by now because I've eaten since then
If you kept it up I'd say you'd notice in about a week.
But David, I DID eat breakfast yesterday...
Counterfactual thinking is definitely something that is poorly utilized for how many people engage in it; usually people get stuck in the hamster wheel of anxiety (in the classical sense) born of getting stuck on the worst possible outcome of a given situation, basically treating it as if it is guaranteed to happen. That they are "doomed" in so many words. It's like a survivor's bias but only for the negative.
I think part of the reason is down to the fact that most people aren't self aware enough to engage in meta analyses concerning their own actions, especially not in their moments of passion. Emotion runs away with them and they don't realize it. Not for lack of ability in many cases, but because this kind of thought process is a muscle that must be trained.
I read "meta analyses" and my first thought was some guy from the internet gathering papers he'd written about his own behaviors and sorting them, synthesizing their data, etc. 😂
@@SoarAnthem Yeah, it does lend itself to that kind of imagery doesn't it?
The 'not understanding probability' point comes up a lot during the “alien life” argument. Many people argue there simply must be life or intelligent life besides us because of how many universes and galaxies there are. When I try to explain how probability works and then exponential probability and then conditional exponential probability in regards to life being created they simply don’t understand and fall back on “but there are so many other planets”.
But there is life on other planets.
I've crossed swords with many, and the radium bullets from my glass rifle have felled many more.
Aye, I am not braggart, nor great man of adventure, but...
Can you please try to explain what you mean in a different way? Surely even with the (at this point) hundreds of requirements for a planet to be able to sustain not complex life but just single cell life, the sheer size of the galaxy and universe, life is statistically likely to be out there? No?
@@Drikkerbadevand i mean I am not really going to be able to explain advanced conditional statistics and exponential probability in a TH-cam post. You would need to take some classes or read some statistics textbooks. I can’t really do it justice in a single post. But I’ll do my best
The gist is you can’t count the number of planets and galaxies you have to look at each planet and each system independently and then factor in the conditions required for life which includes the necessary conditions being 'given' AND the fact we still can't account for how the DNA replicator is even possible (in addition to considering things like the probability of dissolution, meaning it is more likely for things to dissolve into nothing then to form and become something). The improbability of these conditions being met is exponentially increased given time elapsed for a process to form (such as life which at best estimate took millions of years). Meaning the longer it takes to more unlikely it becomes, most people incorrectly assume the opposite. Then you have to multiply that probability against the number of galaxies. That probably is not increased given the number of Planets. In fact it if you keep expanding it out the number stretches and gets smaller. for example if you say the chance of a replicator is 1 to the 60th power, that means each system would have that BUT you don't just simply multiply it and say 2 planets would be 2 in 10 to 120th power, no you exponentially increase the exponant. Meaning the likelihood of the DNA replicator appearing on 1 planet is 1 in 10 to 60th power (that is a 1 in 10 with 60 zeros chance) it would be 1 in 10 to the 120th power of it happening on 2 planets (and that actually might underplay it). AND that would only account for a DNA replicator. That says nothing evolution until you reach intelligent life (which is quite frankly not calculable).
And it is not hundreds of requirements for a life sustaining planet. It is actually near unknowable exactly how many are the minimum required for even single celled organisms. If you start expanding it out to more complex life the probability gets smaller. Conscious complex life forms is basically impossible which is why our case is so miraculous
Life is an absolute miracle. It is one of the reasons I even believe in a creator. The only way life formed somewhere else was if the creator intended it to be such. And there is no reason to think he intended it.
Really interesting video!
On the object vs subject phenomena, I've realised over time that I may have the complete opposite problem, where I cannot "put myself" in the shoes of a character at all.
The other day, a friend of mine approached me about participating in a Star Wars tabletop RPG. He asked, "what type of character would you be?" I replied that I would need some time to conceive of a character and his story. He clarified that he was really asking, "what kind of life would YOU lead in Star Wars?" Which took me completely off-guard and I had no answer.
It's like the "what superpower would you have" question. My friends can all build these elaborate fantasies around themselves, while I'm struggling to remember something cool a superhero did and saying "that guy's powers were cool, I guess".
I'm not sure this is so much a matter of intelligence ("IQ") as a spiritual problem. I've seen plenty of "intelligent" people who totally fail to understand what you'd think was obvious on various subjects. And I remember a very good homily by a Fr. Dufner where he said something like, "Sin makes you stupid."
"sim dims the intellect" can be found in the catechism of the Catholic Church. In the east they would say it clouds your "nous." The main idea, which I agree with, is that your reasoning faculties are reduced by sin. Think of a heroin addict. We expect him to be crippled in his ability to make rational decisions. Sin is like that. It's like a sickness that needs to be healed, which is an emphasis often missing from some strains of Christianity.
@@DVSPress That heroin remark reminds me of Fr. Don Calloway. Never heard of him until a week or two ago, but man, what a conversion story he has. Look him up sometime if you haven't already heard it.
Love the video.
Syke, I don't eat breakfast. (well actually, I do, break-fast after lunch normally)
I know skipping breakfast is hip nowadays but I still need it to be highly productive
A really good video. I love these kind of videos. God bless
I'm not sure if this counts but the inability of some people to understand compound interest lmaoo, or the relation between rates and time 😫
It reminds me of a news program I watched a long time ago about a guy who ended up paying four times the value of his car on a title loan because he didn't understand how interest worked (And also never paid the principal).
@@DVSPress Oh my goodness, I've seen shows like that too. I work in credit and lending and I once ran into a customer with a credit card debt of around $5,000 AUD, at a rate of 51%. I can't believe it ;-;
if your RPG character dies you haven't lost the game
If your RPG character dies you die
Group vs individuals is complex because we tend to really accentuate/find more relevant bad behavior so 10% bad can trigger higher relevance realization because one bad action can cause much more damage than one good action can cause good. So it takes a whole lot of good anecdotes to offset a few bad ones and it isn’t unreasonable to reasonableness test a sweeping generalization against personal experience. Failure to understand this is different than doing that comparison.
i never eat breakfast, so it's just like every other day.
Regarding the divorce stat, it's true there is a distinction between the exact conditions you have control over versus the wider trends of society. However, that statistic gives you information about the women in the dating pool, especially when the majority of divorces are initiated by women. It's an indicator of risk; you may make yourself desirable, live up to your expectations as a husband, and still find yourself on the end of a divorce regardless. This is particularly true for matters of personal attachment, where your feelings and emotions may cloud your judgement of a suitable wife. On the whole, you are correct that it is easy to misuse statistics as they apply to one's exact situation, but on the other hand we cannot dismiss when they point to clear and present risks which will be encountered when entering upon certain ventures.
This brings up an interesting angle in human cognitive abilities and the experience/existence of free will. Does the ongoing philosophical discussion of free will actually hinge on the cognitive ability to see and fully understand that choices and consequences are real things that can be changed and rearranged in real time by a cognizant and aware mind? Maybe simple determinism and free will both exist in humans?. NPCs are real.
It's a really interesting question. The idea of free will hinges on the idea that the will can be engaged, but clearly for some people that's severely impaired. This is why defenses like insanity exist. The perception of a punishment being just has something to do with to what degree a person's will is engaged in the act.
@@DVSPress Exactly. Mens rea is the other end of that in law. With intent and knowledge, or incapable of premeditation due to things like insanity/psychosis or brain trauma. It's almost like there is a similarity between a modern digital/binary computing (on/off, yes/no, 1/0) vs quantum computing (on potentially = off, yes potentially = no, 1 potentially = 0, all at the same time) in the human brain as it pertains to adaptive intelligence. Is there a cutoff point OR a mechanism/structure we're missing that allows this ability to hold potential in your mind as something that you can manipulate in real time? Maybe intelligence as we understand it isn't just a bell curve, but 2 separate stacks?
I didn't eat breakfast yesterday. 😂
Gotta push back on probability/divorce, there Dave. Your likelihood of your marriage ending in divorce is not the result of two people’s actions, it depends entirely on the whims of your wife, incentivized by a system to divorce you. It is not under your control.
You realize you're still not talking in the realm of probability, right? Maybe you're trying to think probabilistically but none of those things follow.
@@DVSPress I really don’t see how that’s the case. Maybe I’m exposing a deficiency in how I’m thinking about this, but in what way is it different than something we agree is probabalistic, like, say, russian roulette? 1/6 chambers are loaded, and 4/10 women see fit to divorce their partners at some point. Either way, you pays yer’ money and you takes yer’ chances.
@@a.wadderphiltyr1559 what if I told you that every man who was divorced thought he picked the right one? No matter how in love you are, or how good a judge of character you imagine yourself to be, you cannot predict what the future will bring for your relationship. Life throws curveballs at you. Nobody is immune to becoming a statistic.
Norman Mailer nailed it: “You never know your wife until you meet her in court.”
@@a.wadderphiltyr1559 That’s exactly the thing- nobody said statistics or probability are random. There’s no such thing as random. The spin of the chamber in russian roulette is a function of physics. The outcome of a marriage is a function of life events. But, if we take it as a given that statistically speaking, 40% of marriages end in divorce, (the real figure is higher but we’ll use Dave’s made up statistic) any given marriage has a 40% chance of failure. It isn’t like there’s a dice being rolled or something, it’s just a question of likelihood.
Think of it like betting on a horse. A non-random choice is made, but you are speculating on future events that are unpredictable and there are still odds
@@razzledazzle15 I see where you're coming from and I feel like there's something missing from what he said too, and others point this out in the comments aswell, but again maybe I am just a midwit who simply cannot comprehend statistics and probability the way he can.. I think you simply have to take more factors into account. The 40% overall is quite broad, and does not specify anything about circumstances etc. However if you start counting factors that increase the likelyhood of divorce, like premarital partners, previous divorces, divorced parents and an abusive/abused past etc. You can start thinking more in terms of an probability of your marriage ending in a divorce. Saying it's just flat out 40% is fallacious, because maybe she's young and a virgin from a good conservative family and she has a strong religious background. But it is also wrong saying there's a 0% chance 'because I am in control' (yeah except so is another person, your wife!).
Another example is if you're drafted for a war you would never volunteer for every trench raid or to be pointman just because you know that "statistically only 10% of servicemen overall are killed." No, you understand that certain factors increase the likelyhood of something bad happening, like being pointman you will be the first shot in an ambush, and participating in a trench raid means seeking out extremely risky hand-to-hand combat which is very likely to kill you. Likewise you can't think that your risk of death will then be 0% if you sign up to be a truck driver behind the front lines instead, because it is still war (and also the real world) and there will always be things outside of your control.
8:30
"I guess the lowest would be like, 'What are you going to do that's going to change tomorrow?' and they'll be like 'Well I dunno, I don't know what I'm even going to do 2 minutes from now."
...I highly disagree with this example. If you don't have plans or suspect there is any reason for something to be different the next day, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. And, I mean, what exactly is the criteria for that? Is it anything meaningful? Or something pointlessly mundane that doesn't really matter - like if you drink your morning coffee from a different mug at a different temperature? I don't agree with that example.
But i did eez brekfas??!
It's hard for me to understand how this isn't a capability available to all healthy adults. I mean, I experience it all the time, but I don't want to accept that they can't be educated. 😟
Some people are just born dumber. It sucks but life isnt fair. We better start facing this reality because there are less and less jobs fit for people with sub 80 IQ and they're not exactly the part of our demographic we want loitering together on street corners all day. People who think you can train anyone to do anything or that it's a matter of education/proper rearing are just plain wrong. Some people will always be unintelligent even if they get the best school diet etc.
No education can replace 50,000 years of evolution.
If I hadn't eaten breakfast yesterday, I would have been very hungry and probably pretty tired and cranky, especially since I'm breastfeeding. I know I would definitely have felt impatient, though, as I have dealt with the "late lunch" event many times due to my baby. 😂
I always feel like I'm _PILOTING_ the video game characters in WoW or whatever.
Maybe the distant third-person perspective is what lends itself to that, but it's always a loot upgrade for "my guy" or something to that effect.
Digging into this subject again is reminding me how tragically difficult it is to find informed people willing to talk about IQ honestly, charitably and respectfully, holy cow.
One of the reasons I think you are such a gem, Dave!! 😊 You and your community both
People generally have no problem with some being intelligent, even brilliant. But they can't handle the existance of stupid people. It reminds me of the university class where the students got really upset when theacher said that half of the class would perform below the median in the upcoming exam. It boggles the mind.
Lol the thing about probability is so true. I play poker and like talking about it so sometime people get curious when they go down this “gambling is bad” line and I say “I don’t like gambling, other than poker”
Like yeah I know I stand to potentially lose money but I enjoy that I have control over the odds, possibly enough to win over the long term. And they just cannot get over that each individual action has a probability of failure but cumulatively they don’t with a large enough sample size.
I'm reminded of the time I talked to some poker pros when I lived in Las Vegas. A big thing I took away was that most people have a bankroll that's a small fraction of what they need. Using blackjack as an example, even if you use a method that's "guaranteed" to win over time, when you run out of money the game ends. Casinos know this. People will sit down to play $5 blackjack with $100 - it turns out they need something like $5,000. Probability is going to make them go bust and then the casino gets to keep all the money.
It could be interesting to have a set of say 20 questions you can use to quickly get a rough idea of where someone is at.
How would I feel at this moment or how would I have felt yesterday morning?
Agree with most however the divorce part needs a bit of clarification. 40% divorce rate. That will rely on the other partner to initiate or follow through with a divorce and in the instance of men it’s mainly the women choosing it. So if across female demographics the divorce rates are still that high then no, as a man statistically you can’t erase the probability. You can mitigate and try your best but ultimately it can be a women’s sole choice. Not yours
How don't you have more viewers, man? I like your stuff.
The post also elaborated that narrated stories are hard to understand for people like that. Like if you present a narration and in this story one of the characters narrates a story with at least two characters, the people that cannot understand the breakfast question will be unable to understand or follow the story.
And the more layers of complexity and characters you add, the harder it will be to understand
This random thought train was a great ride ahah. I think being able to use statistics and sort of Macro data properly is hard to do but it doesn't stop them from trying ahah.
Knowing when stats are needed to further an argument and when it is not applicable or reasonable is hard to figure out. Maybe it just comes to understanding how the stat data was made not just citing the end result.
What if they say but I didn’t eat breakfast yesterday?
From my experience its not mental IQ that dictates what a person can understand, its "spiritual IQ"...that is, knowing ones place in the world gives one that grounded humility needed for true curiosity. And one needs curiosity in order to understand how things really work. Many people in todays world are dead spiritually and therefore have no curiosity towards discovering what is True.
Internal monologue.
Graphs are very typical. People don't understand graphs at all. They only look at "line go up" or "line go down" if at all. Color often takes precedence if nothing else. Relating graphs back to physical situations or relating two graphs is also really difficult. Like relating a DT and a DX diagram for a pendulum. Another one is where you've just explained how the water level in a cylinder relates to its volume, and then pose a problem where the volume exceeds the capacity. The water level exceeds the height of the container but because it's a solution to the equation, they can't fathom that being an issue. Oh, another one: people who follow the GPS instead of the road and end up in water or at the bottom of a cliff or in the side of a building.
So many great points in one video! I do have a personal question, though: what would you have eaten for breakfast if you weren't eating under there?
lol
Another one could be dealing with quantities and estimations. You may ask someone how many people do they think live in a block. Say there are 10 houses on each side of the street. Well, maybe 40 for each side, so 80 people. Just a normal estimation. But you could ask this to someone and get an answer in the several hundreds, or a very low number like 20 people, something that's visibly off
Î didn't eat breakfast yesterday so I would feel normal
I get your point with the gambler's fallacy, but I think you kinda "strawmaned" the divorce-like arguments. When you have a statistic as high as 40% (and not just 2-3-4%), the assumption is that there are external forces out there that create factors in the environment that lead to that outcome. So with the digging a hole example - it's not at random that 40% of people would be digging a hole. There might be getting artillery shelled - hence the statistic. Than your probability of digging a hole rises as well, regardless of your free choice (if you are also getting shelled). I think this is how (at least smart) people view the situation when they say "there is an X chance of Y, and it might affect me as well" like with the divorce statistic.
Otherwise, I really liked the other points.
The key to your statement is that it is not in fact dependent on yourbownnwill, it is also dependent on a nother persons will, who you do not know to the extend you do. You can never say with certainty that your wife will never divorce you
Works both ways with the Baby Boomer scenario, as with any stereotyped group, where the opposite occurs and people will attribute the actions of the individual experiences to the group. Just as there are baby boomers who aren’t able to contextualize the impact of their group vs their individual behavior, there are non-baby boomers who will have a bad experience with individuals and are not able to separate their experience from the group, and end up attributing that experience to the entire group. That’s why a small handful of cops can wrongfully kill a small handful of innocent people in a year, but many will extrapolate the incorrect assumption that hundreds of thousands of cops are targeting innocent civilians daily
I think it is perfectly possible for people to learn to understand things they can't currently, it isn't only IQ limited. We're stuck with the hardware but we can make better software, better language, and practice it more. The ideas can be made easier to understand.
If I hadn’t eaten breakfast yesterday, I’d probably feel a bit sad right now. Since I make breakfast for my household, I’m assuming no one else ate if I didn’t, and I would feel bad for failing to discharge my responsibilities. Alternatively, I’d like to imagine I’d feel grateful that someone else in the household took up the slack and cooked instead.
But I did eat breakfast.
4:51 i play females solely for the aesthetic. the assthetic is very important.
I agree 100%
But I didn't eat breakfast ahahah
I mean this is an actual answer!
@@DVSPress I can tell you how I would feel if I had eaten it tho, probably not that hell, I stopped eating breakfast because eating it very early in the morning before going to college was making me feel stomach ache the rest of the day
I did eat breakfast yesterday, though.
I’ve long held that the ability to handle nuance is a much better definition of intelligence than how someone does on an IQ test. I don’t care if some psychologist gave you a test once and determined you have an IQ of 200: if you can’t distinguish between the general and the specific then I have zero confidence in your ability to think.
If you're unable to reason what it would be like if you didn't have breakfast, why should you be allowed to vote? How does your vote better the country?