The Four Most Dangerous Words? A New Study Shows | Laura Arnold | TEDxPennsylvaniaAvenue
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 พ.ค. 2017
- Laura Arnold, co-chair of the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, describes how junk science is harming all of us, personally and as a society, and offers ideas for how philanthropists and policymakers can incorporate rigorous research into efforts to solve pressing problems.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA GF D1 | Summer | แข่งที่ไทย ต้องใส่ให้สุด](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Jkuf7nCS7jI/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm a professional scientist.. a biologist. There is much truth in what Laura says. Integrity is the most Important attribute that a scientist can have.
Amy Cuddy´s talk changed my life for the better. Every day this statement proves itself again.
I'm not a Dr. or psychologist but i could tell when a friend of mine who struggles with depression is depressed simply by her body language. It may be that posing does not affect your hormones or state of mind but I learned that a person's state of mind affect their posture. I may not consciously walk around like Wonder Woman or pose like Superman but I do try to always maintain good posture no matter how tired I am. I think there was a positive thinking speaker once said...fake it til you make it. Which came first? The positive thinking or the strong posturing? Don't know. I guess more research is needed...lol
@@mariespi96 My recipe against depression and for good health and happiness: strong posturing, Deep and slow breathing, daylight, fresh air and sports... Good luck!
@@pfjombygh7786 When it did for you, that's good.
However, there might be also people whose lives could be changed to the worse.
Everybody is different. And you don't know what your subconsciousness is playing on you
@@Hexapod1112 Thank you and yes you are right. So actually the first step is to be aware of your motives.
I think the point is that her conclusions were wrong for what they are. Many people use a tapestry of actions and psychological cues to improve mood, attitude etc., and this might be part of that. However, that one person perceives it as helping them doesn't constitute evidence, and in fact there may be a whole host of things going on that affect that. If the research isn't thorough or clear enough, it's wrong to draw explicit conclusions like this, and they are almost always actually incorrect (as more thorough and reliable studies have shown in this case). If it's part of what works for you, that's fantastic, keep doing it! However that doesn't mean that it's what Amy Cuddy claimed, and it may be really unhelpful for some others.
In the late 70s, in my last two years of HS and first of University, I noted these things-yes, it has been that long that I became aware. People want to make a name and keep the funds rolling it. The push to publish is insane, and that is superseded only by the push to bring in funds by tenured professors.
Stats are bent beyond where they should break, the twisted to fit the "facts" of the test result. I was taught precisely what the scientific method is, and honestly? There is NO penalty for lying in your result report. That was it for me. And Ms. Arnold is discussing the exact same issues forty years later. Now, how can see hope to change what is standard practice? Its a shell game...for every study that concludes this, five more will contradict, as she so eloquently pointed out. Forty years of my personal knowledge. But look at how long it took to make any real changes, with only slight movement forward, in the mental health field. Drugs lobotomize now. And we don't burn women at the stake as witches for practicing healing, as it was forbidden to all but men who killed repeatedly by bleeding their patients to death. And woe! to anyone that dared contradict event the stupidest "cured". To shake up an entrenched field of study or practice takes an apple falling, and another few centuries, regardless how pathetically preposterous the "standard" is.
Absolutely mind-blowing. Totally in check with today's 'fake news' motif and the last century's positivism.
Her perception, n solutions. Thank you, bless you. All your dreams come true.
Terrific talk. Thank you for your honesty and shining light on fuzzy science, research and statistics. This is ultimately an integrity problem.
Hell's teeth! I have only stumbled upon this talk in 2020! Why was it never given the "Recommended for you" label that TH-cam likes to slap on subjects that may or may not interest me?
Thank you, Laura, from the bottom of my heart. I am going to send a number of people to view this, people who think that "science" holds all the answers.
It is as you so eloquently say: nobody really knows the truth about anything because so many "studies" are cherry-picked, one of the most damaging being the "finding" by Ancel Keys that the consumption of saturated fats cause cardiovascular disease.
THIS is the science talk that needs to go viral!
4 33w4333w
4
Well We
Every
Person
Watching
Any
TED talk
Should
Watch
And
Listen
To
This
Talk.
Every
Person. ..
I watched an enlightening Ted_X talk in Phnom Penh in 2013 on the danger of NGO programs in Cambodia well intentioned but finally not helpful or even destructive. The talk was unfortunately not recorded nor do I recall the speakers name but it was delivered with such eloquence and grace without the need to harshly criticise and mock anyone. The first 4 minutes of this talk felt like a personal attack on Amy Cuddy whose talk on Empowering through Body Language has doubtless inspired millions through its 41,359,921 replays including me and others I've shared it with. After watching Laura mimic (incorrectly) Amy's advice on posture for the second time my disappointment made me I tune out and while I left the talk playing I didn't hear the rest of it.
the fact that this was hard to watch and I was defensive speaks to her truth. Educator and sociologist here
This video goes into my favorites. I thought I would be disappointed but her speech has so much value.
So makes sense !! Keep up the good work Laura !
Thanks !
i dont know how but im infatuated by the way u presented your speech
Lots of food for thought. I note Laura Arnold's statistics are for the U.S.A. What about the state of research in other countries too? I never really questioned clinical or scientific research. I imagined it to be thorough. However, it makes perfect sense to find out about the type of research, what we are not told, numbers involved and the background/requirements of the research. An eye opening talk that reminds us to keep an open mind and to not blindly accept everything we see or hear. Thank you Laura Arnold for an informative talk.
This video needs to be shown at the beginning of every undergrad course. I saw so much of this BS when reading sociological journals.
Yup, students need to be taught that not all studies are the same. If you want to know what the community says look for systematic reviews. Articles that aim to summarize what the body of literature actually says.
Very much worth watching, thanks Laura. A timely reminder......
Great Talk, Lets distribute funding on the basis of this research....
1:35 what are they doing ...? checking phones/ notes/ sleeping lol
one guy on the top left literally read a newspaper
Really appreciated this one too Laura Arnold is awesome.
That was a REALLY good talk. Huge problem in the scientific community right now. Definitely worth watching.
Deep searching,This call For INTEGRITY!!!
Laura is a Breath of Fresh Air😇
LoVe & LiFe ,Calling for Transportation!!!
Thank you Laura🙏🏽
This is fantastic! I've wanted to give this speech for ever.
Love the courage
The emperor isn't wearing any clothes, type of talk
Love the independence
Thanks
The Four Most Dangerous Words...
"A New Study Shows"🤔
Which study proves that ?
those *are* the words
Are you being ironic?
Almost all of them, apparently!
LOL
💯
"And welcome to Jackass"
Bravo, Ms. Arnold. Part of my job involves reading clinical studies to ensure that our products are supported by good science. We would be half way to knowing what actually works if people would read the studies rather than read the media's interpretation of what the study says. I applaud your philanthropic efforts.
“I hate anecdotal evidence... let me give you an example”
Another level of irony!
“I believe that because”… the four most dangerous words - it says it all - you chose your belief, now you’re looking for reasons to justify it… the best words possible “because of this i believe” - 5 words, but much better
Truth 👍 ultimate goal only way to really trust and use research 👍
very powerful, thanks!
BRAVO!
"Dad, I'm taking philosophy"
Philip Fry "I'm a professional unicyclist."
A Pottery PH.D.
I'm lost on the humour, please expand on your "I'm studying philosophy" comment for my benefit, if you don't mind.
Philosophy is a worthwhile major. It teaches you how to reason.
@@usncorpsman7966 AÀ00PP0a999o pop 9p aww
i think this roots to our education years. i personally dealt with having to do researches at grade 7 of junior high school. Some took it seriously but others just cheated their way. Learning that everything is just for compliance. I wish research is given importance because in college, it would be a solo flight on our own thesis.
Four most dangerous words: "But I love him". 😕
I love this talk and I think it touches on several core problems in the decision making that goes into how we make policies and fund programs. I only wish it wasn't given such a grabby, click-bait title that only serves to undermine (what I believe to be) the speakers intended message.
If public policy and voting were the result of the logical analysis of data, the world and governments would be a much different place.
How can you possibly cover a subject like this and not deal specifically with studies that are sponsored by various masked organizations that are either funded by companies like J.B. Searl, Monsanto or the Sugar Tobacco Fossil Fuel Plactic or Pharmaceutical Industries which sadly are the purse strings that fund thousands of Professors and hundreds of the best Universities not to mention occupy positions themselves or by proxy of their partner banks creating tainted Boards Of Directors or Board of Governors which allow little or no checks and balances for biased based funding.
This is the single biggest problem with all of today's research. The studies are there to support their funded business objectives and to hell with anything remotely called the truth.
Follow the money is the simple answer. Most of the reasons that Laura Arnold sited only touched on were almost apologetic innocent mistakes and she only mentioned the word "funding" once with no larger elaboration drawin attention to what is surely the insignificant percentage of inaccurate research.
However on tge ither hand if you use the 80/20 rule you will find the actual root cause of what needs to be changed. The funding that comes directly or indirectly for studies that are specifically created by the agenda for the 1% oligarchy!
Victor Sinclair amen
Thank you for writing this. My thoughts too. Hopefully what she introduces will be a start, and people will dig deeper to follow the money trail.
Absolutely agree about the funding. 80/20 rule, absolutely!Also she could have mentioned the lack of incentive to publish NEGATIVE results. A new study shows that blue MMs are not causing prostate cancer. That's ticked off, no other people would try to reproduce it. Let's try out something else and find what does cause it.
While your point is well taken, Arnold is trying to address a separate issue entirely. Yes industry influence and conflicts of interest are important issues, there is much less discussion on the degree of shoddy, non-reproducible research that can attract a lot of media attention or even influence policy. Both problems can have serious implications but there is much less attention given to the latter, which is why I think this talk is particularly informative.
What you speak to is the traction given to junk science by rampant corruption within our society in general. The public and young people especially have lost faith in results of much mainstream research and grasp at the straws of wooo.
This will make so many people mad GIRL. I support you 100% I was waiting for you to come we need copy and past of your kind of people in this world incase they put you to jail. Thanks
If you 'stop funding what doesn't work and start funding what does work' people will be afraid to fail, juke their stats and we'll wind up right back where we are. This is exactly the cause of the problem; it's not a solution.. If we want to encourage innovation and exploration, we need to give people the freedom to fail.
Richard: What people need to realize is a study isn't a "success" only if it finds what they want it to find. Science is, in part, a process of elimination.
Yes, it's great if they can find that Substance X prevents cancer but part of that overall process is finding out that Substance C, and Substances E F Y & K don't prevent cancer. The person that did the study on Substance C doesn't get the headlines but the study was still successful because eliminating Substance C is part of the process of finding what does work.
That, I think, is what lots of people don't understand. It's not that people need the freedom to fail. People just need to realize that any properly designed study adds to the sum of human knowledge. No, Substances C,EFY & K don't prevent cancer but those studies eliminated those possibilities & were part of zeroing in on what does help prevent cancer.
In a way, we are both saying the same thing. The "failures" are part of what ultimately leads to success.
You missed the point.
Yes! What's imperative is creating a society who can understand what is good for them intuitively so that they do not completely rely on others for their well being.
I completely agree. Of course, a simple mental experiment can save a lot of money. If a hypothesis is inherently harebrained or have not testable claims, it's not worth pursuing. At the end of the day, there's a finite amount of research dollars and they should go towards the research that have rational bases underpinning them. At the same time, that constricts what is considered "rational bases". If rational baes were applied in the 1500s or 1600s, Galileo would never receive funding. So there is always this problem of whether to fund experiments to validate looney-sounding hypotheses or restrict them solely to incremental research.
True- look up "The failure institute" concept
Great! A system analyst for philanthropy.
As a scientist, I agree with the premise of taking the research as it is. However, multiple times she talked about the need for transparency and called bad science the act of reporting secondary results. A good scientist should not look at a study and want a particular result, they are running the experiment and reporting what results they found. We may have a educated guess of what we will find, but structure the experiment to be able to capture unexpected findings too. Is that not transparency? Over time, we can clear up the spurious correlations from the legitimate correlations, and move to more specific questions. Unexpected findings are the backbone of scientific innovation...
Dang changed everything I knew to be fact and truth you know I think this woman presents the answer to the problems we all face as a whole and that's what we know DO I know she will un fact spark important and real actual change thank you so much TED this one is GOLD for information content within CHANGE WITHOUT FOR GOOD
"I pulled out late"
Salty Diarrhea bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I'm dead 😂😂😂😂😂😂💀💀. That was too good
Is that what your father said ?
so yes, people are like sheeps, comes a big shepard and you think it is the one that brings you to green fields but in reality it is the hunter. tv, net. EVERYTHING NOW IS PRODUCED TO DISTRACT YOU FROM THE TARGET. now here there is no reason to talk about the distractions, because we all know they are there. the real point is finding out the real target. and i give you a key that i found on the way and it may sound to you ridicolous...but try to find what does it mean the word ´´halleluiah´´ and you will find the target.
Help, need toilet paper!
Salty Diarrhea
I made a deposit
I like the concept and the means by which it touches what its life, yet what four words are bad
same thing as with ....Studies show "a low credit score is a reflection that you will be a bad driver"... therefore if you have a low credit score the insurance companies get to charge you more for car insurance...what a scam!!
Thankss 😊😊
Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Inductive reasoning is a poison to our world, deductive reasoning is the cure.
I firmly think before ANYONE is able to access scientific research, classes like research methodology + statistics should be mandatory.
I mean look at the comments for this video - people are listing ridiculous problems with research and injecting politics as proof of scientific corruption like it's exceedingly common... But had they taken the time to learn how to recognize a viable study, or actually understood what an Alpha level/CI represented, or was able to recognize defensive writing and what that implies and where it's used, this wouldn't be an issue.
So many people here expect "Yes or no" answers from research, instead of the gradient of "How well does my evidence support my hypothesis". Then they're absolutely shocked and outraged simply because they didn't understand how to read the data.
Tell me, when any of you "read" a scientific paper, how many of you just simply read the intro and the conclusion on the first page? Those are meant to be PRIMERS, NOT ACTIONABLE SUMMARIES.
How many of you pay attention to the methods section? How about the statistics represented on graphs? Confidence interval?
The biggest problem is we have uneducated people getting their hands on data they can't understand, because they think they don't need to know how to read it to learn from it.
If everyone KNEW how to read a research study, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Of course Laura has a point. Except the emphasis is on re-testability - the purpose of a study being published is so that peers may retest and question the findings. I am not sure the research "incentives" are wrong, more the researchers' egos can often influences how a study is conducted/reported etc.
The setup of the talk is incorrect. It should have led with the four words and expanded from that.
Always start with the main point.
And thanks to the person who mentioned the four words in a comment, sO I don't have to wait the other eight minutes.
But then you wouldn't watch all of it.
100% and one is MORE likely to watch all of it with a proper intro, boot less.... Less likely to finish a talk that carries on without the main topic up front, even if only to say I'll reveal out at the end.
It is in the title...
Reseach funding postings should be required on by the title of all studies
i cannot prove it, btu this is subjectively the best TED talk I have heard in a year :) She sounds like she is talking about IStation :) It only has research from internal researchers.
wow! !! awesome!
Yes, the issue is there, scientific research is far from perfect, especially since 'publish or perish' is still the norm in many places.
However, the talk could have been delivered in a much, much better way. There was absolutely no need to attack a researcher. There was no need to mention names, show photos, and most importantly, no need to mock the intervention (power posing) regardless of its effectiveness (or lack of).
Randomized controlled trials really are gold-standard to test efficacy, but also have many limitations, especially in healthcare. Different study designs are needed because they complement each other (as long as they are methodologically correct).
Also, she claims that researchers are selectively reporting only statistically significant results, but then criticizes when most of the assessed studies reported 'weak' or no positive effects? If every researcher was 'scientifically honest' and published transparent results (which would be good), there would be a lot of non significant results. This is because they cannot tell beforehand if a intervention is going to work; they need to test it first. And then publish the results, positive or negative.
i have a issue with what u said at 4:45 .. we are not here for solving world problems only.. it's a responsibility.. it's not a purpose.. purpose and responsibilities are two different things..
yes.. that's y some people spend their life in completing them... because every one wants to reach up to other people's expectations and call them their responsibility they never realize what there true responsiblities are..
Will you marry me
The four most dangerous words.
😂😂😂😂
So true?
Yes, I’ll marry you.
Just as bad
😂🤣😂🤣
"I want a divorce."
Undoubtedly, everyone would agree that there must be a system to keep a check on the credibility of research that gets published. But we also can’t ignore the impact of anecdotal evidence. It’s not right to discourage sharing of individual stories. We are humans not machines. A single enlightened being can contribute towards changing million lives.
Even the speaker herself agrees that “personal stories are important and they fuel our passion”. She tried to use negativity bias to her advantage but it wasn’t the right strategy to get popularity.
I enjoyed this talk so much. I thought, Hey a kindred spirit! Then I looked to learn more about the Arnold's foundation. In doing my own research, I found this: www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926 ... which gave me cause to pause. Sad to see that. Damn. There's always more to learn, and the picture is usually so much bigger than what I can readily see.
That's really interesting. It makes me think of Classical art--people loved the art that promoted life as "all is well" or "we're doing good". What if science/research in colloquial terms is the new art? AKA propaganda. Just a thought...
The thing she didn't explicitly say but was suggesting is that the economic system, is really the problem.
Refreshing and intelligent talk. I liked it. Great talk.
Apply this perspective to the recent events in Vegas.
amen! I'm tired of the gross sense of skewed motivations in the medical community especialky in the area of oncology to promote the usage of medications and "life saving " chemotherapies for reasons of monetary increase and wealth instead of encouraging our doctors who are in a position of great power and trust from patients to put the lives of our patients first instead of a payout. science used to be on the frontier of discovery but now sleeps on the laps of big pharmaceutical companies. when pharmeceautical and insurance companies instead of doctors and scientists are in charge of our health we have no chance of getting to the root of the problem instead of just glossing over the symptoms.
Bryce Fisher Yes, but ultimately patients are in control of their health and more patient education is needed but not funded. Example prediabetes and insulin resistance goes on for almost 10-20 years before diabetes shows up yet no insurance company is paying for prediabetic patients to see nutritionists. Doctors only treat disease they can find with pharmaceuticals and there is little to no educating patients on why they have chronic disease in the first place and how to reverse it.
everyone commenting on her talk, and i just wanna say that it was such a pleasure not only to listen to her but also to look😍beautiful
Much of my own experience suggests that the point of this talk is valid. Unfortunately for a talk about reforming evidence-based policy, the majority of Mrs. Arnold's points are made with little to no actual evidence, and most of the evidence that is provided is presented anecdotally, not by citation.
Good point, bad talk.
Nature occasionally publishes papers related to this issue if you're interested.
I am not sure what you mean, since the entire talk was about informing policy with better evidence. Did you want to see more primary sources, like she showed on studies of power posing? I would give her slack here since this is a Ted Talk (with its time restrictions) and not an academic paper. Or are you looking for evidence of the value of evidence-based policy (kind of a meta question)?
I thought it was a good talk and I am interested to know what sort of evidence or citations you would have liked to see.
Her evidence was pointing to studies about reproducibility of results of published papers in Psychology, for example. Or randomized, double blind studies looking at the results of programs that were funded by the government and the small number that actually did what they were supposed to do for education. When she mentioned studies that looked at lots of programs, or those that looked at lots of studies randomly, this was evidence, not anecdote. Granted, the first part was an anecdote about the power pose study.
Typical American's want someone else to site all the references so they don't actually have to do any research. I'm not a fan of philanthropy, however, to have the gumpshion to bite the hands that would otherwise feed your investment is good character in my mind. She's actually correct on every point. Statistics is bullshit math used to manipulate data to ones liking. The whole data set is important to what the data is telling us. This was actually a really great talk and to hear it from a philanthropic person is even better. She's not just in it for money, she actually cares
coherency does NOT imply correlation! when will we ever learn? I admire this women more than anyone who's ever been on the TED talks. She's quite boring, trying to tackle massive issues within 17 minutes in a conservative fashion but one thing she surely achieved and that is: "reality check!!!" of which we just don't get much these days..
wow. Thanks.
8:37 that face though
The first word should be 'fact'. The second one - 'opinion'.
Third - Irrationality
Fourth - Belief Systems
A new study has to be conducted to prove " A new study shows.." is dangerous word collection.
What a clever title for the video.
4 most dangerous words.
"Will you marry me?"
The best tall I’ve watched in a while!
Can't tell you the most dangerous words, but I can tell you the three most destructive words!
"Sure, it's grand"
RonanShaughnessy Indeed I am
love it, but doesn't "it's" count as two words.
I know I misused the quotation marks
The four most dangerous words:
I think I’m pregnant.
That's five words though.
The question (that isn't mentioned) is how on earth we get policy makers (and academics) to think like this. In a world where success is predicated on public popularity and ideological sympathy (or academic notoriety), effective research and policy isn't necessarily as appealing as... well, appealing research and policy! How do we steer society and politics in such a way that politicians and researchers actually want to do what works, rather than what reinforces their ideology or tenure?
it sounds super gringy when someone calls themselves philanthropist. it's the same when someone calls them self "woken". or when someone says that he/she has taken "the red pill". there is something wrong everytime when people put themselves into a pedestal.
fullonrapists
Why? If someone donates millions of dollars to charities, they are a philanthropist plain and simple. They might be the president of their own foundation.
It was at a museum art exhibit that I first saw the word, "philanthropist" on a bronze plaque below a painting. I was 6 years old and asked my mother what it meant. My mother told me a philanthropist is someone who buys for others things they otherwise could not afford to enjoy; for example, this painting the woman had bought and donated to the museum. Enthralled I said, "Oh, that is what I want to be when I grow up! A philanthropist." My mother laughed and said, "First you have to find a way to make the money, honey." Unfortunately, I never figured that part out.
So saying that you love poeple and see good in them is putting yourself on a pedestal? You've got some problems mate
Welcome God bless u take care..... You are not bound You are free to make your decision anytime
A serious re-work to the title is needed. I'm not going to invest the time to suggest one.
That should've been done by the author.
Maybe they should have done a study to determine the effects of incorrectly worded titles.
Evidence Based Practice is about using the best medicine available.. Sometimes that best evidence isn't all that good but that doesn't mean that it should be used in evidence based guidelines, it just means that there is a need for more research and that the guidelines should be updated ones it becomes available. Another point: there can be many legitimate reasons for making scientifically sub-optimal choices when designing a randomized controlled trial and in those cases it's better to have data that might be biased in some known way and clearly describing those limitations than not to have any data at all. other than those two points I completely agree. I find it horrifying that some many human experiments are being conducted that because of their bad design, incomplete reporting or unjustified risks of bias are of no use to anyone whatsoever.There have been a lot of good developments in this area recently, like the move to openly sharing data and registering trials before publishing but there's still a lot of room for improvement.
Yes, but do we have randomized control study data proving that randomized control studies provide better results?
We have to talk
I'm a woman and i really really hate this sentence. Nothing good ever came after this sentence. Either I was being criticized or scolded (not "talk") or that person alone kept talking and talking nonstop.
why i always say this
Talking is better than not talking at all
As a scientist myself, I find that we often use more open words like: "results suggest / there's evidence to support that / it is logical to conclude that" etc. because we do recognize how much we don't know and the limitations of our studies. But when we are interviewed, media will always come up with catchy and dishonestly direct titles like "M&Ms cause cancer". I bet most scientist can relate to that 🤷🏽♂️ I understand that the need to find and publish positive results has severe consequences and we should change that, however we rarely speak that way, with as much certainty, unless in a few cases, but definitely not the majority...
Yes. Language is all , once the work is done. Communication skills : critical . We do the Science but too often , valid and therefore, valuable conclusions are lost in translation. Somehow , the bridge does not meet in the middle.
philanthropist: one who pays no taxes
If they want to know what works they should ask the children .Ask their parents, ask ourselves - we all thrive from a simple life that includes : loving family and friends , helping others , quality home and food, hobbies , healthy mind and body ,exercise ,safe environment , fresh air , ability to express oneself , unconditional love .
I think the monetary system and government is old fashioned - time for a barter system run by the people for the people , it's time to take our throne back people . Step aside greedy men .
Okay so can sombody pls resume the whole video for me and tell me the four words?
Laura was it necessary to publicly discredit Amy Cuddy? Not cool. A philanthropist's work should be rooted in kindness and building people up. Antony Robbins and Mandela are role models who would start their ted talk by sharing their story. I agree with you that new studies are sharing harmful research which ends up gaining destructive momentum. On a macro level a platform would be required to check the credibility of the research being published and issue a rating of accuracy. Perhaps a network of various authorization (similar to cryptocurrencies, but using qualified researchers to verify) would be a solution. However this would require funding. On a micro level I believe individuals should be taught how to research correctly by using reputable platforms which are available. This is indeed an exciting space where you can make an impact.
Four most dangerous words “science math English history” four of any school classes you can name
Just as are the "news"/media reports/politics these days ... Sad really, we have all the resources to make this poor world a better place ... everywhere ... for the many and not the few ...
"I love you, but.."
Could someone just write down the 4 words. I don't have 17 minutes for 4 words (4 mins per word)
thank you!
Whew. For a minute there, (or 17,) I thought I was alone. o_0 I feel better now, thank you.
lol me too
so yes, people are like sheeps, comes a big shepard and you think it is the one that brings you to green fields but in reality it is the hunter. tv, net. EVERYTHING NOW IS PRODUCED TO DISTRACT YOU FROM THE TARGET. now here there is no reason to talk about the distractions, because we all know they are there. the real point is finding out the real target. and i give you a key that i found on the way and it may sound to you ridicolous...but try to find what does it mean the word ´´halleluiah´´ and you will find the target.
Amen, sister! :)
Many times RCTs are not doable because of ethical issues...It's so much easier to criticize than to provide a practical solution
She looks so much like Jessica Lange!!!!
ikr
Jessica Lange/Courtney Cox combo.
She's really pretty, yeah.
Give or take 25 years! :-)
haha that is not a compliment . to look like someone 20 years your senior who has had many surgeries
Very interesting! Something I never thought about. I still don't know what the "Four most dangerous words are".
'A new study shows'
Well, that was a load of hot air. Guessing it would be to much to pick an impoverished neighborhood or community and ask the people what would help? These elitists today, are just sickening, really. Let me give you a little clue, poor people want what rich people want. Clean air, water, housing, food, and Montessori education, not hard.
where is the transcript for her talk?
I agree w Victor Sinclair commenting here. Further, this Ted Talk does absolutely nothing to debunk - instead promoting - a culture of ‘scientism” in which an overlain veneer of rationalization suggested through science jargon language or methods is used to present (funders) agendas - not knowledge; typically to the benefit of its administrators (healthcare/government/academic.)
But the presenter also lacks meaningful understanding of the issues in other important ways. The “gold standard” of Random Controlled Trial is designed for pills. It can be done well to reveal information about pills. One of the profound mistakes in medical history has been to take laboratory efficacy as an equivalent to real-life effectiveness when the two can literally be observed to be inverse correlates. That is, “the gold standard” tells us virtually nothing about human reality.
Complex Systems science at least moves away from the hubris and simplicity offered by the speaker here.
However until the whole of the scientific community can acknowledge the basis of all knowledge in relation to human consciousness, the shell games of reductionistic laboratory findings and, as many viewers pointed out, its many formal official beuracratic disingenuous notions, will continue to entertain not transform.
I agree with others she is definitely a little bit self righteous. she lost her credibility when she said I am a philanthropist. If words are so important to her why didn't she say I try to be a philanthropist?
she is a philanthropist. Worth billions. Lovely what she's choosing to focus on. She's not self-righteous - that's passion!!
Philanthropist = an insanely wealthy person who gives a very small percentage of their obscene wealth to their own pet causes in order to be able to say I'm a philanthropist. Those who really help the world create wealth and provide employment and do daily real work. Being a "hedge fund manager" is not real work. And now they get to dole out a tiny percentage of that money and go on ted talks to make sure we all know.