121. Teleological Bias | THUNK

[@markaachen2826]

These videos are so good, please keep them coming!

[@Fulgara]

The sound is much better, thank you. :) This is one of the few cases where I think a hardwired behavior actually makes sense. Most of human cognition seems to have evolved to deal with complex social interactions where looking for intent would be essential. That said, it wouldn't necessarily have to be a large bias towards teleological explanations, It could be a slight bias that is constantly reinforced by myth and metaphor from a young age.

[@THUNKShow]

You're welcome, sorry again for the weirdness the first time around. Also, it's a great point that either or both of the environmental/cultural factors might be exacerbating an otherwise small cognitive defect!

[@repker]

This bias could be one of the big factors for why God is so appealing, because he provides the agency for all life that is required for teleological explanations. Also, I'd guess it's less of a learned thing, because from the top down, we often teach children in this way exactly because they understand it more easily, like it's is the optimal way for a young child to understand the world around them.

[@Tracks777]

When is your next video? :D Keep it up!

[@THUNKShow]

Every other Wednesday! Hump day is THUNK day! :D

[@Tracks777]

Excellent video

[@tercuskuhnsis8854]

There is a resemblance between the teleological argument and the "slow thinking system" in Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking slow and Thinking fast", perhaps we can see it as the same thing, if we do, we could have an explanation of the phenomenon (glucose) ..... Interesting! :)

[@ScorpexFilms]

Guess I'll have to watch it twice ¯\ ツ /¯

[@THUNKShow]

+Incinerat0r The most patient fans ever. Thanks.

[@TrailToHeaven]

Why is this comment is here?

[@efrainrodarte6395]

Because somebody put it here

[@efrainrodarte6395]

I was thinking i find some of the content going over my head and having to watch the videos more than once or even just rewinding. I find this stuff fascinating and i really hope this channel spreads

[@bdbs5618]

Wish you addressed teleology in Aristotle and Hegel's works.

[@Thomaster9999]

I feel we also often tend to give teleological explanations for things when we have reached a point where there isn't (yet) any other explanation for. 'Why do things in nature 'try' to be in the lowest energy state? Because they 'want' to be.' my high school physics teacher would use to tell me back in the day. It may indeed be no wonder that Aristotelian (meta)physics stuck around for so long (and in a way still does).

[@motzmygotz9493]

Any opinion on Aristotelian teleology? That's pretty much all the exposure I've had to it.

[@THUNKShow]

IMO, as per usual with Aristotle, it sounds fantastic (& if you squint & look at it sideways, it's close to true) but it misled thinking for more than a thousand years. :P The rise & success of science is at least partially due to abandoning a model which focused on the "ultimate goals" of nature, & looking more to that cause-effect thing to explain phenomena.

[@galek75]

First, I just want to say thanks for the excellent content. However, I disagree that teleological thinking is the sort of bogeyman you describe it to be. In biology, it is commonplace to speak of "uses" and "purposes" with respect to bodily organs. Thus I think it is quite possible to speak of "purposes" without invoking a divine force or entity.

[@silverskid]

Yes. Functions are indispensable, and have teleological (some, like Mayr, prefer the word 'teleonomic' ) properties. You are, per video, explaining present behaviors in terms of goals. Asking "why" the heart beats is not the same as asking what the "function" of the heart is. If we ask the latter, we're trying to say something about why the heart is functional, why it is adaptive. The reason isn't that it makes sounds when beating. That isn't what gives it survival value. But the fact that the heart pumps blood does explain its evolutionary value. As for Aristotle, he was no animist. He didn't say clouds exist to rain and so forth. Kelemen and this video presenter should re-read De Anima. Science rejects Aristotle's cosmology in which the world is eternal, supernatural beings keep things in motion,and all species stay the same. It also rejects a reliance on syllogistic reasoning in favor of inductive methods.But teleology does not, for A, extend to rocks and other non-living beings.

[@DiscoStu492]

Another great video. thanks.

[@Concentrum]

Must have missed this one, thanks!

[@JasonOlshefsky]

I think there's another reason for teleological thinking: it's so we have a way to explain things. ;)

[@MrAidanFrancis]

I feel like the scientists and college students may have answered incorrectly for a different reason than the five-year-olds; namely, anyone who's taken many tests and quizzes has been trained to scan a question for correlation rather than read it thoroughly if they're short on time. Since the teleology lies in the "why" and "because," it seems more likely (perhaps by Occam's razor?) that the bias is towards making reading errors more than anything else.

[@TrailToHeaven]

You are awesome, I wish you were my friend in real life, or I could find friends like you

[@String.Epsilon]

I'm a programmer. My last teleological error was most likely "I don't understand why this code is so mangled. I'm probably overlooking the design problem this solves.". And as long as I make money as a programmer, it will always be the last teleological error I made.

[@isablondethng]

Because it's Thursday! ^_^ Also wooo! Nice job getting it up for good.

[@PsychologyConceptsVideos]

"If we're wired to", etc. The narrator is himself displaying this bias.

[@THUNKShow]

Truth!

[@mechanicalakhil]

excellent

[@aswinunni1811]

Accidental re-upload ??...

[@THUNKShow]

+Aswin Unni Actually there was a teleology here; my editing software screwed the pooch on audio. :( Sorry!

[@aswinunni1811]

THUNK No worries man...I was going to rewatch it anyway... ;)

[@MrJethroha]

Most statements I hear about evolution often personify it, or give it a will. "Life want's to become more fit, so it evolves" for example. It's fundamentally wrong though - life mutates and sometimes becomes more fit, if it becomes less fit it dies. Life doesn't want to evolve, it HAS to evolve.

[@ramonveracruz7511]

My last teleological error was using a fork for soup. Bad joke. Just woke up. Don't mind me.

[@glormoparch5154]

My phone convinces me the world is minority report level designed

[@tbrandonlane]

So, I've been wondering for a while if you're a lesswronger. This one was similar enough to Julia Galef's podcast (i think 2 or 3 episodes ago) that I figured I'd ask. You may have even mentioned lesswrong or cfar or rationally speaking or something in video descriptions before, but I didn't want to go back and check... Separately, I saw an interview with Richard Dawkins recently (not a recent interview, i just saw it recently) where he was using what i've just now decided to call teleological metaphors, not actually making teleological arguments, but using those as metaphors to help people understand the biological concepts he was talking about. The interviewer (I don't remember who) was a little bit thrown by this, and thought Dawkins was going to accidentally encourage people to think of non-conscious things as conscious, or at least as having real wants and desires. To which Dawkins was somewhat shocked and befuddled, not understanding how anyone could mistake a metaphor for an actual delusion, and he just responded something like "well, they'll just have to get over that". I don't know why exactly, but the whole interaction just tickled me.

[@thorkrynu4551]

Yes! The selfish gene is a great title but most people just know that. It's been a while but I think the book was mostly an argument against teleological views on evolution. How ironic.

[@justinwatkins438]

Because the universe directed me...

[@Pingbov]

Oooooooooh duuuuude

[@Cy5208]

Look up Prof Scott Turner.

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

I have great knowledge in science but I do believe in purpose to the world. I view nature as God's creation.