CRITICAL THINKING - Cognitive Biases: The GI Joe Fallacy [HD]

In this video, Laurie Santos (Yale University) discusses why knowing about our cognitive biases is not enough to overcome them. She’ll introduce a new cognitive error known as the G.I. Joe Fallacy, the tendency for our biases to stick around even when we should know better.
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/HH0z/

[@Paethgoat]

Knowing is half the battle, but the other half is lasers and we skipped that part.

[@zadig08]

+Daniel Millage Indeed my friend. I like this girl, but she has a child with another man so things between us probably won't work out. Just knowing this fact isn't enough though. Tomorrow I plan on solving the problem the completely unbiased usage of lasers.

[@89VPons]

I think knowing about you're biases helps you become less of a victim to them. Being aware of your biases gives you the opportunity to choose to not act on them, but just because you're aware of them does not mean that they're gone. We might evolve past our biases one day but that will probably take thousands of years, for now I think we'll have to live with and be aware of our biases. Laurie says that learning about your biases doesn't help in becoming less susceptible to them, even though that is not the point of learning biases and fallacies. Making that point made it seem like watching these videos was a waste of time. Lucky for us there are other intelligent people to show us what she should have said.

[@sabinrawr]

Generally speaking, biases exist because we have an instinctive need for them. If purple berries are deadly, then people who have a bias against purple berries are more likely to survive. While that doesn't directly correlate to cognitive biases, it does help us understand why biases exist and why we won't ever get rid of them (our biases may change over time, but we will always have them).

[@StudioStar]

It´s a very logical proposition: that knowing about different biases, in and of itself, wont change much about how we´re affected by them. We have to make decisions everyday based on subconscious processes and subjective estimations about reality (which we continuously assimilate) and in every given domain there´s always more that we don´t know than what we do know.. which means one (no matter who you are or what you know) always have to fill in knowledge-gaps with "axioms", "beliefs", "inductive reasoning" and "instinct". If you want any kind of functional life, that is. This is a problem for a lot of people, who regard any kind of relativism as irrational (or even immoral)... which in itself is highly irrational. If knowing about biases made the average person significantly less biased, there would be evidence of this in the real world in the form of some opinion-conformity among those who have been made aware of same biases. If the problem with biases is that we divert from "the truth" as a result of psychological kinks, fixing those kinks would naturally get one closer to same truths... problem fixed, right?... not really... the point is that we very rarely use pure rationalism in our lives as we don´t really internalize the scientific method as a bases for decision-making or opinion-formation. It´s just not how we operate. If that were the case we would have almost no opinions about anything, as pure rationalism just gives you slices of certainties, which is not very operational or practical. Most of your opinions about the nature of the world is still perpetuated through culture, opinion-bubbles, biases, after-rationalizations and such phenomena, whether you accept it as true or not.

[@otakarbeinhauer]

I like what you said and I agree. We will not be capable of completely rational thinking, that's just not effective enough for such a number of decisions we have to make. But AI could be capable of it.

[@eristic1281]

When watching a movie, we know that it's fake; but, this knowledge does not prevent us from getting scared. Knowledge is just one of a number of factors that determine our behavior. Sometimes it can be a major factor, oftentimes it isn't. Believing that our knowledge would significantly help us to prevent falling for the biases is fallacious.

[@paradigmarson9586]

This series was amazing. Knowing may be less than half the battle, but it's a big battle so this is still a big chunk, even if it's small proportionately. Thanks ever so much for making it.

[@Whoopsie_woggzy]

poeple have continuously disapointed me for such a large portion of my life and only now i understand why ,truely and honestly ,thank you.

[@8nayrb]

So... what you're saying is that you just wasted our and your time?

[@tacobilltalks3168]

Exactly-90% of the battle is recognizing the fallacies (other than this worthless fallacy) or the valid arguments that are the actual reasons for ones cognitive biases. Cognitive are "cognitive" and not necessarily wrong.

[@raverus2126]

Less than half our time

[@Gogolian]

@@raverus2126 actually more than half of our time

[@paradigmarson9586]

"Now you know, and knowing is half the battle" Yeah, story of my life. T_T

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

Well, I agree but knowing about certain cognitive biases can help to combat them. If you know about conformity bias, you can be on guard for it. Maybe it doesn't work when your instincts kick in, like with heights, but for purely logical things, knowing is half the battle so far as I can see.

[@arundhativerma8892]

Yes, that's some context that they should've provided

[@noahm44]

I think you LITERALLY just proved her point.. This is amazing

[@MarkWrightPsuedo]

Nice video. But it would be better to mention WHY. And the reason why, is that we are of two minds. Dr. Daniel Kahneman calls them "system 1," and "system 2." System 1 is your automatic, reptile brain. It is always on, makes quick judgements to aid us in survival, consumes lower amounts of energy, is relatively effortless, and largely functions subconsciously. Now system 2 is not like that at all. That's the reasoning part of us. It consumes a lot of energy, is slower by comparison, but is the only part of us that has a chance at answering really challenging questions. Knowing isn't enough because system 1 takes in everything first. It's automatic.

[@maggiem8426]

This particular bias feels like a tongue twister of sorts. Even just arranging the phenomenon in my mind is exhausting.

[@mikecamacho1892]

It all depends on what you know. Sometimes knowing is all the battle and sometimes knowing is none of the battle lol

[@Jsmith-xi8ft]

Yes, Mike, agree. The author of this fallacy paints the idea with too broad a stroke. Actually, saying you know "half" the battle is not even accurate. How do you "know" you know half the battle? Maybe you know only a quarter of the battle or three quarters of the battle? And how do you know the half the battle you know is the important part of the battle, until the battle is over all information is speculative because the battle takes place in the future, and the future is continuously changing...ad infinitum. And why pick on poor Joe, he's just a grunt.

[@rustybrooks8916]

A lot of people calling bs on this video because the speaker does not state under what conditions she is speaking to. How is it that someone can say that a person who knows about a fallacy would not be able to act in a way to counter the fallacy less than half the time? Statics are what back up what she's saying, which is something she should have provided for context. Using the statistical information hat is currently available, the GI JOE fallacy appears to be true.

[@danielg3857]

So what's the other part of the battle?

[@rg0057]

Recognizing when you need to apply that knowledge (i.e. at the time you need it, not after) and then actually putting that knowledge to effective use.

[@Robotpants]

Violence!

[@charlessmith1718]

Very true, knowing alone is not enough. Observing and learning how fallacies are reigning, will unravel Eudaimonia.

[@FurryMurry7]

I didn't even know about the "GI Joe fallacy". Now I know.

[@yurib7067]

And knowing is half the battle.

[@yurib7067]

I like your handwriting. It’s nice.

[@schmoborama]

"Not Enough" "Not Enough" "Not Enough" Lol! So true - you have to *do it*, make the decision that opposes your feelings, when it's logical to do so

[@007lutherking]

This sounds like a bit of a stretch. When they say Knowing is half the battle .. they never meant it to be literally interpreted as knowing is exactly 50% of the battle.. no. Knowing is half the battle as in the whole battle process is divided into two parts.. part 1. Figuring out what the battle is and part 2: conquering. Your explanation is true for someone with cognitive deficits who interprets everything literally perhaps..like people with cptsd manifestations such as schizophrenia etc. Knowing I have cancer is half thr battle.. trying to fix it is other half Knowing you want to be a doctor at 10 years of age is half the battle, accomplishing that goal is the other half Knowing you have schizophrenia is half thr battle, overcoming it is the other half Ofcourse none of these examples implies that Knowing is exactly accomplishing 50% of the task.. Knowing is usually far less .. but also just as important step and in some cases people never realize the first part and it turns thr Knowing into 100% of thr battle which they lose. So the obvious conclusion is Knowing is half the battle ... unless you're cognitively impaired in which case I'll go ahead and explain it to you how Knowing is half the battle... you'll pretend like you understood.. but you won't.. learning disabilities and stuff.. blame your parents for bringing a child into this world when they didn't know how to raise a child in the exact right way.. or take the responsibility in your own hand and WORK ON IT. STAY HARD - Goggins

[@marcpadilla1094]

Aren't we compelled to defend cognitive biases. Its a defense mechanism and if it is then fallacies are pitted against each other in a society that promotes aggression, competition, and individualism. Indeed, just knowing about it is less than half the battle.

[@bradsillasen1972]

A profoundly uplifting experience ;-)

[@louislevy1772]

Very interesting series. Well done!

[@yangcui9736]

Someone create a training program to lessen fallacies and biases please. Like an army training or something.

[@tacobilltalks3168]

90% of the battle is recognizing the fallacies (other than this worthless fallacy) or the valid arguments that are the actual reasons for ones cognitive biases. Cognitive are "cognitive" and not necessarily wrong

[@agentstarkk]

Ok so knowing that we now know that knowing that we know that simply knowing is not half the battle, how much closer are we to half the battle?

[@rezap1356]

Maybe 20% of the battle, but still much better than nothing. Knowing helps.

[@paradigmarson9586]

Perhaps the next part of the battle would be exploring what a nested virtue ethics can contribute to moral consequentialism. Like, we could pursue virtuous neural networks and integrate this knowledge as we live to reach Aristotle's Eudaimonia. Aristotle

[@nuggutron1705]

The slogan was "Knowing is the half the battle" because the implied other half was "Doing". How is this concept so hard for people, this was a show for children that had a tiny segment that attempted to simplify complicated problems to try and educate them (the viewers) on the right and wrong things to do in desperate situations. Knowing about a problem, Doing something to fix it. Not that hard...

[@paradigmarson9586]

So maybe the interpretation of G.I. Joe was a little uncharitable, perhaps owing to political biases. Video still rocks though and kudos to Santos for making it.

[@Sporkabyte]

The point wasn’t to analyze a cartoon from the eighties; it was to point out that people commonly mistake knowing fallacies as a sufficient condition for never falling for them.

[@src6339]

That seems like a rather hasty generalization. You recognize that the statement “and knowing is half the battle” is in error, and you somehow conclude that “knowing is less than half the battle” Even though in this vary video you acknowledge that it’s not true for all instances.There are some very necessary questions that need to be answered before you can realistically come to a solid conclusion. “How much do you know?”What is “Wining”? Which “Battle”?Surely it would be reckless for us to assume that the answer to each and every one of these questions is the same for each “Battle” or that the measure of the battles completeness to each of its criterion is the same. Besides if you truly did “know”, would you even need an arbitrary measure of its progress in the first place? “knowing is half the battle” is clearly not a universal statement of fact, but maybe the conclusion wrought from this is that GI Joe’s slogan would have been more universally correct if it had been “You may still not ‘know’ but at least you have achieved some level of situational awareness on which you may proceed!”

[@Low_commotion]

Basically, what she's saying is that it's dependent on the bias. Knowledge of anchoring effects or implicit association does little to counteract those, but fundamental attribution error is a little better. If you're interested in this sort of self-improvement thing, I highly recommend "Rationality: From AI to Zombies" by Elizer Yudkowsky.

[@src6339]

Interesting summary, the inferred situational Irony is most intriguing... I shall look that book up, thank you.

[@unidorsalicosahedron7416]

Can you win the battle?

[@rg0057]

I suspect this does not apply to all people, at least for some fallacies and biases.

[@Starcrash6984]

I have a lot of problems with this video... not one of them being whether this is a real fallacy. I agree that people who know about biases don't lose them or always introspect and spot them in themselves -- most of us still value things like social standing over rationality, and we'll ditch our logic and rationality the moment it interferes with other such values. Still... how does one measure "half the battle"? From my point-of-view, overcoming fallacies requires knowing what they are and then having the ability to fix them. This will probably require knowing how to fix them (how does one even negotiate anchorless?), and also wanting to fix them (again, requiring that one value the fix over the perceived benefits of holding the bias). But what holds one back from fixing biases once one identifies the bias, knows how to fix it, and wants to fix it? Is it anecdotal experience that makes it _feel_ like identifying the bias doesn't get one closer to a fix, or is it lack of ability and want to fix a bias that causes one to undervalue the identification?

[@scuba3149]

+Supernova Kasprzak Dude, read my comment above. Only an idiot would dissect a popular catch phrase (such as "knowing is half the battle") into percentages. This Yale idiot reminds me of the scene in "Nightmare Before Christmas" where Jack Skellington is literally writing quadratic equations and other data relative to physicists to figure out why Santa Claus says "Ho Ho Ho."

[@VioletTheGeek]

@Scuba314 She's not talking about G.I. Joe...the name of the fallacy is simply a reference to the old cartoon. She's talking about the (very intriguing, imho) way our brains think and make decisions. She's a psychologist, not a pop-culture critic.

[@paradigmarson9586]

Hmm, are these G.I. Joe PSA's training kids in heroism or neuroticism?

[@eltouristoduo]

OK I call misstatement. To say 'knowing your biases in not enough' depends on what you infer from 'knowing'. If you take it in the everyday sense, yes it is not enough. But if you took the extraordinary and impractical sense to mean that you were going to break every decision and behavior down into a critical analysis of that, you could thereby potentially avoid all biases, if you were also properly concerned with discovering new biases not just keeping the known ones in mind. I know this because I tend to do it more than is practical. Of course I'm prone to biases, but I may stop and consider ordinary things 'too much', see the bias at work. Much to the annoyance and befuddlement of others (and often myself). I may then even either do it anyway or not do it. But being aware of the bias at the moment it is occurring 'gives you a wider range of choices'.

[@VioletTheGeek]

That's just it, though. breaking all of your decisions down and analyzing them critically is not just knowing, that's part of the rest of the battle. Knowing about your biases is the easy part. Putting that knowledge to use in avoiding those biases is much more difficult.

[@papalosopher]

Epithet? Epigram?

[@paradigmarson9586]

Yep... a person is as much their KZbin watch history, data mining, etc. as their mind. And their notes, and their furniture arrangement, and their friendship groups. I'm sure choosing a nick like 'Paradigm Arson' nudged me in the direction of deviantization, criticism and cynicism. I meant well... kind of.

[@sociocyberneering]

Would you say that knowing helps you build up strategies or systems which defend you against most biases and errors?

[@MisterTutor2010]

This video has a COBRA bias :)

[@zeropain9319]

Nice video. So how do we complete the battle?

[@footage6402]

Why isn't the G.I Joe Fallacy on Wikipedia? Does it go by another name or is this just something you decided to name?

[@stephenmoz]

This is that moment where the owl flies into your house with your letter of Admission into H******* school of witchcrafty and wizardry (except the spells shall be taught to you according to the ways of scientific inquiry, and logic). Do you accept? Or does the owl just fly out of your house, according to the Way that it Came In?

[@maxximuss]

horse feathers, this assumes that the thinker is capable of mistakes, imagine a computer being told this. This is simply what a teacher tells the student so that they do not think them self immune to fallacy, this is not a sound argument. If it were true than why bother learning about fallacies? you are doomed to commit them just as often. this statement should read, "just because you know about fallacy does not mean you will notice them, even in your self" nothing more

[@scuba3149]

+maxximuss Dude, you are arguing with a pseduo-intellectual from Yale. Your time would be better used arguing with a 6 year old about the Easter Bunny.

[@maxximuss]

you gotta call them out on this stuff now other wise people believe them,

[@maxximuss]

***** If you have been reconditioned you are more biased than a person who hasn't been. bias is controlled for not eliminated, They hypothetical computer was not capable of mistakes... the point is to illustrate that this statement is insidious and self defeating. like the rest of postmodernism. Have you taken a critical thinking class?

[@soslothful]

In the introduction why does the book, which I assume represents Yale, have Hebrew letters but a Latin motto? And what is the anchor reference and the five chocolates about?

[@VioletTheGeek]

Previous videos in this series.

[@IbrahimSiawash]

i took your course on YALE online, the science of happiness. it was wonderfully mind blowing. I am a psychologist in Pakistan and am compiling a course using those insights plus adding a few NLP, DBT and other Mindful Meditation techniques. Any suggestions how to make the course more engaging for the students?

[@otakarbeinhauer]

By NLP you mean Neuro-linguistic programming? Because if so, I hope you know it is considered a pseudoscience and I hope you are taking it with a big grain of salt.

[@IbrahimSiawash]

@@otakarbeinhauer "pseudoscience" means not science. If so I agree. There is no scientific validity to NLP. But that doesn't mean its not entertaining and at time effective.

[@otakarbeinhauer]

@@IbrahimSiawash Yes, that' exactly what it means. Pseudoscience doesn't mean something isn't working or is a bogus. It just means, we don't know yet. And it means that you should tread carefully with believing it 100%. If it works for you, that's great. I have no problem with you wanting to share your experiences with NLP. But please don't teach it without disclaiming it belongs in the pseudoscientific waters. And take your time checking the data and the studies about it. Because there were some studies trying to reproduce the results of original NLP studies and they failed.

[@IbrahimSiawash]

@@otakarbeinhauer oh yes. As soon as I start teaching I say disclaimer: there is no scientific research backing up this system of healing. It's better to be honest.

[@paradigmarson9586]

Also, there are places where fighting evil and irrationality gets you punished. Individualistic hero types can only work around the obstacles to truth and emancipation, not against them. So don't do what I did and go around bitterly and cynically criticizing everything that's irrational, kids! Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. G. I. Paradigm_Arson! (great, now I sound like one of those awful counterproductive prisoner talks to children videos/seminars where private prison companies get to manufacture more deviantisation, delinquency and crime)

[@jammon8956]

What's the other parts of the battle?

[@adfggffffffddffd]

Wait so when I take advantage of the more for my money deals at the grocery store I'm just giving into a bias and not really doing something smart? I guess it would be better to buy less food and spend more time taking trips to the store and spending more money...

[@rustybrooks8916]

I could be wrong, but I think that what she was saying about that particular deal is that it isn't necessarily in our best interest to buy more of a bad thing just because you can get more of it for less money. In this case, a deal on candy, supposing that candy is bad for our health (of course debatable, but I think that's the general view on candy), that buying more candy, even when it's cheaper to do so, will always be a bad decision.

[@adfggffffffddffd]

Rusty Brooks Only if it actually leads to eating more "candy".

[@britishbuffalo21]

It's taking advantage of your idea of an ideal price. If you planned to only grab one chocolate for $1.25, but there's a tag claiming a 5 for $5 deal in front of it, you may give in and buy all 5 chocolates because the price makes it "easy", making you think you'll save by only having to pull out a $5 bill. Unless of course you wanted 5 chocolates in the first place, this is a sort of push that marketing makes so that you will give in and buy all 5 chocolates, spending $3.75 more than you originally intended to. These kinds of deals sometimes do not work for a single item, and you'd have to buy all 5 to take advantage of the deal, but often they work for a single unit. If the deal didn't have a minimum requirement of chocolates bought, you would only have to pay $1 for one chocolate. This, in comparison, is a lot better than paying $4 more for chocolates you didn't want in the first place. On the flip side, let's say you have four siblings and you decide that you want to buy four more chocolates after seeing the deal. This would save you $1.25 ... It's all about how you work the system to your needs and letting your choices cater to you and not to marketing schemes.

[@jokesterthemighty227]

So... did Cobra win??

[@JM-zt8vq]

Now do one on metaphorical language vs literal descriptions

[@meowpoint1403]

So how do I get rid of my biases then?!

[@gabriela6052]

what is the meaning of the hebrew words? is that light

[@Retko85]

Less than half the battle is better than nothing ;)

[@MrWwoww123]

ohhhh so knowing the fallacies won't keep me from using them?... you don't sayy😑

[@lorenzogumier7646]

Conquer iron habits :)

[@v.beggar8544]

What's the rest of the battle?

[@schmoborama]

Bashing their brains out, what else?

[@yeghor]

What if we have a well-developed superego, would that help?

[@yeghor]

+Evan Nanaj could that be how school shootings take place?

[@yeghor]

+Evan Nanaj how to release bottled up id? sex?

[@yeghor]

Evan Nanaj Sports.

[@hamidcoolboy]

Didn't understand anything.

[@thebleach401]

Buy a Cs, Process Cs

[@aMulliganStew]

Well, crap!

[@billwalton4571]

Thats why you use the Bible for reference points.

[@zameelvisharathodi7859]

This seems like more of a misconception than a fallacy.

[@profd65]

Don't do the drawing thing if you can't actually draw.

[@AllenKll]

Way to not have any examples or proof.

[@christophpolanski3494]

Another Marxist of our great educational system👌🏿👌🏿👌🏿

[@topspinaurelius]

lol true but a DOWNER - no wonder Socrates contemporaries wanted him killed, just for depressing them constantly lol!

[@goor1322]

Just as everyone who hears the Gospel knows God exists, but some may still not trust in Him, and even deny Him.

[@StraightEdgeHeathen]

Well that's retarded.

[@AnthonySforza]

Jaja, Flint...

[@utubefishin]

Weak

[@phoenixrivenus9270]

Man I bet she is a pistol in the sack!;)

[@justtrolin]

lol

[@--Valek--]

I'm usually being educated about my biases by someone who openly and proudly hates me because I was born white.