Ep 25: Why are we so easy to fool? | INNER COSMOS WITH DAVID EAGLEMAN

[@thanatasos2841]

Top shelf lecture

[@MariposaRedimida]

Really great episode! This is vital stuff to have nowadays: critical thinking skills. Thank you for spreading this information, David!

[@Futuresolidsnake]

Such a amazing example of our vulnerabilities. Wow, thank you for this very enlightening video!

[@a.bodhichenevey1601]

In the military, when gathering intelligence on the ground (1970-72) our key phrase was: "Verify, verify, verify." It was then graded A-1 (which was rare to nonexistent in a war-zone) but was fully reliable and valid to F-5 which was pure disinformation/misinformation. My past experiences find me very skeptical about new information, for good or bad. I really enjoyed the interviews and will need to get their book "Nobody's Fool." Thank you for this outstanding pod-cast.

[@martinrenteria4513]

The old adage “believe half of what you see and nothing that you hear” rings truer now than ever

[@treich1234]

We're vulnerable to our own greedy little egos that simply wants to believe even if its too good to be true

[@gabrielaradu2970]

Why is it easy to be fooled, but it's hard to be convinced that we've been fooled? I've read books about how to detect if someone lies, but I still fall into this trap.

[@RiversJ]

There are actually people who do Not fall for deceit nearly as frequently as the common man. And the primary trait those all exhibit is they feel accept less peer and social pressure exerted on them. This is not just a biological phenomena but also cultural one.

[@michelles9897]

✨

[@mikemo4252]

A sort of institutionalized problem with the very thinking within scientific industries is original intent....scientists ought not to try and "prove their hypothesis to be correct", but rather "find the basis/cause of the outcome"... I'm trying hard not to use the word "truth" in all of this, but let's simplify: Scientists shouldn't be trying to prove their ideas, but rather find the answers, period, regardless of how it aligns with their original guess. The hypothesis is a necessity - a starting point, a best-guess in all manner of ways....but the realities on the ground seem to redefine things as a reputational, professional stake being claimed, with very human concepts of value hanging in the balance: peer regard, reputation, money, publication, money, notoriety, money, the search for understanding, money..... So, scientists DO set out to prove themselves right, rather than searching for answers wherever they may be found....David talked about it here, and the two guests barely bat an eye over it.... The researchers who were looking for a bias in police statistics were intent on finding that bias, were convinced there WAS a bias, and kept reshuffling the deck until the stats gave them something that could pass AS evidence for the bias..... there's thoroughly analyzing data, and then there is seeking evidence for a foregone conclusion....and no conclusion should be foregone, where science is concerned. But in the real world of science, the deductive reasoning holds sway: start with the conclusion, then find the evidence to support it (and, as they mentioned here, "be sure to stop searching once you've found it....or else you might just find evidence to undermine the conclusion...and that's not what we're here for"..). And that's not even touching on what to do with data which countermands your search to prove your idea..... Anyhow, science is the search for answers. Science is not the search for YOUR answers, proving YOUR hypotheses, fulfilling YOUR expectations, etc ... Science is not the act of proving or confirming your ideas.

[@ChildPerson]

My guess is the one thing all have in common is that they are all Adult Children.of Acoholics who either didnt have any therapy or not enough.Their survival depended on believing everything the parent said was true no matter how deeply they knew other wise.

[@macdisciple]

New title - Why does MAGA believe in Trump?