Reasoning with Heuristics

[@maloukemallouke9735]

thanks for video, When you expose a problem without giving information, it's always guiding towards wrong answers. For example, in the machine problem, it's the person who creates the problem by deliberately not explaining that the machines are working independently from each other, and you expect people to figure out the process of making widgets

[@Great_Olaf5]

The lily pad example does require making one particular assumption. Namely, that the lake is an even number of doublings from the original surface area of the patch of lily pads. Because that growth pattern in reality would be a curve, not a series of points, it's not like the clock strikes midnight and there are instantly twice as many lily pads as there were a moment ago. I got the ball one wrong because I misheard the numbers, I thought I'd heard ten dollars, not a dollar and ten cents, though it still only took a moment to come up with $4.50 for the price of the ball in my misheard example. As for the widgets, that took no effort. But then, I developed a pretty good number sense in middle school, at least for simple things like that.

[@personbear]

One of my favorite books, but I read it like a decade ago. How much of this was from TFaS?

[@RYANRHODES-cogsci]

Really only the first half of this video (System 1 and System 2 thinking) are from Thinking Fast and Slow. The content about heuristics is from Tversky & Kahneman (1974), which is a great overview.

[@0xcisco477]

20:10 You might show the wrong example mate, the law of small numbers .... it's not about how many people die on a car acc, but how many trips on cars that the car crashes and someone dies how many plane trips happen, and how many of them crashed and someone dies, don't play with numbers or percentage to prove the concept mate the example might be totally wrong