The Most Common Cognitive Bias

[@themonsteraddictmmxvi1564]

"If you think something is true, try really hard to disprove it" took your advice. I'm single now. Booyah

[@TNXaro]

😂

[@skiney]

Lmaooo

[@nakumavecaan254]

Then comes the question: What kind of single are you? Odd number or whole digit?

[@TNXaro]

@@nakumavecaan254 Lmao, that's the perfect response

[@alexj.denton7453]

Thats how I became a huge antisemite

[@aartadventure]

For many years I've tried to let my Science students know it is actually fantastic when they get things wrong. You learn the most that way. Unfortunately, the grading systems, parent expectations, and college requirements do not celebrate students getting things wrong. We unfortunately end up with a modern educational system that often discourages some of the best aspects of scientific thinking.

[@bjolly8924]

I learned what you are trying to communicate from a youth leader who was, and still is a scientist at ORNL. To fail is not a terrible thing, it is one step closer to success.....etc and so on and so forth.!! "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again...."

[@stevepseudonym445]

My experience has been that tests offer insight on what you're still getting wrong, and that grades reflect how much you're getting right. The main deficiency I see is that the system is somewhat geared towards knowing stuff instead of being good at thinking. One of the reasons I've always appreciated science and math is that good thinking skills can let you figure out stuff you don't know by extrapolating from what you do know.

[@bjolly8924]

@@stevepseudonym445 Very astute observation. 👍

[@theblackrose1510]

Tell that to scientific journals that won't publish null results. We're all sat on gold mines of information we gain from "failed" experiments with no means or motivation to share it.

[@tatfly5779]

Yeah nowadays ppl just give up or don't try at all for fear of failing.Heck Im guilty of that at times as well though it might be more that my profession is very strict in safety regulations.

[@canadianbootz]

The Cognitive Bias is such that humans generally want to confirm truth with similar data (pattern matching), not get closer to truth by proving false data (edge case detection). Both have value, but the latter is critical.

[@choke-]

thats just how i was taught math man

[@drewlovelyhell4892]

Smart cookie.

[@Yamaazaka]

No idea what this means

[@XOSKELENTON]

@@Yamaazaka pattern matching is basically confirming what you believe with information that agrees with it instead of looking for all angles edge case is pretty much trial and error using what doesn’t work to get closer to what does but to do that you have to be able to reflect which allot of people can’t do nowadays

[@williamwall3403]

The biggest reason for that is you have to suspect that there is a deeper pattern than surface level. Without having someone or something to challenge or confirm the correct pattern, it's easy to simply confirm the bias.

[@Jnadki]

I've used this same game with my students. Providing a sequence was the equivalent of doing an "experiment". At any point when they thought they knew the answer, they could be first to "publish" their hypothesis, but the game could still go on, with others performing more "experiments". Students gradually recognized the principle that one could learn more from trying to disprove their hypotheses than to confirm them. Afterwards, we'd talk about how this applied to doing actual scientific research. Years later I had students tell me they still remember that principle in designing their own experiments.

[@zzzaphod8507]

Reminds me of the card game Eleusis

[@Jnadki]

@@zzzaphod8507 Hadn't heard of it, but indeed it sounds similar. Thanks.

[@d-rockanomaly9243]

I love when teachers would make a game like that but turn it into sort of role playing as actual professionals. My one teacher did this with the stock market in grade 7. and he had a bunch of guests come in and pretend to be business owners that would pitch us their business ideas, we walked around the room by ourselves to each business owner. We'd get a bunch of chips and could invest them in whoever we wanted and there were several rounds. And the situation for each business would change with each business every round, and we could redistribute our investments and their stock price would change every round. Then we'd tally our profits, or losses at rhe end. The results would sort of follow basic principles, like the shady, greedy big shot companies ended up tanking, the hard-working mom and pop store turned out great, but also he threw in a few unexpected results, and then some just turned out how they seemed they would, and then there were hard truths as well, like some of the shady businesses would do good... He did a good job at showing the seemingly random aspect of investing in hindsight. But honestly i think your game is better. it teaches a fundamental principle which ironically are sometimes the harder things for prople to wrap their minds around. The stock market game just taught how a certain system works which is good to know... But its when people misunderstand fundamental, encompassing principles like scientific method, that ideas like flat earth arise. In any case, games like that were fun as hell in school lol you sound like a great teacher.

[@nineflames12]

“Multiplying by 2 is not my rule” *Everyone proceeds to continue proposing numbers doubling.*

[@0_-]

@@starfiring ?

[@0_-]

@@dariusnoname12 I still don't get it?

[@0_-]

@@dariusnoname12 OHHHHH I GET IT NOW!

[@0_-]

@@dariusnoname12 THANKS

[@jackie98543]

That isn’t multiplying by two

[@SplendidFellow]

"If you think something is true, you should try as hard as you can to disprove it. Only then can you really get at the truth and not fool yourself." That's a hell of a good quote, dude. Edit: Yes, it's the scientific method, I'm aware, you can stop commenting that now.

[@RdTrpBrgr]

that mentality doesn't follow my rule though.

[@TakahiroShinsaku]

So i think that its True that I exist "If you think something is true, you should try as hard as you can to disprove it. Only then can you really get at the truth and not fool yourself." A Few Months later... *HeLlo thEre ExisTanciAl Crisis!!!*

[@hareecionelson5875]

Flat earthers tried this, and they got the wrong answer

[@HardnerPL]

@85 85 You mean like vaccines cause autism, earth is flat, the government is turning the frogs gay and so on?

[@HardnerPL]

@85 85 No u I mean if you believe the things that I pointed out Like any of them

[@bobert286]

New perspective: This is how us programmers work. We will tire endlessly to fix an error and then get excited when we get a NEW error because then we know we actually are making progress Breaking code is ALWAYS more informative than just assuming our current code is flawless...so often times we write tests INTENDING to make the code fail, or if we want to make sure things work we will actually MAKE the code break to make sure it actually fails as we expect it to fail. Pretty much our entire careers are built around making sure our code does not subvert our expectations by breaking it to make sure it will NOT do just that haha

[@LtPowers]

Can confirm. As a programmer, I wanted to throttle all these guessers early on, and I figured out his rule fairly quickly even with their lame-ass guessing.

[@tokeivo]

@@LtPowers same - "figured out" my be a bit overstating it, but it was my next guess once they tried their first non-doubling sequence. But yeah, as a programmer it's more of a habit than a lack of bias. "Oh, the code works now, so I might be done with this assignment... can I find a case where it doesn't work, though?"

[@raldrid8264]

@@tokeivo Oh it requires me to input a number. Ok so now let me input a letter, what about a different language, what about a number outside the range, what about nothing being input. And only through all those tests do we know that you can truthfully only enter a number.

[@sheshasaibabagujjari3481]

And honestly when I get an error, I kind of feel better. Because fixing the problem is easier than not knowing the problem.

[@swaghettimemeballs4420]

So basically the greatest strength of a programmer is mental gymnastics. Got it.

[@susieusmaximus5330]

The thing is, the only honest answer to, "Do you have this cognitive bias?", almost whatever it turns out to be, is "Yes." You overcome cognitive biases by recognizing that you have them and being aware of that and compensating for it to the best of your ability, and especially by being willing to admit that in some instance you might have overlooked one. The first thing being good at thinking demands is humility.

[@forxia-prime]

Its actually very hard to do it. Admitting to yourself that you have a bias marginally changed your opinion on a lot of things. Its called bias blindspot. The only way of eliminating bias is by doing research on the proposed topic to gather information to increase your understanding and confidence of an opinion on it.

[@forxia-prime]

Its called introspection illusion sorry*

[@susieusmaximus5330]

@@forxia-prime I'm confused, you seem to think you're disagreeing with me, but nothing that you wrote precludes anything that I wrote.

[@tSp289]

@@susieusmaximus5330 It doesn't look like he's trying to disagree with you, it looks like he's musing on your point. I know the done thing on online comment threads is to pick opposing views and fight it out, but I don't think that's what's happening here.

[@emerginggorilla]

This is why whenever im talking to someone about stuff politically its very worrying when they say "oh im completely unbiased" because whats most likely happening is they are pretending they dont have biases and arent taking any measures against the biases they and every other person has.

[@xZeroGrxvity]

I would have tried negative numbers to be honest

[@sorryicantthinkofacoolname7209]

same.

[@Justin-jq6zg]

yea

[@clb92]

coffee, 99999999999999999, ", /,,

[@luisgdh]

I would have tried irrational numbers and imaginary numbers.

[@zking2.07]

ZeroGrxvity I would have done fractions

[@grgfrg7]

Biggest hint is how quickly he was able to determine whether the proposed sequence fit, means it is probably a very simply rule

[@AW-xc1xc]

Yeah, that was what gave it away for me

[@goncalomorais4930]

I think that this experience varies a lot depending on people's math knowledge, e.g. I thought multiply by 2, first two numbers must add to a number equal or bigger than the third and then the right answer whilst people who don't use math as often would probably just keep the 2x logic throughout the whole interview. This just shows how different people have different perspectives and different understandings of what's put in from of them

[@Cowtymsmiesznego]

@@goncalomorais4930 My first guess was "consecutive whole powers of a whole number" xd Kinda funny because my first suggestion would've hence been (1, 1, 1) and he would've said "no"

[@wlgyl493]

@UCleXwpsuAo8dDTwxcrc294g your profile pic got me you asshole😂

[@telzamahel]

Yeah, my first thought was 'all integers' just because it would be super easy for him to confirm.

[@keyman3131]

That's why I love puzzles like sudoku lmao. Every "no" is part of the answer leading to "yes". Getting things wrong is literally getting things right and it feels so good to finally eliminate enough options to piece it all together

[@bebos3001]

Yep, one of better tricks of sudoku

[@cailin5301]

Every time I discuss Wordle's hard mode with someone, I think of this video

[@schumael]

@@cailin5301 lol

[@brunetteXer]

yes, this is how I play Wordle too. I'm quite happy to get five letters eliminated in the first guess.

[@ezra9401]

Hard to impossible sudoku makes me act up because (this might be the wrong strategy) I can't backtrack the steps I made.

[@woy8]

Ask this to programmers. First thing I though was do the weirdest thing, like 1, 5900, -800. It’s like debugging, I honestly think programming teaches you how to think logically

[@BloodZangetsu]

yeah man my first thought halfway through the video was descending cus no one was asking that and by the end i got it, it was indeed descending lol i wouldve tried fractions and stuff too , programming FTW!

[@MattBulow]

My first thought was of non integers

[@junova7503]

Looking at the other programmers in chat and my own correct assumption pretty quick into the video I think we effectively got the answer to how that would have gone lol. Gotta break your code to figure out if there's anything wrong.

[@handuo6301]

as a mathematician, my first thought after “not multiplied by 2” was “increasing powers of the first number”, and then after seeing the absolute random numbers get through I would have tried imaginary and irrational numbers to see what happened. Didn’t think of descending order tho, lmao

[@gl8862]

How is this logical whatsoever? The most logical thing would be to find the most reasonable solution ie multiplying by 2. Your sequence is completely illogical if it was the first thing thought of. Your skepticism that you might already naturally have more of, was reinforced even further from the title of the video, so of course you would do the weirdest thing. Rather than thinking logically, it's closer to problem solving ability and critical thinking skills.

[@nlaughton]

As a teacher I love this, and will probably be asking my students this question today. I'm at least glad that my line of thinking went pretty immediately from 3-6-12 to 1-2-3 to 3-2-1. Getting comfortable with being wrong is the only way to be consistently right. In physics I even always make sure to point out that basically everything I'm about to teach you is wrong in some way, but it's about figuring out how wrong you are and whether that matters in the given application.

[@jam9297]

Way to pat yourself on the back, remember humility

[@baseballwizardbaseballwiza6204]

@@jam9297 lmaooo

[@Gullshunter]

Any update how it went? What is the age of your students?

[@monkeybomb1232]

You arent special lol. He deliberatley cuts out all the poeple that naturaly come to pick numbers like that. This goes for all his videos like this. The point is to show the most extreme version of the bias to demonstrate it effectivley. You cant apply this as a rule so heavily to the general population especialy across time people will and wont suffer the bias on and off. That said generaly you would expect every single person to suffer this particular bias fairly often due to the large number of situations it applies to.

[@tpstrat14]

Oh a math teacher! Cool! So I have a question. What other rule besides doubling would satisfy both the sequence [2, 4, 8...] as well as infinite other sequences? How about we let k be arbitrarily positive. Then let's raise k to the nth power, start n at one and increase n by 1 for each successive term. This would give us [3, 9, 27...] for k = 3 and [4, 16, 64...] for k =4 and [5, 25, 125] for k =5, etc. Would that work, do you think?

[@supremeassassin3478]

My rule : multiples of 1

[@kay.e9014]

@AmplifiedSilence Please do not curse.

[@annadoesroblox6205]

1, 2, 2.9

[@8_marogondon_seandalennoda580]

Im 200th like thank me later

[@godson200]

My rule: complex multiples of 1

[@8_marogondon_seandalennoda580]

My rule: milk,cereal,plate,fork

[@aeroboi2862]

legend says that he is still saying "Follows my rule".

[@darshan5044]

Wow

[@TheSecondVersion]

T'Challa: What do "2,4,8" and Wakanda have in common? They *follow my rule*

[@pratikjadhav5003]

@@belgianwaffles3877 humm who cares?

[@Sirenhound]

Every passing second has a number that is larger than the last.

[@suntzu1409]

Follows my rule

[@AnkhAnanku]

My first thought was to continue the sequence like they did. My fist challenge was to try multiply 3 instead: 3 9 27. Next try just any whole numbers: 1 3 6. Then I would have tried negatives and fractions. So yeah I started out confirming a bias, but you should realize pretty quick that you don’t get any closer to the actual answer unless you find what it isn’t

[@TPRM1]

Hence: “The exception that proves the rule.”

[@PhaythGaming]

Always best to go with what’s most obvious. Try the simple thing. Multiply by two. Not right? Instantly think what else that sequence can be. Multiples of two, ascending order, non repeating. Ask in order of likelihood in your opinion. For me, I would have said 3, 6, 9 Then 9, 6, 3 That happens to be where you get it. Don’t group them into a sequence like 3, 3, 2. Then if he says no you’re in a guessing game. Now apply this to everything in life and you’re bing chillin

[@iPlayDotaReligiously]

​@@PhaythGaming not jong xina?

[@Sotanaht01]

@@PhaythGaming My process would have been 16 32 64: follows yes, doubling? no 2 4 7 follows yes (eliminate only even numbers), any whole numbers? no. 111 follows no (attempting to eliminate "non repeating" as a rule). -1 -2 -3 follows no At this point I've probably confused myself out of solving it, because now I have several things that are not correct but that I can't directly eliminate. It could have to do with non-repeating (has to be ascending, so that's half right), it could have to be positive (problem is the increasing negative is reducing). Now I have to come up with tests to either eliminate these variables or incorporate them, and I haven't yet touched on the more simple "increasing" pattern. The moral of this post is that negative results are not necessarily a good thing as they can easily mislead, while positive results can give us clear answers. I can clearly judge that doubling and evens are not part of the pattern, but my negative results only tell me that repeats and negatives might not be part of the pattern, and I need multiple further tests to figure out anything useful.

[@adamrobinson6951]

I think it's reasonable to test both positives and negatives. After all, determining whether 16, 8, 4 follows the rule isn't inherently more informative than determining whether 16, 32, 64 does. If 16, 32, 64 didn't follow the rule, that immediately changes your approach as it disproves the initial assumption. It's only once you've established some pattern on which to base a hypothesis that you can try to disprove that hypothesis. Continuing to choose tests that fit the established pattern is the problematic step, not establishing some pattern to begin with.

[@Khaztr]

"If you think that something is true, you should try as hard as you can to disprove it. Only then can you really get at the truth and not fool yourself." Definitely one of my favorite quotes now. I just wish I had heard anything like it earlier when studying the scientific method in school.

[@jacobbernstein7249]

This dudes videos are fantastic.

[@dominicstocker5144]

@@jacobbernstein7249 he’s biased hard on his sponsored videos tho

[@khabanh6928]

One of the proving method I learnt at school is to find 1 AND ONLY 1 example that contradicts the theory. I was like: damnn its so easy to disprove something. But yet, aft this video i realized its not that easy

[@austinhernandez2716]

Do you do that for your religion?

[@marilyngoldie5946]

@@dominicstocker5144 What do you mean?

[@threedot141]

I don't think most people consider teaching as a form of art, but I find that the entertainment, engagement, clarity and impact of this video is truly beautiful.

[@ItzJNazz]

Teaching has afaik always been a form of art, however it has lost the art-aspect of it through the years hence why gaining knowledge might seem boring. Our desire to learn has been forced into a set path (aka school), which works for the majority. Sadly, it is a shallow way of teaching.

[@TheWchurchill4pm]

This is the best way of teaching: ask questions and assign work that makes the student think long and hard about something.

[@ItzJNazz]

@@TheWchurchill4pm It is a good way to teach indeed, but I wouldn't say there is such a thing as a "best" method for teaching. Mostly due to everyone being different, with their own methods for learning.

[@ethancampbell245]

As a young autistic adult I believe that there is a best method for teaching and that it ironically lies in exactly what you’ve already described. It lies in the idea that there is no one way to teach for everyone. Consider the notion that students pick favorite teachers all the time. Following the reasoning that the teacher that connects with the most students and teaches the most students the most is the best teacher, wouldn’t it make sense that the best teaching style is to understand that there is no one teaching style?

[@thedislikebutton1907]

Infotainment...

[@denissanterre3092]

This lesson should be mandatory for all grade school children.

[@west5385]

Nah, school teaches everyone that being wrong and failing at things only amounts to embarrassment,disappointment and feeling like a failure.

[@skenda]

You must be old

[@denissanterre3092]

@@skenda Yes

[@denissanterre3092]

@Inescapable Justice I give up, what is the answer to this "Begging the question" fallacy? There is only one thing that I know absolutely, I have a conscious. Nothing else that I believe or have read or have seen or sensed is absolutely true. No, I am not lying to myself. I believe.

[@michaelthornes]

@Inescapable Justice I have no idea what you're going on about with the two false statements-you should probably be more clear as to the point you're trying to make

[@adamt4776]

This also shows we go into a problem with a far too complicated solution pattern in life, sometimes the answer just needs a more simple way of thinking. Which is why getting kids involved can really open the eyes of a stuck in its ways adult.

[@HerrNilsson.]

Occams razor

[@far2ez]

Getting kids involved wouldn't help. Get these people someone who knows how to troubleshoot.

[@noodlesthe1st]

Why do I feel like everyone who is an advocate of "do your own research" needs to see this. If you tell someone to do their own research they will always find a heap of evidence to support their own hypothesis and never anything to go against it.

[@ineedabetterpfp2485]

I agree. Really, it’s true. You should do your own research.

[@kylemilford8758]

That's just how we are wired. If I think blue is the best color I will search evidence on why it is the best. I would never string my query to say "why is green better than blue" if my end goal is to prove why blue is better

[@omp199]

@@ineedabetterpfp2485 Perhaps you are making a joke, but if not, you've misunderstood the original comment. You say that you agree, but what they were saying was that you _shouldn't_ tell someone to do their own research. If they already have a belief that you think is wrong, you need to present them with the evidence that it is wrong. They are very unlikely to go away and find that evidence for themselves.

[@omp199]

@@kylemilford8758 The question of the "best colour" is not a factual question, though. It is purely a matter of individual taste. If you like blue best, then blue is the best colour, for you. It is not something that you can find evidence on, other than the evidence that comes from within. Of course, it is conceivable that you just haven't experienced enough colours, and that there might be a colour out there that you would prefer, if only you could see it, and it would take research to find that colour. But the research would just be to find the colour in the first place, and to judge your own emotional response to it, not to find a analysis of its quality that someone else has written.

[@ineedabetterpfp2485]

@@omp199 Yeah I was making a joke

[@nickllama5296]

I was actually expecting the rule (initially) to be "give me 3 random numbers."

[@jayceewedmak9524]

After a couple of times of people's examples and Derek saying "correct but not my rule " I thought 3 numbers just like you. I thought of 3 and they were ascending but it wasn't a conscious choice to make them ascending - more just following his pattern.

[@shawnclark732]

Me too

[@goldenraisins]

@@jayceewedmak9524 I suppose recognizing you're following his pattern is catching the rule!

[@cengizkaan7513]

Well it might be your own rule if you want to test people like this guy did.

[@yusurkassem4174]

Well what's not a 'random' number I thought that's what it might be at first but like that's stupid because that just means there is no rule

[@maxvirtus2614]

1, 69, 420

[@laszlohelmeczi8667]

c1ue scroll 07 Follows my rule

[@cularre9544]

69, 420, 666

[@incription]

1,69,420,666,1337,58008

[@maxvirtus2614]

InCrIpTiOn what is 58008

[@hihtitmamnan]

did u mean 80085? which is BOOBS

[@SebastianTanner-e8n]

9 years later and this is still such a relevant and great video. Timeless. Thank you.

[@citizen_koehn]

The golden nugget: "If you think that something is true, you should try as hard as you can to disprove it."

[@TheBaggyT]

Within reason... I think that falling off a 300ft cliff with no safety would end in serious injury or death. I'm not in a hurry to disprove that one! But also its inverse: "If you think something is untrue, you should try as hard as you can to prove it." That one is often lacking in the scientific community.

[@rio1408]

Yep

[@oliverhou5354]

@@TheBaggyT Your claim is actually not true. To prove a point, you need it to be right in every circumstance it claimed to fit, but to disprove it, you only need one. So if one rule is proved to be not true, it doesn't matter if in some particular cases it succeeds.

[@TheBaggyT]

@@oliverhou5354 That's a fairly simple way of looking at things... most things and systems are fairly complex. Just because one aspect may not fit a particular theory, can you write off all aspects? No, there is more to investigate.

[@God1is1love1]

People need to do this with their worldview. I love doing this. I am a Christian and I love hearing the Athiestic perspectives or other religions. This is the major reason I love debating (in a calm, organized manner) because either me or the other person will either walk away with more faith in our stance (in whatever) or we are closer to the truth.

[@matthewward7220]

Another bias is at play for us viewers who have been primed to know “it’s a trick”. We know that the participants are meant to be getting it wrong for a demonstration, that’s why we feel super clever when we all realised it’s just an ascending order way before the people on the video.

[@dxlaser3397]

I thought it was the previous 2 numbers multiplied by eachother at first, so I was thinking about 32 256 8192 being the next numbers but that quickly became incorrect :(

[@AsPEctFAm]

@@dxlaser3397 I also thought it was the previous 2 numbers multiplied by each other, but didn't get anywhere near trying to calculate 32 x 256 in my head :D

[@dxlaser3397]

@@AsPEctFAm I just used my laptop calculator xD

[@laurapessoa2780]

Well thank you for saying this bc i did feel super clever 😭

[@wellendowedplatypus9024]

Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. If it's not "multiply by two", then it must be SOMETHING else. In addition, I would expect it to be something relatively simple (i.e. something a normal person can calculate in their head) and not some esoteric math because that would just be pointless. I would have tried 3, 9, 27 first, then 2, 3, 11, then 2, 8, 4. Then I would have guessed the correct rule. Watching people try the exact same thing again and again and again was very frustrating. You are not getting any new information ffs, change your approach already!

[@realamztvs]

Actual Mathmatician: "i, -i, i^2" Veritasium: "give me a minute"

[@vinaylalwani]

@ISPY4ever it's imaginary, but yes it is a number

[@rr24creations]

What if Derek was prepared and he said his rule was for ascending real numbers, or even integers to be more specific

[@huongvu-yz2nn]

Actually, i=i^1; (-1)=i^2; (-i)=i^3 (because i^3=(i^2)*(i^1)= (-1)*i=i^3) Bonus: i^4=1 (because i^4=(i^2)^2=(-1)^2=1)

[@vinaylalwani]

@@huongvu-yz2nn who asked?

[@Notkikc]

you just did

[@crescentx3]

I took an experimental psychology class last year, and the entire class played this game at the beginning of every class. By the end of the year, we were solving the puzzle in 5 minutes. The other part of it was that the professor would never tell us if we were right, only letting us be satisfied with our answer.

[@bruhmoment1835]

That's sounds like a lazy ass professor lmao

[@johnbalvin5401]

do you know a similar online course I could take? I feel dumb watching the video, I couldn't even get the first sequence correct

[@larrystone654]

Rule: at about 3 and a half minutes folks start looking for an escape route.

[@cannabinized]

Especially when it's becoming evident their partner is smarter

[@JakeWitmer]

@@cannabinized LOL "upsetting the natural order"

[@Zeuts85]

Yeah, it actually annoys the hell out of me how easily people give up or shy away from any sort of mental challenge. It's a wonder homo sapiens ever made it this far.

[@TheSlimmshadyy]

@@Zeuts85 Hmm or they could just be doing something better ?

[@definitelynotcrazyrei3890]

At that timestamp he's talking about swans.

[@evesolis6133]

This is why smart people sometimes argue for bad arguments and ideas just to explore the possibilities

[@aqfanjames]

nah, people who like to play devil's advocate are sometimes just dicks

[@jiyama]

mostly for the lulz

[@EaZyGoiN12]

I think what you mean is that, sometimes curious ("smart") people, seek out other opinions or perspectives about something that is widely believed in. Because in an instance that someone might have a whole different view on something must mean, more than that more than one person has concluded to believe that as well. Also because in many situations there is always opposing sides, and so there might be actual realities with "holes" or faults on their beliefs.

[@thekeyandthegate4093]

@@aqfanjames Playing Devil's Advocate doesn't make you a dick. It's important to entertain possibilities outside of the established facts because it's impossible in many cases to account for everyone's bias or every single variable.

[@joanagomes1898]

@@thekeyandthegate4093 Yes, entertaining other possibilities is important, and there is nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate. I think Aqfan James is reacting like this because some people will express opinions they clearly believe in, and then claim to be playing devils advocate just to escape backlash.

[@Vermilicious]

I think there's another thing going on here. People, when asked a question regarding numbers/math, assume the answer is non-trivial, and so they don't think about the trivial possibilities. A child would likely get the correct answer much sooner.

[@joshuasukup2488]

Very true! Everyone (including) looked for a more restricted time rule.

[@lucasyates1893]

The answer isn't trivial, it's just less rigid, specific, and complex than at first appears, which actually is a good analogy for other types of information and patterns in the world. And the real key is the process to which we discover truth. Do we ever test hypotheses that we're confident will give us disconfirming results, or do we never test hypotheses that we're confident will give us disconfirming results? Asking only questions that will confirm our hypothesis is what we call confirmation bias.

[@reportsreports7149]

Incorrect. It is MOST trivial to answer with "16" when presented with a sequence of "2, 4, 8". Those are powers of two. This is actually the most common and trivial answer you'd get, even from a child that has a bit of brain and can multiply by 2. Answering with "just a random numbers in ascending order" is actually very non-trivial, because the sequence you were presented with (2, 4, 8) clearly follows a rule - multiplication by 2. This rule is easily spotted by any sane person who knows kindergaten-level mathematics. That is why trying to break the rule and saying "numbers in ascending order" is very counterintuitive and non-trivial.

[@Vermilicious]

@@reportsreports7149 There are degrees of "trivial", and I'm pretty sure sorting numbers is more trivial than multiplication. Multiplication is certainly not kinder garden-level math. I wonder what kind of kinder garden you went to. I would say, most people don't want to think about math at all during their everyday life, and in this case they are asked on the street. Their first suggestion is obvious and it is the correct and sane answer. And it's just about complicated enough, in that setting, where they are not prepared. Why would anyone ask them on the street if they can sort numbers? Then they are given the reply that it's wrong, and they loose what little confidence they had, and so they are mostly just guessing wildly. Because, it has to be non-trivial and they already got it wrong. That means the answer has to be more complicated, not simpler. That is the expectation. That is their intuition. Is this an example of group think and bias? Yes and no.

[@Vermilicious]

@@lucasyates1893 The answer is as trivial as sorting numbers. It doesn't get much more trivial than that. No one who is asked a math question on the street would expect to be told to sort numbers. They expect something more complicated. And this, I would emphasize, is to a greater degree true when it comes to problems of a mathematical and logical nature. So I would argue, while this example has elements of bias in it, it's not only that. The question was intentionally made to confuse people, in a topic people easily get confused with. Many would even fear it.

[@wordkyle]

I just rewatched this video after originally watching it eight years ago. The point -- that scientists should seek to disprove their results rather than just confirm their ideas -- seems much more relevant after what's happened in recent years.

[@cyin974]

me: "can I go out and play?" mom: "no, that doesn't follow my rule." Veritasium: "TRY AS HARD AS YOU CAN TO DISPROVE IT!"

[@rkp8495]

haha

[@LeventK]

ROFL RELATABLE

[@RabidBoar]

proceeds to jump out bedroom window

[@LeventK]

Why did u edit it duude

[@akshitrawat3884]

go out and study

[@howard5992]

There is a also different "lesson" here. When you have a problem to solve don't become blind to the idea that the answer may be simpler than you first think.

[@MisterFoxton]

Occam's Razor!

[@kevinw712]

Admittedly very early on my initial guess was ascending non-consecutive numbers, until he said the "11, 12, 13" was okay, that's when it was obvious. I'm like shouting at the screen "people it's ascending numbers, that's all!!" lol

[@mrpedrobraga]

as a programmer I'm guilty of this spent 30 minutes coding a touchscreen detection system I had one done, better than my system, already layig around

[@workmad3]

@@kevinw712 Until you test '1,1,1' and '3,2,1', it could also just be 'any 3 positive numbers', and without '-3,-2,-1', and similar, you also have the open possibility of 'any 3 numbers'

[@alvallac2171]

*simpler

[@b07x]

My Rule: All Numbers are Positive

[@kingkonglong9442]

But then where is the ordering?

[@blaziken0974]

-3, -2 , -1

[@raynemichelle2996]

Posi vibes only

[@jeuno.]

I originally thought the rule was they were all positive integers

[@Astrobrant2]

The goal was to figure out HIS rule. So as Adam pointed out, -3, -2, -1 would follow the rule.

[@seekthuth2817]

This legitimately is one of the best videos I think I've seen on KZbin because it's rooted in very sound advice that has applications in almost everything you do. Doesn't just have to be for science and math related topics.

[@alvinpalmgren3442]

"Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it." - Karl Popper

[@drmedwuast]

Makes amazing cleaning products too, big fan

[@alphacore4332]

PAY ATTENTION: this video is not about if you can or can not guess the rule or how fast you solved it or how amazing you are, it is here to teach about the methodology behind finding a correct answer in the scenario the people being filmed were in. They should have been giving him WRONG answers but instinctively gave him answers they thought were correct so they didn't get any closer to the rule. Since you didn't ask any questions, you didn't play the actual game... the rule could have been much more complex, and having only 'yes' as a response doesn't narrow it down.

[@EffableLemming]

Alpha Core Thank you!

[@someguysomewhere100]

Yep, it's The confirmation bias test.

[@Cyberangel39]

Alpha Core Damn you, stop reminding me of "The Game" :D

[@niToitsyeSkxawng]

Viktor Weinkauf dammit i lost

[@joshuakilford9949]

+Slade Wilson my thoughts exactly

[@josephroussos9926]

There's a game on steam called Understand, which is basically this exact concept. It's interesting how trying to figure out the rules behind a puzzle requires a completely different line of thinking from your typical puzzle where you just want to find the solution, and this video demonstrates that perfectly.

[@mizlia]

Yes! I'm on chapter 3 right now, that's immediately what I thought of. You think you know what the rules are because everything you've seen confirms your theory, and then you get to a puzzle that throws your assumptions out the window. I feel like my recent experience with that game made me wise very quickly to what was going on.

[@slushpuppie19]

Thanks for mentioning this game, it sounds very interesting, I'm checking it out now!

[@Nazareadain]

which reminds me of The Witness, where trial and error is supposed to chip away at the rule, and making assumptions really bites you on the ass.

[@josephroussos9926]

@@Nazareadain I also played through the Witness, it's a quality puzzle game, although I found it quite difficult

[@UCvow2TUIH0d2Ax2vik9ILzg]

Thanks for the recommendation.

[@Gali80f]

Seen this 9 years ago. Thought to myself "yeah, ok". But only now I understand how profound this idea is. And I did read the Black Swan. It's just so comfortable and pleasant to search for signs that you are right and push aside the "turkey dillema"

[@JoeHarkinsHimself]

The Black Swan is fine for examining what happened . . . but it often can be do late to do anything but react . . . wouldn't be better to anticipate the problem . . . and prevent it or have correction in place before it happens . . . consider "The Gray Rhino" by Michele Wucker, the brilliant business analyst and author.

[@megabear163]

Interesting how all the numbers are greater than zero.

[@KoenZyxYssel]

So true, I want to know if 0, 0, 1 and/or -1,-2,-3 fit his rule.

[@megabear163]

KoenZyxYssel 0=0(-2)>(-3) so that would not work. The rule is x

[@KoenZyxYssel]

For most purposes it's good to assume 0 is 0 and -1 is greater than -2 but when you're taking measurements 0 is rarely 0 and -2 is almost always greater than -1. If his numbers don't have to be unique the rule could be x= |z| but I'm still not sure if that's his rule.

[@SuperSox97]

+broccoli But the numbers the other people proposed did not follow exponents but was approved.

[@Keldor314]

I believe he chose the powers of 2 on purpose, as a red herring. It can be hard to take a step back and try to find a less specific rule rather than a more specific one.

[@porridgegod42]

my physics teacher clearly watches this channel as he gave our class the exact same challenge, I think we all fell into the bias

[@blartversenwaldiii]

This puzzle has appeared lots of places, I originally found it in Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality lol. Possibly it was invented in the 'The Black Swan' book he mentioned and then people passed it around through word of mouth? Edit: another comment said they saw this problem in 1987. It's just an old problem.

[@shaman_bez_bubna]

​@@blartversenwaldiii Wikipedia says the 2-4-6 task was created by Peter Cathcart Wason in 1960.

[@blartversenwaldiii]

@@shaman_bez_bubna ahh thanks

[@iyedtheboss7372]

let me guess, american?

[@AndrewVanLare]

The sentence below is false. The sentence above is true

[@AndrewVanLare]

Everything about this sentence is false.

[@MrPicooZ]

+Andrew Van Lare The Word incorrectly is allways spelled incorrectly except it was spelled incorrectly.

[@shmosel_]

A sentence cannot be true or false unless it contains a statement. A sentence declaring a sentence to be true or false does not contain a statement unless the sentence in question contains a statement. Neither of your sentences can be demonstrated to be stating anything, therefore they are both neither true nor false.

[@AndrewVanLare]

Actually the statement is that the sentence is true or false that is a statement so I don't know what you are talking about

[@shmosel_]

+Andrew Van Lare A sentence would need to make sense in order to constitute a statement. If I declare, "this bike is false," that sentence would not be true or false, since it does not contain a logical statement.

[@jonh284]

I deal with this at work on a daily basis in training people to become more effective problem solvers and troubleshooters in a technical setting. In atrociously abridged form: 1. Identify what makes sense. 2. Identify possible contradictions. 3. Use list #2 to either add to list #1 or find the solution. In the case of the video example: doubles, squares, and evens should be the things NOT to use to identify the “problem” (rule) at first. Eliminating the most obvious contradictions to the given set (odds, negatives, non-integers) will give you the most information moving forward.

[@stacyswirl]

I figured it out after hearing "2, 4, 7" followed the rule. I couldn't offhand think of anything that would work for both "2, 4, 8" and "2, 4, 7" other than "they get bigger as they go along".

[@amirofthedesert]

I really wanted someone to say 3,2,1 after the 2,4,7 established the likely answer.

[@niithaki3957]

Same!

[@anothony3399]

I thought it was "they're all whole numbers" for a while until I remembered he said "in a specific order"

[@gpaps7787]

Same lol

[@unhommequicourt]

I figured it out even before that. I wonder if he interviewed people who got it real quick and didn t keep it in the footage?

[@LA2047]

You've just described how most people seek news nowadays: not to learn, but to conform to their preconceived notions of what they've decided are "rules." They seek confirmation, not knowledge.

[@jordyv.703]

It's always been like this.

[@LA2047]

@@jordyv.703 Except I'm old enough to remember that it has not been. There's always been an element of that, but since the age of the internet everyone with an opinion and a wifi connection thinks they're a "news outlet," which has amplified that element into the mainstream.

[@jordyv.703]

@@LA2047 It's just a lot more obvious right now because of how easy it is to communicate. These cognitive biases have been in our dna for probably millions of years. If you really want an example of this, just look at religion. They are a result of seeking an answer instead of trying to prove it wrong. It's just how we are as a species

[@LA2047]

@@jordyv.703 Can't argue with that.

[@jordyv.703]

@@LA2047 I get your point too though. It's easier for cognitive biases to play out now because there's less consequences when you're wrong.

[@falcychead8198]

The "black swan" example leads to a logical fallacy that is often made by people with fringe beliefs. It is true that if all the swans you've seen are white, that in itself does not prove "all swans are white." But that is not an argument _for_ the existence of black swans, because by that same reasoning you could argue the existence of green swans, polka-dot swans, two-necked swans, etc. For instance, the sun always rises in the east and sets in the west. In pre-Copernican times you could argue that that assertion was based on cognitive bias, but it wouldn't support the idea that the sun could rise in the west and set in the east, even once the geocentric model had been disproved. There has to be a concrete example of an exception, or else some causative argument for an exception.

[@Mcskittelybiscuts]

It's why as a believer of God I try my hardest not to get into a scientific argument but instead to challenge them to come and see, to ask a God they do not believe in to reveal himself to them, and to actually be open to Him doing so. However, it's very rare for me to come across real people who refuse to believe in God because of what has been observed on a scientific matter, it always seems to be a rather personal issue that is quite deep. Family death, suffering, loss, all of which God promises to restore, requiring nothing of you but to stand before Him. Sorry, no need to preach on KZbin comments. It's just not scientific facts or theories that turn people away from God although it's a quick an easy excuse that needs no further investigation.

[@dazzlemasseur]

@@Mcskittelybiscuts I didn't think I'd see a religious person in the comments. Hello :D !

[@brittanyismebb]

What’s interesting though is that in this situation, “truth” is relative. For the person who has been searching for black swans all their life, their reality based on (their) evidence is that there are no black swans. That’s when you can say, maybe there are I just haven’t seen them myself. That’s where religion and gods gets involved too. For someone who reads the Bible and listen to their religious leaders, “the evidence” they know is the one they see. But once you do the research to try to find the plot holes in your belief system (where the Bible originated, who compiled it and why, what was left out, why and what other religions believe…) you realize the things you have been taught to justify as truth based on bias and tradition are not facts but merely imperfect perceptions swayed by human thinking. Easily manipulated by money, power, and ethical dilemmas. And that’s the whole world baby. That’s how it works. “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” Ooh look, more evidence of the Bible’s sagacity!? No. I could declare: “in the future, man’s technology will produce flying cars.” And I wouldn’t be a saint or a prophet. Just a cognitive analyst. And those who wanted to hold my words as prophetic could ensure a world of flying cars, therefore sealing the evidence as “proof” of my foresight, as well as all the others contained in the sacred youtube comments…. For the Bible to be edited, translated and produced by politicians, and religious leaders, (the leaders of the world) and then declared “truth” by the conditions they cause….it has become a manual on how to conform to the will of the “experts” and never rely on your own thinking and intuition.

[@Shikamaru747]

@@Mcskittelybiscuts I'm not sure if that's a universal rule... I was raised to be open to religion in general but not taught any specific one. I ended up becoming nonreligious just cause I don't see a need to posit the existence of God. I'm not saying He definitely doesn't exist, just that everything seems explainable enough to me without Him.

[@Mcskittelybiscuts]

@@brittanyismebb I would say this is a valid argument for many if not all religions except my own. Let me state first why that is not ignorant. For there to be a perfect truth than, it would logically allow just one religion to be true. The outcomes of my religion, Christianity, is so massively against everything you stated as being a reason to create a manmade religion. Christ teaches to deny oneself for their brother, and then goes on to extend it to their enemies, to sell everything and give to the poor, to lay down one's life for another to live, to care for the orphans and widows. You are very true that even this religion of mine has been manipulated by those in power to instill control, but if you follow your own logic and instead rely upon your own thinking and intuition and apply it to the actual scriptures of the Bible reading the very words yourself, I am sure you would come to the same conclusion that I have. Christ is the center of the entire Bible and his sacrifice and teachings are our greatest hope as humans. The amazing thing is you live in a time that you can very easily research and read these things for yourself, please do not take an article as good enough, but find the scriptures either in their original languages or the photos of the 2000 year old texts, and read them. At least read the translated version and if that upsets you, no need for further investigation, but I have a hard time believing that Christ was made up so that people in power could have control.

[@melissabright22]

When I first saw that any sequence they proposed was said to match his rule, I looked at what they all had in common. They were all using NATURAL NUMBERS, and they were all increasing as they went, so I started listing random numbers like "3.8", "-14", "22½", "pi", etc.

[@ghostderazgriz]

"16, 32, 64" "Follows my rule" Oh ok, then each number in the sequence is multiplied by 2 "That is not the rule" Oh yeah? Hmmm I'll have to propose some other set of numbers unrelated to that rule in order to glean* new information. "3, 6, 12" wait no....

[@bumblebottom961]

I got it! 10, 20, 40! ...wait that's not right

[@Darthgipsyjoe]

To be honest asking 3, 6, 12 wasn't completely wrong. The rule could have been stricter than multiplication by 2, for example powers of 2 in an ascending order.

[@yomommashaus]

@@Darthgipsyjoe or odd numbers

[@DerAltruist]

Yeah listening to them keep trying the same thing over and over was frustrating

[@pflernak]

@@Darthgipsyjoe or multiply thelast 2 numbers

[@somethingsomethingsomethingdar]

I’ve been trying to disprove that I’m a virgin for the last seven years….So far the theory is rocksolid

[@pedestrian2530]

Think of all the times there was a possibility that someone banged you in your sleep.

[@letsgoBrandon204]

And now examine your house security

[@Wertsir]

@@pedestrian2530 I remember. Happy memories.

[@sentfromheaven00]

@@pedestrian2530 I would not like to think about bein raped

[@mg6240]

@@pedestrian2530 are you saying that was really Alexis Texas? Dam I ain't watched porn in ages I just realised shes prolly old now. Edit: just did a quick Google search. She still got it.

[@marktaro]

Using this 'rule' while learning anything new can be very helpful. Basically, trying to break the rules to see what doesn't work is just as valuable as seeking what does work.

[@calleja332]

This is exactly what I told the judge at my petty theft trial!

[@UV0023]

This video is 9 years old We went from asking these kinds of questions in the streets to asking: Paris in FRANCE is the capital of which country? Somebody would say Italy!

[@NumbToons]

Did this with my friends,, it took them 1 week to answer , Now nobody talks to me.

[@Knee-Lew]

Poor you :(

[@huntergathereroutdoors2209]

Good

[@OgdenThorntonFamily]

LOL

[@raze7x]

hahah!

[@hihtitmamnan]

the riddle is not that hard so they might be idiots...

[@JohnHollowell]

This is basically what QA and testing people for programs have to do: think of all the different ways and orders to try to trip up a program

[@1BeGe]

Accurate. Many people know how to write code that works. Few know how to write code that can't not work.

[@damiankaleomontero496]

Ah yes bug fixing, the actual hard part of coding

[@Zerububble]

What would a sane person do? Don't do that.

[@hottuna2006]

@@Zerububble It's the other way around. What is something no sane person would do? Do that.

[@BusinessWolf1]

That's how I find bugs in video games and apps

[@veritasium]

I edited the video like this to make it more interesting to watch, but it may make the solution easier to see than if you consider only the data available to one interviewee. Here is a minimally edited clip: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d4elaamIeJt7f7s

[@harryschneider7858]

first thing i thought of was 2, 4 ,8

[@sebastienponcelet3044]

Robbie Terry That would be incorrect? Since 2 4 7 also followed the rule :)

[@vinayakbiju]

Robbie Terry that's not the rule. he said it.

[@Delta92F]

try to solve this, I give you two examples: if i start with the number "1" the sequence is 1, 11, 21, 1211, 111221 if i start with the number "2" the sequence is 2, 12, 1112, 3112, 132112

[@jeffjefferson6744]

Demon Lord 111221 means one 1 - one 2- two 1.

[@Kway32]

Thank you for sharing! This reminds me of an old road-trip game called green glass door or a similar one about going on a picnic. One person thinks of some criteria determining what can be brought through the green glass door (or brought on their picnic), for example anything that has the letter "a". The other players propose objects, and the player with the rule tells them whether or not that object fits the criteria.

[@siva2610]

Could you tell me more about the rules and perhaps give an example? Sorry if I'm asking too much, but hey, YT comments....

[@zanharris8697]

I'm genuinely surprised no one decided to throw in decimals and/or negative numbers, after my third guess I thought "hmm, how about I say one random Decimal, one Negative, and one Positive (in that order)." that would have gotten me one step closer to discovering 'the Rule.'

[@Pekara121]

True I was like „ hmmm what happens when i say 0 three times?“ 😂

[@Toopa88]

@@Pekara121 Same :)

[@NinjasOfOrca]

that's the whole point. Most people aren't trying to learn, they're trying to force the rules to follow their way of thinking. You see this all the time in political discourse - people put their conclusion first and then cherry pick or distort the facts so they can be "right". People trying to force their rule on the interviewer is just another example of this

[@sillyking1991]

@tyler954 while i agree with you in principle (basically, by having the sequence follow a seemingly more complex rule you obfuscate the relative simplicity of the rule)...I do think most people would actually say oxygen, simply because 'food, water, air' is pretty much the standard answer to that question. at least in my experience.

[@marslara]

​@Tyler Okay but if they repeatedly offer numbers under the same idea that's just dumb lol If the guys asked you to guess a number and he said it's not 1 but you keep guessing 1 uh..

[@marjgalangco9954]

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.” ~ Richard Feynman

[@alphaomikron4008]

The important thing here is not the rule, it is the methodology. These people were stuck in asking questions that didn't produce any new information. You need to find numbers that don't fit the rule.

[@alphaomikron4008]

+alpha omikron and you are not guniuses, it was simply easy.

[@ryancalton9775]

+alpha omikron I don't know what a guniuses is but I'm certainly not one

[@daveauburn1561]

My first thought was even numbers. So naturally, I proposed 1, 3, 5. My second thought was the numbers differed by 2. So next, I proposed 1, 2, 3. At this point, increasing numbers was a fairly easy guess.

[@kai-gg2ip]

Same I got before anyone did in the video

[@eriklarsen6790]

​@@kai-gg2ip I did too, but it's possible that they got it pretty quickly too. We were being shown several groups after all.

[@jemangerrit1747]

Well not really, cause you havent gotten any wrong answers yet. You should still try 0,0,0 and 3,2,1. At the end of your guesses these could still be correct. Even when you know about the bias you still fall into it

[@daveauburn1561]

@@jemangerrit1747 If the game only allows one guess, then yes you should go on. In the video multiple guesses were allowed. In that case, you should guess as soon as you have one. The strategy you mentioned is to minimise the number of steps in the worst case, and you should definitely play it through to exhaust all possibilities when only one guess is allowed. Having a worst case strategy gives you an upper bound on the number of attempts, but you could always guess it on first try.

[@whywhy8276]

Guess my rule: 34

[@levyloup-noe6187]

Is your rule ?

[@lyrix7479]

Whatever it is there exists porn if it.

[@whywhy8276]

correct

[@pastamane7167]

shrek and sonic?

[@deathwing9664]

sure

[@Pupsi]

"confirmation bias"

[@rosepinkskyblue]

Hey it’s pupsi the fruit music covers guy Mad respect for being able to tune and play carved fruits… I showed your vids to my mom and she was so mind blown

[@ThatisnotHair]

Anchoring bias

[@renomtv]

@@oyi_oyi good point. So the vid is indeed more confirmation than cognitive, or are you saying it is more prejudiced than biased.

[@renomtv]

@@oyi_oyi Appreciate the clarification

[@U311.61]

@@oyi_oyi I literally instantly noticed that you'd misspelled. What a bad example, lmfao.

[@lasarousi]

The whole time I was thinking, say a repeating number. Repeat a number. That's why being your own Devils advocate is so important.

[@michaelcoughran5793]

Same! I was hoping for someone to say, "one one one" hahaha

[@David-lm5bf]

@Twinsen Sendell As a programmer myself I got it in roughly 1 or 2 mins. I was initialy thinking too complex but quickly realized that so I went to simplify my own rule that'd fit a case where most people would name their sequence in. Which then raised the question "ok, so what if I name a sequence that went down rather than up"

[@David-lm5bf]

@Twinsen Sendell Yeah I agree, and I often catch myself doing that. So when I end up realising that, the first thing I do is to simplify it and more often than not it's a lot closer to the answer.

[@redtoadgames4730]

@@David-lm5bf Me too. As soon as "2,4,7", was confirmed to fit, I realised the answer was probably just 'ascending'. Lazy coders always look for the simplest route!

[@jwmmitch]

I thought someone early on gave descending numbers and he said it fit the rule, so that threw me off, but I was thinking "say 2,2,3 or 1,2,1" of course we are viewers of a video having a bit more observing ego than being the one on the spot trying to figure it out live.

[@AlexanderNash]

I think part of the bias is that almost every "number sequence following a rule" problem, I've ever seen, uses ascending numbers by default AND these problems almost always involve some sort of operation on one member of the set to get to the next one. I think the bias comes from how people have seen these questions before not some inherent bias.

[@iPlayDotaReligiously]

Agree!

[@lvlupproductions2480]

If you're (2nd person subjective definition not accusatory) entrenched in thinking that way it's even more important to break your preconceived notions. Before edit: If you're (2nd person dative definition not accusatory) entrenched in thinking that way it's even more important to break your preconceived notions.

[@nineteenfortyeight]

@@lvlupproductions2480 2nd person possessive

[@lvlupproductions2480]

@@nineteenfortyeight Why would that be possessive?

[@bradleyboyer9979]

Agree. This literally proved no bias at all. The people assume that a guy with a camera is asking them questions about a sequence of numbers that requires deep thought. He could have used any "rule" he wanted and gotten the same result. Positive numbers. Numbers divisible by one. Etc. This was not at all informative or interesting.

[@Haleyh629]

That golden retriever in the back going absolutely wild

[@ruddyuddy]

This is so true, one should try to disapprove in order to prove. At the age of 36, I learnt something I haven’t learnt before

[@medexamtoolscom]

This is what's known as proof by contradiction. You assume the opposite of what you expect and see if it results in any irregularities. This is standard fare in mathematics.

[@SocietyUnplugged]

“[Program] testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence!” - E.W. Dijkstra

[@danielyuan9862]

It's "learned". It would be "learnt" if the verb was "learnd", like how "bend" becomes "bent".

[@ruddyuddy]

@@danielyuan9862 Haha, you are actually wrong!! Go get a dictionary and check it out.

[@robertfrownyjr4035]

I've been sitting here yelling SAY THREE NUMBERS IN DESCENDING ORDER!!

[@goobagel]

Ascending order? Is that what you mean?

[@robertfrownyjr4035]

+BixelWeekly No, I mean descending. They were saying for example 1,2,3 which is ascending aka going up. They actually needed to go down like 321, which is descending.

[@goobagel]

+Robert FrownyJr ok!

[@Jotaro-o]

+Robert FrownyJr I know right! I figured out the rule after the first two examples that follows the rule... Some people are just stupid (no offense).

[@angie-ru2qz]

SAME

[@samstewart4444]

When the question was asked, everyone got the right answer for the special case. It is true that 2, 4, 8 are ascending numbers, but it is also true that the sequence involved doubling numbers. For this reason, the question was deceptive at best. I think the video proved that how you ask a question is important. Using a special case can lead the answers in the wrong direction.

[@dbix11]

I feel weird for understanding this so quickly, that never happens

[@thoticcusprime9309]

pepega

[@MikhailFederov]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[@JoffWasHere]

I think it was easier for us to get it because we got to see multiple groups of people try to figure it out and were already told the video was about cognitive bias. Also might be more inclined to think harder watching a video you know you will learn from vs being stopped on the street.

[@heckingbamboozled8097]

@@JoffWasHere Could also just be the general audience that watches these types of videos. If you're actively seeking out knowledge on things you don't fully understand, like a lot of the people on this channel (I don't understand the majority of the subjects that get discussed here before watching, for instance), you're probably also more likely to think in a more abstract way regarding these types of tests. Though most likely it's a mix of these two things - being able to watch from the outside perspective, and the general audience that this channel attracts.

[@Gmorktron]

@@heckingbamboozled8097 ok... now disprove it.

[@Lost_01]

This is why it takes a special person to be a really good tester for software.

[@Postermaestro]

true

[@ClearsG]

I'm a QA tester, and the first think I though was to throw a 0 in the middle of the sequence XD

[@boosteddrimmsu]

@@ClearsG I was thinking about just 0 0 0. Mostly because it's a zero and fits multiplication by 2 but pretty much nothing else.

[@SemiMono]

The internet is filled with them. They're called trolls. The difficult thing is finding trolls you can tolerate working with. ;)

[@whitneysmiltank]

@@SemiMono Hahaha I like that.

[@lilaroseg]

Ascending order. Figured out at 2 min. Im a genius child.

[@xXToxicFeedsXx]

Do you mean 2 min after the video is over?

[@lilaroseg]

At two min during the vid

[@xXToxicFeedsXx]

+Gaming And Baking It was a joke.

[@lilaroseg]

O.

[@brandonf.294]

+Gaming And Baking How could you find out his rule without proposing him numbers and he answering you? I don't believe you could actually have known it 2 min in without somewhat guessing or not being completely sure about your answer.

[@franciscooctavius5957]

What a strong yet simple way to showcase our learned conditioning of thought. The human mind is so fascinating and more so what’s fascinating is how so m any of us instinctively think of the same “rule” without allowing ourselves to think of other “rules” or “outcomes” exist. Love this.

[@venkatchait007]

Obviously these guys haven't done any unit testing.

[@Timooooooooooooooo]

Yijuwarp Lol yeah :D That's why TDD works, because you write tests that fail first.

[@an14s]

Unit tests drive me crazy, because I test every test case that I think the user would screw up my app with. 😂

[@pepn]

And yet you're very likely not to have tested the case the user will screw up your app with

[@Guillaurent]

I was exactly thinking about this. I think software engineers are used to tried to break rules. I'll try this with coworkers just to see...

[@pepn]

Yep ! Please let us know about the result of your experiments !

[@RimstarOrg]

I was impressed that they could continue the sequence and even give variations of it. Not the usual man-on-the-street interview. You didn't make them look dumb in that regard. However, the fact that they kept using the same rule... not very scientific.

[@matsv201]

Really gets to the point that multiple people can make up a identical theory that is wrong, and in real life, its actually quite common with people how don't follow the scientific method. Its a classic problem with "tin foil hat"-theory's. They work perfectly well as long as you don´t use the scientific method, but as when you do, it breaks down quite quickly. That in turn make most people believe that the scientific method is wrong, rather than that they them self are..

[@Deathskull0001]

He probably stopped a lot more people.

[@veritasium]

Deathskull0001 nope. this was everyone. A couple who spotted the exponential pattern is linked in the description.

[@n.l.bneverlookbacc5081]

RimstarOrg

[@Pacifista-0]

Before watching the Video to the end: I think the rule is, to say 3 numbers.

[@Pacifista-0]

Damn it lol

[@mydogskips2]

+The Notorious Shady Technically I don't think that is correct, you cannot just say any three number, they must be three numbers in increasing order. For example: 1,2,3 fits the rule but 1,3,2 does not, nor does 3,2,1; they have to be three numbers where the second number is greater than the first, and the third number is greater than the second. It is interesting how everyone saw the same pattern and tried to confirm it instead of trying to disprove the rule. The idea the video presents in the end regarding the scientific method is actually very interesting, but I do believe this wasn't necessarily the best experiment to use because people are biased in their thinking when seeing this pattern of numbers(as was easily demonstrated in the video), but maybe that was the point.

[@Pacifista-0]

***** Thank you.

[@mydogskips2]

+The R1 Quote, the Notorious Shady: "Before watching the Video to the end: I think the rule is, to say 3 numbers." "+mydogskips2 he said before watching the end implying that he once thought that but no longer had even before he wrote the comment.. So your comment is basically you using big words to try and sound superior but truly you are not." Again, Quote, the Notorious Shady: "Before watching the Video to the end: I think the rule is, to say 3 numbers." I did not infer from those words that he once thought one thing but no longer thought it. It sounds to me more like he was trying to guess the rule which he said was, "say 3 numbers." If he no longer thought it, why would he write it, especially when it is wrong? And the fact is that this is simply incorrect, that is not the rule(as I pointed out above). I'm not trying to be superior, I am just pointing out that the rule of saying any three numbers is not correct, that is all. I'm glad to see that he had a sense of humor about it, and for that I give him immense credit. It is not easy to admit when one is wrong, but if I were here I would certainly do so, however I am not, and that is indubitably so. There is a big word for you, I don't think I used one hitherto. ; )

[@Pacifista-0]

+Troubl3maker Oh dude, come on. Read my comment again.

[@cosmicpuma]

I always say that the best people to get advice from are the ones who can tell you how not to do something... those people who reply to a question for advice with "I might not be able to tell you the right way to do that but I can certainly tell you a thousand ways not to!"...in other words, all the proverbial 'pot holes' to avoid in life... After all, how do you know that the one way some person is telling you is right for you.... You have a better chance of success knowing all the things to avoid, especially in unknown territory. So, while this is not quite the same, it is the 'no' answer in another form. Great vid as always. Appreciated.

[@liamnorson9032]

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes - Arthur Conan Doyle

[@renomtv]

Outside of mathematics I'd say it's impossible to eliminate the impossible. So the "truth" as we know is just a stop gap made by the inventors of the scientific method.

[@mimszanadunstedt441]

You can eliminate the impossible, if its very specific. Like 'my god balances eggs on every humans head 2 hours a day and they all remember it, but are lying.' Just record a whole day of 1 person. Boom, its wrong.

[@johnconnor3246]

But eliminating all the impossible scenarios is the difficult part.

[@blow-by-blow-trumpet]

Arthur Conan Doyle also believed in spiritualism (contacting the dead), so there's that. Love the Sherlock Holmes stories though...

[@greyeyed123]

But he was wrong there. You can never know the set of possible things. I have a box that can only have a duck or a rabbit. Those are the only possibilities. It's not a duck. You say it's a rabbit. You open the box and it's a coffee maker. You've never heard of a coffee maker? You assumed it could only be a duck or a rabbit? You had evidence it wasn't a duck? None of those things matter if it is actually a coffee maker when you actually look. (You may also not have any idea how probable or improbable--much less how impossible or possible--something is because you simply do not have enough information.)

[@name-wq8qj]

4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42.

[@cheesychicken2826]

Zorro del Demonio why

[@sevitt6469]

I was just thinking that.

[@scott_41]

Cheesy Chicken Lost

[@scott_41]

***** Best quote. I miss it so much :'(

[@justmovedin]

-9999999, 50, 1337 Fits the rule.

[@flowersforferdinand375]

My job interviews almost every person using this question, they call it the "numbers game". I work in the tech industry, so this question really helps to find unbiased analytical thinkers. I had no hints to go on at all besides "probing" for information by guessing numbers, so I realized that in order to win I had to not be afraid to be aggressive and suggest as many random numbers as possible, and just let the information guide me (instead of ME trying to "guide" the information). Thankfully I got it within a few minutes, and landed a job that on paper I wasn't really qualified for (since I had no college experience), but allowed me to prove myself anyways - whereas my previous jobs were min wage retail/dishwashing/landscaping etc

[@allahm-ast3mnlywlatstbdlny164]

Mashallah good job

[@russellalesi5715]

Wonderful!

[@markuspfeifer8473]

The only bias you’re encouraged to have is „capitalism is great“ bias. Never ever try to disprove that! And if you do, at least don’t try to come up with something better!

[@ABadGamble]

@@markuspfeifer8473 don't leave us hanging. What's better than capitalism? Or do you just mean we shouldn't discount the possibility of a better system?

[@tcol]

My reasoning was 2 = three letters, 4 = four letters, and then 8 = five letters. Then after the first argument, I noticed you answered too quickly to any 3-number set, so "ascending order" was the next obvious answer. But it's easy for me to say since I already knew a cognitive bias was in place, plus seeing multiple people trying it before.

[@kosmaslemo]

Aaaaand this is how you get flat earthers "I dont want to find the truth, I want proof that my truth is right"

[@leebreakwell3790]

A delusional comment, from a round fluffy flock member.

[@jannetteberends8730]

@85 85 no it’s not. Religion is a belief. Actually you can’t proof it. You belief it or not.

[@nicbajito]

@@jannetteberends8730 Thats worst imo

[@ThirdLawPair]

Even better than trying to disprove a rule is to find the ways in which a rule is a helpful simplification, and then find the limits of where that simplification is no longer valid. For modestly imprecise measurements over reasonably short distances, the earth IS flat. But there are very many contexts in which a flat earth simplification fails to predict important phenomena.

[@cavemann_]

@@jannetteberends8730 That's the problem. They never question if they are wrong. It's either people fit their set of beliefs or not. The whole notion of belief itself is something that you can't prove physically nor mathematically. Trying to argue with someone that grounds their arguments in human emotions and preconceptions (belief) instead of rationality is a lost cause.

[@rinasinha9820]

Damn this is really interesting, and what's more interesting is that I asked this in a room where me, my siblings and cousins were all chilling. So two of them r in kindergarten, three of them are teenagers, one is in college and the other two are kind of settled with jobs. The kids in kindergarten could tell this in like 6-7 tries, and the thing is even after that being said, the one in college and two of the teenagers argued how i was wrong. Thankfully one of the job ones talked sense into them. Kids don't really worry about right or wrong, all they care about is trying, and that's what we should do. A little vagueness and ambiguity won't deem anyone as stupid.

[@zackglickert4495]

it takes many years for the public education system to beat the brain and individuality out of kids

[@tirsden]

I like you selected the rule yourself, but the college kids and teens argued that somehow you are wrong.

[@mrosskne]

When I play the game, when someone guesses an incorrect rule, I give them a triplet that follows either my rule or theirs, and fails the other, but don't tell them which is which. This is sufficient to prove that the rule they guessed isn't equivalent to mine.

[@TheBaumcm]

Yep, it’s the same reason that major catastrophes happen when someone sees a problem and doesn’t bring it up because they don’t want to be wrong or be shunned.

[@vez3834]

@@TheBaumcm This is very very true. "Wasting time" is the worst thing imaginable for some reason, even if you are just making sure that the giant dam doesn't break.

[@engerjp3578]

99 million,21 trillion,999 Quintillion does it follow the rule

[@WingMyWay]

Yes

[@Aakash_Goswami1]

Follows the rule

[@kailashsriram9862]

seriously?

[@Aakash_Goswami1]

@@kailashsriram9862 yep

[@Y2JWannaBe3]

YoungBoy JP no too nerdy

[@starque_forever]

I really love this video, it's kinda eye-opening to how we come up with a rule and live our lives according to that rule without even questioning whether it's true or not.

[@miyasensuree9482]

I farted in the bus. Four people turned around. I felt like I was on the voice.

[@elliskane3]

Miya Sensuree Oh my goodness, that's hilarious! :P

[@Handelsbilanzdefizit]

Miya Sensuree great job

[@voltzzhd532]

Best comment ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@MyVoid312]

Miya Sensuree copy pasta..

[@juni_pers]

dem copy and paste skills!

[@CheesusBri]

am i the only one who thought of exponets 2^1 = 2 2^2 = 4 2^3 = 8 so i thought of the numbers 3, 9 and 27

[@CheesusBri]

Jack Kennedy what's wrong with that?

[@minimooster7258]

Me too!

[@jackkennedy2619]

***** everything

[@TheDeqiro]

Yes, I thought way too hard about it LOL

[@matthewcatprince4336]

oh so that's how it works, but wait how does 1,2,3 work?

[@commenturthegreat2915]

I can't believe they didn't get that earlier. I was just waiting for them to say 3, 2, 1 or SOMETHING but they kept doing them in order...

[@sorryididntknowwhattochoos2678]

I knew that it was about the order at around 1:20. Then it was more like crying until they finally said it.

[@drizzelkun]

you guys must be very smart huh?

[@sorryididntknowwhattochoos2678]

@@drizzelkun lol the sarcasm, I think that this is more about what comes to mind faster. And that this doesnt have much to do with how smart you are.

[@TheWorldPillow]

And it helps that we have some additional clues to: that there is a point Veritasium is trying to make with this, and that it should be a very simple rule (by convention, and also by the fact that the video is relatively short). So ascending order made the most sense, and it was also what they were /not/ trying. You can also consider that we had more data than the actual participants did, because multiple people were making guesses on camera and it is pieced together to make a certain point. We are also not put on the spot and came looking for a video like this or otherwise had a reason to be recommended this video. ... Then it also depends on how much practice you have with games/puzzles like this. Black Magic, or Green Glass Door, or I See the Moon are all similar games. This, I think, is what really gives you the right approach to these kinds of puzzles (or generally learning inductive reasoning/scientific method) and the main point of the video is to encourage this kind of reasoning. The answer really could have been anything, but making a clever rule that is not immediately obvious or otherwise makes a point is the challenge of the puzzlemaker. And the joy of the puzzler.

[@zawsrdtygbhjimokpl6998]

we saw everyone's numbers and whether they followed the rule. These people did not, thus they received less information to deduce that as fast as us

[@koteamobfr]

I don't think the vast majority think about educating as a type of workmanship, however I observe that the diversion, commitment, lucidity and effect of this video is genuinely lovely.

[@Ohmz_i]

Dam "not to confirm what we believe" that's deep. Thanks man

[@drizzelkun]

you 14?

[@alexraill2838]

But are you 14 ??????

[@bayglman]

duh. *bad guy melody plays*

[@dhplaz1475]

@@edwardadams1024 He wasn't talking to you 25-year-old man ok?

[@BlueFan99]

9,11,2001 ?

[@alliumbees]

BlueFan99 😑😑 really? That's just. wow.

[@YM-zf8mt]

wow that joke is a sever 9/11

[@dane.ted.]

This DEFINITELY fits my rule.

[@jayelee._]

fits the rool !

[@thejukes46-14]

extreme_ fangirl17 HeS not wronh it dose fit the rule

[@MrApolloTom]

These experiments are always tricky to word. I think people understand 'rule' to mean a 1:1 rule, that is to say, you have to be able to predict the next number in the sequence from it.

[@ianfitchett2768]

Right, they equate "number rule" with "mathematical function"

[@alkinooskontopodias5919]

That is a possible explanation. For me (and others in the comment section) it was pretty obvious.

[@gregothy9190]

Generally, geometric series are taught with similar methodology and wording whereas this sequence was more abstract, maybe that's part of it?

[@Bucko99]

And that's exactly where the bias lies

[@MrApolloTom]

@@Bucko99 No it's not the same thing. One is the bias of trying to confirm a hypothesis, the other is misunderstanding the hypothesis.

[@DazzlingSounds]

I am kind of in a slight disagreement with him saying we should apply this at every place...like 'EVERY PLACE'. Sure we can use this at places where things are absolute or where we have to find a perfect model like finding flaws in some rule that governs how a particular phenomenon in nature works. But in some cases one should either let the things go on as they are or use this method responsibly. As I read someone's comment saying it can break relationships, yeah, when you excessively suspect someone for no reason you're making issues there, also true with things we call self sabotage. At such cases one has to be responsible, but in things like science, even programming it doesn't matter you just try to disprove that rule as much as you can if it is true it is, but crashing a car multiple times to see it's strength is not ideal things because it has limited strength to endure that.

[@slimshady1250]

This whole comment section is full of people who didn't get it but claim they got it because they don't have enough self ego

[@catfan321]

I didn't get it

[@ThatsTreeson]

I'm still very confused. I'm searching the comments for answers.

[@fuzzywuzacat5009]

I did get it though and I'm proud of it!!!!!!!!! I had to pause the video to think about it though.

[@mochimochi6357]

+eKe Gaming The rule was numbers in ascending order, or numbers from least to greatest. So 1-2-3 works, because the numbers become greater. 10-29-304 would also work because the numbers become greater. But 5-4-2 would not work, because that becomes numbers in descending order, or numbers from great to least.

[@mochimochi6357]

MrBeatBender I was talking to eKe Gaming. Unless you weren't talking to me

[@patrickdasilva1581]

The person I know in history who is most famously known for thinking like this is a mathematician whose last name is Nagata. He has proven loads of theorems in commutative algebra and algebraic geometry, but an ever bigger load of counter examples of things that sound conjecturally true at first, but by trying hard enough to disprove their truth, Nagata found a counter example, and these counterexamples are still famous to this day.

[@vez3834]

Thanks for this comment! I'll look into him. Also, related more-so to the video rather than your comment, I wish to say that the people in this video were curious enough to engage with him in the first place and to keep going. In a way they were brave enough to fail in search of knowledge. We should all be more like the people in this video AND be less like them in a different way :)

[@asafakanan1337]

Smokey Nagata, perhaps?

[@triffinne]

Reminds me of a principle taught in engineering courses: fail early, fail often. You learn more from failure than success (in many cases, at least). That principle got me to develop a programming method that my coworkers don't like but works fast: just spam debug logs if the first solution to a bug doesn't work. If I can't find it right away, I just brute force search a handful of things, whether I have a reason to or not, just get more information to sort it out

[@mardy3732]

Doesn't make sense to see a wrong answer as failure here in the first place. The objective is not to get a correct sequence of numbers, it's to find the rule. To which a wrong answer is more productive than a right one.

[@triffinne]

@@mardy3732 i see what you mean. Same argument could be made for engineering cases where "failing" is the goal to learn anyway. In that way you can argue the idea of failing never exists. But now we step into a realm of philosophy instead of communicating a concept of learning from "mistakes". The language used depends on how you want to frame it

[@threethrushes]

In business the principle is 'fail fast' - do the work/text/research which kills your idea the quickest.

[@far2ez]

In this game, a "yes" could be more elucidating than a "no" - it all depends on the question. TBH this was just a crappy video for this purpose.

[@Rambleon444]

John Stuart Mills...“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

[@LovrWJurthecoolest]

Watched this 7 years later and I can’t give it another like

[@Ludifant]

You can dislike it and unlike it at the same time. KZbin doesn´t care, still interaction..

[@schizophrenicenthusiast]

The people commenting that they "found a solution" really missed the point of the video. Also, you cannot solve this problem unless you can communicate with the host (I watched his videos for years yet somehow forgot his name wow). At any point before anyone gave a decreasing sequence, there's no possible way for anyone to conclude that the rule is increasing numbers, since it could have been something else (for example natural numbers only, because no one mentioned any fractions or negative numbers) And right after someone said a decreasing sequence, it didn't follow the rule, at that point we all knew what the rule was. Bottom line, to anyone who paused the video and tried solving the problem in advance, you're doing it wrong.

[@ExtantFrodo2]

So thinking that someone should have proposed descending numbers doesn't qualify? I know you are saying one needs confirmation from the host to verify the proposal or not, but this is not an interactive video. *"at that point we all knew what the rule was."* I had noticed the pattern of ascending number before the descending numbers was spoken (providing stronger evidence that his rule was ascending numbers). You didn't have proof what the rule was. You were just a lot more sure the rule was ascending numbers because so many different rule guesses conformed to the rule of ascending numbers. What if someone had suggested some descending sequence early in the game? They would try an equal amount of ascending and descending numbers applying a variety of different rules to ascertain conformity to the rule you had in mind. They might guess early on that the rule he had in mind was "ascending numbers" and ask if that's it and get confirmation or not as it would likely seem to be the only rule that's not excluded. The rule could have as easily been "how I feel about your answer" and he happens to feel uplifted by rising sequences and depressed by descending ones. Bottom line, the proof did not come with the discovery of something that did not fit the rule. That was only "stronger evidence". The proof was getting his confirmation of your guess.

[@CosmicDoom47]

The point of the video isn't the guess the rule though. It's to show the correct thought process behind how you derive the correct rule. Just because you happened to form a hypothesis that agrees with the data doesn't matter if you never actually test it. The point of the video is to ask yourself "would I have consciously chosen to break my own rule when I asked him questions?" If so, then you got the point of the video, regardless of the hypothesis you picked.

[@ExtantFrodo2]

Aashil Desai In short, think outside the box.

[@schizophrenicenthusiast]

ExtantFrodo2, I agree with you, but my point was that no one can claim they've solved the problem early on, they can only find what's most likely a solution, nothing more. The fact that there were so many comments of people showing off their brains brought me with a feeling of disgust. That's what made me want to post my comment in the first place.

[@ExtantFrodo2]

Schizophrenic Enthusiast I'll accept that.

[@lorenzweber3131]

2:06 3, 6, 9 girls wanna drink wine

[@fanchen1658]

if the man broke the man he's a joke

[@minebloxgx1780]

I believe in man’s freedom

[@simsongreep6922]

So True

[@catherinerolls2813]

so you gotta get loose with the henny and the coke

[@zb4301]

3,2,1 girls wanna have fun

[@hetanshpatel510]

This video was recommended to me nearly 15 times and I only ignored it, assuming it to be boring. I finally clicked it. I can't be more glad