The pattern behind self-deception - Michael Shermer

[@bonnie43uk]

The bit at 19:05 was astounding!! I couldn't believe that part. Unbelievable !!

[@Yash-wm1nj]

You made a type 2 error. ;)

[@armin38822]

the last video blew my mind

[@Mcgif21]

Did he just say skepticism is not natural? To believe in one thing you must be skeptical of another. Skepticism and belief go hand in hand. Skepticism and belief are both natural. Just like if you believe there is no God you will be skeptical that there is one and vice versa.

[@mickelodiansurname9578]

He's talking about taking an action when none is required... if you duck every time you hear a car backfire then theres a good chance that the single time its really a gun you're in the right position to avoid a bullet.... although maybe not since bullets travel faster than sound...but you get the idea... if you always react by running, or always react by taking the safe route...then you'll end up doing a lot of work needlessly....but it will pay off once...and it only needs to pay off once. The person who doesn't react at all will be okay for a long time, and pay the price sometimes with their life that one time.... in the modern world this is less of a problem than if you lived with a small group on the African savannah.... but all the folks who never reacted at all likely never reached breeding age. Rather perversely though in order to have folks that react automatically every time a short circuit occurs that makes those very same people very suggestable...so you can get them to do daft things like go to war, or march about repeating your chosen ideology wheter political or religious etc... But the 'natural' state of affairs for almost all animalsis fight or flight on the slightest hint of a pattern emerging. In your last statement you confused the position of skeptical outlooks with belief... very, very few people 'believe there is no god' even strong atheists suspend judgement until they have enough information....which in thier opinion has been a long time coming and no sign of the information on the horizon. So they don't actively 'belive there is no God' . Its not possible to actively belive that something doesn't exist in the face of no information about it...the skeptics in Shermers analogy didn't actively believe there was no rustle, nor did they actively believe it wasn't the wind, nor that it wasn't a leapord.... What they had there was a pain in thier ass running away all the time only to find out there was nothing to worry about. In the wild that can be a dangerous game when there really are predators...In the modern world...at least in the west we don't need to worry about being eaten, although we probably do need to worry about being conned. So the advantage that running gave our ancestors is still present in almost all of us, but for the most part its utterly useless and serves no purpose but spreading paranoia in the population for no good reason. The skeptic in Shermers analogy is probably therefore more suited to the modern world because with the absense of predators they can actually afford to investigate the modern equivilent of the rustle in the grass....it really doesn't pose any threat. Probably one of the main reasons skeptics tend to be scientifically minded and curious....and of course with no predators to remove them from the population the longer civilisation continues the larger their numbers will grow. However whats interesting is that those who are more skeptical tend to be conncurrently less naive. Which is sort of contradictory.

[@treyc9566]

I use to dwell in a mental state of over analytical and cerebral pursuit. Till one day I realized I was just living in a world of "intellectual" fabrication to justify my own feelings and thoughts. Seems many of the comment section as still in that state. The Lecture Shermer gave here should of opened your eyes if you were really listening and not seeking a pattern to justify your own thought patterns. I tend to not think anymore, it has giving me alot more time to actually live life.

[@khaledking5408]

The kissing part was priceless !!!

[@CerberusCheerleader]

It's more than just "tendency". You seem to think that we have biases and all but we are largely in control. And I think that is to some degree an Illusion. We are much less in control than we'd like to think. People will oftentimes use their intellect (without really being aware of it) not to find out what is true but to do their utmost to refute/reject/relativize counter evidence. I don't think "listening" and "thinking" is enough. It is also important to be intellectually honest.

[@Vladd7]

Why all the hate towards Michael Shermer?

[@LockSteady]

The hate is ego driven. People enjoy thinking that their thoughts and minds are perfect and that their beliefs are incorruptible. This is most notable not in terms of hate directed at Dr. Shermer, but as the basis of all religious and ideological conflicts.

[@CerberusCheerleader]

1. I wasn't trying to compare atheists and theists. My point was simply that there are a lot of conspiracy theorists and anti-feminists out there and it is very easy to aggravate these people. Getting negative, condescending or even hateful responses on videos or articles that speak positively about feminism or negatively about conspiracy theories seems to me to be the rule rather than an exception. And surprisingly not everyone is aware of how much emotion these topics evoke in many people.

[@anialator1000000]

i think that some people have decent control of their biasis but most either dont or choose not to try. i have to agree that there is bias that we cant control due to life long ideas or other things we cant change. i also believe that you point out a better explanation of what you meant here than in the original comment. some things cant change. humans will always be imperfect. gathering evidence may be done wrong unless its done professionally. we always have more to learn and mistakes to fix

[@jasonhounsell3297]

I suppose I was seeing a pattern also when he was going down this route from the start that I was thinking "I bet this guy is going to take cracks at people who study conspiracies" I find it amusing that his whole speech was about belief, and that people just want to believe that a higher power is looking out for them, or the government. Well, on the subject of belief lets address 9/11, I wanted to believe that it was what we were told, but the physics didn't add up, fire doesn't melt steel I realized, it also can't drop the buildings all 3 in 11 seconds, which incidentally is freefall speed, I wanted to believe that an aircraft that is essentially a giant coke can made out of aluminum could rip through a building made of 2 foot steel, however after realizing that the only way a building can fall at freefall speed is if every floor is structurally detonated to remove any resistance as the floors crash down one on top of the other without toppling left or right, and then realizing that the same aircraft landing that touched a small steel fire the wing tore in half and the wire wasn't marked.... I realized that physics on every level don't add up. Nor do the 1000 of other things on that day which are NOT patterns, they are logic and provable fact, not belief as this man is trying to say. I suppose the other groups he named, when the most powerful people on the planet meet up periodically to admittedly discuss how to shape the world, I guess that is just a joke too. I guess when the economy's are crashing and the CEO's of the banks, as well as former chairmen of the FED, former presidents and numerous banking personnel from all levels admit that its all been a fix, I suppose when the world is being ran on a DEBT based system which means its IMPOSSIBLE to pay off national debt infact doing so would crash the economy and the only way to sustain it is keep on printing money and in turn creating more debt which causes inflation which is why each generation has less and less even though the numbers are bigger .... I suppose thats just see'ing patterns that are not there too? I guess the maths and all the economists in the world just see patterns that are not there.... Or is it only when you say "Someone is behind it" that it means your just seeing tigers? Lmao this guy is a joke to anyone who presents themselves to lecture other people, I would always teach my children to investigate, look for proofs and logic before coming to a conclusion. The fact is that if someone believes that the world IS NOT ran by conspiracies then they better start taking some those meds! because if you really think the world is ran in black and white and all the mass's know exactly whats going on, that the power players are not going to rob and deceive you then you are incredibly naive. Look at schoolyards and tell me its equal and transparent, you WILL ALWAYS have people that climb to the top and manipulate and conspire. The truth is the majority of people will never do any research into this, will never put the logic together and even if you showed them everything they still would not see the point. People like this you COULD NOT tell the truth to because they don't want to hear it. In that film I can't remember the name of "A few good men" perhaps, the line from the general "YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH" is the bottom line

[@EamonBurke]

There is a false conclusion early on in this--one that is totally unsupported. That the false positive is low cost. Perhaps in a single instance, take out of context, it certainly is. However, over the course of a life, defaulting to false positives means that you are running from every rustle in the bushes, even though the vast majority of the time, it is just the wind. Maybe within a span of 5 minutes this argument is convincing, but within the context of a community-oriented life of 50 years, it has no grounds.

[@Orbitald]

The problem is that the guy, Michael Shermer, uses technical terms and phrases in inappropriate ways. Like this one in reference to human facial recognition; "we know exactly where it happens, in the temporal lobe, ... in a little structure call the Fusiform Gyrus, ..." and on the screen he has list two types of cells, Magnocelluar Pathway and Parvocelluar Pathway, as if science truly understands this process.

[@Orbitald]

"One billionth of a percent" is just as true as zero until you disprove it. And that's the basis of science. And the problem with partialy understanding somethings is the application. Not long ago door-to-door salesmen were bringing radioactive water to your home saying it was healthy. The same thing happens today with science. People draw conclusions from a partial understanding. You see it works both ways. And any true scientist would agree with me.

[@CerberusCheerleader]

I.) "None that I am aware of" This should actually be a red flag. The way people form beliefs and opinions especially about emotionally loaded topics is like this: they FIRST have an emotion and THAN use their intellect to SELECTIVELY gather evidence (confirmation bias) to match what they KNOW to be true to what they FEEL to be true (because it is always unpleasant for us if emotion and knowledge aren't in sync). Interestingly people are not aware of this.

[@CerberusCheerleader]

I said "emotionally loaded", confirmation bias depends on how strongly you feel about something. Also, I believe what I said to be true for MOST people MOST of the time (there are NO absolutes about the human mind). Yes, discussions about emotional loaded topics tend to be dishonest. If you want to "gather information without bias" you have to be AWARE of what's going on in your own head. Try it: look up information that is opposed to a belief you feel strongly about and watch your own reaction

[@CerberusCheerleader]

Do I believe in science? Well, I believe that people should distinguish between what is KNOWN to be true (science) from what MIGHT be true (theology, philosophy). Unfortunately most people don't make this distinction. They treat the things that they COULD IMAGINE to be true with much the same confidence than the things that they KNOW to be true. And they really shouldn't. As for dark energy: that's a scientific HYPOTHESIS and as such it may actually be wrong. Nobody claims dark energy MUST exist

[@SilasMortimer]

You must not assume that because *you* don't know, no one does. There is a lot we have yet to understand, but what he stated is well within what we *do* understand. What we've learned about pattern recognition and facial recognition have gone as far as changing the way criminal cases are examined and prosecuted and have far weakened reliance on eyewitness testimony. So, simply put, you don't know what he's talking about, thus you've decided he's wrong? Your education is your own responsibility.

[@CerberusCheerleader]

Yeah, you figured me out. I bow to your superior intellect. And don't bother explaining how exactly you disagree. I'm just an idiot, I wouldn't understand anyway.

[@TheMajorLane]

Very interesting. I would love to learn more on this topic!

[@P3dotme]

My explanation: I would consider myself a fairly typical internet Atheist, and I reject conspiracy theories, many Atheists have spoken against conspiracy theorists. Also you essentially say either Atheists are misogynist or they agree with feminism; this was implied, but you may not have meant this, regardless I would like to say that most Atheists I've talked to and myself reject feminism because what normally follows are double standards, and extremism (e.g. support for castration).

[@matthewmoneu4685]

Fantastic.

[@P3dotme]

1. Then you disagree with your first comment? 2.My anger level rises when talking to people who make unreasonable assumptions and/or contradict themselves, note that most of my "angry" comments were directed at you (I'd like to apologize for that, I have anger problems when arguing), not feminism; my responses in respect to feminism were level headed and grounded; I said that feminists often support double standards because they do not because I'm angry, perhaps you are angry when reading it.

[@rasaecnai]

Gestalt theory!! Yay! The picture he used on the 6th minute (the dalmatian dog), I once used that picture in a class discussion!

[@andrewmurray3466]

Trey C i salute you sir

[@SilasMortimer]

Again, there is indeed much we do not know, but everything that Mr. Shermer said in this video is well within what we do know. In fact, it's so well known that PR firms, advertising agencies and even product designers are constantly influencing YOU with this information. But I tell you what, can you name *one* specific thing you think he was wrong about?

[@CerberusCheerleader]

The only "dogma" in science if you will is the belief that everything can be explained in terms of (materialistic) mechanics. Of course scientists have a reason for their confidence: most of the things that have been investigated have been explained in terms of such mechanics and nothing has been SUFFICIENTLY demonstrated to be unexplainable (NDE, psi, prayers, miracles, etc.). So they have a reason to be confident that not most but in fact all things can be explained by such mechanics.

[@MykeeRamen]

How does Shermer account for WTC7 ?

[@Idontunderstandchess]

i agree that kissing part was priceless...

[@MrJohnniee5]

I saw a map of Skyrim at 6:09. Anyone else?

[@P3dotme]

As I have said I have no emotional stakes in feminism, and in my experience many anti-feminism reject the double standards and extremism that almost always follows, nothing to do with emotion.

[@CerberusCheerleader]

Seeing an overwhelming amount of evidence for one side is what you would expect to get if you would apply confirmation bias (just saying o.O). Basically, confirmation bias is something that we do all the time (largely without being aware of it), especially with topics that are emotionally loaded. When was the last time you tried to disprove any of your believes? How many believes do you have where your emotion and your intellect are in disagreement?

[@christinekangaslampi1425]

interesting observation. nice pattern finding :)

[@CerberusCheerleader]

You think people have a materialistic world view because they LIKE it?? I HATE materialism! But if that is how the world is than that is how the world is, so what can you do? I simply understood at some point that you have to differentiate between what you know to be true and what you can imagine to be true. And as Richard Carrier pointed out, you can't change your beliefs by means of willpower. That means, unfortunately, I'm stuck with materialism ;-)

[@SilasMortimer]

What are you claiming 'science' doesn't understand about the process that weakens his point? Simply stating it doesn't make it so, so please, explain.

[@SilasMortimer]

His use of the term 'software' was allegorical, but it's an apt allegory. Again, YOU don't understand what he was saying. *I* do. You might not be able to imagine someone knowing what you don't know, but the information isn't hidden; it's not occult. It's available for you to find, as well. I doubt that you will, but hope I'm wrong. Regardless, until then, if you prefer to pretend that no one knows what you don't know, don't comment where there are likely a lot of people who do.

[@Orbitald]

Time will tell if we learn 1 billion percent more about human facial recognition. And yes, its pretty easy to put forth such a number because nobody knows including you.You choose to focus on that rather than looking at the point of my comments; He strings together a bunch of things we know about the brain and then put forth his conclusion that have little to do with the science he illuminated. That is my point. And the fact that we don't know enough to exclude energies we know so little about.

[@P3dotme]

As I said I have to say none that I'm aware of to remain intellectually honest as would you, as explained previously.

[@kokofan50]

Science tries to find the underling rules that form the patterns, and when there is something really there we can predict what's doing to happen, not an illusion.

[@andrewmurray3466]

sorry cerberus cosmologists do say that dark energy exists. I love science and the science of what you cant see or prove. Both dogmatic ideals make me happy. I get the best of both worlds. Where as you are just stuck in a cold materialistic world. But then again that makes you happy...which makes me happy. Take care my clever friend :-)

[@understructurerepair7132]

How did Sherman escape all these things that are so common to man, but not to him?

[@P3dotme]

This is not conformation bias because I see and accept information that supports feminism, but there is an overwhelming amount of information to the contrary.

[@SilasMortimer]

I've addressed every argument you made. You accused someone of being a charlatan because you don't know what he's talking about, then throw around invented figures and vague terms to back up why someone ELSE who is using real terms with evidence behind them is not just wrong, but a charlatan. He wasn't stringing anything together, he was explaining the concepts. There was nothing really controversial to what he's saying. Well, unless, of course, you're building a stake and holding a torch.

[@CerberusCheerleader]

I blame these tiny comment boxes for any confusion o.O I'll say it again: most atheists/anti-feminists aren't misogynists (although some are). Also, please notice how your anger level seems to rise when you talk about feminism, which is basically the point I was originally trying to make: it is very easy to aggravate people with these topics and to get a lot of angry responses.

[@JavierBonillaC]

I disagree that "belief" is the natural state. We are always alert of fraud an opportunism. We are skeptical when we are buying a car and when our girlfriend says she forgot to charge her phone.

[@CerberusCheerleader]

II.) They don't notice that they are using confirmation bias and they are convinced that they have the belief for intellectual reasons (while they actually have it for emotional reasons). I believe this to be the case e.g. for many if not most anti-feminists. But of course this is conjecture, I can't prove it. But it seems to obvious to me that there is an emotional component to this for many people and that they are quite unfair about it.

[@Orbitald]

He even calls the act of human facial recognition "engaging that general facial recognition software there." We are not engaging "software" and although we are learning more every day, we understand about 1 billionth percent of what is happening in recognizing someones face, yet he acts as though its all understood. And this goes for practically everything he talks about. Science is based on the Null Hypothesis which can only tell you what is not true, not what is true.

[@andrewmurray3466]

isn't it amazing that we look externally to try and learn what is, and all along we don't even have any idea what is within/consciousness. We can all guess, build evidence for what consciousness is. That little bit of awareness inside a fragile skull has all of us guessing lol, and we believe we are intelligent?......ok whatever! We are built by our beliefs, beliefs can change but it takes a hell of a-lot of work. Cerberuscheerleader proves this by being so stuck in the material work.

[@dangray2647]

WATCH ME DANCE! WATCH ME DANCE!

[@CerberusCheerleader]

You have to distinguish between what is presented to the lay audience and the actual science. If you, say, watch a documentary that treats dark energy as fact or see an interview in which a cosmologist comes across as KNOWING than that is basically people being sloppy. The problem is with the presentation not with the actual science. No scientist will claim that she KNOWS that any given hypothesis MUST be true. Yes, they have some confidence that dark energy exist, but they don't know.

[@TimNeufeldWelddr]

If people will continue to believe in an invisible, all powerful man in the sky, I in no way find is surprising that they will believe any other nonsense.

[@P3dotme]

I know what conformation bias is. I often worry I am going to fall victim to it. I have no worries in this instance, as I know that most feminists I have seen, are more against gender equality, then for it. Also I am not emotionally invested in feminism. 1. Today. Anytime I see an argument (that I care about) against my beliefs. 2.None that I am aware of; don't jump on me for this it is impossible to know what I am not aware of so I have to say this, as does everybody else.

[@nsshero]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're wrong.

[@SilasMortimer]

No, that is incorrect. Making up a figure, even if it turned out to be correct (and that one will not), is a kind of lie. Insisting that it's true because it's not known is another, more direct kind of lie. People do draw conclusions from partial understanding. Others, on the other hand, simply don't like even the good conclusions (except the convenient ones), so they obfuscate. As I said, what Mr. Shermer said is well within what we know about the brain.

[@avisco01]

Best joke possible.

[@anialator1000000]

your dodging the issue. emotionally loaded does not relate to the absolute you inferred as intended. also, yes people do have tenancies to see what supports them before they see what doesent. everyone is guilty of that. doesent mean it always happens. i have seen both sides of my beliefs, i have changed sides on issues becasue of what i learned, but thats with a good amount of bias. bias is only bad when you refuse to listen to the other side or refuse their evidence without thought.

[@sarcastaball]

I still don’t see no dolphins

[@P3dotme]

You:"most atheists aren't misogynists" You: "many atheists aren't rational skeptical humanists but misogynist" Make up your damn mind. A large number of feminists are sexist and promote double standards; I would like to make it clear that I do not disagree with feminism on all accounts(e.g. Double standards in society), however I normally only agree to a certain extent(e.g. I reject the notion that no double standard benefits women). I reject the institution of feminism not gender equality.

[@andrewmurray3466]

just like an apple tree apples. A planet like earth people's. The universe began from the big bang. That means me, you and everything we can see and can't see are all the same thing. Our limited child like science is now just starting to find evidence for this. Yet still they know nothing about Consciousness. The universe evolved over 15billion years. It elvolved consciousness through us. it is not we who our asking how the universe came to be, it is the universe asking...beautiful hey?

[@slygi4]

Oh, I don't know. With all of the scandals in the government lately, I'm turning into a conspiracy theory type of guy.

[@ApeloFellow]

What did I miss that made people hate Michael?

[@SilasMortimer]

I'm sorry, does that say "disprove the perception of subtle energies"? I want to make sure I'm reading that right. The weakest (and therefore most subtle?) energy is heat and if this is to what you refer, you are correct: science has not disproved the perception of it. In fact, it wouldn't be an issue to anyone but yourself. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in not assuming you're using the term 'energies' in that bullshit way that mystics do, i.e., when it doesn't mean anything.

[@Orbitald]

I'm going to stop communicating with you because you are being rude and insulting. You pretty much called me a liar and now you are insulting me again by saying "So, I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt." You use the tools of someone who cannot make their point without hurting someone else. Good luck to you.

[@vesnarajic5276]

@3:10 it's not "superstition", it's animal abuse!

[@Ebvardh]

Not bad at all since whatever his moral quality, the good he does or the logic theories he presents remain valid. Charles Manson is a piece of shit, but he still did some good music.

[@Orbitald]

He rattles off a bunch of misappropriated science in his attempt to quantify facial recognition. Just because we understand a tiny part of the physiology does not mean we understand it. We are a long long way to understanding facial recognition and his issuance of superfluous scientific terms muddies that point. We just don't know. We don't know much about most things.

[@anialator1000000]

more often than not, i am the middle man in arguments however. i cant stand either of the 2 sides extreames. abortion for example, the 2 sides are basicly Always or never. there should be several instances *cough* Rape *cough* where a mother should be able to get rid of a unborn child. i have to see both sides and choose to be on neither because of their opinions being flawed. extremes are never really the answer. the best answer is always in the Maybe, not the Yes or No

[@CerberusCheerleader]

Simple: because he makes fun of conspiracy theories. He puts them in the same category as religion and other superstition: they are all just false patterns. See, many atheists aren't rational skeptical humanists but misogynist conspiracy theorists. Any atheist speaker who says something nice about feminism or makes fun of conspiracy theories is guaranteed to be treated with contempt from at least a portion of the atheist internet crowd.

[@P3dotme]

What the fuck does that mean?

[@Joyboy0101]

Sorry, but what are you trying to say?

[@Orbitald]

You say "bullshit way" but you cant prove that its bullshit. You just believe its bullshit and you have that right. But please don't try to use science to bolster your argument because science has not disproved it and as such its just as possible as anything else that you don't know about. The problem with people who chose not to believe in these energies is they limit the possibility of ever understanding it. If you sat in the question rather than making up your mind you might learn something.

[@Orbitald]

He strings many scientific concepts together to come to a much more grand conclusion that should be approached. We understand a little, not a lot. And our bodies do not run "software" as he says. And just because you can name a couple of cells in the brain activated during facial recognition does not mean you understand it. We understand a little, not a lot, and we have a long, long way to travel. Hominid schmomonid. Who uses terms like Homind when person is perfectly usable.

[@anialator1000000]

question, why do you imply that confirmation bias is 100% true in 100% of information gathering sessions. that in of itself is a red flag. almost nothing in this world is absolute, this is undeniable, especially things this big. confirmation bias does not always happen in all cases. "THAN USE their intellect to selectivly gather evidence" dont deny you didnt say it. you did not give the option for someone to gather information without bias. honest discussions need accurate information.

[@SilasMortimer]

You're going to stop communicating with me because your stance is indefensible and you're finally beginning to realize it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I decided to think you said the word 'energy' in a way that it actually has meaning. It's a scientific term and actually means something within that context. It means nothing outside of it. I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt on that. You even corrected me on it.

[@SilasMortimer]

One billionth of a percent? That figure has a really stinky smell to it. From where did you pull it? He doesn't act as though it's all understood. Rather, you're acting as if it's not understood at all. Don't confuse the process of science with the body of facts we can infer from it. If you don't like those facts, you are, of course, free to ignore them and think whatever you wish.

[@yanokie]

Conspiracy like that ILLUMINATE strikes me very very funny. Remember what Mahatma Ghandi sayd: "They need us". So those conspiracy theorist, should remember even if the new word order comes, there will be 80% work that needs to be done but nobody wants to do. The new world order bringers will need the rest of the people. ;-) Ghandi proved it already. Whats all the hipe about guys? ;-)

[@andrewmurray3466]

which leaves us with science not really knowing nothing about the universe. lol lol we really are just dumb apes thinking we are far more intellegent than we really are. But i truely mean this when i say it cerberuscheerleader you are far more intelligent than me frustratingly.

[@alexandarmakxmov]

Wooooo (various) the sum of all conspiracy theories Haha

[@jwl2011]

save yourself 19 minutes, this talk is 6/10

[@tbradtbrad]

I liked the ending, even though he is a condescending jerk

[@feefiefofanna]

his hypothesis is conclusory. what part of the brain needs desperately be correct with no room for further inquiry? besides, he's a bit sales-y. calm down. the brain the brain the brain.... okay. got it.