I see strong examples of cognitive biases in a scientific interest of mine. Namely, archaeology / anthropology of 10,000 to 12,000 years B.P. Despite growing evidence that some sort of large meteor or comet hit the Earth causing the Younger Dryas cooling, the 'old guard' of academia refuses to address the evidence in a serious way. They dismiss it as crack-pot science, rather than trying to find reconciliation between their theories and the newer evidence arriving on the scene. But dig sites like Gobekli Tepe (re-discovered by an excellent German archaeologist), Big Eddy site in Missouri, are pushing back dates for civilization or organized living. Geologists are finding platinum layers corresponding to the impact date. And even as a interested observer, I can see the biases kicking in with each new article that comes out.
Scientists and their cognitive bias: Modern science's current narrative is that everything in existence, including the very forces of nature that this universe exists and functions by, all came from an expanding singularity. But now, does everything in existence even exist per se, OR does ONLY the singularity exist in the form of all things? Cognitive bias?
I wonder how many people watching this are saying to themselves: "yeah, those 'other' guys should change their viewpoint because mine is correct." When instead they should be saying: "Let me start with a clean slate on topic X, and look at the evidence and data with new eyes."
Our hands are made to handle sticks, but they can play the piano with enough training. Our brain is not a 'truth-finder' per se. The brain, like the hand, is a tool for survival. If believing something that is true increases the chances of survival, then the brain will believe the truth. If believing something that is false increases those chances, then it will believe the lie. In order to use your brain as a 'truth-finder', you need to train it.
Thank you Sabine, your videos are all very interesting, but this one in particular to me, because as a recently graduated PhD student, I have already been always discouraged to change topic (although I partially managed to do it) or to follow some new ideas because they were "exotic" or "too strange"... I feel this is a real problem in today's scientific research!
Wow! i've been watching your video's for about 3 months.. The depth of your videos is so thick that i usually only watch one a week and try to digest what it is your presenting .. even watching the same video many times .. how ironic and so important that you tackle this problem
Thank you so much, I always struggled explaining what a cognitive bias is and how it works, after watching your video I feel empowered to explain this to my family and friends! Love your videos, you're contributing more than it may seem. Videos like these shaped my life and career decisions. Keep up the amazing work!
I've had a personal interest in cognitive biases for a while. More like a hobby that arose from leading engineering and quality assurance groups. I'd like to refer people to the Wikipedia listing "List of cognitive biases". It's amazing how many different kinds there are.
I am not from the science community, but I can relate this video with almost every hot topic trending around me. Especially, about group thinking, I was aware that it is the main source of comfort amongst common people, and now I know that it can hurt our scientific progress as well. Thanks for the video!
Yeah, let state paid instructors indoctrinate the children how they should think. Giving more power to the enforcers of conformism will save science and humanity!!!
@@saitren565 what are you talking about? Children should be taught to question everything. Thats the most effective way to aquire reliable knowledge. If you want closed minded indoctrination then you need religion not science
@@Scoobydcs I am talking about the chances of children learning such a message in school. In most western countries schools are controlled by the state. States have no incentive whatsoever to create a critical public. The actions of a state reflect the interests and preferences of the elites who control that state. Explain why they would want to push for a critical public? My proposal is much simpler: parents should tell their children that scientists are not semi-gods and that they are subject to all the pettiness that everybody is capable of. No need for schools to be involved in this. Schools are themselves training camps for the amplification of cognitive biases.
I've known this for quite a while now. There was once a great scientist, I can't remember his name right now, but he taught me to be sceptical about everything. In fact he taught me the word "Skeptical".
Thanks! This is a great post. Talking about cognitive bias in science without giving fodder to the widespread anti-science sentiments is a delicate balance. You navigated this very well.
I see so many examples of what you describe in society today. Of special note is when the media encourages group-think using attentional bias as a tool.
Cristal clear, brilliant delivery on the topic that is relevant to both contemporary science and beyond - to political/economic systems. Gratitude, Sabine!
Sean Carroll talked about you on his last podcast, you are getting more and more famous! thats shows your firm positions and courage will prevail after all! Keep the good work fraulein Sabine!
I'm likely to watch this video many times. I will also follow the link you included above to your blog. So thank you for helping me to help myself on this topic. Finally, congratulations on crossing the 50K subscriber count before the end of the year!
This is weird, I've read 2 out of 3 of the books in the beginning of the video, I quite often think about cognitive biases but it all goes out of the window when you get me on to politics. That's not the only subject i get caught up in cognitive biases but it stands out for me. I'm not one to comment on videos but this is good. The only problem is that I can listen to this kinds stuff all day but when i get out into the real world I fall back on confirmation bias, group think, strawman fallacy, etc. Thanks Sabine, you make me think and not trust my intuition. Keep making the challenging videos, your fantastic.
Bravo! Case in point: Hollywood. There are few movies made that have any real content. The good screenwriters were lost when they went on strike and were all fired. As a result we get reality shows and remakes of old successful stories recast for an audience that is unaware of the source of the script. Coupled with the groupthink that Hollywood and California should be telling us what to think and what the future should be, we are paralyzed and heading for the bottom. Many thanks to you and to your team for the outstanding content and presentations. You are a breath of fresh air and inspiration. See you next week. ❤️
What's weird is you would think losing $100 million+ on several remakes (e.g. Ben Hur, Men in Black, Terminator) would make them understand that they need to change. But year after year they repeat the same behavior.
That's excellent video! Really underrated topic. I guess that not everybody's comfortable with discussing. Also one of the reasons I liked Neil deGrasse Tyson's masterclass is that he focused really on the biases in science.
The competition between rival research groups in the same field is so important to prevent science going off the rails. The social, cultural and incentive processes in the scientific community can lead to serious error. During the short ten years in scientific research (in life sciences) I spent I saw serious problems of selection bias. Researchers would accept result that fitted what they wanted and rejected those that did not. Those experiments which did not fit were said to have 'gone wrong' and negative results were ignored. Statistical analysis then applied to the chosen few results which fitted made the strength of the theory look much greater than it probably was. The problem is the incentives are all to produce positive results. You get no rewards for disproving someone else's idea, but great rewards for being the person who came up with the 'right theory'. You have not 'discovered' anything if you spend your life undermining or disproving popular hypotheses. The result is that scientists tend to find what they look for and this happens almost imperceptibly as a result of daily biases in their work. Thus it is only really the determination of one research group to undermine another that prevents everyone joining on the same bandwagon. I saw plenty of evidence for the existence of such 'bandwagons', you can all it 'group think'. In fact I do not know the reference but meta-research has been done which has shown the emergence of popular hypotheses and concepts around which there is a burst of work at one point in history, then looking backwards little more is ever heard about the 'Great Idea', it just 'goes out of fashion' and makes no long term difference to the field.
So much science fits what you say. 'Transitioning' hormones and surgery, food science, studying genetics in autism syndrome, doing no work on grassroots studies of Parkinson's, on and on and on.
It is important in many different walks of life to be aware of this cognitive bias. Thankfully it is now openly discussed under non technical skills for surgeons in general.
Of course, we should mention that science already does quite a bit to combat cognitive biases. In fact, you might say that is the whole point of the scientific method - finding ways to combat cognitive biases. The important thing here is, I think, to see the scientific method not as a long-ago established set of rules on how to do science, but as an ongoing project to find out how to do science.
Experiment: Watch the video from 1:10 while focusing a point half way between B and the border to the next square in direction of A. Wait some seconds and you will recognize the gray connection cut into half, with a sharp border between two different colors inside the connection. Excellent video. Something kinda off topic in addition. There is no way to avoid cognitive bias. You can swap from one set of cognitive bias to another set of cognitive bias. Like you can swap from one pair of glasses to another. Your whole life is a product of cognitive bias. Is there no way to get rid of it? Yeah, there is. In deep, empty meditation with everything gone except the feeling of being (not existence) you are freed from it. That's what you will see, when you have removed all your glasses. It's the only objective perspective possible., the one which contains nothing.
10 likes to you, Eternal Goof!!!!! WOW!!!! That observation blew me away! Now I recognize the effect because I have seen it analysed before, now i understand! The CONTRAST between left-A and A is oversaturated and when below-A loses the saturation (contrast) along the diagonal the color approaches A again, but now A is called B!!! And where have we seen that before? The French Cafe tiles illusion. I was unable to find the link, but one video I saw changed contrast gradually between the black and white tiles and at some point the illusion just disappeared! However, the same trick is in this video: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ycOKqOiyh9Y.html Thanks!
Sabine, I love how well you put "cognitive bias", into perspective. No wonder we cant solve many of the problems facing the world. thank you, Sabine, your like a precious gem amongst rock...always enjoy learning how to think, peace!
*can't *you're Plus the random comma after 'bias"' and the lack of a capital letter for the beginning of a sentence both should be edited. You say you love to learn to think, so there's some more to think about. 🤔 😉
@@DIGtotheIT @Michael Rexrode Please look up "Is Planck's 'Principle' True?" John T. Blackmore, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science you need only read the abstract.
Important subject, but the intresting bit that we have yet to fully face as a species is that our cognitive biases have the same kind of structure as every other form of reasoning! We develop functional language and visualizations for explaining things and we use those to reason, until we can produce some sort of toy model, but in the end the models validity and applicability in relation to nature is an inpossible question in the absolute. Therefor we always have to use cognitive shortcuts to make sense of anything, the question is how to make our cognitive shortcuts more generally applicable and less wrong.
Excellent video! I’ve encountered cognitive bias (and engaged in this at times) in all areas of life. If we understand this behavior better, we become better equipped to tackle challenges effectively. Thank you for all that you do, Sabine! I hope you get 10 million subscribers!
Cognitive dissonance, groupthink and human bias are all important aspects and sure play a role explaining why the past 100 years saw so little progress in fundamental physics. But in all honesty, our current scientists are not totally to blame. It was precisely the generation of Max Planck, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr that failed to see that physics is fundamentally based on a dual and symmetric continuum setting. One setup is dominant for our everyday ‘above Planck’ scale, the other for the ‘sub Planck scale’. Both setups however apply, getting equally strong near the Planck scale itself, which is why we see ‘Quantum effects’ arise there. In short the dual setup is the following: Above Planck scale Sub Planck scale GRID: Space (length; meters) Energy (Joules, eV, Nm) CLOCK: Time (seconds) Mass (kg) POTENTIAL: Energy Space INERTIA: Mass Time Each measure (SI unit) thus plays a double role in physics. Best known example is Energy displaying both its particle and grid role near the Planck scale, giving rise to the observed ‘particle-wave duality’ which is now fundamentally explained. Next, Sub-Planck features, which we call ‘spatial singularities’ have the academically simulated and observed trait of orthogonally wrapping fieldlines in spirals around their core, which is why we see their Energy grid as a multitude integer of Planck Energy distanced windings. This integer is the ‘Quantum’ which is now fundamentally explained. Moreover, since movement in the sub-Planck continuum is mass based and not time based, we interpret subatomic movement as ‘time instant’ or ‘time probabilistic’. However, in terms of energy and mass, there is perfect symmetric locality (quantum entanglement!) and determinism also at the sub-Planck scale. Einstein and Bohr completely failed to see this. The above setup can easily be proven: To get the movement formula in the sub Planck continuum we need to exchange units in the formula Distance=time*speed[distance/time]. This leads to E=M*(E/M) or E=M[J/kg = m2/s2=C2] or E=MC2. So we get the prediction that E=MC2 is the sub-atomic movement equation. Can this be? Well if we fuse two hydrogen cores, this means that their separating distance right before fusing must cross the sub-Planck scale so we must see the sub-Planck movement formula become apparent during fusion. We know from Einstein that indeed this is indeed E=MC2. There are many, many, many more confirmations that this dual setup is correct. Welcome to the 21st century….
Outstanding. This critical topic used to be taught and reinforced by many, if not all, science faculties yet, only a few months ago, I heard a senior researcher speaking at a symposium list the concept of consensus as one of the key validations for their thesis (not climate related by the way).
This can apply to so many things in science currently. Medicine, climate, any research topic really. It really can apply to anything in the world or anybody on a personal level. Thank you so much for mentioning group think unfortunately it seems as though that has been on the rise in its quite tightening. I love this video
It also applies to the real aspects of the science of climate change - this is how we still get science to support dire disasters that simply does not happen in the event. Also it is why the two Royal Societies in the UK refuse to hear papers that do not agree with the supposed consensus. It needs to be addressed and fast.
@@Mosern1977 Yes, and this is why anyone who says "we need to stop burning coal" gets attacked so quickly. Coal and oil are extremely profitable. Mess with that and they will be all over you.
This is one of the best presentations by Sabine or any other scientist or 'scientist' I've heard since James Tour's lectures on OoL (Origin of Life) research. Both are a must listen with serious contemplation of what is being said.
Your view is so much appreciated. It appears in today's academia so many teachers, educators and professors implant their biases on their students. Open mindedness is neccessary for learning.
This is a very important topic, and Sabine's contributions toward encouraging a more critical attitude within science itself are most welcome. Along similar lines, I would urge Sabine and others to have a look at the long-neglected critical work of Dewey B. Larson, notably his 1961 memorandum "Just How Much Do We Really _Know_ ?" and his 1963 book _The Case Against the Nuclear Atom_ .These can be considered independently of any evaluation of Larson's own positive proposals (incidentally, a much more ambitious and non-trivial task - as recognized by such scientists as the late Felix Schmeidler of the Munich Astronomical Observatory). In addition to its remarkable insights regarding foundations of the nuclear theory (which even up to today have _never_ been critically examined by the scientific profession at large) one of the concluding chapters of the latter book contains specific policy recommendations for making science function more much more optimally. Larson's memorandum is here: philpapers.org/rec/LARJHM-3
As a INFJ the way that people misuse the intuition stands out to me... especially in the scientific community. If the word assumption was used in its place... it would be far more accurate. Because a person who is using their intuition would actually be inclined to be suspicious of illusion and doubt what their mind is doing. Language is not static it is molded into something different by common use but this creates confusion. You’re using the word as it is frequently used in by the scientific community because of a bias against the word intuition. I found the irony humorous and wanted to share. Similar to how decimated means ten percent but it is frequently used in place of annihilated. Precision is valuable and language is the source of information and misunderstandings. Thank you very much for all you do, Sabine.
Loss aversion is actually a rational thing in most situations. It arises from the general proposition that, on average, it costs much more to start over from scratch than to continue from where you are. Giving up a line of inquiry doesn't usually just mean dealing with the psychological problem of admitting defeat, it also means throwing away much, if not all, of the special-purpose things that went into the pursuit of that line of inquiry. As such, in science, if one is attempting to minimize the average cost per discovery, one will quite rationally continue a line of research even if the probability of a discovery from it at that point is diminished relative to what it would be if one were to start a new line of inquiry, simply because the cost of starting the new line of inquiry can be expected to match or exceed the amount of resources that have already been put towards the current line of inquiry. I would expect that some analysis has been performed on this front, in an attempt to come up with some guidelines to help determine when one really should abandon a line of inquiry after having sunk a significant investment into it.
All I need to do is to try to remember that I am not as smart as I think I am and there are vast numbers of people who are much smarter than I am and they are far more knowledgeable. Always back check your assumptions and regularly check your biases. Sabine, you are a gem. That's my bias.
Absolutely brilliant!! Important reminder to every R&D scientist to learn modesty and self criticism before ever attempting real science. Trashing own hypothesis in spite of overwhelming positive feedback from the community is an unmistakable sign of the great mind!!
I am very pleased this issue has been raised and would have liked if political involvement in scientific research was included as well. State funding is not given to projects which politicians disapprove of and state education is dominated by political cognitive bias. The problem therefore is data is not read objectively but selectively in order to keep within a certain paradigm.
There are incentives to work in 'Cinderella' fields, these are that you can become the leading expert in that field quite easily. Secondly because there is little competition your work is not instantly ripped apart by rival groups. It is the strategy of being a big fish in a small pond. I have met scientists who have gone in this direction.
re: colors on chessboard. It also well-entablished fact that colors alternate and that the square "B" should be lighter. This is the other cognitive shortcut. Measurement, measurement, measurement.
Financial implications play major role in how one would proceed. The changes should be made on the systen so that individuals are not penalized for following sound conclusions.
This is very important for science. Unfortunately it has taken considerable time to come about. Other professions adopted corrective thinking much earlier and is implemented much more aggressively. The law profession uses many good strategies to overcome Cognitive Bias. My personal favourite are hypotheticals. Where, for example, they may use the case of an hypothetical murder to sort the crap from the facts in a parking fine. Good luck trying to implement that in science though. 👍
Bias can be avoided by pure imagination. Knowledge is power but creativity lies in imagination. For pure imagination, first one has to be pure, i.e. ethical, rational, good person with practicing principles no matter what. Secondly, for imagination one had to be mentally warrior, i.e. aggressive (not laud) and having great tolerance and having great passion. Tolerance makes you keep thinking in all directions, as opposed to give in. Passion keeps you creative, makes you vouch for quality, yielding great solution. Passion begins with beauty, plus appreciating nature, good music too. Just that with passion you have to keep tolerance, i.e. not wanting it for you right now, but still keep appreciating it and vaouching for it calmly, patiently. I.e. practicing detachment to some level. Aggression mentally develops confidence, attacking problem, thrust for knowledge, self-esteem which is required for pure imagination. Thinking needs courage too, for which one has to take a stance against bad, and has to really know he/she is rational towards self and others, both. Actually, for all this, proper life experiences and guiding is required. Edit : For thinking big, practice being non cheap and non cunning, avoid any kind of cheap or cunning behaviour. For that you have to understand other person's point of view, know rights of yourself as well as rights of others and know what is good and bad in general without self involvement. Edit2 : For perfect / precise thinking, perfection should be practiced in daily life. Minimum efforts, maximum impact/output, minimum time, forwards planning can be applied in smallest daily tasks, along with precise choice of words.
Finally there's that strong smart someone who's got the courage to speak out on scientific basis, eventhough she's not bias free, and that's from supporting the mythical Gravity while fully well knowing ENERGY is the cause of all motion, and not Gravity. Hopefully there'll be other scientist's and physicists joining with her repeating as she just said, "its about humanity's progress."
A good everyday bias is breaking distances. People thinking that they can come to a stop in an emergency with little difference in distance needed to stop based on a slight difference in speed. Many people don't understand that a 20mph speed difference can almost double your breaking distance. 50mph breaking distance = 53 metres total breaking distance 70mph = 96 metres total breaking distance.
In natural sciences, this is hugely important, but I think it's even more important in social sciences. Social sciences kind of create a feedback loop between the observer and the observed object. I.e. the way a political scientist understand society and politics informs his conclusions and observations. There are no "lab conditions" in social science because knowledge and academia are part of what we try to observe. So there are often discussion about "objectivity" in social sciences and some say that only quantitative social science is good social science, however other argue that quantitative science is inherently affirmative in the case of sociology or political science or economics. I actually think that one of the most important perspectives here comes from the critical theory of the Frankfurt School. And even though they didn't really concern themselves with natural sciences, I'd say that their critical theory is a worthwhile read for any scientist.
This topic is something everyone should know. The trend in education is that children should learn critical thinking, but they are not taught cognitive biases and logical fallacies. Meanwhile they are to engage in Socratic arguments without knowing the rules.
A good critique of biases humans have, not just the scientists. The fact is we have to live with it, as it is bound to be there across generations. Having a good or not good hang of such biases is quite from birth. Eddie Willers will be Eddie Willers & Hank Reardon will be Hank.
This is the most important science video I have seen. Such is the problem that Americans can no longer even tell the difference between boys and girls.
Challenging internal biases requires the willingness to seperate ideas from identity (and ego) during introspection. Also, identifying both mine and other's biases is much more difficult when they are combined/intertwined. The rigor required can be supplemented by habitual challenges to the umbrella groups of bias organized neatly in the "cognitive bias codex" poster image.
