She also alwatys spoke in certainties, which is something nobody that works with statistics would. For instance in the beginning when she said that the similarities were statistically identical - that is something that never, ever happens. A 1.00 correlation is virtually impossible.
While I agree with you, she seemed someone who would always be confident in her own answers. The type of person who would always quadruple check anything she had discovered, then cross-reference it with multiple sources, and checked credibility, and you get where I'm going. She has complete trust in her own ability to calculate anything, because she is rarely (never) wrong... when it comes to numbers, her problem is realizing what she is calculating isn't numbers, but humans... Some of the most spontaneously stupid, stupidly spontaneous, and stupidly, spontaneously, stupid beings I have yet to understand. She may have thought that, with her level of intelligence backed by the consistency and engineering behind a computer, run through a program that could accelerate and sort through any previous existing cases, to find the culprit in the most non-biased, quick and efficient way as possible. Which is my way of saying, she was a little naive, but not wrong. Computers are never wrong, sadly, and when they are it's never their fault.
@@samueldeandrade8535 Statisticians do not show that things are the same. Instead, what they show (or not) is that it is very unlikely that two things are unrelated. The baseline assumption ("the null hypothesis") is that there is no relation. Then they show (or not) that it's very unlikely that this is true given the data, and they can do that up to some confidence interval. So they would be more likely to say something like "the data show that it's highly unlikely these were committed by different individuals". Though I'd still want to understand in what sense they mean that, bc statistical statements are generally made about populations, not specific individuals.
@@cv990a4 hi. First, thank you very much for a reply. I asked someone else that didn't reply, something that may happen for several reasons. So I see that you tried to help me understand something. BUT you can't answer my question. Because my question actually is "Why, nickeldan, do you think like that?" OP, nickeldan, said "No real mathematician would ever use the phrase 'statistically identical'", It seems OP feels some problem with the expression "statistically identical". I don't see why. And you comment does NOT explain. The fact "Statisticians do not show that things are the same", (is a fact considering the more precise variation "Statisticians usually do not show that things are the same") does NOT invalidates the expression "statistically identical". On contrary, it serves as argument to justify it. Right? So, it seems you agree with me that OP's statement is very wrong. Because a real mathematician, let's suppose a statistician, comparing things X and Y, X≠Y, still can say "X is statistically identical to Y", denoted by X~Y, in my opinion. In some sense, OP's comment implies that statisticians are not real mathematicians. I can't accept this.
I wish she'd been in more episodes. She's intelligent but very awkward. Beautiful and socially inept. Her dynamic with Jane is hilarious. 😂😂 Also she'd have been a cute love interest for Rigsby while Van Pelt was busy with O'Laughlin.
Good on Jane for retrieving the report on RJ from the bin after dismissing it so quickly. He wants to catch RJ so badly that anything about RJ has to be useful to him
In an complete opposites kind of way, you saw jane chuck out all the graphs and numbers on red john and then realise "Wait I should probably read it but UHHHHH NUmbers"
Daria yeah definitely but he might struggle to find someone who can challenge him but the psychic chick did a pretty good job, but I think Red John and Jane make a great pairing even though RJ gutted his whole family, that’s just details
@@sam432ful actually Erica Flynn could have made a great match for Patrick if she didn't try to constantly screw him over. Well, challenge is challenge, screwing over someone is sort of a challenge as well. Actually she was the only one who he was completely equal in everything.
@@mrdragonage7446 Yeah I'll agree, but I don't think that relationship would've been all that healthy with Jane. She seems like a person that would draw out Jane's darkness unlike Lisbon who can't meet him on an intellectual basis but she always encourages Jane to be better.
I didn't expect Jane to disregard her analysis so willy-nilly, after all the science he professes he does is basically number crunching but instinctively, choosing what parameters to consider instinctively, which isn't very different (but much more advanced) to machine learning.
I really liked Miss Montague and her interactions with Jane. I wish she would've been in more episodes. It was kinda sweet, she had a little crush on Jane, by the end, but he had no clue! Lol xD
@@bakarenibsheut12 Yep, Jane reads people like open books. Understanding when he has earned the affection of a woman is nothing but child's play to him, especially of one so awkward(for lack of a better term) such as Dr Montague.
Lisbon always distrusts those whom Jane distrusts giving him a short glance as to get approval whether to trust or not to trust. Patrick's web is too strong.
Love how he threw away the RJ math files at the end... then seconds later returned and pulled them out of the trashbin. 4:34 Ah, the teacup. Bask in it's still complete form.
probably not considering (if I understand it right) it only refered to others known killers but at the end all janes suspect list were working for law enforcement (except for one)
It's never mentioned again, but bear in mind Jane never went to high school. Sure he got an education, but given how secretive he is about his own leads in the Red John case, had he gleaned any info from it he surely would have kept it secret. If he couldn't interpret the data effectively, he wouldn't be able to ask for help due to his paranoia, in which case it would be useless to him. He threw it away knowing this, but the obsession made him take it back. It very well might've had useful insights, possibly ones that would've saved him years, but personal vendetta is not a place for objectivity. Which is what you need. Jane's. more of a master of the subjective. It's sad, because it's like giving an astronaught a trumpet and telling them to play jazz.
@@Tomy-im8zl technically, two of the suspects weren't working for law enforcement, one worked for law enforcement but switched to private security, the other is the visualize sect leader
The last scene is ridiculous; if he has observed a statistically significant correlation between lizards and cold bloodedness, she shouldnt have dismissed him. Also, the facial expressions of shame as opposed to sadness should be taken in as a factor. neither is conclusive but they raise red flags and warrant a closer. These are indeed hard numbers.
I love how Jane completely disparages Montagues theory ever so politely by saying "at least you're wrong with conviction, these 2 women knew each other".
Had to listen to it twice because whenever Linda Park does a scene all I think of for a few minutes is "Damn that lady is hot!" then I remember "Oh yeah I'm watching a show here."
You can tell when they speed up reruns in syndication. The voices sound a little higher and the laughter of the studio audience sounds off. They make the show run a little faster and sometimes edit little parts out so they can have more time for commercials.
Wow.. that's so cool.. I'm a graduate student working on prediction model to identify whether the loan disburse will be default or not. The goal is to reduce non profiting assets.
@@ezekielroberts8161 I certainly suspected that, do you know for certain or are you also guessing? It would be nice to see a summary of the back and forth detection-evasion war between ContentID and uploaders, and the sorts of tactics they use. Smarter Every Day had some theories in its video about RU-vid a while back, but was hardly comprehensive.
@@abstraconcept I'm almost 100% certain. It's similar where some people upload videos of Shows that are inverted and flipped along a vertical axis, which aims to confuse the detection as well
Direct observation, eye witness testimony, documents, pictures and statistics can be utilized to solve crime. I am still waiting 13 years, despite my best efforts to figure out what REALLY happened to my infant daughter, (Miya Jane Justeson, March 2007-Bushnell, FL) ! In addition, figuring out the TRUTH about my foster father (Stanley Gable, May 2000, Berlin,CT), and foster brother (Jeffrey Gable, New Britain, CT-May 2001). It has been brutal for me for a very long time, and the TRUTH must be exposed for what it REALLY is....#justiceANDrestitution
"psyche" but the lead is less serious, "chuck" but he has a different skillset, "limitless" but it only went for one season, criminal minds is also interesting wd hotch, prentiss and thre rest of the team profilers wd diff specialties n background
Back in the 1970s and 1980s, there were a bunch of con-man detective shows like The Rockford Files and Hardcastle And McCormick, as well as ones that I cannot remember.
„If you stand far enough back to see the big picture, everything is numbers“ She got it backwards, numbers are detail oriented, NOT big picture. If you break down everything to just a few numbers, how could you ever hope to be able to have the big picture with that? It‘s impossible. That‘s also why machine learning algorithms need high performance, as they look at a LOT of details in a short amount of time to get to the truth. What Jane does is the opposite, he actually looks at the big picture and how everything‘s connected, to get to the truth.
what he said. if it was just a normal case he would have certainly thrown out the data. but red john is way too important to him to ignore even the smallest possibility of a clue
And no one noticed how the FBI statistical analysis expert dropped in (in plain sight) the real world big picture clue that is gematria. It's true, if you stand back far enough it IS all numbers - numbers coded into words. This show is all about multi layered subtext and covert reveals. So why are so many Mentalist fans only connecting with the narrative on a very basic superficial level via the most glib aspects of the drama and the sexual appeal of the players?
Thats not the case for all. However, most details you'll only notice, when you rewatch the second or third time, when the drama is known to you already. Like for example the fact that Jane is a huge Carl Jung Fan. And knows all these quotes. Or his Mind Palace (not to be confused with another "semi decent" detective shows main character) in Red, White Blue
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand the Mentalist. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Jane's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike the Mentalist truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Jane's existential catchphrase "The truth hurts, I know," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Bruno Heller's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, i DO have a Mentalist tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid
@Moderate Fkr Because what you just said takes a certain amount of thought that many people only apply to their work, not their TV shows or leisure time. I like complicated shows so I might, but a lot of people just like to relax and unwind. A colorful character(s) and a mystery that keeps them guessing is enough for most audiences. Let's not forget this is one of the more detailed shows that was on at the time, with certain nuances and complexity compared to a lot of broadcasted television. - All that said I don't give most TV a second look as I like a certain amount of mental or cerebral engagement with the media I watch or read.
Yet another HollyWeird covert admission of the true role of gematria behind the mainstream reporting of events. I’m intrigued to discover how many of my fellow Mentalist fans spotted this.
No but you might appreciate some of her enterprise scenes (audio quality sucks) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-A4W5h_fSKkM.html | ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5Nc1UtNpPU0.html
He isn't necessarily full of himself....ok he is but not in an arrogant way. People are so sure of their results without taking massive factors into account. Thanks to his mental recollection, observational skills and ability to read humans he often shoots down the real arrogant people, those who dismiss him cause he is a consultant, they consider him a freak or a joke until he proves them wrong.
He is, but in a sherlock holmes kind've way. - if Sherlock Holmes was a people person and not a man of science. It's not unfounded, his methods are in direct contrast to mathematical analysis of criminals - he's a charlatan. A con man. His skillset is just fundamentally different - and his ignorance offsets his genius in his own skillset. And he is a master manipulator - even now, he's pushing the scientist because they are naturally going to be coming into conflict, he just doesn't sugar coat it. That sounds speculative, but it's very common for him to take tacts like this upon meeting people he will, invariably, come into conflict with. Within his skillset he's amazing, but put him in a room with calculus majors, he'll lose his mind. They make it very clear not to glorify him or that you should be sympathizing with him, he has a brusque rogueish charm when he needs it, and utter childish pettiness when he doesn't. The show is "ok", it does sort've struggle with its greater themes. Jane's character is great, but the writers just couldn't figure out how to make moments like these transcend, so they rely on kitchiness too much.
"If you could stand far enough back to see the big picture everything is numbers." This is a philosophical statement and not a numerical statement. The only way to prove that her statement is correct would be to express it with numbers - not words. If I was the mentalist in that situation I would have said "Can you express that statement numerically?"
Everything can be expressed in digits of 0 and 1. You simply need to ask The computer to give you the numbers of 0 and 1 for the statement. Folks writing a sentence could turn that to a QR code on apps these days, which are just configuration of white and black dots.
@@jackjhmc820 . Yes you are correct. So the statement can be expressed numerically in binary code or QR code - yes I agree. And after all, words are simply code anyway. But it's still a philosophical statement to say "If you could stand far enough back to see the big picture everything is numbers" and cannot be proven by mathematics or any other means. Its just an assumption. And she is making an unprovable philosophical assertion.
@malcolmnaylor8381 I understand where u are coming from since it was a famous philosophical statement that was originated from pythagorians in ancient Greece. But It s a bit strange to follow the logic that something can only be philosophical and exist only as an assumption if it cannot be proven by mathematics. E.g. would you agree with the following statement that "AI chatbot like chatgpt has some basic understanding of most topics" because using your logic, until you can use mathematics to prove AI can understand something, that is only a philosophical statement and purely assumption that chatgpt can understand anything? As I said since everything can be expressed in numbers, so do you truly need to use mathematics as proof to state AI can understand something because computers literally can only see everything expressed in numbers of zero and one? I.e is every response from AI chatbot false as it is only an assumption that everything is numbers? If nothing can be modelled in numbers by computers, how can AI give even one intelligent response?
Her brooch, he planted it as part of his scheme. She made a point of saying "a single piece of jewelry saves mental effort" and the suspects recognised it.
@@markyoung01maccom Look, it's pretty simple, right? Every time you see a fire truck you see a fire, right? Therefore we can reasonably conclude that fire trucks cause fires. Everyone knows this to be the case. It's not THAT hard.
SlimThrull replies no, not the case always. You’re falling into the classic logical fallacy that can exist in cause and effect relationships. There are numerous examples.
Well, I’d say it has more to do with the abbreviation of MATHematicS. Alternatively, it may have something to do with the fact that maths is a multidisciplinary field (algebra, trigonometry, non-linear equations, etc), which means it ought to be expressed in a plural form. That said, there are plenty of examples in British English where this is ignored. It’s a living and highly malleable language. Vive la difference!
@@doubtingthomas6146 It's the abbreviation. I would struggle to think of a word that ends in an "s" that when abbreviated we didn't carry it over, though I don't doubt we'd break the rule (rules?) given any opportunity.
