Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:13:46 UTC No. 16468798

>>16468775
buy an ad

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:24:42 UTC No. 16468811

>>16468775
horrendously bad conclusion. I don't know if it's your own interpretation, or veritardsium's conslusion, but it's retarded.

let me explain.
intelligent people are more likely to use bayesian reasoning. that is all there is to it.

it doesn't matter that you make the matter political, that's just one of the general case.
let's generalize just one level to get to my point. you show someone a problem, the kind of control vs experimental group data, and you make them assume the data is collected from an experiment rather than made up, this is what happens.
the smart people are more likely to have also a higher crystalized intelligence, thus on average more domain knowledge on whatever the problem is. so they will use their a priori knowledge to decide whether or not the data should match what they expect it to be. so people with more domain knowledge are biased to skim the data and give their already known conclusion.

retarded people usually have poor crystalized intelligence, so they would have no other choice to solve the problem than to actually think about the data or guess by the biggest number.

that's all there is to it, kys and end your reddit yt channel

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:27:59 UTC No. 16468812

>>16468811
pic related, this is the kind of case where retards and geniuses beat midwits

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:33:07 UTC No. 16468815

>>16468811
maybe?... but regradless of your explanation the bias still exists. His point is that the gun control and hte cream example are the exact same question and yet people answer one correctly and not the other because of their bias which is stronger depending on your intelligence. Did you even watch the video? Or try to understand it?

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:34:30 UTC No. 16468816

>>16468815
bet you $50 OP is retarded

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:36:25 UTC No. 16468819

>>16468811
>>16468812

Knowledge of context isn't applicable in the question. You're inserting nuance where there isn't any.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:50:33 UTC No. 16468827

>>16468816
>>16468811

The trends noticed in the video definitely do not reflect your opinions. You need to learn to operate more on empirical evidence rather than trying to rationalise everything. If what you say is true, how you you explain the 4 trends that are observed in this graph.

I think you've backed yourself into a corner with an indefensible argument.

If what you say is true then you would expect that the context which supposedly reflects reality would effect intelligent individuals the same regardless of their political alignment, and yet this is not what is observed. They are influenced in opposite directions, suggesting bias, not that they are aware of context that influences their opinion that other people are unaware of. Is your argument that more intelligent people naturally tend towards misinformation? I think it's more likely bias plays a role.

Furthermore, for the very most numerically skilled people, they tend to break away from the trend, and they start answering correctly again, so do the most intelligent people suddenly stop applying bayesian probability, or is it maybe not applicable in this example?

There is an objectively correct answer to the question in the video and yet you're arguing that the bayesian philosophy of the more intelligent individuals leads them to generate the wrong answer? When thinking about the question logically would lead you to the correct one? More intelligence should lead to the correct answer, but in this case it doesn't because of bias, it's not hard to understand. Your argument doesn't really make any sense.

I am OP btw.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:12:06 UTC No. 16468861

>>16468827
The question isn't as clear cut as it pretends to be. In the skin cream case, the idea of worse/better has an associated intensity level. The presentation by Vsauce saying that big number = intuitive is a flat out lie. Nobody would see such a thing as an intuitive answer. He is already pushing an agenda with this remark.
Shifting to gun control, the data doesn't present dates of measurement. This is highly suspicious. Combined with the gotcha video feel, there could be plenty of reason to be distrustful of the entire process.
Beyond that, I suspect that Vsauce conducted the interviews separate from the original study data. He does this to provide evidence to prime decision-making in the viewers. This is sly and underhanded. Given this track record, I have no reason to believe the graph you have posted.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:14:29 UTC No. 16468864

>>16468811
I'm going to put this as simply as I can for you because you seem the type that is a little hard of hearing.
>>16468812
You too

See this graph
>>16468811

Your opinion is that the knowledge that the intelligent people have influences their answers, ignoring that their greater knowledge somehow did not influence their cream answers, let's make a logical deduction.

Conservatives who answered for gun control decreased crime and liberals who answered for gun control increased crime gave contradictory answers. Answer me this, how is it that the most intelligent people from either of these groups who supposedly are influenced by their enhanced knowledge, were pushed in two completely opposing directions in giving their answer?

If your answer is that they accumulate knowledge in accordance with their political beliefs, guess what, you're agreeing with me, because for that to be true, they must be biassed towards information that agrees with their political alignment.

And still regardless, the question has an objective answer and they answered it less correctly, so if they were applying their knowledge, they were applying it incorrectly, so they were still more inclined to give the wrong answer which is the entire point. Seems like your entire point is based on nothing but speculation and not in any real evidence. Not smart.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:17:33 UTC No. 16468872

>>16468861
the data proves and his own experiences show, that this was how lower numerically skilled people interpreted the data.

The gun control case is not real either, it just pretends to be, that's the entire point.

I'm not sure you understood what he's trying to provide evidence for, also see
>>16468864

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:29:28 UTC No. 16468888

>>16468811
>>16468812

Quite ironically, you've been debunked because someone had more information relating to what he was talking about than you did.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:29:35 UTC No. 16468891

>>16468775
Op can’t into comprehension
The study (possibly wrongly; see below) concludes that:
Smart people USE numeracy when data is not about political or tribal subjects, and correctly assess the data for what is best. Dumb people do not.
Smart people DO NOT USE numeracy when data is political or about tribal subjects. But neither do dumb people.
Does the study differentiate between dumb people making tribal decisions with this data because they are tribal, or because they cannot use numeracy? NO. It does not! The dumb people made the political decision or the obvious decision regardless of the data.
So two things here. Op is wrong about his conclusion, and the study only showed that those that could do numeracy did not agree with studies that contradicted their informed opinion.
1. Op’s conclusion is that smart people are dumb AND dumb people are smart when it comes to tribal political opinions. No. It provides evidence that smart people at least use evidence in their decision making, whereas dumb people do not.
2. AND if you listened to their responses, the smart people assumed the presenter thought the evidence was correct UNTIL the presenter said that the evidence was “totally made up.” So even if the data said one thing, if it contradicted their knowelgeable pre-conclusion, SO THEY DISREGARDED THE THE DATA PRESENTED, and picked what they knew to be true. THEREFORE, they must have come to a numerically derived answer with the data BEFORE they could disagree with their NUMERICALLY derived interpretation of the data.
THEREFORE, they were not coming to their opinion, because the data said so, They were CORRECTLY assessing the data using numeracy, finding it contradicted what they knew from other sources, THEN, concluding that this data MUST BE WRONG.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:32:48 UTC No. 16468893

>>16468891
(cont)
This is what you get when you watch TedX videos instead of reading peer reviewed studies.

This was a bad social experiment any freshman sociologist would have seen through.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:35:30 UTC No. 16468895

>>16468891
Not my conclusion. It's really simple. There are circumstances where less intelligent people are more likely to come to correct conclusions than more intelligent people for a variety of reasons. You have not understood.

It's very simple, but none of you know how to think rationally, so you keep interjecting with flawed rationality.

Please see this reply
>>16468864

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:57:22 UTC No. 16468927

>>16468891
>the study only showed that those that could do numeracy did not agree with studies that contradicted their informed opinion.

They were specifically asked to answer if the if gun control made crime rate go up or down based ONLY on the data at hand, this coupled with the fact that in the higher end of the numeracy spectrum people starting getting it correct and contradicting their own beliefs makes what you're saying just false.

Is not that they didn't agree with the study, what the study showed was that people with mid levels of numeracy were pretty much INCAPABLE of answering correctly when the question involved politics, showing that the bias is making them unable to apply logic at their highest extent, people with higher numeracy score showed this tendency too but not as strongly

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:03:52 UTC No. 16468936

>>16468891
Also see
>>16468827

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:08:32 UTC No. 16468948

>>16468861
>https://youtu.be/zB_OApdxcno?si=PqKIBhqOYrhqCmOG
>>16468872
>vsauce
it's veritasium, dumb fuck. opinion disregarded, as you proved you clearly have no idea what you're talking about

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:23:49 UTC No. 16468972

>>16468948
Think you replied to the wrong guy about vsuace

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:30:57 UTC No. 16468992

>>16468948
This. Learn your basedtubers before SPEAKING to me, plebs.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:51:13 UTC No. 16469032

>>16468948
Classic appeal to obscurity. Just because your source doesn't have a recognizable name, doesn't mean he is reliable.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 01:55:48 UTC No. 16469100

>>16468927
Thank you, you put it better than I did.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 02:13:52 UTC No. 16469115

>>16469100
You're welcome, are you OP?, because i don't agree with your first statements either lmao, i just wanted to point out shitty arguments.

I don't think numeracy is to be correlated with intelligence, this study doesn't show more intelligent people can't separate bias from logic, it shows people with higher numeracy score can't.

What im triying to say is that for example, everyone that went on to study in college is bound to have a higher numeracy score than others which might be more intelligent but were never surrounded by numbers and ratios in that way, possibly pointing to a deeper reason than "intelligence"

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 05:05:06 UTC No. 16469250

>>16468775
it looks like people seeing the big number but not able to understand its a different n per group and they need to calculate the relative risk or at least the proportions per group 107/107+21 vs 223/223+ whatever the basedjak is covering with his hand

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 09:41:37 UTC No. 16469448

>>16469115
Numeracy skills are absolutely to be correlated with intelligence, if we're talking about intelligence in the IQ sense. I don't think it's debatable.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 09:45:37 UTC No. 16469450

>>16469115
It doesn't make any sense that better maths skills would make you more susceptible to confirmation bias.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 14:39:24 UTC No. 16469623

>>16468888
>>16468864
>>16468827
>>16468819
>>16468815
>>16468948
>>16468927
>>16468895
kek, you got rekt by simple arguments and you're on damage control now.
midwit, just because you're yelling writing paragraphs of stupid shit doesn't mean you're right. plus heavily samefagging. holy shit.
>>16468891
>>16468893
this.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 15:20:34 UTC No. 16469656

>>16469623
You don't have a leg to stand on, I refuted every point you made and tried to put it as simply as possible for you. You don't have an answer to my questions.

You have a very basic understanding of how to apply Bayesian thinking. You're operating on the assumption you know more then me when you quite obviously don't.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:00:56 UTC No. 16469734

>>16469623
In fact if you actually bother to watch the video. You will see the ones trying to unnecessarily apply context to the scenario in the cream question, are the ones of lower numerical ability, this is displayed in the video of an old lady applying her personal experiences with cream to help answer the question.

You just strike me as one of these idiots that would get the cream question wrong because you're applying context where it obviously has no application.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:05:43 UTC No. 16469743

>>16468775
i wonder if a smart guy like redditisium accurately identified the significant contributing factors to gun deaths?

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:09:16 UTC No. 16469752

>>16469743
what do you mean?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:55:34 UTC No. 16470520

>>16469752
He means black people of the uncultured kind. Hence the image.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:36:05 UTC No. 16470537

>>16468775
https://x.com/veritasium/status/1853481591944675820

Community noted here
https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1853546327499510146

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:04:40 UTC No. 16470563

Guns allow weak men (You) to feel powerful. It's anti-natural, thus liberal. All the atheist liberal revolutions were due to the peasants having guns. And that's since the 1800s. Learn history, and not from CNN.

History went to shit when guns were used. It's a fact. Real men used swords, but with guns the peasants felt they were knights and this removed the boundary between the alpha aristocracy with the beta men.

You own a gun? then you are a liberal. Simple as.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:13:24 UTC No. 16470607

If you come up to people at a political rally holding a camera and a graph and maybe looking like you're trying to make a political point then it's highly likely that they won't take your graph at face value. Did they tell them it was fake data beforehand?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:44:28 UTC No. 16470622

>>16470563
Wtf are you talking about? I'm not even anti gun, none of this is an argument over gun laws.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 11:19:03 UTC No. 16470635

>>16470537
I looked into this. The reason this has been community noted, is because of reply by a user called Crémieux, he quoted Persson et al. (2021), their conclusion wasn't that the study wasn't replicable, simply that they were not able to replicate it while stating others have been able to.

The opinion they reached wasn't that the study wasn't replicable but simply that the existence of what they called motivated numeracy was inconclusive.

Quite honestly the Persson et al. study strikes me as low quality, reading through it, the language used seem unscientific and not always of good academic standard, many of the p values don't seem to suggest what the writing is purporting, there are not that many citations of the papers and the thing that stuck out the me most was that the mean numeracy ability of the participants was far higher than in Kahan's study. This is important because in Kahan's study we were shown that above a certain numerical ability the effect of motivated numeracy is less pronounced.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 11:28:33 UTC No. 16470642

>>16470607
They performed 4 different tests, 2 different questions, one for gun laws, one against, and they asked these questions to 2 different groups.

Some people simply answered the question how they wanted to, rather than looking at it objectively, like you say, but they were more likely to do this, the higher numerical ability they had. You would expect having a higher numerical ability would make you better at answering numeracy questions, regardless of the circumstances, because everyone else you're being compared to is under those same circumstances.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 11:42:40 UTC No. 16470648

>>16468811
>Show people a neutral question with some simple data
>They reach the correct conclusion
>Show people a political question with the same data
>They reach the incorrect conclusion
It's really not that deep, it's just standard political brain rot.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:07:01 UTC No. 16470710

>>16468775
The fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you appear to believe being "intelligent" and/or being perceived as "intelligent" is important. It really isn't beyond a very limited context.

Everywhere else, including most academic contexts, confidence is far more beneficial.

>>16468811
>intelligent people are more likely to use bayesian reasoning
This doesn't mean anything. Why post such pseud trite? This is coming from someone with three published papers in the field Bayesian optimization.

>the smart people are more likely to have also a higher crystalized intelligence, thus on average more domain knowledge on whatever the problem is. so they will use their a priori knowledge to decide whether or not the data should match what they expect it to be. so people with more domain knowledge are biased to skim the data and give their already known conclusion.
Bayesian statistics has absolutely nothing to say on broader epistemological implications. It precisely only has things to say about the data set itself. If you were to keep sampling that same data set from the same source you would presumably just get even more fake data.

So now to address the broader implications of your post. You are saying that people with crystallized knowledge can take a make objective view. How can you be certain the original pool of knowledge they drew from wasn't a biased, poisoned well to begin with?

If people have been telling you your entire life that "10k people died in the Fukushima disaster, therefore nuclear is bad" (CNN and other fake news MSM sources repeated this claim multiple times btw) and you have 100 data points saying this are you now going to dismiss a new data point where someone tells you "0 people died in the Fukushima disaster".

This is not a very intelligent take if you want an accurate worldview (most people besides investors don't, I don't judge you).

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:17:09 UTC No. 16470764

>>16470710
What I'm describing is called motivated numeracy, it has very important implications.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:56:54 UTC No. 16471248

>>16470710
>CNN and other fake news MSM sources repeated this claim multiple times btw
I fell for this. They're not technically wrong, because those people died through the tsunami, not the nuclear accident. I believed it, until a friend working on nuclear waste detection went there. Like literally to the reactor. Apparently it's a marvel of engineering because that thing nearly simultaneously withstood an earthquake and a tsunami, both of immense power even for the area.
MSM and manufacturing consent truly are the black death of modern times. Welcome to postfactual reality.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:51:04 UTC No. 16471295

>>16470710
Estimated IQ: 96 (average)

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 02:48:29 UTC No. 16471557

>Went to derm for a cold sore/acne cyst on my lip
>Perscribes me with a cream and said apply it twice a day
>Looked up cream online and said cream is used in patients with severe skin disorders
>Side effects include causes permanent thinning of the skin
>Stopped using cream and cold sore went away on it's own
I'll never trust doctors ever again.