Professors read reviews #1

Views:75180|Rating:4.57|View Time:6:9Minutes|Likes:245|Dislikes:23
Inspired by the Jimmy Kimmel, “Celebrities read mean tweets” series, The Orion asked professors to read their reviews from

For more information go to

Music from

Leonard Susskind | Lecture 1: Boltzmann and the Arrow of Time

Views:107675|Rating:4.79|View Time:1:6:54Minutes|Likes:982|Dislikes:43
First of three Messenger lectures at Cornell University delivered by Leonard Susskind

Theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind delivered the first of his three Messenger Lectures on “The Birth of the Universe and the Origin of Laws of Physics,” April 28, 2014. Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University, and Director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics.

it's a pleasure to introduce today's speaker my niece askin who is here giving a series of three lectures this week is one of the messenger lecturers the messenger lectures are described on the university website as one of the most important with Cornell's extracurricular activities I'll save the full description of the series for the public lecture on Wednesday night 7:30 that will be black holes the conservation of information and the holographic principle I'll mention here just that we've had stunningly distinguished messenger lecturers and physics and astrophysics at Cornell including RA Milliken in 1925 Sir Arthur Eddington in 1933 J robert Oppenheimer in 1945 Fred Hoyle in 1960 of course Richard Feynman in 1964 up to and including Steven Weinberg in 2007 Nemo coming event the most recently in physics in 2010 I happened to host Weinberg in 2007 and when I contacted him to ask you about the messenger lectures he told me of course I know about the messenger lectures I frequently referred to fineman's 1964 lectures which later became his book the character physical law what I happened to see Lennie about a year ago and asked him the same question Lenny said of course I know fineman's 1964 messenger lectures I was there so when he was a graduate student here he obtained his PhD from Cornell in 1965 under advisor Peter Carruthers he was it you see the university often from then until 1979 when he moved to Stanford where he's been sent I'll again save the long story for Wednesday night the short story is said since 2009 he's been director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics and his author two popular science books one about cosmology and the other about quantum mechanics and black holes he's also interested in teaching popular courses he's taught a series of modern courses about celery a series of course is about modern physics entitled the theoretical minimum which can be found online leading the MOOC movement and physics I first sort of met him while I was still an undergraduate he was in 1976 giving a series of lectures on course grade quantum field theory and I didn't attend those lectures I didn't learn about lattice QCD until I came here as a graduate student but I clearly remember that just before the start of one of the lectures this fellow who sort of looked like an Olympic marathon runner he was also taller than came out and asked me a virtual question to which I actually knew the answer down the hall first door clever so as you'll see money is the unique person to be giving this 50 years all along to violence lectures satisfying Forbes specific criteria number one he was there number two he's extremely eminent number three he still sufficiently compos mentis and pull it off we'll see and number four has a crest book to be willing thank you very much Paul oh yes hello am i here ah there we go can you hear me no okay let me say one thing to begin with I really feel sorry and sad for all the young physicists in the world who will never get to meet dick Feynman he was a close friend of mine I think the greatest inspiration that I ever had in my life was listening to the 1964 messenger lectures I never looked at them again I couldn't I said once is all you ever want to do this particular thing in fact I always felt the same thing with though with dick I never wanted to go back over the things I did with him once was enough once was so unique and so exceptional that to see them again not to do them again or to just seeing them something I didn't want to do so I haven't looked at the Fineman lectures again but um I do remember now I could be wrong about where I heard Fineman say this I think if my memory serves me right it was in the first of the messenger lectures I could be wrong it could have been another lecture somewhere else but as I remember Fineman once described theoretical physics as follows first you get an intuitive idea the house of how something works how to explain something then you find equations to quantitatively express your idea from the equations you make calculations and predict something new new number or new relationship after that somebody else usually somebody else goes out and does an experiment to test the prediction and if enough predictions turn out to be right then you've got a theory if the idea covers enough different cases the theory becomes a principle this of course is correct but I think it's not the whole story there are other ways the theoretical physics for pressors or physics in general progresses one I would call the Dirac way I'm specifically interested in theoretical physics one are we call the Dirac way their axons if an equation is beautiful enough that will be right well maybe it did work for Dirac then is the Einstein way sometimes principles these things we call principles collide when two things both of which are so deeply rooted that we cannot conceive of either of them being false but nevertheless when taken together seem to lead the contradiction then we have a conflict of principles it's when such conflicts are resolved the physics makes the greatest conceptual advances my lectures are about three related conflicts of principle I think it's fair to say that all have powerfully changed physics even though not one of them has been completely resolved today I will discuss Boltzmann struggle with the second law of thermodynamics on the one hand entropy always increases on the other hand Newton's laws are reversible we will come to what that means the outcome of the struggle was profound entropy is hidden information Boltzmann's insight deeply affected every area of science but in the end it did not solve the problem that Boltzmann originally set out to conquer why is there an arrow of time why does time go one way what's different about the future than the past I'm going to explain how modern developments in cosmology make this puzzle even more puzzling and how they also suggest a solution but be prepared to be very skeptical will be driven to extremely remote ranges of time and space way beyond anything we can hope to directly access nevertheless the arrow of time is a fact of nature and deserves an explanation so let me begin I will just come and that I think it's an absolute disgrace that a beautiful wonderful room like this in which physics can be presented does not have a permanent blackboard had I known that when Paul asked me I asked him explicitly Paul is there a blackboard in the room and Paul said of cost as a blackboard in the room he was lying to me I don't know if I would have turned down the opportunity to give these lectures I don't think I would have I don't think I would have but nevertheless I have to say I'm deeply saddened and disappointed by the lack of a blackboard in the lecture hall Rockefeller Hall I'm going to use this monstrosity of a machine I don't like using PowerPoint I will use it today all I did there's another interesting fact Paul said give lecture one two and three in that order first the first one in the second one the third one and I assume that this meant that the first lecture should be the first logically order ordered one and that it should be for the general public a broader thing that introduced some concepts at a not exactly a lower level but with fewer equations and fewer technical concepts and so I wrote the first lecture in the first lecture was about Boltzmann and and so forth I then found out just a couple of days ago that the first lecture is the physics department colloquium and the second lecture is the general lecture sorry buddies you are getting the first lecture because it's the first lecture I can't help it so if you find this a little bit trivial then I invite you to – what's that – the same if you're right but you said I was I didn't know what I was going to say next all right the lectures the entire series of lectures had some weird title that Paul made up had nothing to do with me the correct the correct the correct title should have been conflicts of principle I don't know if it's conflicts of principle or conflict of principles but one of the other and basically the three related questions of concept of conflict of principles okay let me start with an experiment this is a real genuine experiment I did this in my laboratory I took pictures of it and I have a hundred I have two hundred and thirty two slides on here incidentally and you'll see but most of my little movies little film clips the film clips are homemade film clips I make them myself and you'll see how they have it we'll see how they work all right we start with a room the room is the purple area it's a sealed room you can't get nothing can get into it or out of it and up in the corner of the room is a little bit of maybe a lot of a lot of molecules gas all stuffed into the corner of the room now I want you to tell me which of the following two little movies makes sense as physics and which does not okay so here we go that's one here's the other one should I do them again No that look pretty good I like that that looks very uncomfortable I don't believe that will ever happen mostly you don't believe that the air in the room will also rush into the corner so what's going on well we usually blame this on the second law of thermodynamics the second law of thermodynamics is that entropy always increases and if you know just a little bit about entropy you will know that the entropy of a room filled uniformly with gas and thermal equilibrium has a high entropy and when all the molecules are stuffed off into the corner it has low entropy entropy and clay increases end of story second law of thermodynamics tells us which film is correct the clash of principles the conflict of principles the second law says that entropy always increases Newton's laws of motion and for practical purposes today I don't want to introduce quantum mechanics but what quantum mechanics also says the same thing it says that the laws of physics and particular Newton's laws are reversible let's remind ourselves what that means what it means in the context of a very simple example incident R here it is the context of a simple example is that if a ball can roll a frictionless ball on a frictionless surface can roll from one point to another in a certain amount of time then Newton's equations say that there's another solution in which it can roll back to the first position therefore that cannot be a quantity which always increases if it increased going this way it would be creased going that way they can't be Boltzmann's effort to find the quantity and mechanics which always increases was doomed from the beginning and people told him that incidentally he struggled with it ok so that raises the question then what is entropy what is it that seems always to increase despite the what Newton might say about it what's the meaning of the second law and why is there an arrow of time ok let's begin with what entropy is so let's see yeah entropy according to Boltzmann in the end when he finally understood it is hidden information what does it mean that information is hidden well in the practical example that he was thinking about a gas information is hidden because it's contained in a collection of degrees of freedom which are too small to see and too numerous to keep track of when information is contained in to numerous a set of degrees of freedom too small to see that information is called entropy let's take an example here's an example of 64 coins now let the fact that nor the fact that they're on a lattice that's not the important point here I had to draw them some way so here's the 64 coins they might just be in a bag they might even be invisible to you but but there they are sixty-four coins and there each coin has two faces one face is red one face is blue here's a special configuration of the coins in which they're all showing red how many such configurations are there well the number is right over here there's one such configuration it's rather special incidentally if you saw it even if you didn't know where the coins were is those your sure those coins you'd recognize it instantly easily recognized here's a configuration with one blue coin it's less unique there are 64 of them let's just here's another one and there are 64 of them altogether you might not so quickly recognize which was which if it was flashed in front of your eyes 64 configurations with one flipped coin how many were to flip coins well you can work it out at 64 times 63 over two and the answer is 2016 numbers are going up fast rather fast here's another one three coins forty one thousand six hundred and sixty four configurations with three coins I suspect if I flashed that at you pretty fast you would not be able to tell me afterwards which three coins were flipped but maybe you could there's four the number is six better part of a million six hundred and fifty fifth or old or whatever some large number that's how many configurations notice they're going up really fast how about if half the coins are red and half the coins are blue this is a kind of generic situation the numbers are vast two times ten to the eighteenth configurations supposing you were just to pick a configuration randomly what would you be likely to pick you would be very unlikely to pick one you extremely unlikely to pick all Reds picking them at random you probably pick something like this just because there are so many configurations like this this technical definition of entropy for an ensemble a collection of states for a collection of discrete states of a system like the system of coins is this that the particular ensemble it's a technical world ensemble but just means a collection of states that are somehow recognizable in some way recognizable or not is the logarithm of the number of configurations that satisfies a certain criterion okay for example the state with one flip coin with no flip coins there's only one state log one is 0 it has no entropy and you go down the entropy s rise not as fast as these numbers on the left but the entropy goes up and eventually reaches a maximum all right now let's talk about something different let's talk about equations of motion what is an equation of motion an equation of motion is a rule for updating the state given the state the equation of motion tells you what the state is the next instinct think of it that way I'm imagining time is discrete but that's not important these for the authorities six boxes represent six different states how many states are there the 64 coins to to the 64 could with too many to draw I can't draw them all so I've just drawn 6 y 6 is a nice number ok those are six states but think of them as representing all the possible states of some system not the ensembles but the individual states what is an equation of motion an equation of motion is simply a rule which tells you given the state what's the next state 1 goes to 2 2 goes to 5 5 goes to 3 3 goes to 6 6 goes to 4 4 goes back to 1 and what happens next 1 goes to 2 2 goes to 5 and so forth and you cycle through these states this is a typical example of a simple discrete equation of motion it tells how the system moves forward in classical physics it's completely deterministic in quantum physics a similar thing is true it's called unitarity but let's just take the the the classical version of it here's a law of physics or a equation of motion which is also deterministic if you start with 1 you go to 2 if you start with 6 you go to 2 if you start with 5 you go to – that's deterministic I can tell you exactly exactly where you'll be after a certain number of steps something wrong with it what's wrong with it what's wrong with it is it's not reversible if you know you're at 2 you can't tell where you came from you can't retro dict if you know you're at 1 you didn't come from anywhere you couldn't have come from anywhere so this is what's an example of irreversible equation of motion the laws of Newton and the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of every physical system that we know at the very bottom of its description are reversible all of them and so equations like this are forbidden do we know why well in something in some way we do know why but I'm going to ask you to trust me that this is one of the things that the laws of physics as we know them require what's the rule the rule is that every box has one arrow in in one arrow out an arrow to tell you where you were and the Naro to tell you where you'll be next ok that's the sense in which information in classical physics and in quantum physics if you work out the quantum analog of it that information is never lost you always know where you came from you always know where you go to and there is no contraction into a smaller number of states so that you lose information incidentally in classical physics it's called levels theorem and quantum mechanics it's called unitarity ok let's now ask what an evolution would look like now this is a made-up evolution the I'm going to assume that as you go from one step the next not too many coins are flipped simultaneously one two or three coins are flipped alright here it is the keep track of it because it's important to keep track of the sequence okay I'll go back over it let's do it a little more slowly alright we started with the lowest entropy state why I just decided to start with the lowest entropy state to see what would happen not too many coins get flipped simultaneously so the next step might be one blue coin which blue coin don't know but the law but the point is the equation of motion tells me which blue corn what's going to be next well it can't go back to all red why not because it has to cycle through all the states assumption is it cycles through all the system cycles through all the states it can't just go from red to blue or one red one blue to red one red two one blue so and go to something else let's go back man it might go to a single blue coin someplace else but there are many many fewer of those states than there are states with let's say 2 3 or 4 flip coins much more likely just for that reason that it will go perhaps the 4 flip coins remember though there's about a half a million more than a half a million configurations of that type from here it might go back to one coin it might go back to 3 coins but much more likely that it will go to more coins for the simple reason that there are more configurations like that and thus it goes once it gets to this point where the entropy is maximum where it's almost half-and-half give or take it'll simply rattle around in similar States for a long long time for a very long time much longer than we have to run through this but every so often a fluctuation will happen a Boltzmann fluctuation a rare and unusual configuration will arise here's one with only 3 blue coins what's the next one going to be maybe it's two blue coins now there was just so many more with 4 blue coins that it went to 4 blue coins and so it goes whoo that's getting interesting that's an interesting look I didn't go anywheres oh maybe we'll get back to the beginning not likely and so we go and so we go and so we go whoo whoops there's an interesting one how do we get there there's a star in it not a star not an astronomical star but has a little star in it one star that's a really interesting configuration how did it get there well it got there randomly it just accidentally got there remember you have to cycle through everything not so surprising that you've got something really rare and interesting but it didn't get there for a interesting reason didn't get there for a reason which you could explain by some inevitable law of physics that says that stars will emerge in some very very specific and organized way these the example of the star that I just described is an example of a recurrence you can call it a recurrence a punk a more or less a punk or a recurrence you can call it a Boltzmann fluctuation you can call it a freak unexplained happening they are a general property of finite systems because the system is finite it only has a finite number of states to cycle through and so weird things will happen weird things will happen over and over again and on top of that they will vastly outnumber than normal histories the normal histories are the ones that started with extremely low entropy I will come to why I say that in a moment but the normal history is the ones that we normally understand or think we understand our histories that start with very very low entropy there are many more ways to create that star than to start with low entropy just many many more random statistical ways to how make it happen roughly speaking in the real universe what we're talking about is very very freaked phenomena where a bunch of random dust molecules or gas molecules might simultaneously come together and make a gala see that sounds almost completely impossible but it's not completely impossible and what this tells us is that in a finite system the system that just cycles around itself it is much much more likely than any other way of making that star or that galaxy will go through it a few more examples to get the idea let's explore the idea further and suppose for a moment that the universe is such a finite system finite system finite number of degrees of freedom number one and number two contained in a finite volume if it's contained in a finite volume and it has a finite energy we describe it but we can describe it in any case by phase space the configuration of space of states is not a series of six boxes but it's a point in the phase space of some number of molecules for example 10 to the 10 to the 80th molecules or whatever whatever the right number is and so it's described by a phase space which is a plot of position and momentum and velocity now to make it a finite system let's assume that the positions of the molecules are bounded they can only go between here and here and that there's a brick wall here that prevents them from going any further furthermore let's suppose that the energy of the system is finite in that case the momentum of the particles cannot exceed a certain amount and so the whole thing is contained in a you know in a box now there's a region of phase space that's my target by my target I mean the thing I want to explain how we got there this is some region of phase space which describes the world let's say as we know it now it's got the certain abundance of Helium certain abundance of hydrogen a certain abundance of lithium it's got planets it's got stars it's got you and me and that's it it's not unique the state is not unique there are many many states that look like that it's an ensemble and it's an ensemble with some pretty significant entropy and entropy of about ten to the hundred in some units or other but still it's a very small region of the whole phase space most states are not like that so the question is then how do we get there and the standard idea of a theory for an explanation forget that we call that explanation inflationary cosmology right now we'll come back to that in a little while but the basic idea is that there's some special family of states not a unique state but some special family of states with a very low entropy very few of them as a starting point but if we follow the phase trajectory the trajectory of the system from any point within that little region there it always evolves into here that's called a explanation of our world if we can find such a thing if we can find a small region of very low entropy such that almost every point within that region evolves into the region where we are then we say we have an explanation the explanation is for reasons unknown we started out in here and for reasons known we evolved to here inflationary cosmology might be one such candidate description okay but once we get into this let's call this the zone of life just to give it a name once we get into the zone of life we don't stop world goes on we eventually will exit the zone of life sadly we will eventually exit the zone of life our universe will expand dilute we will eventually get out of the configuration space where we can exist and we will wind up outside it is that the end no that's not the end the phase point continues to wander around and for long long periods of time it evolved what it evolves around in what's roughly thermal equilibrium in this world in a box it evolved around in thermal equilibrium which is like the series of coins which were in this featureless configuration about half red and half blue and it stays there for a very long time not in any particular state but wandering around through the phase space the wandering phase space point featureless nothing interesting happening but notice over here the phase space manage the phase space point managed to wander back into the zone of life but it didn't wander into the zone of life from the trajectory that started with this low entropy state it wandered in from someplace else the zone of life is much bigger than the starting point here how do we know that we know that because entropy increases the reason entropy increases is because we went from a small region to a bigger region we wander around and then accidentally practically accidentally in a freak event we wander into here the people who live in here look around them and they see a world which is not explainable in this way that we're familiar with explaining phenomena in fact my guess is those people in there would not be too surprised they would say what would be overwhelmingly surprising would be to start from here there's almost no states there we know what's happening our phase point is just wandering around and every once in a while it wanders into the zone of life if we wait even longer we will find out that the phase point wanders in and out and in and out of the of the region of life very very rarely much more rarely does it actually evolve back through this point and wind up behaving in the way that we normally consider explainable what I'm telling you is the thing that we normally consider explainable is the most outrageously unlikely of all possible ways of getting where we are why because it starts with a very very low entropy state and low entropy states are very rare so in this world in a box what one should expect is that the typical example of life the typical example of a world which would support life would be what we would call a freak world we don't live in a freak world we know that inflationary cosmology back to some very low entropy starting point work so there's something wrong with this picture of go back there's something wrong yeah there's something wrong with this picture of living in a box there are ways out maybe we don't live in a finite box that would get us out of it perhaps the problem is that modern cosmology tells us that we do live in a car in a finite box in a finite and in a certain sense on growing box if the box grows then you can get out of this problem okay all evidence that we have about cosmology experimental observational points to the idea that we do live in a finite box the evidence that I'm talking about is the existence of a cosmological constant sometimes called vacuum energy sometimes called accelerated expansion and most often called dark energy they're all the same thing so let me go through in a few minutes what the arguments tell you what the equations tell you a good fraction of you have seen this equation before Murie assualt percentage of people have seen this equation probably about a third I would say something like that does so let me tell you what this equation is this is called the Freedman robertson-walker equation it's the equation for the expansion of the universe a represents the radius of the universe at any time when physicists put a dot on top of a variable it means the time derivative of it and the left-hand side is called the rate of expansion the rate of expansion a dot is the time derivative of the radius universe is expanding a dot over a is finite and this is called the rate of expansion and the equation says that the rate of expansion is proportional to forget this number here this is a number we'll set it equal to 1 in some units or other it really is equal to 1 some Clarkie and units or some sort of units it's equal to 1 this object is the energy density or the mass density in the universe e equals mc-squared same thing and what you can say about this energy density is at least the usual sources of energy the usual types of energy density particles photons all usual things let's call the particles matter those have an energy density which decreases as the universe gets big why because it dilutes energy density dilutes as you say as you make the universe bigger same thing with radiation radiation dilutes even faster for a technical reason that I won't bother you with but there is one form of energy it's often called very mysterious I think it's not so mysterious it's called a cosmological constant or vacuum energy it exists in the world it exists in our equations that exists in quantum field theory it must exist and it does exist what's queer about it is how little of it exists but we're not going to get into that today we're just going to say there is a vacuum energy and the thing about the vacuum energy is it doesn't dilute you take a box of a certain amount of vacuum energy and you'll grow the box what happens is the density of vacuum energy stays the same now you can ask where the energy came from who that's another that's another issue it is understood it's not mysterious but there is a vacuum energy and we know that it really exists it's been measured astronomically here's the number it's even bigger it's very small but it's actually bigger than the density of ordinary material throughout space that tells us that the Friedman robertson-walker equation just has a right-hand side which is just a number it doesn't change you can solve this equation a dot over a equals the square root of lambda and the and the solution is an exponentially growing universe now that doesn't look like a finite box of a certain size that looks like a growing box and with a growing box you can get out of this problem of the Boltzmann fluctuations but this is misleading let me show you let me take you through the arguments about why this is misleading and what the equations really tell us all right first of all the universe the entire universe described by this theory is expanding exponentially that means every point is moving away from every other point moving away according to the Hubble law and the thing that's exceptional about about a cosmological constant is that the Hubble number here the relation between velocity and distance this is velocity distance from you here you are right here I'm also pretty close to there and we're looking out at some distant thing it's moving away from us because the universe is expanding and how fast is it moving out a velocity proportional to the distance away there are the coefficient here is called the Hubble constant and the special thing about vacuum energy is that the Hubble constant is truly constant it doesn't change with time that's special now this is a strange equation if you think about it what it says is if you go far enough away where D times the square root of lambda is equal to the speed of light there will be things moving away from you with the speed of light moreover if you can go further out there moving faster than the speed of light trust me this is okay this is allowed all right things moving away faster than the speed of light but you can't see them when they send signals back to you the signals are also swept up and travel away from you and so the result is that there is a certain radius called the horizon the radius of the horizon and for all practical purposes everything that you can ever see everything that you can ever know about is within that radius that radius or that shell out at that distance is called your horizon and it's very much like a black hole horizon except looked at from the end not from the inside of the black hole but it's as if there was a black hole on the outside that when things cross over into this Neverland that'd be some beyond here you'll never see them again well that's not quite the way the black holes or cosmological horizons really work the way they really work is that if you with your telescope or following something moving out you would not see it cross the horizon why not you can never see anything cross the horizon first of all you can't see anything beyond the horizon you actually can never see anything cross the horizon what you do see or what your mathematics would tell you is that as time goes on the particles the dust the galaxies asymptotically within your horizon here asymptotically approach the horizon moving slower and slower and slower freezing at the horizon that's what the equations of general relativity say very much like a black hole so here is what either what you would see through a telescope or what or what mathematics would tell you there's all your galaxies how did they form they formed perhaps by starting with some low entropy state and creating galaxies in the standard way and they start to move out they start to move out and all the particles eventually arrive near the boundary near the horizon taking longer and longer and longer to get there let me draw a picture of one way of thinking about this think of all the particles in the universe being contained within this horizon so they're within this region here and there's a potential function a potential function which looks like this you're at the center here you're exactly at the center so you will neither fall off this way or this way but something which is over here will start picking up steam and eventually fall down to here something over here will fall down to here so if this region was filled up with particles they will all fall down to here they will all fall down to here that's what's going on here and from your perspective within your telescope you will see them simply freeze and congregate or pile up pile up at the horizon that's the mathematical description the general relativity tells us is what you would see now if we add some quantum mechanics now we have to add some quantum mechanics to go next if we add some quantum mechanics the main result of quantum mechanics is that a horizon like this cannot tolerate an infinite number of degrees of freedom or an infinite number of particles all piled up like that and in fact the pile up has a finite thickness the finite thickness is proportional to H bar things cannot get that close rather the pile up piles up at a distance which is comparable to a length called plunk length these particles pile up here and because they've fallen down they have some kinetic energy and therefore they're hot this system has temperature that's a well-understood feature of spaces of this type called the sitter spaces the sitter spaces have temperature and all the thermal junk is out near the edge that's your description of the world now of course every once in a while because these particles are hot once in a while one of them will get some extra energy and jump back up to the top one particle who cares about one particle it might jump up to the top two particles might actually make it to the top even rarer so here's what we would expect to see as we follow this system particles a few particles jump up they fall back down they jump up they fall back down they jump up you can see why I have a hundred and eighty slides I think it's two hundred and thirty this keeps happening over and over but every once in a while and except that this when I say every once in a while I mean a long while every once in a while the mathematics in any case tells us that there will be an exceptionally large number of particles that jump out of the horizon and congregate somewheres a dust cloud is formed a dust cloud is formed by no mechanism that you would recognize as a standard astronomical mechanism I random fluctuation that random fluctuation might collapse to form a black hole that's a rather likely thing that it would do and this process is well understood it's been studied for many years the creation of black holes out of out of the sitter space but before it forms a black hole maybe it will not form a black hole in my former galaxy the dust cloud that this cloud may then evolve into a galaxy what were the people who live on that galaxy think they would look out and they would say gee this is interesting we are alone in the whole universe why would they be alone well the probability of making one galaxy is incredibly small by random fluctuation the probability of making two galaxies is vastly vastly smaller so the most likely thing is if you found yourself in a galaxy you would say ooh a fluctuation happened but the likelihood that a double fluctuation happened is negligible so these people would not be all that surprised that they were alone if they understood the theory of fluctuations and if they believed that their birth was due to a random fluctuation they will have a very nice theory of the world so lesson over very long timescales everything happens freak events vastly outnumber the comprehensive Belen quotes histories the ones which start with small entropy and go where we're going and the reason that the comprehensive all of normal histories are so overwhelmed by the other ones is that they be they originate from low entropy configurations which are the most unlikely something is clearly wrong with this picture we did evolve out of a out of a inflating early low entropy state I don't believe that we are simply the one part in 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 10th the civilizations that were just so lucky that they were the first ones to be formed and therefore were not these crazy recurrences that I think is very unlikely so something's wrong there are various possibilities of what could be wrong perhaps this idea that vacuum energy means that we live in a finite box which just recurs and recurs and recurs maybe that's wrong maybe the mathematics the quantum mechanics the combination of ideas of quantum mechanics and gravity don't really fit together and this idea that everything piles up boy – lasers whoo oh wait wait look look one of them is behind the other alright this idea of pileup here maybe that's wrong maybe the use of thermodynamics is wrong on top of everything else the timescales that we're talking about are truly vast exponentially exponentially large can we trust anything about such enormous timescales aren't we being a little bit jumping ahead of the game a little bit by assuming that we know how physics works for 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 10th years of course we're jumping ahead something unexpected may happen in between but that's just the point that's just the point what this is telling us very likely is that something unexpected that's unaccounted for by the equations as we now know them must come into play over these very long timescales and what kind of thing might it be that was intended but I'm trying to remember what the next one is okay let me let me go through the life that didn't help up there it is here is the standard theory of the evolution of the universe this is inflationary theory inflation is the theory which was confirmed over the last few months by this famous experiment which just took place the bicep2 experiment it didn't lead to this picture it confirms this picture I'm going to tell you what the picture is there is a field the field has a name it's called the inflow time it's a field in space in that field can vary the vacuum energy depends on the value of that field so if the field is at this value here there is a large vacuum energy remember what a large vacuum energy means it means a tremendously rapid growth of expansion but it also means that the horizon is very small because you don't have to go very far until you get to the point where things are moving away with the speed of light the smaller the expansion rate the further you have to go to get to the point where you reach the speed of light and therefore the bigger the horizon this pot this pot of particles here is big when the cosmological constant or when the vacuum energy is small and it's small when the vacuum energy is big so if we start up at the top of this potential where the vacuum energy is large the observable universe within a horizon is very very small and then the standard I'm going to give you the quick nutshell version of all of cosmology the universe rolled down to the bottom where there's a little bit of vacuum energy so the universe is still expanding it's still accelerating it's still in this phase like this but much slower expansion much bigger universe but it's stuck there what happens when it gets down to here incidentally everything interesting that happened in the universe happened on the way down here while it was out of equilibrium including us with somewheres down near the bottom but we're not really at the bottom yet once it gets to the bottom that's when you're in thermal equilibrium that's when the universe has evolved to where every thing has fallen down to the sides and the sitting there in thermal equilibrium and what does it do it jiggles around there with jiggles this is not my nerves this is my purposeful jiggling right now try to stop I can't okay jiggles around here jiggles around here for how long for an immensely long amount of time every so often though it might get a fluctuation which pushes it up the hill a little bit and then it will fall back down a partial incomplete recurrence it'll do it again and again and again over and over again very very rarely will it jump up to the top and when I say rarely I mean it's the most unlikely thing the entropy up at the top here is minimal it's like all the particles having gotten up to the top you don't need all the particles to get up to the top to make a galaxy okay so that's that's the history of the universe in a nutshell a roll from a high value of the vacuum energy down to the bottom sits there for long periods of time and then now and then jumps back what would it look like from the point of view of the pictures we drew well when we're up on the top the universe or at least the horizon the portion that we can see the portion which comes into the mathematical description a quantum description of the universe is very small how small I mean really small this would be really really small up at the top of the potential I can't remember what the number is but microscopic is a lot smaller than a proton and so we sit there with a very very small universe but it rolls down the hill when it gets down to the bottom of the hill the horizon is much bigger big enough for us to live in big enough for the galaxies to live in big enough and think of these red dots now as galaxies but then it evolves it continues to evolve and expands and everything goes out toward the edges and sooner or later gets the thermal equilibrium with all the particles down the bottom here they sit there they do things a knock against each other and it's quite boring nevertheless every once in a while a few particles might jump up out and then fall back in still boring but again with a very very low rate a dust cloud may form dust cloud may form make a black hole or may make a galaxy I'm repeating I didn't make these new these are the same ones again and then evaporate back to nothingness again this is the picture that we are now stuck with over and over again the vast majority of observers are these freaks the freaks who occur for no good reason other than random things happen they vastly vastly outweigh the number of times that the universe jumps up to the top where's the top the top is gone this is where we are was stuck there was stuck there with a theory which tells us that the vast overwhelming majority of civilizations they're physicists will correctly have a theory that says that they were born at a random fluctuation they will not be surprised to find themselves alone in the world and they would consider what we see or at least an attempt to describe the universe the way we describe it as deeply deeply misguided we don't expect crazy fluctuations and the craziest fluctuation would be back all the ways up to the top something's wrong now one thing that might be wrong I'd rather think it is what is wrong is that this phase space box is not really closed and sealed imagine had a little hole in it the hole cannot be arbitrarily small for it to do its work but imagine that there was a hole in the side of the box so that the universe phase point could leak out of a box then the history would be you start I mean we still don't understand why we started here which don't understand wheel but let's take it for granted that the cosmologists are right and we did start here what will happen is we will go into the zone of life then eventually we'll leave it we will rattle around a few times maybe many times and then find the way out of the box once you're out of the box finished once you're out of the box assuming the rest is infinite assuming the rest is infinite you will not come back into the box the likelihood of coming back into the box altogether over the infinite range of time beyond that time is negligible and so once you're out you're out you will not recur again if the box was open like this and we started let's imagine the Gedanken experiment where we maybe not we maybe somebody else starts a sequence of universes starts one here and follows it so that's another one follows it the overwhelming majority of them now will pass through the zone of life only once therefore the overwhelming number of observers will see a world which is consistent with being traced back to this very early low entropy state do the equations support this view yes actually they do remember I drew that picture of the potential well I'm not I'm not the world's biggest believer in string theory although I did have something to do with it but I'm not but nevertheless string theory tells us something and the thing might be much broader and a more general in string theory what it says is that there's always a way out of this minimum here there are always vacuums in the technical jargon there are vacuums with zero cosmological constant they're super symmetric doesn't matter what you call them they are configurations where which when you leak out of here you jump around you jump around here and every so often you go over the top and you leak out here when you leak out there you do not come back there's no way back after that why because these things have zero vacuum energy and zero vacuum energy means infinitely big horizon you've leaked out to infinity if this is true it would be a way out it would not explain why we start in a particular configuration but would get us out of this trap of the recurrent nightmare of Boltzmann fluctuations um the world would look something like this then or the evolution you would start small up on the top of the potential you would fall down to the bottom get bigger you would then tunnel through to the other side and simply get big an end of story you get one shot it's a one shot universe where you get one chance to have life in it and after that finished what I am essentially finished that is a possible explanation of what's going on as I said I don't expect you nor do I think that you should be unskipable about everything I said I think you should be skeptical about it we have very little chance of extrapolating that far correctly this is what current theory is pushing us toward will surprises come in between now and the time of recurrences or whatever time it will take for people to get these things straight I rather suspect surprises will happen but nevertheless let me just leave you with a statement that I deeply believe I said it before the arrow of time is a fact of nature and needs and explanation thank so the tradition of relativity started out to the point of view and joke about well we're here about that the horizon was faced at that point you it seems like another point of view would create a different trouble two bubbles will intersect somewhere now have super hot points well okay my next lecture will be about black holes ah I think you are asking the very simple question we could which week a phrase this way imagine somebody not at rest in the center of that bubble here but imagine somebody who was actually traveling within expect with a galaxy that was falling through the where are you yeah that was falling through would they see themselves passing through the superhot region and get themselves scalded no that's the puzzle of horizons which we will come to next time next time is the puzzle the conflict of principle between information conservation which is one side of this and the equivalence principle which is the other side the equivalence principle says that somebody falling down here sees nothing special when they cross that point but the conservation of information at least from the perspective of somebody at the center says in some sense nothing really can fall through so we're gonna this is this is going to be the discussion of next time let me just say again I'll have to say trust me that that the mathematical description that we've evolved that of a kind of largely the work of people like Hawking and bekenstein and other people that that the right way to think of our description at the center of all of this is in terms of a a finite box with all of the degrees of freedom contained within that box each one has a different description and then the region of overlap they have to agree I think that's what you're asking I'm not saying but I wait until the next lecture could won't say that the unit directionality of time is just a statement about the nature of consciousness a small like we see one time but yes I don't think so because I think there's a physical fact there that that's explain now I understand what you're asking I think I don't subscribe to that view of it I do think it's a physical faculties explanation but could consciousness be part of the way we perceive time serious of course is a part of the way we perceive time nevertheless I underlined it is so fat could be well looks like us and in fact I think the way all of the way Boltzmann finally formulated it is not that the entropy always increases whatever configuration you find yourself in the next configuration is most likely to have a larger entropy but it's also true that if you just find yourself at a random point among these configurations the previous configuration also was most likely to have a larger entropy so it does come they're always this term most likely the idea that entropy always increases was misguided as Boltzmann eventually discovered and at the right statement n you might say is that entropy almost always increases so does that it does that address what you were asking yeah close it's better than nothing yeah you didn't you didn't pay much to get in here so what the hell Andy the quantum mechanics and they provide I I don't know as I said I think there's a physical fact that it needs explanation that it's continuous no no I am I think there is always a level at which it could be discrete and we wouldn't notice it I don't think anything I said really depends on on the discreteness of continuity of time the pictures that I drew of evolution were discrete okay the basic set of ideas were a sort of summary of the logic of classical mechanics in classical mechanics it's not discrete upgrading its it's um updating its solving differential equations but the idea of one arrow in and one arrow out becomes what is called levels theorem in classical mechanics what that is you recognize I said not believe it so just so that we don't need people concerned as a final question you suggested yeah yeah jump yeah before I before I lay your concerns before I lay your concerns let me make you more worried jumping to a zero cosmological constant is not an innocent thing it's true if the cosmological constant if that's all that happened and the cosmological constant suddenly became zero I don't think it would affect us very much but you're jumping over this barrier to something new to a place whether we're the parameters of physics are different where everything is different there may or may not be electrons in that world that may or may not be photons in other words physics the properties of a physical world would be very very different than addition to the cosmological constant being different everything would be different in other words it could well be a world in which atoms don't exist so that's the bad news the good news is that such events are exponentially unlikely um the let's see where was it where was the picture let me redraw the picture over here a picture that we dump this and then we do that the time scale for the penetration through here is very very sensitive to the parameters of this bump it's all it's typically exponentially long times but it's ten billion years exponentially long yeah it's exponentially in something namely the log of ten billion so so there's no good reason why it couldn't happen tomorrow but if you take some simple reasonable parameters for the is coming out of various kinds of particle physics frameworks you might expect that the time scales are much much longer than the age of the universe but you know I don't think anybody has a precise theory of this could be come out of it I cannot not tomorrow that next lecture is Wednesday

Meet Germany's first robot lecturer | DW Documentary

Views:26093|Rating:4.49|View Time:12:32Minutes|Likes:358|Dislikes:41
German University has hired a new assistant professor: Yuki, the robot.

Jürgen Handke is known as a pioneer of digital teaching methods. The German professor has an unusual assistant: a humanoid robot named Yuki. When students ask to speak to English language professor Jürgen Handke, they might encounter his robot assistant Yuki. The humanoid robot is 1.2 meters tall, very approachable and extremely knowledgeable. Professor Handke hopes his new assistant can help revolutionize German universities. For years, Handke has been using digital technologies to enhance his teaching: he has a YouTube channel with educational videos and an online platform where all students are registered. Robot lecturer Yuki can get a sense of how students are doing academically, and what kind of support they need. He can also have them take tests. Professor Handke insists Yuki is merely an assistant, and will never replace him as teacher. What do the students make the unusual assistant? DW’s Anna Goretzki spent a day accompanying robot lecturer Yuki at the University of Marburg.

DW Documentary gives you knowledge beyond the headlines. Watch high-class documentaries from German broadcasters and international production companies. Meet intriguing people, travel to distant lands, get a look behind the complexities of daily life and build a deeper understanding of current affairs and global events. Subscribe and explore the world around you with DW Documentary.

Subscribe to DW Documentary:

For more documentaries visit:



DW netiquette policy:

how much learning material can you retain Yuki is Professor Juergen hunt cos assistant at Phillips University of Marburg in Germany hunka is known as a digital teaching pioneer and one of the first professors to have a humanoid robot assistant the professor uses an interactive teaching approach which is made possible by Yuki it's Thursday just after 7:00 a.m. at Marburg University Thursdays always start early for Jurgen hunt ker and Patrick hunch this is Yuki's work day and he needs to be woken up it's the special media type so Albert Shanker does – to then publish often holiday encodes for the writers plus the additional here this intestine there are foliage Michonne what's the time he's ready now time to head to class Yuki needs help making the journey we need this push cart to go anywhere to help him get from A to B you he completed his test phase just a few weeks ago since then he's been working regularly at the University Patrick hunch programs Yuki it is thanks to hunch that Yuki is always learning it would be great if he could get to class by himself that's still missing but even in the future that's going to be difficult also because of the elevator when the university first bought Yuki and two other robots for 20,000 euros they couldn't do much now the 1.2 meter tall robot is more than a fancy gimmick for professor Juergen hunt cat Yuki's artificial intelligence is designed to help improve both teaching and learning ok ladies and gentlemen a very warm welcome to our in class meeting number 11 this is an English linguistics lecture I will take my linguistics phonetics class oh that's the wrong one did I what we have the wrong session we have the wrong session it's linguistics and phonetics shows history of English did Yuki make a mistake I have no idea what went wrong so it's this is whatever happens what always happens so if I go this if I if I click on linguistic linguist it's and phonetics chosen oh there we are so my mistake my mistake so here we are are you ready here is a question for him test number one how many vowels does the word incomprehensive contain you got two minutes Yuki is asking practice exam questions but students in honkers classes aren't supposed to memorize material instead they're instructed to use their tablets mobiles and computers to find information online this train skills and understanding rather than rote learning as you also wrote on eyes that's perfect we all right the food forms wonderful hunka things teachers sent it education is inefficient the professor prefers an interactive multimedia l'p roach which he can apply thanks to his assistant Yuki so just it's really a big help I can stay with them and help them while the robot has an eye on things I don't need to do anything it's great before I'd have to run up and down the class do the PowerPoint and the stopwatch now he handles all of that ok guess he's got it the technology works but is it helping to reach the students I feel I have to work a little bit harder when the robot is here so yeah I'd say it helps you learn and it's also motivating to have something like that standing in your classroom I think you don't need Yuki per se you could also just have a robot voice and online questions that would be the same for me it just doesn't make a real difference to have a robot standing up there compared with having AI running in the background hanka thinks Yuki's true potential is still in the developmental phase right now the assistant robot has a low-level AI he wouldn't be able to give a proper interview for example why do they have to go out because it's too loud in there for him to be able to understand isn't so knowledge were you satisfied with your students performance today did we have that question I don't think so spontaneous questions you can't answer spontaneous questions Yuka can only answer questions we email to public hunch beforehand rusty what's next on your scheduled performance either stored even there I hope your QR code hello efforts up you have completed everything you have achieves an average score of 80% okay did you know that already I didn't actually I knew I'd done all of my worksheets but I didn't know I have 80% I'm better than I thought Yuki's consultation sessions are still in the test phase a researcher evaluates them starting next summer Yuki will give regular consultations then it will become clear where the other students will also accept Yuki as a student advisor do you understand where some people are frightened of robots in industrial design but was he trying to take my hand I think he drew you a heart can humans and robots be friends some on campus aren't sure there are worries that the humanoid robot is likely to become more and more a competitor of humans in the end we won't be working anymore he'll be doing our jobs what if after studying for five years I worked for five years in a bank and then get told sorry you have no more work here we're hiring a robot to do your job that doesn't sound so great honkers team has heard those types of worries before for now Yuki is still a long way off from being able to compete with a human here he's practicing for a trade fair no human of you which ones they couldn't see see that ergun hunter is a techie through and through he's been experimenting with computers for decades Yuki is helping him get closer to his vision of digital teaching good robots at universities what else what else Yuki is on his way to his last seminar for the day it's a history of English class are you ready have you got your smartphone's ready all right so here's the first question go to England answer the survey reply within 45 seconds a study by the University of it's book found that Europeans have grown more wary of robots in recent years do people here in marble also feel skeptical about Yuki the beginning yes for sure it was really weird at first no has been around for several sessions yeah it's been this way for a year now so we've gotten a bit more used to it but it was definitely weird at first professor hunt cast plans for Yuki to take on more tasks what I imagine in the future is that in a room like this one there would be a cupboard with a robot in it I'd feed that robot instructions from my desk then I come into the room to say hello say hey mate how are you what should i do today you said I should quiz the students should do this and that point I'd say okay I'll give him a pat me off do you guns is our life it's time for the final exam for this course did you ki help the students learn I felt pretty confident solving the task Yuki posed so in a way he helped me relax around three quarters passed the exam more than last year it's unclear whether Yuki played a role we have one last question for the robot is the performance of your students satisfactory machines may be humanoid but people will never be machines Yuki is on break till next Thursday then he'll be back at work dehumanizing teaching all modernizing education

Statistics Lecture 4.2: Introduction to Probability

Views:285238|Rating:4.87|View Time:1:42:11Minutes|Likes:2154|Dislikes:56

Statistics Lecture 4.2: Introduction to Probability

all right so talking about probability again this is our transition between from descriptive statistics into inferential so we're talking about probabilities is chapter four like I said is the basis for making decisions about our data that it's really what we're doing and it's based on this idea if something has a low probability that means its occurrence is going to be rare so if something has a low chance of happening you say it's probably not going to happen that that's really the whole idea here I mean it might be an obvious statement but what we're going to think of it is low probability means rare or unusual occurrences occurrences two hours one hour I never know I think it's too like that one is this occurrence is okay one hour you are right and here's some vocabulary that we do need to talk about speaking of vocabulary there's some vocabulary that we need to talk about as well before we get going on exactly what probability is going to be in relation to this class the first we're going to talk about is a word called an event event in statistics doesn't mean event like in English in English an event means you're having like a party or something that's already vent here that's not what it means what event means for us is a collection of outcomes of a procedure so an event is what you get from a procedure I'll explain this in give you examples in just a minute so event it's a collection of outcomes of a procedure so something you're doing we also have another couple words we have something called a simple prevent a simple event is a single outcome one specific single outcome don't worry I'm going to flesh all of this out with an example in about two or three minutes last word we have something called a sample space the sample space is everything that could possibly happen all the simple events so all simple events in other words every possible outcome so any event if that is something that could happen when you do a procedure procedure such as willing to die flipping a coin so they'd involve some chance in their a simple event is one specific outcome that you can get the sample space is everything that you can possibly get from flipping the coin or willing to die so let me give you example we'll talk about flipping a coin and we will identify some events and some simple events and then the sample space would you like to do that we kind of get an idea but what this up actually means so let's go ahead and our example would be flipping a coin so our procedure we're going to flip the coin one time so you can take a coin out of your pocket you're going to flip it and you're done the others have the procedure right here's an example of an event an event could be what can you get out of the coin can you get edge easily if you would it be cool if you just flipped it in land on the edge sure happening before has ever happened I wonder if it's happened to somebody before well they've been like a edge of a coin it's like that why they can probably happen but like with a quarter or something it's really rare that that's ever going to happen that I don't know that ever has anyway that's just four possibility I guess but if you're flipping a coin there's only two things that can happen right you can get heads or tails when you're talking about an event you're specifying one thing that could happen and what you're looking for so an example of an event in this case would be you're looking to four how many heads you get so an event an example of event would be head look at it which coincidentally that's also a supplement one thing that can happen our sample space includes every possible outcome you can get when you do your procedure now our procedure to slip in a coin how many times just once so you flip the coin what could you possibly get from flipping the coin one time okay so that's what our simple our sample space is as you either get a head or you get a tail can you get anything else besides a head or a tail when you flip the coin one time now we're not going to get through the edge thing that's really not realistic and we put these funny little brackets around there if you're trying for the first time that might end up like that that's okay it's a nice curvy bracket metal takes you a lot of years to master that master's-level stuff you know five brackets so our sample space is a collection of simple events so here's what we're talking about procedure is what your you're doing event is what you're looking for simple events are what could happen and your sample space is a collection of all those things you kind understand more the idea of events simple events and sample spaces the next example will really make it even more clear for you so the procedures what you're doing the event is one outcome that you're looking for so we're looking to get for a head here or you could append tails there what you can get a flip by flip those are called your simple events one out one specific outcome so here we can only get a head or tail if you combine all of those simple events together you get what's called to our sample space now if you're so with me on this let's do one more example to really illustrate this the procedure now is we're going to take that coin back in our pocket we're going to flip it three times so we're going to flip over that be thrice on foot price three times if you flip the coin three times what could you get well you get heads or tails for the first one right but then you flip it again what could you get it that one okay then you flip it again we should get up so an event is like this and that says what what possible combinations could you have those would be considered our events so one event would be I'm looking for one head and two tails that's an example of an event one specific outcome of your your procedure does that make sense to you so this says okay one thing that could happen here is I get a head and two tails now we're going to find out each of the simple events so what are the simple events that could happen what could you get when you flip your coin three times you could get three heads that's a good place to start so you get all three heads Hey what else could you get but you get tell sometimes okay that thing but that down here that could happen right these right now we're finding these are simple events they're single outcomes that we can get from flipping the coin three times can we get just a single head not if you well I'm sorry can you get just a single head and no tails not even flipping it three times right you're going to get three distinct things that happen a head and a tail tail a tail what else could I get okay so I heard two kids at would we need two heads in one table sounds a little weird I mean in order like you can get two heads in a tail several different ways one way could be if you go head and tail right give me another way head tail head that's another Google okay what about another one anything else that we could do starting with heads well you know what that was mean certainly heads anything we could do I'm going to race excited starting with heads we have Edvin head head tail head tail head head so these are all this all simple let's start with heads we can do head head head head head tail head tail head head tail tail let's do the tail ones we could have tail tail tail give me some other things that we could have here tail tail one up you could have tail head head you could have tail tail head tail head tail and we only have a tail tail tail would you look that over did I miss any did I miss any possible outcomes we could get are you seeing how we're getting these things we're just imagining flipping a coin right imagine flipping the coin three times you can get head head head you get ahead ahead in the tail it's easiest to do it that way look for me to sit there and think of all the heads and to think of all the ways you have a head first we head head head great head and then tail or head and then the tail in the head or a head and then two tails and that takes care of everything it starts a page then you go tail tail tail tail tail with an H then tail and a head tail tail and that way you know you have all of them up there you with me okay so what we've just done we've listed out all the possible single outcomes up here you with me on that all the possible single outcomes those are all the simple events simple events mean a single outcome so what we've done here that's a simple event that's a simple event and so are the rest of these all eight of these things are called simple events if I group them all together like I've done what we have is called the sample space the sample space is a collection of everything that could possibly happen bridging out you're with me on that now let me because the biggest thing for people is like well what's the difference parents implement and an event isn't event the same thing the answer's no an event is it doesn't matter how you get it that's what I'm looking for so for instance our procedures flipping ahead or flipping a coin three times our event we're looking for is getting one head and two tails that's one of the things that we could get flipping the coin three times right this is one of the things that you get here is all of our possible simple events or our sample space or each individual outcome those things are kind of synonymous but the collection of simple events is the sample space how many ways can this happen is there more than one way you can get one head and two tails how many ways hey six wins one head two tails does this have one head and two tails two nails does this have one head and two tails oh this one's one head to get out of this one that's one of them a little star there this one this one one head two tails this this one has two dads one time so here's the difference between an event and simplement an event says overall what are you looking to have happen but you're looking for ahead and two days simple events are the way that you can accomplish that event are you seeing the difference the event is what you're looking for simple events are ways you could accomplish that or not accomplish that they're all the specific outcomes so how many ways can we accomplish our event there's three ways three simple events will compass our main event does that make sense to you so it's a little little tricked up gs have any question at all it's a little tricky sometimes if you really don't get the the whole concept so are there any questions on what we just talked about procedure that's kind of basic that's just what you're doing events are what you're looking for simple events are how you accomplish your events there are individual outcomes some of them are going to accomplish your events some of them obviously are not going to accomplish your events let's try one more I want you to do it give me another event that I can add with flipping a coin three times it's another bad what could happen or you can anything else happened besides one head in two tails okay give you one what no one tail one tail two heads okay is there any other events that I could have what's that three days how many tails well not because all it is and the last one we could have is what so these are all examples of events we have here's an event here's another event these are the last two events there's really nothing else could happen right notice how many individual items we have so there's more individual outcomes than we have total events because some of these overlap this right here that I starred that's three ways to accomplish this one event how many ways can you accomplish this event can you see it how many ways where are we finding that out look over there how many how many times do you get one tail and two heads here's one tail and two heads that's extreme one here's one hit Taylor two heads there's another one that's one two three sweetly things that's Kali things so the three sweetly things that accomplishes this event three single outcomes three simple events would accomplish this event true okay how many ways can you accomplish this event there's only one property date how do you think does this one and circle name is that one I'm just rounding I mean this this is the relationship between simple events and events events are the overall thing you're looking for okay that's it simple events are the individual outcomes that you could get from your procedure some of those simple events are going to satisfy your event maybe only one may be up to three maybe more than that if we were flipping a coin four times you have lots of outcomes that satisfy your event do you understand relationship between procedures events and simple events and sample space sample space another problems to collect all individual civil outcomes and that's or supplemented so now that we understand that we can really use those words to kind of describe some probabilities so let's do that right now when we say probability in this class we save possibility we're talking about the likelihood of an event occurring the likelihood of an event occurring notice I'm not saying the likelihood of a simple event although sometimes those might be one of the same if there's only one possible outcome that satisfies your event then the probability is one the same but when we talk about probability we're saying the probability that your event happens or the likelihood the likelihood of an event occurring we're going to use what letter do you think we use for probability geniuses every one of you what it was like our one should be confused no be you're exactly right so probability is P events are usually listed with capital letters so if we're talking about event a we're just going to say a so a could be flipping a coin three times and then whatever you're talking about so we can list it you can even list it in words you don't have to use the letters but if we're talking about an event so for instance event a or you could write flipping a coin three times over anything like this BC etc if we're talking about the probability of an event occurring the way we write that as we say probability of a that doesn't mean multiplication it's not like algebra it says probability of a it's more like a function notation if you want to consider into something you're finding the probability of this event happening basically and so this means the probability of event a actually occurring now when you talk about probability we actually have types of probability we deal with and you deal with this on a day to day basis I really you do when you think about it you'll probably notice this when I'm going through it but there are three types of probability the first type of probability is what you get when you actually perform an experiment it's called observed probability so observe probability happens when like you took your coin and you flipped it a hundred times and you calculate how many heads you got and cousin how many tails you got from there you can actually mathematically figure out what's the probability of getting a head cuz maybe your coins waiting a little funny do you see the Olympics right there that's observed probability when you actually do something and you get a probability from that observation you follow so observe probability its probability that is estimated based on your observation probability that is estimated an estimated wait a second why estimated why isn't the exact can you ever do a procedure for so long that you that you've accomplished all empresa different way that is emitting is inflow right can you ever perform a procedure so many times that you've exhausted all the possible times you can do it for instance could you flip a coin until you can stop flipping it claiming work can you do that forever so can you calculate the probability if you can't do it forever exactly the answer's no you can't flip a coin enough for you to have an exact probability all you can do is say maybe I flip it 100,000 times is that enough to get the probability of flipping the coin answers pretty close but no not exactly I mean you're not going to get the exact probability of flipping a coin by doing observations one that's what's called observed it's estimated you observe it for a certain number that you decide on say I will flip the coin 100 times and after that I'm going to calculate the probability to be estimated it's not gonna be exact because I can't flip that coin forever I don't want to trip up in a certain number of times to make sure that I have at least a good sample of outcomes there does that make sense so we can do it forever that's why it's estimated and fortunately it's not too hard to figure out if we want to find the probability of a here all we do is we take the number of times a occur divided by the number of times you perform that procedure so number of times a occurred over a is your event number of times they occurred just divided by the number of times your procedure was repeated so the number of times you did that thing I'm going to give you all three of these and then we're going to give some examples so we can calculate these things so first what observe its you're actually doing something you're actually going out there and flipping the coin or going out there and taking a poll or going out there observing what someone's doing and that's your basic probability off of that okay a perfect example for this if you really want to right now so you're not really quite clear is too much baseball do you know what baseball is okay so you know these guys up there with the sticks they swing right if this is a white thing coming ten all right sometimes it hits them and they get mad they got hustle hustle haven't earned that while they tussle a little bit so baseball is all about statistics right I'm here statistics on baseball players all the time if you're into sports or you watch sports center for like five minutes are always talking about baseball at person handling baseball but if you play whatever that's cool so but they're always talking about the statistics and so if someone has a batting average of 100 would you expect them to go through the ball do you think that an average of 100 means one out of every ten ten times they're going to hit the ball is that good is that bad a batting average of 400 is excellent okay bad average of 100 really sucks it's they're not getting them all but that that right there with they're getting that batting average of 400 or 450 or 333 any of those those decimals that you see on the back of a baseball court if they're talking about that that is an absurd thing right what they did is they said oh how many times have you hit the ball eight times how many times are you up to bat 24 that means that eight times out of 24 times you hit the ball that's 33% four point three three three that's how they're calculating that that would be an observed probability because later on they're gonna say oh you usually hit the ball eight times out of every twenty four times right are you automatically going to be coming that's huge success in it every single time maybe but probably not probably you're going to stick with those odds that's observed probability and how you use it does that make sense to you so it's what someone's actually done and then you take that and you estimate it and you apply it towards towards their future say if you hit the ball eight times out of every twenty four times chances are you're going to probably continue that statistic so when you come up with that next you get a one-third chance of hitting the ball that's how you use observed probability letter if you're armed with that so observed is something actually happened you measured it the next one is classful probability the next one is what I say to you and you answer me this question I say what's the probability of flipping a coin and getting ahead okay you have to answer to play along here what's the what's the probability of you flipping a coin and getting ahead obviously right there's two choices one of those switches is ahead so you 50% right what's the probability of willing to die at one time and getting a to fly one out of six and how many choices are toons that's how you didn't want on six right that is classical probability are you actually rolling the die to figure that out your head you're just thinking about it right you're thinking oh obviously there's six sides only one of them's a two so a one in six chance you're doing classical probability there notice the difference between observed where they actually calculated how many times you hit the ball divided by how many times is up to classical classical is a theory observed probability is the actuality the classical is what should been observed is what did happen do you see the difference theory classical is what should happen when you flip the coin you should get half heads half tails if you flip a coin ten times are you gonna for sure get five heads and five tails if you think so I'll make you a bet right now and make a lot of money with you that I can flip the coin rarely is it going to be exactly five heads rarely you're rarely going to get that I mean well not very many figures of the time a lot of money from you if we make that bet every single time over it over again so you're not going to get exactly five heads every single time the second happen sometimes you'll get six heads out and sometimes you get nine Spears equal ten sometimes get one but that's okay that's the that's a classical probability as opposed to the observed classical is what should happen every time observe is if you actually do the experiment what does happen every time so let's talk about classical we can pretty much just discuss dude this is the probability based on the chance of something occurring this is this is a theory like the theory aspect of photo by the way for classical probability to work each event has to have an equal chance of occurring inch simple event has to have an equal chance of occurring make an example about this okay let's say that you had because this statement people are like well why why does it have to have an equal chance memory think about that so let me give you a die and I'll tell you it's a way to die okay it's a way to die what's the problem zero weighted diets but die in a corner so it comes out certain numbers differently using the Vegas sometime of the use to his seventh all the time I haven't ever do anything like that the simple event you must have an equal chance McCurry means that if I give you a way to die and I say what's probably going to you can't say one sixth anymore because well you don't know you don't know what the weight is so in order for you to do the theory approach to something that has a chance of occurring you have to have an equal chance there right the only way you were able to figure out one sixth earlier when I said what's probably going to is because you thought that every side has an equal chance of happening right that's why you did that that's why when you said well it gets ahead fifty percent of time when you put the coin once because you figure heads and tails has an equal shot don't you that's what classical is based on it's based on every simple bit that's an equal chance Maternity now the way that we did this you've already done it you know classical probability intuitively that's when we talk about most of time looks really similar it's just that instead of number of times a occurred we say the number of times a could occur or a number of ways I guess divided by the total number of possible outcomes again it's a number of simple events and we just mean how comes there because we've kind of covered that at length right now I need to recap this a little bit before we go any further so you really need to understand the difference between observed probability and classical I'm going to ask you on your test would give you a problem saying what is this calculating probability tell me if it's observed for class well that's going to be like three or four files on your test so you need to be able to identify are you doing something or are you just thinking about it that's the difference if you're observing something or someone has observed something that's observed probability if you're thinking about how many times could you get a – if I'm willing to die if it's something like that where you're actually not doing anything you're just thinking about doing something that's the classical so what right up here is observed and classically this is what could happen this is what did happen you know what let me replace could would should this is what should happen not good this is what should happen this is what you did happen let's not only use example but if you flip the coin 10 times what should you get you should get five heads five tails if you actually did it are you going to get five head spot tails maybe maybe not if you do the observation you might get six heads and for tails that's what did happen so that's the difference you can do the same you can think about the the probability it should be five out of ten you can do the probability it might not be private of ten those things could line up but they don't have to put the act of doing that procedure that's observed accompanying it that you're just thinking about it and figuring out what should what should be events the class will humble understand the difference okay the last thing we have to have to talk about is called subjective probability now before you say well that has no place in statistics why real and subjective probability that's subjective when you've been talking this voice electives some very well subjective puggly is something we do every single day you go to your doctor and you go doctor what are the chances I'm going to make it and he goes 80% does that mean out of every 10 people that he's worked on two of them died you know it just means his best guess for your particular situation is get a pretty good shot to make it it don't worry about it 8% pretty good right 20% only one shot on the fight that you're gonna clever you know we take chances but anyway that's subjective probability how about this one one of the chances right now that I'm going to walk out that door you might want this to happen but my walk out the door get hit by meteor no you won't want that on me with you because you probably take it with me because we're a safe building so if I walk out the door or the chances I'm gonna get hit by a meteor 90 percent probably not um how many to lose it huh I mean is it zero is there a chance any point zero zero zero forever in the little one and maybe but the point is that it's neither classical notes of jet subjected I'm not thinking in my head how many possible ways could I walk outside New Year right now well I'm not thinking I'm going to calculate how many ways I've walked out of this classroom and then how many times I've got hit by meteor and figure out what the percentage is right that's not what I'm doing this is not an observation I haven't walked out this time a million a room a million times and calculated all I've got in my meteor zero therefore the probability is zero there is a chance it's a very small chance but it's a subjective chance I'm just kind of making it up right best on based on my past experience and based on my educated guess it hasn't happened to me before I know that meteor circle around but none of them has ever even come close to me so it's probably close to zero but it's not based on any map it's not classical it's not sort of sheet of difference the doctor thinks probably the best one he's not basing that on map he's not doing the calculations you saying out there you got like a 95% chance of being okay or you get a 20% chance this is going to turn into cancer or something I mean that that happens all the time but people say that so that's the subjective type of probability it's someone's estimate based on an educated guess now let's go ahead and do some examples here and see what we can find out about these things whether they're classical or observe and then we'll calculate the probabilities as we go okay so first one the probability of selecting a part art like that like that not like the feeding heart under the heart shape from a standard deck of cards if they're shuffled up and everything random selecting so someone holds up genome cards some people invited it on and familiar with the cards cards have more suits diamonds spades clubs hearts there's 13 of each suit ok so there's 13 cards of certain clubs that can spades 13 whatever I did say and there's 52 total cards right cards are labeled 2 through 10 then you have Jack Queen King and ace making up 13 individual numbers for each suit of cards if you're not familiar with cards do some packet cards because I'm going to use that some of our tests to illustrate this so probably select a heart from a standard deck of cards so we want the probability of art let's find u symbols like that that's okay we don't have to call it event a in this class we say we want the probability of finding a heart I don't mean true love just kidding just kidding filter love congratulations I better not have a girlfriend watch this video so anyway we're going to count the number of parts there are divided by the number of total cards there are so how many parts do you have in the deck Hardison okay and how many Bogart's calculate probability how much is that would you get 0.25 cool which is actually the probability of finding true love in the real world that's courtesy I mean weird even the thing anyway so yeah there's a 25% chance of finding true love or a heart in a deck now is this classical or observed probability what you think did you actually go pull the card out of the deck then it's not served okay did you actually pull the card out of the deck did anyone pull the card out of the deck then you would talk about pulling several cards other deck can calculate no what you did is you said how many is there divided by how many total cards there are what should happen you should have a 25% shot but pulling out a heart from that day that's classical probability are you always saying that this is classful okay this is what should happen now let's say this last example for today you take a coin you flip a coin 100 times you happen to get 64 tails what I want to know is what's the probability of getting a tail find the positive in your tail here's how we do this with with observed or classically the one you find out the number of possible things you had so in our case how many times did we actually flip the coin how many tails did we find well this shouldn't be too hard to figure out what's probability there once you say here's you have a 64 percent chance of getting a tail now is this classical or just observed did anyone actually flip the coin yes they did that's absolutely definitely absurd because look at the difference here here it says you flip the coin 100 times you get 64 tails someone actually did that okay so it did something here didn't even do anything that's theory this is this is observed this is what actually happens so what this is the observed it's what did happen first objective use the doctor one yeah eh percent chance of being okay how many wanna show we've talked to us man okay I'll just show you my true love it does exist it's making a funny okay so we go home let's start crying or anything it's okay so as we're talking about last time we did some examples of how to do observe classical and subjective probability let's continue that so if you didn't know my favorite quarterback – unfortunately playing anymore I guess is Peyton Manning you know pignetti yeah right his neck or some digging out to see if he was just a real man just play with a neck injury and it's smart to do right yeah yeah yeah no I'm just kidding you never want to mess with nature so I've heard I guess it's important so next couple things anyway Pigman II when he first started elf I'm making a statistic up but he's pretty good so it's probably true completed 385 out of his first 528 passes what I want to know is find the probability that Peyton Manning's going to complete the pass using this information okay let's talk a little bit about the vocabulary of the statistic stuff is probability that we were talking about firstly can you tell me what the event is here what's the event what are we looking to have happen because that's our effect not just a pass or what about the pass okay completing the pass would be the event we're looking for what's the procedure listen what's happening here yes that's right that's the procedure he's actually throwing the ball to somebody that's a procedure the event is we're looking to see if he's going to complete a pass that's what we want to find out you guys okay on those those two things so procedures what's happening event is what we're looking to see find the probability of action encouraged so our men is concluding a pass by the way what letter stands for probability is where you use that's pretty clear so probability we're just going to write the event completing a pass now a lot of people if I ask them it or if you went on the street you said um can you tell me what's the probability of Peyton Manning completed paths this would be the same idea as if you win outside and ask some people really don't understand probability once a project is going to rain today and they say oh well 50% it's going to be 50% with this you completely completely pass or not because either he's going to complete it or he's not either it's going to rain or it's not that type of logic you see how that's kind of like false logic for what we're talking about that there's a whole bunch that goes into calculating whether it's going to rain or not today probably it's not gonna rain I'm not I'm thinking it's probably not fifty-fifty like is in a brain like half the time all the time that happen to make sense we know if it's like July 20th what's the probability it's gonna rain on July 20th in the Central Valley pretty close to zero yes what's the probability Peyton Manning's going to complete a pass well it's not 50/50 because he doesn't complete exactly 50 percent of his passes it ordered makes such a judgment you actually have to consider his past practices what he's been doing so that's where this information is going to come in you can't just arbitrarily say a percentage that would then not be classical or observed probability that would be subjective probability based on actually not an educated guess based on you not understanding the probability so I need to to kind of get away from the thought of if it happens or it doesn't happen that's automatically 50/50 to see how that's not always the case you sure okay well it'd be like this what's the probability I'm going to wear a dress tomorrow it's not fifty fifty bucks it is zero I mean 100 I mean zero it's Tuesday you don't know what I do on Tuesdays so what so I'm just joking I don't wear dresses only on Halloween once yeah that's the last day yeah take them over okay so instead of just going fall it's 5050 we're going to use information than I've given us and how again the probability is we calculated the number of times something actually happened successfully the number of times our event occurs that's what the more specific way to say that the number of times our event occurred divided by the number of times the procedure was repeated so how many times did our event occur here which was completed a pass right how many times did was the procedure repeated right when you're doing the probability give me three decimal places because we like to translate that to a percentage often and we want to make sure we have like 35 points something percent that's comedy what is it like that route it trickling yes only 70 knots point 79 then so 72 point nine percent so this or or that is that good now that's a judgment call right and when this was actually just calculating probability saying whether that's good or not that's a judgement call you say oh well that's good or that's not good what if someone completes 100% pass all the time then relatively he would be as good but 73 percent is pretty good for completing passes so lately are you guys all okay with them with actually calculating this probability now the question I have for you what you also need to know this is the problem like this is going to be directly under test just like that but then there's going to be a Part B and you have to answer whether this is don't say it out loud and what the people think about it whether this is classical or observed probability so think on that for a second is it classical or observed or subjective and here's the differences again to show you you kind of get this in your head subjective means there's no data whatsoever you just are making something up but it's based on educated guess like a doctor would when a doctor says you have a 90% chance of pulling through that would be subject subjected classical would be based on the theory like what should happen in this procedure or this for our outcomes observed is something actually happened you calculated it based on past incidents incidences of occurrence or past procedures so using that information is this observed is this classical or is this subjective definitely observe he actually threw the ball right if she did something that someone just wrote down every time what happen that is observed there'd be no way to do this classically because well really I mean if you think about it in order for you to do a classical probability the outcome has to have the same chance of success every time right every single time and we Peyton Manning throws the football sometimes it's like from you and sometimes it's from here 280 yards down the field this guy's got a rocket laser rocket arm I've seen commercial nobody this is like eight years ago I'm older than I get so anyway he's got a laser rocket on so you know so anyway he throws the ball there's there's less chest of that actually succeeding you can't calculate the chances every single time we can't even do this classically it's the only way we can do it is observed let's look at a couple more let's say I give you a deck card to help you guys loop through the deck of cards yet gets removed with the deck of cards hopefully your so given a standard random deck of cards let's find the probability of randomly selecting a two so we want to find here's how you would write yourself the probability of – what's our event in this case see that letter that's the event what's the procedure procedure what are you actually doing or you pretend you to do I guess your guinea pig in the card that's procedure pick out one card the event would be we're looking to see you what's probability find the to doesn't get between a procedure and it event okay so if we're going to do this we need to have the number of choices that are going to make our event successful or we're going to over the number of choices that we have total so what are the total number of choices we have four cards in a standard deck of cards now how many ways can we accomplish our event four ways or what is yeah because there's one two in each suit so that's four and we calculate 4 out of 52 now which is 4 out of 52 point 0 7 how much is that as a percent yeah is that good or bad let's get subjective right here I mean for you that might be low that's a fairly low probability of getting the two randomly out of 52 cards not like 50% searching about 73% like peyton manning doing football it's like a sure thing but random deck of cards you're selecting the tube now is this subjective probability I'll be just guessing you so definitely up that is it observed probability or is it classical what do you think why isn't it observed we can actually go through the motion of taking the cards out and say no we got it to put it aside I'll keep going up you got another two right you didn't you've yet you didn't do it at all it's not like big many right he actually threw the ball and you calculated that you didn't say oh I drew a card out and put it back eighty-three times and out of those eighty-three times twenty one of them or twos or something like that or five of them or two you didn't actually do a procedure here you just calculated the what should happen in your procedure did you see the difference here between the big man example where he actually did something in this example now could you turn a card example into an actual observed probability answer sure you could if you just took a deck of cards and did it you know so if I gave you this on a test and said okay a person drew out five cards with replacement from a deck of cards he got one two a jack a king another to ten ace what's the probability they're going to that you are going to pull out a 2 from this deck of cards you know you had two 2s and pulled out out of 52 cards that would be I'm sorry out of five tries so that would be your probability is the two out of five so it'd be how much you got out of how many cards you drew does that make sense to you okay so that's that's the difference here you can talk about the same question it depends on how this was actually accomplished whether they did the procedure over the top of the theory of it so this for sure for us this is going to be classical you know a while back someone did a poll on cloning back when stem-cell research was just kind of coming out of this a few years ago and stem cells people thought they're going to be using those from cloning and so they did this this poll on whether people thought cloning cloning people was good or bad so here's the results of that huh-huh so when they did this poll 91 percent I'm sorry about 9 1 % 91 people said cloning was really good idea because they wanted this extra person I mean she seen the I have you seen the movie the island great movie I'll kinda bout the cloning idea all I don't want to ruin it for you but it's about this ruin it for you 91 people said cloning was a really good thing Tony good 901 people say you know why does not run so sure about this cloning thing say cloning back the rest of the people had no opinion and because you're always going to get some no opinions in a group like in whatever little cares open the video games and you know so 20 people now maybe they should know they really don't have the information haven't really thought about that then you have the opinion if this was a random poll this should give us some indication about the general public whether you can go outside right now and ask somebody about cloning whether they think it's a good or a bad idea this was collected randomly in the methods that we've used or in his class remember talking about those like a systematic sampling or the stratified or the cluster sampling all that good stuff so let's pretend this was done that way maybe it was I really don't remember where this came from let's say it was it should give us some indication about everyday people so let's go ahead and find the probability that we can go outside right now and randomly select a person who thinks cloning is a good idea so we want to find we're going to use appropriate symbols here we want to find a probability that someone thinks cloning is good how in the world are we gonna figure this out how in the world firstly before being talk about that can we determine whether this is classical or observed or subjective is a subjective its objective now it's based on some data here so is this going to be classical or is it going to be the serve what do you think it's based on some something that actually happened right it's people went out there click the data polls hopefully this is polls open up polls are always observed because you're always collecting data right you're always talking to somebody that's that's observed you're observing what they're they're doing it's not classical is not based on theory it's what actually you collected so a poll is definitely always going to be inserted so write that down this is certainly observed probability holding the attention observed at classical is becoming really clear to you I hope that's happening now how do we calculate observed probability well it certainly is still division because it's our saw village are calculated we calculate the number of people a number of things that accomplish our event divided by the number of times a procedure was repeated so number of times that we accomplished our event which was cloning was good honey is that how much zidler anymore very good Cloney good feeling good now you want people many more people out of how many people wouldn't have to do find how many people is out of 91 is out 901 add them up add up these two good because even though nobody opinion people they still took that poll right they just didn't categorize themselves so we add all that up what up I got sweet that's how many people were involved in this poll in this procedure so we calculate 91 divided by our 1012 and to the third decimal place we get what is it point zero eight nine nine good the nine moves that nine up to a ten but it okay good it's basically nine percent so right now going out there is what this suggests is that randomly picking out a person you should have a nine percent probability of being somebody thinks calling this good thing so maybe that's higher now who really knows but this is oh this is an old poll that's how you would calculate such things which originally feel good what we talked about so far okay good that's fantastic are there any questions before you go on I have to race this side here yelling can't understand the whole peyton manning thing and some server because he actually did the passes the deck of cards we're not really drawn cards just kind of thinking about what should happen here that's our classical we have another observe any time you did a poll man but if they're doing the research that's definitely observed they're taking that information in hmm there you go find them find the probability that bird will poop on your car today if you wash your car and it happens right out there right up in the frigging are birds which other BB gun everybody anyway so find probably a virgin poop on your car today is that going to be a classical probability we're going to find it we think is there a way to tell how many ways this event can happen to me how many ways can spur poop on your car know everything flying it could like land the car get hit the windshield mule oh crap okay is it observed I mean you could you could talk about observed right if you had calculated how many times Birds had pooped on your car over the past whatever amount of days divided by number of days you have a probability there that would work have we done that so it's definitely a classical that's impossible because they all have an equal chance of the bird poop in your car every single day does it happen but what's it in the garage bird fruits on there I mean the unlucky that's really crazy it's happened me before actually bird was in my garage bird is on a berry anyway it's definitely not observed because we haven't really calculated this so the probability of a bird poop in your car is what is it for you whether it is subjected by me what's your probability for your car today would you say like ten percent sure that good thing I just put words in your mouth okay nobody ok what's the probably million Korean assumption not someone like that some some birds gonna undercard what would you think see for me it'd be like 50% we've done that's another thing about subjective right it can change person to person so if you can think of the probabilities and you say well for me that's 20% maybe your car never gets pooped on just like 5% for me it's like 50 to 70% always get some I'd park and retreat so I mean duh it's going to happen but subjective probabilities can do that right they can change can classical observe change now this is based on hard evidence this one was based on complete theory with jiton is not going to change okay so that's another way to kind of do this as well so find it probability this is stupid birds you know picked up in a car it's a it depends on who you are but this is certainly going to be subjective and it probably depends on where you are if you're partnered by the beach and there's lots of seagulls that yeah okay let's go ahead and do one more I'll give you a couple couple notes that are important for us and we'll continue to talk about some complimentary events what that even means let's find the probability that if a couple has three kids two of them are going to be voice now I also have to tell you that we're going to assume that the probability of a boy or girl coming out is 50% all right this is equal that's not always the case actually you actually do the observed probability girls right now have a higher chance of being born so that's I think there's like 51 percent women born 50 49 percent or something like that it's not exactly 50/50 but we're going to consider it for this exercise to be even is that make sense for you so assuming equal chance of moral some people chance for you to roll hey what firstly is our event having a kid first thing how many babies have you had we haven't just one can we ask the question if you have one baby how many ways can you get two boys if you have one baby and you cut them in half you guys are sick okay so firstly what is our procedure even what's our procedure what's happening here but now you can say it if you're wrong doesn't matter just you video recorded that when the world's going to hear it that's here so what is our procedure what are these people doing then making babies having babies making babies would be a different class so how many babies are there having I think one thing is only three that's our procedure the procedure is having three children deposition for cheezer's not just having babies it's having specific number of babies do you see the difference there you can't even talk about this if you only have one baby because you can't say out of having three children how many ways you have two voids if you're only having one baby you go within the category so our procedure right here you want to write that down the procedure is having three children now the event is based on that procedure what's the event the event is what you're looking for what are you looking for – two widow two bullets two boys and what else hopefully hopefully you get a girl and the f3 key I mean you're not just gonna get two boys or and nothing right ghouls count two guys well if you have two boys what's the other one primero a girl we hope it's going to be a girl so we have two boys and we have one girl we're not going to get three boys that would not be our bet so right here I guess I will write this down for you the procedure is having three children congratulations adding three children the event is getting two boys if I say two boys that means out of three children one has to be girls so we want to find the procedure I'm sorry the probability I'm sorry of our event two boys one girl oh my we have some other other words that we haven't talked about in a couple days now before we do that I do want to figure out whether this is going to be subjective observed or classical probability is it's going to be subjective probability we're going to be calculating stuff over here we're not just going 30% now we're not doing that right we're not basing it on it guess we're not a doctor we're going to be doing the actual either theory or observations here have we observed some people have we have served some people is this what we're doing do I have some data on the board or unit says here are 100 couples who have had three kids thirty of them have two boys have I done that so is this observed or classical do you think also this gives it away equal chance of being a boy-girl because in order to calculate the probability if it's classical you have to have the equal chance of something happening you can't do classical probability if you don't have that case okay if girls had a 51% chance of being born and boys only on 29% chance being born you couldn't do this classically okay you would have to do observe they have to have the equal chance like willing to die member talking about willing to die last time said it's a way to die all bets are off you can't do classical probability because it's not even you don't have an even chance of getting a one two three four five or six one reason you were able to come up with the last time as I said I said what's the probability of rolling a two you said L bones one six there's one two there's 6 sides therefore 1/6 that assumes that every side has an equal chance of coming up if that doesn't happen ie if this does not take place not equal you can't do this classically not going to understand that good now so we have our procedure we have our event we know this is going to be classical probability write that down if you want to this is certainly classical it is not observed we need to find out something called O or to find out what could happen what could happen is a whole group of outcomes is called our this is called fill so a full group outcomes everything that could happen all put together is called are see the low sample space does that weird ring a bell to you the sample space is every possible outcome you could get we need to list our sample space in order to do this classically because they have to know what can happen if you're willing to die your sample space is just easy it's one two three four five or six for this case though we're going to have some different different pens we have so the couple has three kids sample spaces have those funny-looking brackets let's list out what you get for three kids what's the person you could get or what's one thing you what should we start with I should soon all three boys okay great good boy then a boy then will with us okay good luck with that one what do you think it'd be tougher three boys two girls I think the girls would yeah personally boys are are just nasty gross people but girls can eat meat okay so three boys three girls what else could we get by the way I like to start off with this way and this way and then list out everything that starts with B everything certainty that way you don't forget anything so let's start with the two boys we got a bet we read that up there what's the next thing we could do that someone else give me another one okay give me another one boy girl girl anything else starting with a B no that's all okay so girls we need to do the girl girl boy we could do G B G and we can do gtp what have we missed it now before you start saying well mr. Leonard I mean aren't some of these the same like isn't wouldn't this be the same having two girls in one boy and then having a girl and boy a girl and no people I mean we have individual personalities right these are different people so if you had a girl first and then another girl and then a boy you'd have a different family than if you had your girl and then your boy then your girl wouldn't you completely family so these are eight different families that could happen with your situation if you're going to have three kids you with me on this okay so there is a difference there so if we have these eight different choices what we need to find out there's only eight different choices eight possible ways you can have three kids you agree with that right there's only eight possible ways all three boys and then all three girls and whatever you have permutation of those how many ways would accomplish our event which ones that's what I asked for oh this one very good yeah anything that has the two boys and the one girl because we didn't say what order right we just said ultimately to bottom row there's three ways that make it happen notice how it's certain I observed right we didn't make a family have eight sets of three children and then calculate which ones came out with two boys that just be crazy to be like on the kids oh my gosh I'm wondering about that 24 kids so eight eight ways we can accomplish our event out of eight possible outcomes remember these are called these things each individual one are called what what are these now these are probabilities Pugliese what we're calculating here this is our sample space the sample space is made up of every individual what type of event this is an event that's our main event made of end of the engine boat is right here and then we have mini events called sorts of s rhymes with ipil ipil i'm snipping my Apple there's simple events there they're an individual outcome so we need to get this down folks you know what a procedure is what's going on an event what your ultimate ly looking for simple events how your procedure can be accomplished and the way we find our probabilities take the things that accomplish our event divided by the total number of simple events that's what we have written and now give us a probability sound spaces this everything we could happen the sample space is made up of simple events quizzes so 37.5% so you know right now if boys and girls have an equal chance of occurring which they paid them it's really close so this is going to be very accurate for us if you ever go out there right now and have three kids don't do that without thinking about it you're going to go there have three kids you're going to have a 37.5% chance of having two boys and one girl you also have a 37.5 chance for some chance of getting two girls and one boy because there's three more of those probabilities can you find the probability of getting all three boys what's that one out of one at eight or all four-year-olds one and eight thankfully that that's a lower chance than two boys and one girl or two girls in one boy okay couple of milks for us before we go any further first even just a sense for you probabilities always have to be between zero and one you can't ever have a probability less than zero a negative chance of something happening what's the probability the rule of three negative to make sense all right so probabilities are between zero and one notes every probability calculated before we change it to a percentage was between zero and one can't be over one can't have more than a hundred said chance of something happening I know we kind of use that loosely in real life you go how much attention are you focusing on focused 110 percent or just a liar I think you focus hundred ten percent mathematically only you focus on our sentence makes sense yeah it's between zero one though so probabilities are always between zero and one and you can be zero what would a probability of zero be what does that imply about your event if you have a possibility of zero that would say that your event is impossible it's it'd be like this roll a die for me one time what's the probability of rolling a die and getting a rabbit go that's not that's not gonna happen right I'm not a magician but you just I am a musician I'm not a magician can't just make a rabbit appear from a dice I doesn't make sense so something that cannot happen is an impossible event with a probability with that in mind what's the probability equal to one imply we're done well this is possible that's not equal to one that's certainly possible right you can get two girls and a boy I say two boys and a girl you can get that so probability of one means it's more than possible it's certainly more than impossible Oda probability of one means more than just possible what's it mean it will happen it's certain it's certain if I say there's a hundred percent probability that you're going to have homework tonight that sucks huh that means that it's certain you were going to have homework tonight five percent probability P equals one means a certain event if you like this roll a die what's the probability in one two three four five or six you were going to give one of those numbers is certain also one other thing it's called the law of large numbers if you want to write down law of large numbers fill for this is what this makes I want you to think on this number flipping the coin well actually she's a contender flip the coin if we if you took a coin out and you flipped it ten times are you for sure going to get let's say it's a weight a nice even leeway to die so the probability of getting heads and tails is fifty-fifty if you flip it ten times are you for sure going to get five heads and five tails it's possible you get only three heads and seven tails right that's that's quite possible if you flip it a million times you're probably not going to get exactly 500,000 ads in five hundred thousand taels you're probably not going to going to get that but as you increase the number the observed probability is going to get very close to the classical probability for instance if you flip it ten times you might not get five and five if you flip it a million times it's going to be pretty close to 5050 you might get five four hundred and ninety thousand and five hundred ten thousand that ratio if you increase it to infinity observe probability will actually approach which means it's going to become classical probability so those two things will increase does that make sense to you the more you repeat a procedure the closer observed will be to classical theory you can see this in a poll under the polling that we did like the Dozen survey if you go out there to start only five people are they going to be very representative of the population of the United States of America it increases to a thousand is it more representative the increase of two three hundred million is it more representative that's like almost everybody you're like three hundred seven million people here so as you keep increasing your observed probability your observed results it's going to approach classical probability so that's a lot of large numbers as you increase our sorry the more procedures repeated the closer observed will be to classical publishing so the more procedures repeated the closer observe bundling we'll get to classical probability just swallowed large numbers more you do something the more your observations will mimic the theory or the more that what does happen will look like what should happen let me let me show what we talked about today it's any questions on pollinated stuff the law of large numbers or why probabilities are between 0 & 1 or why probably the 0 is impossible or 1 is it's definite that's going to happen or the difference between subjective classical or observed Pugliese you have any questions on those things or those ring a bell in your head does it make sense for you so when we say complimentary events what we're talking about in this class our events which are mutually exclusive have you ever heard that that phrase mutually exclusive you're heard of it number is this idea like it's a quickly mutually exclusive words are hard it says if you're in one group you're automatically discounted for being in another group you can't be in both at the same time have to be either here or you have to be here unless you really unless you're a strange dressing person you're either going to wear shoes or you're going to wear sandals right you're not going to wear both shoes and sandals at the same time I hope because that would just look ridiculous unless you deal with those kind of Teva look at things are kind of sandals – sandals chef would it be shadows at sandals shoes whatever anyway so you're not going to wear both the shoes and sandals at the same time right you're either wearing shoes or you're in sandals those groups or generally mutually exclusive so that's what that term means it means that you're either in one group or another there's no crossover basically so when we talk about complementary events but complementary events are our two events which are mutually exclusive I'll give you some better examples that relate to this classrooms a second by the way when you say complimentary I didn't spell it wrong it's not with the hi it's not like complement like you look nice today so these events are not saying they're going you're such a good looking event oh thank you event I feel like a good looking event today so I appreciate that compliment it's not that type of compliment it's it's this is the definition of their mutually exclusive one doesn't happen while the other one happens so they cannot happen the same time so complementary events these are events which are you to you Julie X will have a hard time I mutually I have sighs promise it's mutually I can't say that word just not today mutually exclusive the most basic definition I can give you from you to exclusive is to events which can't happen at the same time let's talk about just a basic example that okay let's bring back our dice the six-sided your substandard standard I okay I'd say okay I want you to roll the die can you get both a two and a five when your mother died once one time can you get both a two out of five those would be mutually exclusive events one of it would be willing to to the other that would be rolling five they've obviously cannot have at the same time when you're willing to die one time that would be mutually exclusive okay same thing like drawing out some cards drawing out the heart and drawn out me diamond if those are your events would be mutually exclusive events they won't happen the same time remember we talked about one event one procedure at a time not like draw three cards you can you get both the heart and a done yet you could in that case but for one card those would be mutually exclusive others you can finish in that they concept okay so what is a compliment for some notation if we have some event so let's say we have event paid the compliment of event a couplet of n a is denoted it looks a whole lot like me it's not but that's how we write the compliment you shall say this if we're talking about the compliment the compliment of something is a complement of an event is all the outcomes that occur that don't accomplish your event I'll repeat that for you so if we have a vente over here and we want to talk about the complement this is called the complement of a what this says is this is all the outcomes which don't satisfy this event does that make sense to you it's pretty much everything else that's what the complement is so the complement of event a is is denoted complement of a and is all the outcomes when a when event a does not occur does not occur for some reason this helps me to remember I don't know why the assessment memory but maybe this will help you remember it when you see this it's kind of like a minus sign – to me means not or bad not so if this is our event a this means not a so everything else besides a all the outcomes that don't make de you with me on that that's how I remember it don't know if that helps you hopefully that does so let's do an example let's say that my event let's go back to the the dice rolling thing okay the event is we're going to look to see if we can roll five so rolling a 5 that's orbit so if we call this event a so battles are a the complement would be a route that line on top of it or the complement of it what is the complement of rolling a 5 on a diet what do you think compliment of rolling a 5 what else couldn't happen to my answers question what else could happen you will die that doesn't make a 5 what else could you get basically could you get a 7 that's one time did you say what else could you get insights of 5 so anything besides the 5 in combat y'all stated 1 2 3 4 6 perfect so the complement of going to 5 is not going 5 or rolling not 5 for instance when yo people y'all stated here 1 2 3 4 & 6 that's a compliment so the compliment the complimentary events here work so that they add together to create the whole sample space so if you're talking about two complementary events it's got to be either one or the other the mutually exclusive but together they make it the whole thing can you get anything else besides a 5 or a 1 through 6 at some other complementary because together they make up the whole sample space right you can't get a 0 you can't get a 7 or anything else this is everything it could possibly happen they're just in two groups complementary events you have the five you have everything else that's the compliment of going to five we understand the compliment feel okay about that so far good now let's talk about the probability of these things so what's the probability let's say when I say five I'm a rolling a 5 ok what's the probability of rolling in 5 how many outcomes are going to let us accomplish our event of rolling a 5 how many outcomes let us roll with 5 how many files are on the die so there's only one specific outcome using a lot accomplished this particular event how many choices do we have so our probability is going to be one out of six you have millions can you tell me let's think about this if you have two events which are complimentary which means you're either in one event or the other and that takes care of everything that could possibly happen through what does the probability what is the probability of the complement of five or not rolling five have to be without even looking at how many choices you can people to figure this out can't we because you're either going to be here or you're going to be here so once you tell me if this is one six what does this one have to be for sure great how much do you think that a new probability of an event plus the probability of the complement of that event has to add up to all the time we think what is it going to add to the sum sure what's that some have to be he think was one yes you add those probabilities should you get one which stands for a 100% of everything right because you're either here either here or here you're not you're not anywhere else so if you add those probabilities together of the event plus the complement that accounts for everything that could possibly happen so there's your 100% certainly going to be in one of those two places does this make sense to you so probability of not going to five and you can see it I mean there's one two three there's five choices that you could have for not only two five or six possible choices we get five six seven five and we'll write that little note the probability of an event plus the probability of the complement of that event it has to equal warn all the time the probability of an event plus the probability of the complement must equal work it more basic terminology if you have a probability of some event plus the probability of its complement but you got one you we're going to kind of revisit this towards the Latin the latter part of section 4.3 this isn't kind of going to come back at you but if you understand it now that you're headed game do you understand why this takes place here if their view too exclusive you have to be either here here you can't be anywhere else so you add those probabilities together that accounts for everything you have a 1% probability that you're going to be in that net range do you guys feel good about the section 4.2 that we've talked about so far fill right with that again fun yet just lines I guess is it awesome so glad I'm here on Wednesday aren't you well let's see see our four point two we're going to go ahead and start four point three now

[CIS 2010 John Bonython lecture] Niall Ferguson – Empires on the Edge of Chaos

Views:11647|Rating:4.69|View Time:1:14:10Minutes|Likes:60|Dislikes:4
Officiated by Centre of Independent Studies

Professor Ferguson speaks at 9:10

1. Professor Ferguson has been voicing support for then-humble Republican congressman Paul Ryan back in 2010 already as you can hear from 36:43
2. His views on American public finance and how the Obama administration handles it have only been becoming more true since he gave this lecture.
3. His article for Newsweek on August 2012 was hardly misleading, I found those criticism very distasteful. Some people first accused him using wrong facts when what they offered was just another set of opinion, (not to mention when those critics used obsolete facts from an old CBO report) and afterwards start labeling people.

this is big ideas from the ABC your excellency professor Marie Bashir ayaan Hirsi Ali Neil Ferguson members supporters and friends of the CIS ladies and gentlemen who will become members supporters and Friends of the CIS it is my great pleasure also to welcome you but as well to introduce you to our 2010 John Munoz and lecturer who follows in such a long line as distinguished speakers I'd also like to add my thanks to the McCrory group for the support of tonight's event and those in the past in Edinburgh in August 16 96 a particularly cold man a group of four young men shuffled down one of its streets past the church shielding themselves from the sort of cold we don't get here too often although maybe tonight it's the knife maybe they've been to the pub or even to the church but battling the cold was on their mind one of the groups Thomas Aiken head a young man of 19 joke that was probably warmer in the place Ezra called Hill right now who knows about Ezra these days I certainly don't but it seems that Aiken had more broadly had question aspects of the truth of the Bible if they knew it then and that really was a heresy the Scottish Kirk had at this point reads the start of its enlightenment and the whistle blew the whistle that blew for that start was probably the execution of Thomas Aiken head for blasphemy now this is probably seems an odd way to introduce a modern-day historian at the eminence of Neil Ferguson I'll try to explain 1696 isn't one of those years of sticks in our minds maybe 1688 of the great of the glorious revolution of 1776 the year of the publication of the wealth of nations or when the u.s. declare us declared independence but something started around then that is with us today and in which were all legatees it was a Scottish enlightenment it's and I said O'Neill that I have a preoccupation with this it's also worth noting that much of the push for the rationality and science that early enlightenment period was promoted by senior religious figures who had no who had no time for the fundamentalists of their time they argued to spare way akin head that's – it's worth bearing in 2010 bearing in mind in 2010 the end of the 17th century and for the couple of hundred years have followed set the standard the institution's the tone and the confidence for the modern world in practical and philosophical terms it has made us prosperous and it has made us free the moral dimension of all of this is overwhelming Neil Ferguson is the foremost chronicler of that the quest he of course being from Glasgow is he is the inheritor of the ideas these fellows Scots of that earlier period Adam Smith David Hume Adam Ferguson Francis Hutcheson and so and so many of the others have followed I'm not necessarily hung up on the Scots but being a Lindsey that mate in that in itself makes me wave a flag occasionally our daughter Heather made her first visit to Scotland a few weeks ago and a post on her Facebook site while in Edinburgh said she was in bagpipe heaven I'm still not sure if that was because of bagpipes more generally of course she discovered the music of the Red Hot Chili Peppers true you can fight you google them on YouTube so so in what was a period of accelerating British decline in the middle 1960s another Ferguson appeared this time in Glasgow the son of a physician and a physicist Neil Campbell Douglas Ferguson didn't follow the hard disciplines hard of his parents or a Dedes sister a professor of physics these days and instead took an even harder road into the world of the past to explain the future and we're all glad that he did schooled in Glasgow he also spent an early couple of preschool years in Kenya a remarkable coincidence given that ayaan Hirsi Ali spent much personal life in Nairobi upon matriculation he entered modeling college at Oxford and on graduation began his teaching career variously at Oxford and Cambridge in 2002 he became the John Hertzog professor in financial history at New York University two years later he became the Lawrence a Tisch professor of history at Harvard and also the William Ziegler professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School he is also a senior research fellow at Jesus College Oxford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University fortunately for most of us who don't go to Oxford or to Harvard Neil Ferguson is also a teacher for the world his books and the often related TV programs become available to all his explanations of war peace politics prosperity or lack of it entrepreneurship success and failure in business banking and money is compelling but there's more the liberal tradition the liberty of the individual and all that flows from it seems at least to me to be a lens through which he sees and interprets and interprets events the empirical foundations are underpinning all this brings an authority that's unmatched he also of course has a craft of writing beautifully many of the books we know with the ascent of money and Empire topping the recognition list TV has no doubt sharpen the focus on these two but this is long he's a few paper and iron this one paper and iron Hamburg business and German politics in the era of inflation 1897 to 1927 doesn't quite have the ring to it if I have the later books but it was his first I'm afraid it's not my library Neil but then the list starts to sharpen maybe because of these wonderful titles the pity of war explaining World War one the world's banker the history of the health of House of Rothschild the cash Nexus money and power in the modern world Empire the rise and demise of the British World Order and the lessons for global power and it's in its sequel Colossus then rise and fall of the American Empire in the world a world of the war of the world a history of the 20th century conflict and then of course the ascent of money and his latest just out – ansara the lives and times of Sigma and Warburg which apparently is available out there tonight as a special pre-release because it's not out in Australia just yet so for those in which to get it it's there and there's a book on Henry Kissinger on its way he's a prolific contributor to the print and electronic media and the and the academic literature a true public intellectual a tournament has sadly been devalued in this country in recent years maybe Neil's example will go a long way to help restore its true meaning and currency I've wandered around a bit of intellectual history from three three hundred years ago and it's time for me to draw this together to allow an eel to take the stage yesterday at Macquarie University Neil received an honorary Doctorate his first as it turns out in his address he discussed many things about the future of this country he is unquestionably optimistic about our prospects he then spoke about Lachlan Macquarie and the colonial administration he headed and went surprise you to know that infrastructure was one of these one of McQuarrie's preoccupations and doesn't resonate today this as you may know is a 200th anniversary of his arrival as governor of New South Wales and I'm so delighted the mockeries current day successor is with us tonight so now a quick diversion back to a content before I can head before I end I said that Neil was the inheritor of those great ideas of the Enlightenment especially the Scottish one we all are one of the dangers we face is what we have learned that what we have learned has tarnished and may be put aside for political mystical or some other reason political correctness perhaps that's why we need the Neil Ferguson's we need them to explain the world and what's important we are also privileged to know that Edie's side is today's Thomas Aiken head ayaan Hirsi Ali virtually fortunately for all of us though she has not met his fate and she feels he powers on in the fence of freedom and the traditions of the Enlightenment that's about as former formidable a team for good as you will get today ladies and gentlemen please welcome Neil fergan as he delivers a 2010 Jonathan lecture thank you very much Greg your excellency ladies and gentlemen it's a huge pleasure for me to be here in Sydney with you tonight my thanks go to all at the Center for independent studies who have worked so hard to make our trip here so enjoyable so fulfilling particular at to its chairman Michael darling and of course but to Greg who was the cupid who brought me and I am together in New York early last year you know you've all done so much to make me feel at home since I arrived in Australia last Friday I attended a conference at Coulomb at which every thirds delegate had a Scottish name I was then awarded an honorary degree by University named after a Scotsman the following day I was given a dinner by a bank named after the same Scotsman and now ladies and gentlemen you have capped it all by laying on authentically Scottish weather for me thanks for nothing this year on the 200th anniversary of Lachlan Macquarie his appointment as governor of New South Wales I think it's appropriate that the van – lecture should have an Imperial theme now you may have noticed during dinner some rather striking pictures on these screens and if you were to enthralled in conversation there's one on that little card on the table right in front of you that picture is part of a cycle of extraordinary paintings five in all produced just around 10 years after Lachlan Macquarie is death in the United States by an artist named Thomas Cole and these paintings fascinate me because they depict the life cycle of an empire fact but the five paintings are entitled collectively the course of empire you can see them incidentally the next time you visit New York if you go to the New York Historical Society where they're housed the one you've got on your table is actually the fourth in the cycle the first is entitled the savage state and just to pick two natural wilderness it's always the same geographical location in each case the second depicts farmers Arcadia and is entitled the pastoral state the third and much the largest canvas depicts a kind of classical Emporium a marble scene of splendor and prosperity and is entitled the consummation of Empire what you're looking at is the destruction of Empire and the final scene in the five is entitled simply desolation the message is clear all empires no matter how magnificent they may be are condemned to decline and to fall now that's I think essentially how we've all been raised to think of the historical process as an essentially cyclical one it's an approach which has a very long tradition in Western civilization stretching back in fact more than 2,000 years in the histories written by Polybius the process that he calls Ana psychosis proceeds in the following order this is a political cycle the first stage is monarchy the second is kingship then comes tyranny then aristocracy then oligarchy then democracy and finally something polybius called o´clock recei which is the rule of the mob something we have of course in Australia day just joking in Giambattista Vico is extraordinary insane rover there's a Rico sir or recurrence process of three historical phases in the cycle you go from the divine to the heroic which is the feudal monarchy and you end in the human or democratic it's another cyclical theory of history though for much much later in the early 20th century our old Spengler's decline of the West offered a biological model where civilizations were organisms that had thousand year life cycles and went through seasons always ending in a miserable winter Arnold Toynbee nobody reads Arnold Toynbee anymore but once he was the best-selling historian it's a warning to us all wrote a 12 volumes a study of history which posited another cycle challenge followed by the response of creative minorities and then came inexorably decline what time we thought of a civilizational suicide when leaders stopped responding creatively to the challenges that they faced and you know cyclical theories like those remain popular to this day I doubt if many people in this room have read any of the authors I've mentioned so far but quite a few of you have probably read my good friend Paul Kennedy's great bestseller the rise and fall of great Paris published back in 1987 that's another cyclical theory a theory of Imperial overstretch as great powers overextend themselves through conquest and imperial overstretch and that process causes their economies at home to suffer to decline and to bring the Empire down with it most recently Jared Diamond's book collapse how societies choose to fail or succeed offers a final sick theory of history environmental cycles all the way from 17th century Easter Island to 21st century China a society's rise and exploit their natural resources overdo it and then succumb to natural disasters of one sort or another with all these different cyclical theories in our minds in our subconscious even if we haven't read those books I'm always struck by how that idea is kind of there in the popular psyche we naturally tend to assume then in our time history will also move cyclically and slowly think of the environmental or the demographic threats that we all laugh to chatter about they do seem very very remote don't they maybe that's why we don't mind talking about them but in an election year who really cares or talks about the average atmospheric temperature in the year 2050 or for that matter the age structure of the population the cycle will take care of this while we focus on burning issues like traffic congestion in Sydney and yet it's possible ladies and gentlemen that this entire cyclical framework that I'm describing to you is in fact flawed maybe just maybe Cole's artistic representation of Imperial birth growth and eventual death is a misrepresentation of the historical process itself what if history isn't cyclical and slow-moving what if it's a rhythmic times it's almost stationary but it's also capable of accelerating very suddenly like a sports car what ladies and gentlemen if collapse doesn't arrive over a number of centuries become suddenly like a thief in the night I want to suggest you tonight that great pass umpires are in the strict sense of the word complex systems are made up of very large numbers of interacting components that are quite asymmetrically organized in other words their construction more resembles a termite hill than an Egyptian pyramid they operate somewhere between order and disorder on the edge of chaos in the wonderful phrase of the computer scientist Christopher Langton now complex systems as they're properly understood can appear to be operating stable they can seem to be in equilibrium for quite some time but in reality they're constantly adapting evolving mutating but it comes a moment when all complex systems go critical a very very small trigger can set off what the scientists call a phase transition from a benign equilibrium to a crisis you all know the examples the single grain of sand that causes the whole sand pile to collapse or the legendary butterfly in the Amazonian rainforest which flaps its wings and causes a hurricane in the home counties of England to understand what I'm talking about if you haven't read any complexity theory just think of the things that scientists use the complexity theory to describe water molecules as they form themselves unpredictably and yet symmetrically into snowflakes anthills I already mentioned termite nests complex things but not the products of a plan the products of the almost arbitrary interaction of lots of tiny little insects the canopy of a rain forest all of these are authentically complex systems their complex systems have certain things in common one of them is that he quite small inputs to a complex system can have really huge and unanticipated changes this is what scientists call the amplifier effect when things go wrong in a complex system the scale of disruption is in fact impossible to anticipate because there's no such thing as the typical or average forest fire to use the jargon of modern physics and here I do owe a debt to my scientific family I'm the black sheep but I always try to keep on a forest before a fire is in a state of self-organizing criticality its teetering on the verge of a breakdown but what you don't know is what size the breakdown will be will it be a huge and devastating conflagration or just a small controllable fire it's really hard to say a forest fire twice as large as last year's is in fact roughly four or six or eight times less likely to happen this year that kind of pattern which is known as a power law distribution kibriya different from the normal distribution of the bell curve is remarkably common in the natural world it applies not just to forest fires it applies also to earthquakes and it applies to epidemics you may possibly have been thinking as I was talking that it also seems to apply in the realm of finance who never quite know how big the next crisis will be and it turns out that financial crises don't follow the normal distribution they follow a power law – well what I want to suggest you tonight is really quite interesting I want to suggest you that regardless of whether a great political entity is democratic or authoritarian any large-scale political unit like an empire or a great power is a complex system in just that sense and I could say exactly the same of financial systems but tonight let's focus first on empires in other words most big empires have a nominal central authority somebody is the hereditary Emperor or King but in practice the power of the individual rulers a function of that network of economic social and political relations over which the emperor presides very little control was exercised over Lachlan Macquarie by the men back in London in fact the British Empire was a perfect example of a self-organizing complex system in which confident adaptation occurred on the periphery of the individuals made their own decisions it was a very very large human version of the anthill now because that analogy works well it's not surprising to find that empires share many of the characteristics of the other complex adaptive systems I've been describing including the tendency to move from apparent equilibrium from apparent stability to instability quite suddenly that is the key fact that challenges the whole cyclical theory of history which we for some reason rather have grown so very fond of let me just give you a couple of examples the Bourbon monarchy in France in the 18th century passed with amazing speed from triumph to terror French intervention on the other side of the Atlantic on the side of the colonial rebels against British rule of whom we all of course deeply disapprove seemed like a great idea to the French it was a perfect opportunity to take revenge on Great Britain for its victory in the Seven Years War but that decision to intervene in the American War of Independence tipped the French monarchy over the edge into chaos in May 1789 with the summoning of the states-general francis long-dormant representative assembly a chain-reaction was unleashed that led with amazing speed to the complete collapse of raw legitimacy in France just four years later in January 1793 lu xvi was decapitated by that extraordinary machine the guillotine or take another case more familiar in this room take the case of the collapse of the British Empire we tend to think of that as a rather protracted process and much history is written as if the British Empire began declining in the late 19th century this is quite wrong the zenith of the power of the British Empire and territorial terms was in fact in the 1930s and to Winston Churchill in 1945 sitting as an equal at Yalta with the other members of the big three with Roosevelt and Stalin it didn't seem as if the Sun was going to set on the British Empire on his watch and yet ladies and gentlemen within just a dozen years of Yalta the United Kingdom had given up what became Bangladesh Burma I still call it Burma Egypt Eritrea Ghana India Israel Jordan Malaya Newfoundland Pakistan Sri Lanka and Sudan all gone the Suez Crisis in 1956 revealed the reality that the United Kingdom could no longer act in defiance of the United States in the Middle East or pretty much anywhere else for that matter the Empire was in effect at an end now if empires are as I'm trying to persuade you complex systems that sooner or later succumb to sudden and catastrophic malfunctions rather than you know cycling sedately from Arcadia to Apogee to Armageddon what are the implications for the United States today what are the implications of complexity theory for today's Anglophone Empire I think the most obvious points I'm going to make tonight the one I want you to remember so if your attention is wondering which usually happens in most lectures at this time do pay attention is this Imperial falls forget all this decline there isn't a decline that's just a fall off a cliff a nearly all was associated with fiscal crises with dramatic imbalances between revenues and expenditures and above all he is the key idea anyone nodding off above all these crises these dramatic Falls are associated with the mounting cost of servicing a huge public debt I'm going to give you four examples to illustrate my point let's start with Spain in the 17th century actually even earlier in the sixteenth already as early as 1543 nearly two-thirds of the ordinary revenue of the Habsburg monarchy in Spain was going on interest payments on the herose which were the loans that the Habsburg monarchy used to finance itself by 1559 total interest payments on these things actually exceeded ordinary revenue but this stage the Spanish monarchy was essentially running on extraordinary financial expedience and the returns of its silver mines in Spain fifteen eighty four eighty four percent of ordinary revenue going on interest payments 1598 back to a hundred percent when all of your ordinary tax revenues are going on interest payments it is ladies and gentlemen game over think of France in the 18th century I told you that story about the French Revolution but what you have to understand is why they called the estates-general they called it because of the fiscal crisis here's the data here are the data between 1750 1 and 1788 in other words the eve of the revolution interest and amortization payments debt service rose from a quarter of tax revenue to 62% or take Ottoman Turkey one of the great empires of the early modern period by the 19th century here's the story dirt service rose from 17% of revenue in 1868 to 32% in 1871 to 50% in 1877 which was the time of the great ottoman default after which the Ottoman Empire in Europe in the Balkans essentially began to fall apart and finally let's revisit the case of post-war Britain already by the mid 1920s debt charges interest and amortization were absorbing 44% of total government expenditure they already exceeded defense expenditure by considerable margin it wasn't actually until 1937 that the British government was spending more on defense than on interest payments a very late stage indeed to embark on rearmament given the German and Japanese threat note also a really important kicker when Britain's problems really got nasty after 1945 when the treacherous Americans cut off land lease and demanded the debts be honored a very substantial proportion of Britain's debt was held in foreign hands of the 21 billion dollars of national debt at the end of the war 3.4 billion were owned odd rather to foreign investors to foreign creditors and that was around a third of Britain's GDP in 1945 you'll see the significance of that in a moment so alarm bells ladies and gentlemen should be ringing very loudly indeed in Washington DC as the United States contemplates a deficit for 2010 of more than one point four seven trillion dollars that's around 10 percent of u.s. GDP and that's the second year running that the deficit has been that big since 2001 in the space of less than 10 years the federal debt in public hands that's excluding those parts of the debt held by federal government agencies in the United States has doubled as a share of GDP from 32 percent to projected 66 percent next year and it just keeps going up according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest projections and this is using if you're interested in this kind of thing as I am there alternative fiscal scenario which they regard as the more politically likely of the two scenarios they produce the US federal debt could rise above ninety percent of GDP by 2020 it could reach a hundred and forty six percent by 2030 two hundred and thirty three percent by 2040 three hundred and forty four percent by 2050 and ladies and gentlemen those figures do not include the vast unfunded liabilities of the Social Security and Medicare systems now I rather imagine that to an Australian audience in a country where the net debt is minuscule by the standards of the rest of the Anglosphere these figures sound completely fantastic but listen to me there's more even more terrifying is to consider what this ongoing deficit finance could mean for the burden of interest payments as a share of US federal revenues and this is where it gets really cool the CBO projects that net interest payments could rise from where they are now which is 9 percent of federal revenues to 20 percent in 2020 36 percent in 2030 fifty-eight percent of federal revenues by 2040 and 85 percent of all federal revenues by 2050 my good friend Larry Kotlikoff recently pointed out in the Financial Times that by any meaningful measure the fiscal position of the United States today is in fact worse than that of Greece but Greece is not a global power it hasn't been a major empire for a very long time indeed I think the real point and the points of my lecture tonight is that in historical perspective unless something very drastic is done very soon the u.s. is heading into Habsburg Spain territory it is heading into boob on France territory it is heading into Ottoman Turkey territory it is heading into post-war Britain territory the fiscal numbers I've given you tonight are bad there's no doubt about it but in the realm of political entities and power the role of perception is crucial it may be more important than the actual numbers because in imperial crises ladies and gentlemen it's not the material underpinnings of power that really matter its expectations of future power in the eyes of those with the power and even more so in the eyes of their enemies right now I get the impression that the world at least the Western world basically expects the United States to muddle through and eventually to confront its problems as Churchill famously said to do the right thing when all the alternatives have been exhausted and right now with the sovereign debt crisis in Europe dominating the headlines at least the headlines back home and growing fears of a deflationary double dip or a recession bond yields are at historic lows below 3% if you look at the ten-year US Treasury so there's a pretty strong incentive there for Congress men to do nothing and to put off fiscal reform to say thinking of that cyclical theory of history this is a problem for the next generation not for us you know recently I was invited to a dinner in Washington to discuss radical fiscal reform for the United States and I was quite excited because I thought it would be like this I wondered which huge hotel in Washington they'd books and which ballroom we would be eating in three congressmen turned up it's funny except it's not funny it's scary there seems really in fact only to be one congressman who has seriously thought about how we could deal with this problem and it's Paul Ryan and I commend him to you as well as the few young Republicans who are prepared to talk seriously about stabilizing the fiscal position of the United States before it does go critical the trouble is for all those complacent congressmen of both parties who think this isn't an imminent problem there's a zero-sum game at the heart of any budgetary process even if I'm wrong and my old rival Paul Krugman is right and that is possible I don't rule that out even if he's right an interest rates stay low and the bond market is in a coma and the vigilantes go off and take up some other activity recurrent deficits year after year never much less than 5% of GDP even on the administration's optimistic forecasts plus debt accumulation as a result mean inevitably that interest payments will consume a rising proportion of tax revenue the process I've described to you is independent of any bond market panic and as interest payments consume more and more tax revenue with every passing year guess what gets squeezed not Social Security not Medicare the Unruh formal entitlement programs the thing that gets squeezed is that discretionary item in the federal budget known as defense spending ladies and gentlemen it AC pre-programmed reality of US fiscal policy today that the resources available to the Department of Defense will be reduced significantly in the years to come and I'm not talking about the 2050s I'm talking about the next five years indeed by my reckoning at some point within the next decade the US will reach the crossover point at which it will be spending more on debt service on interest payments than it is able to spend on defense and remember half the federal debt in public hands is in the hands of foreign creditors and of that 1/5 to be precise 22% is in the hands of the monetary authorities of the People's Republic of China down incidentally from 27% in July last year now I suspect it hasn't escaped your notice that china now has the second largest economy in the world and I expect you've also spotted that it is likely to be America's principal strategic rival in the 21st century especially in the asia-pacific region quietly discreetly you haven't seen it in the headlines the Chinese are reducing their exposure to US Treasuries I believe as a result of a conscious policy decision to switch out of dollar denominated claims on the US government and into nice hard commodities and preferably the mines that produce them maybe just maybe the Chinese have noticed what the rest of the world's investors pretend not to see that the United States is on a completely unsustainable fiscal course with no apparent political means of self-correcting ladies and gentlemen military retreat from the mountains of the Hindu Kush or the plains of Mesopotamia has long been a harbinger of Imperial fall it is no coincidence after all the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in the annus mirabilis of 1989 which was so closely followed by the complete collapse of the Russian Empire in Eastern Europe and in Central Asia what happened just 20 years ago like the events I have described to you tonight of the 17th 18th 19th and 20th centuries is a reminder that empires do not in fact appear rise rain decline and gently fall according to some recurrent and predictable life cycle rather they behaved like all complex adaptive systems they function in apparent equilibrium for some unknowable period and then quite abruptly they collapse I believe this has implications not only for the United States but also for all countries that have come to rely on it directly or indirectly for their own security this country was born as we've discussed and grew up under the umbrella of the British Empire it's post-war foreign policy has been in essence to be a committed ally of the United States under its imperial umbrella but ladies and gentlemen what is the sudden waning of American power that I fear brings to an abrupt end the era of us hegemony in the asia-pacific region like changes to the climate or the population we tend to think of such a geopolitical shift as a protracted gradual phenomenon very far from our quotidian preoccupations but history suggests it may not be so slow acting if I may return to the terminology of the artist Thomas Cole painter of the course of empire the shift from consummation to destruction and then to desolation is not cyclical it can be very very sudden I wonder are we ready for such a dramatic change in the global balance of power but our judging by what I have heard since I arrived here last Friday the answer is no not bloody likely Australia's as far as I can see outside at least the rarefied atmosphere of the sea is Concilium are simply not thinking about that kind of stuff a favorite phrase in this country is now dramas but ladies and gentlemen dramas lie ahead and soon as the nasty fiscal arithmetic of imperial decline drives yet another great power over the edge of chaos thank you very much professor Fergusson you're talking apocalyptic terms would be about the u.s. but to be a little bit more mundane just a couple of hypotheticals the health sector spending is about 16 percent of GDP or that sort of order and the only people that really benefit better than any of us are those on high incomes if they brought it back to the level of the rest the OECD Switzerland France ourselves 9% which is what your may you know Krugman is pushing for then wouldn't a lot of the things that you're talking about be solved equally in relation to financial sector 45% of corporate profits totally over the top and totally distorted during the peak of the of the financial boom get that in order so therefore surely agree supporting the Democrats on health policy maybe and regulation but I always enjoy irony for those of you who who perhaps were less well situated than me and didn't quite hear the question was how far I would support those in the United States pressing for a more European perhaps Australian health care system in the United States as you know American health care is at once the most expensive in the world and has some of the poorest poorest outcomes in the developed world and it seems to me as a doctor some clear that great improvements could be made to the system of health care in the United States so I was naturally delighted to hear when President Obama proposed health care reform as one of his principal objectives as president I thought at last here is a president who's going to grasp the nettle of the insanely expensive Medicare system which more than anything else incidentally is propelling the United States towards the brink of fiscal chaos incredibly the Democrats managed to come up with a reform of the world's worst health care system that made it even worse and this was some achievement actually because I mean this must have taken some serious thought so now I'm not about to embrace the Democrats on health care there is a need for radical health care reform but you'd have to begin by breaking that bizarre system which originated almost by chance in World War two were by Americans rely on their employers for private health insurance in a highly uncompetitive market I was shocked to find first how much I was going to be paying for health care in Massachusetts second how much Harvard was going to be paying and third I was really stunned to find that actual quality of care is identical to that provided by the National Health Service in the UK so there is a problem that's absolutely undeniable in many ways it's the biggest problem of all but the Obama administration has completely failed to address that problem as I said earlier there are very few American politicians too prepared to talk honestly about these issues Paul Ryan is one of them and Ryan's roadmap for radical fiscal reform sets out an altogether more convincing plan for healthcare reform one I suspect that you're experts at CIS would approve of since it would above all else introduce some rational competition into the system and allow individuals to have health care insurance not by dint of being employed thanks for the question area down here I must say there are more questions that we have time for but I also do short answers given Britain and the u.s. actively used military power to underpin the Empire's do you think China can sustain its empire without similar military spending and more critically warfighting experience are we or will China have to use soft power instead that's a lovely question how far will China if it to be an imperial power have to rely on on military force to make that possible I'm part of ani things that they they don't just arise because of the exercise of military power some do some depend heavily on that but some empires if you look at the entire population of M pass through history some empires arise almost in a fit of absence of mind as C Lee famously said of the British Empire not because of a conscious decision to exercise military power but because commercial imperatives give rise to forms of overseas expansion that nobody quite planned and I think a really good illustration of this at the moment is the way that China is acquiring commodity producing assets all over the world particularly in sub-saharan Africa but not just there about half of their foreign direct investment is going in Asia right now that that's that's actually the way many empires have arisen in the past but first you you get involved and trade and you start to to buy the commodities then you find that buying them on the open market is really rather risky because the dratted price keeps changing and then you say well wouldn't it be easier if we owned the assets that produce these commodities so then you go and you build port facilities and roads or railroads and then you start to buy the mines and the next thing you know you've got to do something to make sure that these mines or or railroads aren't overrun by the locals so you send a few more guys who are a little bit more heavily armed than the last guys and next thing you know you're in the Empire business that's that's kind of how it works and you know I have you know I have a warning for China a China has been an empire of course for four centuries a land Empire gave up as you all know Sora gave up being an overseas Empire after the death of the young Emperor and it's re-entering this overseas Empire game in our time it's a dangerous game and it's a game in which the law of unintended consequences plays a really very big role thanks for the question great question over here to my right now how much gold do you earn or do you intend to keep investing in the apocalypse well I'm a poor academic and therefore don't own terribly much gold it's all sad to say if I were a wealthy Australian plutocrat I would hold 10% of my portfolio in the form of gold but no more for the simple reason that gold has been the best investment at times quite unlike these the time to buy gold as some of you in the room will know very well was in 1999 when another Scotsman the ill-fated Gordon Brown sold vast quantities of it from the Bank of England at what was it three hundred and something dollars an ounce but that was a sign of his great business acumen I wish I wish I had been there to buy I mean actually wanted to buy but I didn't have a red cent at that point so yeah ten percent is about as much as you'd want in your portfolio because I don't see gold going a whole lot further north in these deflationary times that I think we're entering thanks a lot just following on from your sort of coma so China I mean we see China as being the next emerging imperial power city here in Australia and I was just wondering if you'd make more comments about that because I see a lot of elements of risk there I'd say there's another stable political system government is running a credible fiscal imbalance and I was just wondering if you'd pass some comments about that well thanks it would take a whole evening to go through all the difficulties that China has to grapple with like any authoritarian regime that embarks on ten percent per annum growth for a period of what thirty years it's it's grappling with social and environmental costs that I'm sure Deng Xiaoping never wholly imagined having said that I think China's less politically fragile than your question implies if you look at surveys of Chinese opinion it's very striking that the Chinese government has more legitimacy in the eyes of its own people than almost any other government in the world even allowing for the fact that it's not a free society I think that tells you something and those of you who visited China and I bet you virtually everybody in this room has will know just how powerful a cement nationalism has become in modern-day China and that is something that is going to help them through difficult times they of course came through difficult times with amazing success let's just reflect for a second on what happened that was a 25% or so collapse in exports China experienced the same shock that all the Asian export economies experienced when the US and Europe went into recession and most of us prior to that would have said this will be a disaster for China in fact they completely wrote it out using stimulus in a far more effective way through their banking system than the US did and effectively dodged the bullet of of the global financial crisis so I must say I have a slightly more positive view of their of their stability not that I have a positive view of a system that is based on unfreedom both economic and political on freedom but I think one shouldn't one shouldn't sit in the West hoping that they'll trip up I hear too many people in the United States fantasizing about a China crash a China crisis it'll all fall apart this is a totally classic case of what Sigmund Warburg used to call wishful non thinking problem the Institute for private enterprise of competing Institute we're in favor of competition so that's great I'm very pleased to hear it a two-part question the first part is do you have any children or do you plan to have any children I hope so because that will improve your understanding of debt capitalist societies such as we live in children do tend eventually to a debt takes a long time but most of mine are now actually working this the second part of my question is whether the I acknowledge that there is a serious debt problem in the United States as there was in Australia in the 1980s and particularly in Victoria about which I wrote a lot of materials but is this a serious a problem facing the world as extremist Islamism well thank you for those two questions first of all first of all a cursory glance at Wikipedia would reveal that I have three children one by age 61 girl age 15 so teenagers the most expensive sort and an 11 year old whose name is in fact Laughlin and named him after Lachlan Macquarie bet you didn't know that and do I intend to have more yes have children taught me a lot about debt ex-wives have taught me more I hadn't said that much and is radical Islam a bigger threat than the fiscal crisis the United States that they are in some ways two sides of the same coin and of course I'm not the expert in the room on this subject you know who is then really why you asked me to give this lecture she got the round of applause earlier not me but if the United States fails to address the kind of problems that I'm talking about here then it will not be able to contend with the threat of radical Islam simple case in point that I own and I and our distinguished guests were discussing over dinner how do you deal with Iran if one of the most explicitly radical Islamic regimes in the world is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and the United States is suffering from a fundamental fiscal overstretch how do you deal with that problem so I think these problems are of equal magnitude and the reason that I worry so much about this fiscal crisis is not because I have an unhealthy interest in bond yields it's because I have a healthy interest in the stability of the global order so thanks for those two questions over here to the right professor following on from just your last sentence you've told us a lot about the chaos and the approach to the abyss on a more positive note would you have a three four ten point plan if I was the embodiment of America or Empire what would be your five or six point plan to withdraw from the abyss before it's too late what a wonderfully American question actually I wouldn't give you five or six points I'll give you two if President Obama were here and had asked that question what should I do I would say first you need to get Paul Volcker to go on prime-time television within the next week and explain to the American people and the world how your administration is going to get the federal deficits down not to 5% but to zero percent over the next ten years you need a fiscal plan and by the way here are ways in which you could do it here are the ways in which you could solve the Medicare and Social Security problems through radical reform here are the reforms you could make up the tax code to simplify it in order to make it easier for Americans to pay their taxes here are the cuts you could actually make in corporation tax if you introduced a federal sales tax so that would be 0.1 but but get Paul Volcker to announce it don't do it yourself get somebody with the credibility of the man who helped slay the inflation dragon back in 79 to slay the deflation dragon that we currently face today my second piece of advice to him would be you need a grand strategy right now your foreign policy consists of making speeches in which you say that you're nicer than your predecessor and everybody should like you more you've given this speech in a whole bunch of different places you tried it in Istanbul you tried it in Cairo you even did one to the Chinese in Tokyo that's not a foreign policy it's more like a Facebook entry so how about a grand strategy how about deciding what US foreign policy is going to be in the 21st century as China becomes your principal rival rather than as it has been up until now at the principal source of vendor finance to the American consumer those would be my answers to the questions I haven't been asked by the president but I live in hope now I'd like to ask you about a question in regards to the dismal sites and the perennial debate about government intervention versus a lack of government intervention I'm gonna use some Australian terminology your mates are Paul Krugman and I saw your other mates Joseph Stiglitz on national TV last night and they're talking about a second round of stimulus and perhaps a third or a fourth if required can you help us to understand what is it about the limits of Keynesianism and what is it that you understand that there is a limit to Keynesianism stimulus versus these other economists that seem to believe that there is no limits can you can you help us explain why there is this dichotomous controversy in regards to limited or unlimited stimulus Thanks the the debate that I've been having with the man you term my mate since I suppose April of last year is a debate that's repeatedly been caricatured and in the press as if to suggest that I'm paranoid about inflation and want a balanced budget tomorrow which is not what I said then and has never been what I've said my argument has been as I try to make clear tonight that if the United States has a fiscal policy that implies it will run a deficit every year from now until 2080 which is its current policy that is not Keynesianism that is a fiscal crisis that is not a policy which john maynard keynes would have approved you know keynes once said before he shuffled off this coil that he was much less Keynesian than the american Keynesian z– that's become ever more true as they've become ever more Keynesian Paul Krugman is a clever man and has made major contributions on the economics of trade but on questions of fiscal policy he seems to me to be entirely out of touch with reality and that that isn't just my view that is the view of Ken Rogoff my Harvard colleague who's a practitioner of the dismal science remember I'm not an economist I have the great advantage of not being an economist I'm a historian so I don't just look at the theory that you derive from the general theory of 1936 I look at what happened when countries did try Keynesianism year after year after year because we've run this experiment before folks it's called Japan and what you discover in Japan is that if you use deficit finance if you achieve aim to achieve recovery through fiscal stimulus it doesn't necessarily work but you do end up with a heck of a lot of debt plus 200% of GDP in the Japanese case or if you look back to the post-war period when we all became Kenyans remember Richard Nixon we're all Kansans now what happened governments ran deficits year in and year out they thought to prime the economy and we got stagflation we got zero or low growth and we got double-digit inflation so you know from a historians point of view it's it's a little bit strange suddenly in the midst of this crisis to think Keynes can save us and to forget all the advances that the dismal science made in the period after Keynes's death all all the advances seem to have vanished from Paul Krugman's mind and I think that's what comes of writing a column in the New York Times it's a very dangerous thing for a serious academic to do I mean I may be afraid we've got time for two more David Russell will be one and Alex Turner with the other I'm sorry for the others thank you Thank You mr. chairman professor you talked earlier about historical cycles and the early American literature the Federalist Papers talked about the distinction between a republic and a democracy and perhaps that's all about the point that leadership is telling the truth the problems in this country may be external rather than domestic but their problems nonetheless and we're in a situation where the Australian idea of leadership seems to be somebody whose recent political career probably resembles Lady Macbeth pretending to be Mary Poppins what what what and other countries are not much better it's a good line can I steal us you're welcome I'm a lawyer plagiarism it's a great article but what I mean this is clearly a problem in a whole range of countries how in a historical sense do you say this is capable of being dealt with or do we just simply have to increasingly have political debate reduced to trivia and people not posting real issues how do we get better leadership in the West how can our liberal and more or less capitalist democracies find Churchill's instead of and I won't mention any names Macbeth Poppins figures it's a huge challenge but you have to reassure yourself it's not the first time that question has been asked in fact throughout the history of Western political theory people have worried about the way in which democracy would fail to generate quality leadership it was the great preoccupation of at least some of the founding fathers that if democracy were given free rein the United States would at worst produce a Napoleon and at best a series of mediocrity so when Tocqueville visited the United States on his famous trip that produced democracy and America he he almost made a virtue of this by saying the great thing you have to understand about the American political system is it's designed for mediocrity 'he's to be elected but the good news is that the United States at least tends to find leadership in crisis tends to find its leadership when finally all the alternatives as Churchill said have been exhausted I think that's also been true of my own country of the United Kingdom when you're feeling depressed about democracy as a system remember Churchill saying that it's the worst of all possible systems apart from all the others that have been tried from time to time in 1938 Churchill was an unpopular figure in the country and an even more unpopular one in the House of Commons but in Britain's are of need in 1940 when we stood alone he was there and so I have a fundamental competence that our system for all its many flaws and for all the Medi aqua teas that it throws up when times are good we'll find great leaders when the times are tough thanks very much Thank You German professor you've talked about the stability of the international order and and mentioned some historical prisons of which the Mississippi Bubble perhaps brings the trust and we look at the overall situation because it isn't just America it's a thing that's been spread like a bit of a cancer you could say and it may sound really weird to quote presumably an early John Maynard Keynes who's supposed to have said the surest way to overturn the social and economic fabric is to Deportes the currency because it harnesses all the forces of economics on the side of destruction you know I mean one cannot help feeling that where we have arrived at and where the may well be a precipice is the result of exactly that process and and you know really some you know tests of any sort of social order I mean I don't know how you can easily comment on that oh I can you'd be amazed how easily I can comment on it if it's the only way of getting back to my glass of wine funnily enough that that quote from Keynes isn't really a quote from Cannes Cannes made it up and attributed it to Lenin and if you read the ascent of money I explained where it really came from it wasn't Lenin it was another Bolshevik and he said roughly that the best way of getting rid of the bourgeoisie was to destroy the Russian currency and indeed the Bolsheviks did just that many people today are worried about hyperinflation or inflation as the end game of all of this we kind of fear maybe even that's what the Chinese fear that in the end we'll print our way out of these huge deaths and there's considerable historical evidence to support the proposition that highly indebted economies eventually do resort to inflation that's true in the case of Argentina on more than one occasion it was true of course in Germany after the frost World War and I I could go on trouble is it's harder to generate inflation than it looks and this is an important point to remember Ben Bernanke has famously been quoted as saying that if if it came to it he would fly a helicopter over the United States dropping dollar bills out the windows to stave off deflation but if people's expectations become deflationary then even doing that might not work since they might just Bank the money put it in their savings accounts not spend it so one of the big risks we face today is not in fact inflation we should be so lucky the risk we face today is that the biggest economy in the world tips over into deflation of course the values of bourgeois society don't depend exclusively on the stability of the currency they are as usual the Bolsheviks were oversimplifying things and I want to leave you with this thought what we call Western civilization those of us who aren't too embarrassed to use the phrase consists of more than just money more than just the capitalist system though that's clearly one of its foundations it also consists of the scientific method testing your hypothesis and trying to prove it wrong it also consists of the rule of law subordinating all other concerns particularly the concerns of the powerful to the rule of law transparent law law which upholds above all else the individuals freedom and private property rights it consists of the medicine that keeps us all much healthier than I certainly would have been if I'd been born in the time of Lachlan Macquarie atta they gave us five five minutes of the life he led from the age of 15 and above all it consists of a peculiar ethic an ethic that combines a sense of the need to work for fulfillment with a kind of social obligation to those around us and I hope that in this lecture I've tried to at least touch some of those points and to raise awareness of their continuing enduring importance you know Australia is a kind of beacon in its way and maybe it's more of a beacon than it's ever been now that Asia is on the rise and if you are the great outpost of Western civilization in the East you have a far bigger responsibility to the world than you ever had before let's hope you if not your political leaders are aware of that thank you very much indeed this is big ideas from the ABC

Econometrics // Lecture 3: OLS and Goodness-Of-Fit (R-Squared)

Views:187706|Rating:4.84|View Time:12:15Minutes|Likes:1269|Dislikes:41
This is an introduction to OLS and Goodness-Of-Fit tutorial. This video touches on each of these subjects:

1. What is OLS? (“Ordinary Least Squares”)
2. Properties of OLS
3. “Sum of Squared Residuals” (SSR), “Explained Sum of Squares” (SSE) & “Total Sum of Squares” (SST)
4. “Goodness-Of-Fit” (R-Squared)
5. Interpreting R-Squared

This video is intended to provide the student with an introduction to the “Ordinary Least Squares” method of estimation and its properties. This video also introduces the goodness of fit measure, R-Squared.

Follow us on Twitter @

All video, commentary and music is owned by Keynes Academy.

hi everybody so this is Chris from canes Academy and in the last lecture we talked about the simple linear regression and introduced some of the methods surrounding the simple linear regression if you'd like to go back to that video at any point during this video just click this top left arrow here and it will take you there likewise if you'd like to skip to the next video at any point during this video just click this bottom right arrow and it will take you directly to the next video in this lecture we're going to talk about OLS or ordinary least-squares method as well as the goodness of fit measure R squared so over here I have a diagram that I've already drawn out and we're just going to review some things to make them concrete so X is our independent variable Y is our dependent variable and what we're trying to do when we run a regression is measure how a change in X affects Y so what happens when we change X what happens to Y and the way we do this is we have all of these observed data points so these purple dots are all real-life data it's what we see in the real world and then this green line here is our estimated regression so our estimated relationship between x and y we can define this line as y hat and y hat will be equal to some constant or our intercept beta naught hat which is this distance here plus our slope parameter beta 1 hat so the slope of this line and then X and so what we're going to start with is what is OLS OLS is a method for estimating this this regression though the Y hat regression and it's essentially trying to put this line in the most appropriate way and defining it as our best guess for the relationship between X&Y and the way it does that is by minimizing the sum of squared residuals so we talked about all this in our last video and I'll just quickly define the sum of squared residuals again as exactly what it sounds like the sum of all of these residuals so the distance the vertical distance from this line to each point squared and now we should move ahead and talk about the properties of OLS so we know that we're just trying to minimize our SSR in that when doing that we will basically find the most appropriate regression for our given data and some essential properties we need to do this are as follows so the sum of the residuals has to be equal to 0 so what does this mean we've already defined that our residuals are equal to our true value for y minus our estimated value for Y and so that essentially means this value of y here for our sorry this value of y here for our real point minus this value of y here for our estimated point at a given X and so when we define it like this if we can sort of interpret that if a point is below our estimated line then our residual at that point will be negative and if the point is above our estimated line then that means that our residual at that given point will be positive and so when we sum up all of these residuals we want them to be equal to 0 because that will imply that the points are weighted equally the true points are weighted equally above and below vertically on our line our second property that's very important for OLS is the sum of all the residuals multiplied by the exes will be equal to zero now X is our independent variable and essentially what property two is saying that the independent variable is not correlated with the residual so this is very important because this property tells us if it's true it tells us that there's nothing in our is it residual that explains X I because if we didn't have this property then we wouldn't be able to properly use this regression as the relationship strictly between x and y the third property is the mean of Y so Y bar is equal to beta 0 hat plus beta 1 hat times the mean of X so this one might look a little bit more intimidating at first but it's essentially very simple what it means is that at some point on our estimated regression a Y hat we have the value of the mean of the Y values as well as the value the mean of the the x value so on this line somewhere will be our Y bar and our X bar so when we minimize the sum of squared residuals we're using the OLS method or any other method we will essentially want to know how well we have estimated the true model and the way we do this is through goodness of fit measures and there's one specifically we're going to talk about in this video and it's called the r-squared and before we define it we have to define some other some other measures of variation so we already have the SSR which is the deviation from the the estimated line and squared so essentially if we have a low SSR that will mean that the points are very tight to the line they're all very close on this line we have to define something similar called the SSE which is the estimated or sorry the explained sum of squares and this is defined as the sum of the estimated wise minus the mean and squared so the SSE tells us what is explained by our model how much is explained by our watt but model in the wise so how much of the variation in the wise is explained by our regression we need to define one more before we can talk about the R squared it's called SST or the total sum of squares and the total sum of squares is defined as the sum of the true values of Y minus the mean squared so this don't get these to confuse the estimated is our estimated parameter – it's me minus the mean and this is the true value of y at that given X minus the mean so this one tells us all of the variation in Y and this will tell us all of the estimated variations so how much have we explained with our model and this is how much is changing in the real old so now that we have these three defined we can define our R squared our goodness of fit how well does this estimated regression fit our true relationship between our independent variable X in our dependent variable Y and R squared is defined as SS e so our explained sum of squares divided by SST and essentially this makes sense we want to see how much of our model we have explained so we have our explained sum of squares which tells us how much of the variation in Y we have explained using our model divided by the total variation in Y and intuitively we can derive this as also equal to the 1 minus the SS r divided by SST so R squared will always between be between 0 and 1 and so we take 1 and we – what we haven't explained divided by the total variation so both are equivalent the SSE / SST and 1 minus SS are over SST they are both equivalent measures they're equal to the exact same thing but we have to be very cautious because we've talked about causal relationships and the R squared does not tell us whether our regression is causal or not it simply tells us how much we have explained using our regression so be very careful do not do not confuse a high r-squared with a with a causal relationship so the last thing we're going to talk about is how to interpret the r-squared we're just going to quickly go over this if R squared is equal to 1 not me that every single point on in the real world lies exactly on our estimated regression and if it's equal to zero then that means that there's absolutely no correlation between our X and our Y in our explained model so the higher your r-squared the better your goodness of fit and the lower your R squared the poor or your goodness of fit so that's all for our lecture today and I encourage you to comment if you don't understand anything completely or comment with feedback we would love to hear your opinion this is Chris and we hope to see you soon

Advice to PhD applicants

Views:78580|Rating:4.95|View Time:6:13Minutes|Likes:1178|Dislikes:11
Thinking of applying for a PhD? Academics give advice on what studying for a PhD is like, and what questions applicants should be asking themselves.

Also check out the second video where professors talk about what they look for in PhD applicants:

For more information on what PhD life is like, check out my vlogs:

Thanks to all the academics for their advice! Links to their twitters below:
Dr Angus Ferraro:
Prof Matt Collins:
Prof Peter Cox:

———- II ———-

I am Simon, a third year PhD candidate at the University of Exeter. I upload videos on bits of science which are relevant to what I do, and sometimes just because they’re really cool.

Vlogs from Oxford students –
My twitter –
My facebook –
Free music –

okay if you're thinking about applying for a PhD ask yourself a question why you would like to do that and if the answer is because you're really interested in the topic and you're really interested in doing research on that topic then do a PhD don't do it because you think it's a good you know career move I'm afraid research is a kind of long term it's a long game and it doesn't quickly reward you but it is immensely rewarding in the long term this is a very negative first thing to say but make sure you actually want to do a PhD because a PhD is 3 to 4 years of hard work blood sweat and tears it's a period of time which okay I had a great time during my PhD it was fantastic but a PhD is very very challenging you'll basically cast out into the wilderness and you have to support your soup from your supervisors but fundamentally it's your work and there will be times and I don't know a PhD student who didn't have these times where you'd have a clue what to do the point is you're doing research so your supervisor to act or what to do because they don't know the answers if they knew the answers then why are you doing it so there are things that you do the answers to you don't know what to do you don't even have a clue where to start addressing this problem and you'll want to go home and cry and I think most PhD students have gone home and cried I sort of think a PhD is mainly about learning how to sniff out a dead end doesn't come really positive but it's sort of sort of what it is it's like okay can this person work out as a dead end before their forehead starts to bleed that's what I think I got it and also the flip side to that is can you work out when you're going down a dead-end there's a little part that looks interesting through the bushes and allow yourself to explore that because that's the best researchers are not blinkered in that sense they often have an idea in front of them but they will also be opportunistic so they're going along and they look down on the ground living a little since I might go there for a little while or my send someone else that way another PhD student away or something we'll go exploring that if you do want to do your PhD then that's great and despite all the kind of negative stuff I said about doing a PhD I had a fantastic time and it is that the most uniquely rewarding experience I can think of because you're doing research that you set presumably you like what you're doing otherwise why are you doing it and so being able to have all of that free time to just work on what interests you is a tremendous privilege and I'm so I feel so happy that I had the opportunity and I feel so happy that I'm doing that right now most PhD interviews are not particularly full so really what the supervisor is looking for is someone who clearly shows interested interest in the topic and and again is willing to discuss discuss things in depth and challenge the sort of perceived wisdom and challenge existing ideas other stuff to think about when you're applying for PhD is the stuff that I don't think people do consider quite as much which is going to be think about the topic of their PhD is this does this topic interest me that's important but also think about the environment the university will offer you because universities don't tend to treat PhD students that well they see them this I mean as a PhD student you're pretty much at the bottom of the ecosystem in the university other than undergraduates but I mean they're just so low that if you people have people's time pretend they don't exist so as a PhD student the university tries technology but at a bare minimum level and that means that lots of the facilities for PhD students might not be that good you might be stuck in a very large office with lots of people you don't know maybe from different disciplines might even get an office lots of humanities PhD students don't and that can be a very isolating experience so it's important to check whether your university has the appropriate support structures in place talk to existing students past students existing students will probably give you a negative view past students will give you a positive view and supervisors supervisors are very different in the way they deal with students some are very hands-off you're on your own and see you in three years not quite that bit close to that and others will be quite prescriptive and what they want and for some people the ones that sit you down and said this is what I expect to do by next week are the best sort of thing and for others it's just leave me alone so if you don't have access to an office deal access to other collaborative spaces where you can meet people also doing PhDs are they in your subject area which is great for improving your research and also non your subject area just for keeping you sane so it's good to have access to these kind of spaces where you can meet other people and stop yourself going mad because if doing a PhD can be a very isolating experience if you don't have these kind of support structures the whole process of applying for a PhD is a bit it is a bit kind of random in a sense how do you find a place you know how do you know what you're interested in a non-traditional 'evil because research can be many steps removed from the sorts of topics and people do it undergraduate and the best PhD students you tend to find are people who you either know because you've taught them or you know because someone you know was talking taking someone you don't know very well is it's always a bit of a risk but you know so so if you have already have a relationship you've had some interaction with one of your lecturers at university ask them if they've got any PhD places if you're interested in a subject they're doing and they make they might have some now that layer between ten kilometers and fifty comms announced to you is what we call a stratosphere and it accounts for almost the entirety of the remaining mass of the atmosphere see ya let's see if I can remember this or if you want more background videos with John and I just talking about stuff then please comment below make sure you go and look at that singing playlist of choral music about Christmas comment below which one piece is your favorite you know just have a listen to a few and shuffles

Jordan Peterson on order and chaos

Views:12635|Rating:4.86|View Time:1:5Minutes|Likes:172|Dislikes:5
“When a surfer mastered a wave, he was physically embodying the balance between order and chaos”

Jordan Peterson hails from Northern Alberta. He taught at Harvard before he joined the University of Toronto. He is a professor of psychology and a practicing psychologist. Jordan Peterson is the author of Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, a magisterial study of origins of mythology. (Recorded on June 05, 2007)

What do supervisors look for in their PhD students?

Views:89098|Rating:4.96|View Time:3:30Minutes|Likes:1353|Dislikes:11
Professors talk about what they look for in PhD applicants, and what makes a successful PhD student.

Also check out my other video where the professors give advice to those thinking of applying for a PhD:

For more information on what PhD life is like, check out my vlogs:

Thanks to all the academics for their advice! Links to their twitters below:
Prof Mark Baldwin:
Prof Matt Collins:
Prof Peter Cox:

———- II ———-

I am Simon, a third year PhD candidate at the University of Exeter. I upload videos on bits of science which are relevant to what I do, and sometimes just because they’re really cool.

Vlogs from Oxford students –
My twitter –
My facebook –
Free music –

Professor Niall Ferguson | The Cambridge Union

Views:22561|Rating:4.74|View Time:1:7:49Minutes|Likes:129|Dislikes:7
Date recorded: 15/03/2011

“Civilisation: The West and the Rest ”

If in the year 1411 you had been able to circumnavigate the globe, you would have been most impressed by the dazzling civilizations of the Orient. By contrast, Western Europe would have struck you as a miserable backwater ravaged by plague, bad sanitation and incessant war. Yet for most of the next half millennium it was the West that came to dominate the Rest. In Civilization: The West and the Rest, Niall Ferguson examines the defining narrative of modern world history and warns we may be living through the end of Western ascendancy.

As a renowned and distinguished historian specialising in financial and economic history, Niall Ferguson’s teachings and commentaries have been particularly relevant during the recent financial crisis. As well as lecturing at Harvard and LSE, he also writes for The Daily Telegraph and Foreign Policy magazine and is currently working with Education Secretary Michael Gove on a new history syllabus for schools. Professor Ferguson has a much-publicised ongoing feud with Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman over how to tackle the global recession. He has also spoken of the EU being “a disaster waiting to happen”, and is a harsh critic of Russia. This event is co-hosted by the Public and Popular History Seminar of the Cambridge History Faculty.

Lectures explore why classical world matters

Views:143|Rating:5.00|View Time:1:54Minutes|Likes:10|Dislikes:0
Professor Dame Mary Beard discusses her Gifford Lecture Series, The Ancient World and us: from fear and loathing to enlightenment and ethics.
Each lecture focuses on a theme highlighting the similarities between the ancient world and our own. It encourages audiences to consider the ethical and moral challenges that these similarities pose.
Read more:

Did Fortnite Steal My Moves?! (The Professor)

Views:6112544|Rating:4.38|View Time:8:22Minutes|Likes:92894|Dislikes:13033
Comment Below and let me know what you think.
Thanks for watching!

Subscribe To My Channel –

Video edited and directed by JayLyons Productions([email protected])

Shop my clothing brand:

Contact – [email protected]

▼ Follow Me! ▼
Twitter –

Chatting with an Expert on Narcissism

Views:1622606|Rating:4.77|View Time:39:25Minutes|Likes:34574|Dislikes:1679
Check out Doctor Ramani’s book here ▶ and her website here ▶

Follow My Instagram ▶

Get a beautiful watch! Use code “LAHWF” for 25% OFF ▶

Cameras i use ▶
Mics i use ▶

“Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one’s own attributes. The term originated from Greek mythology, where the young Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water. Narcissism is a concept in psychoanalytic theory, which was popularly introduced in Sigmund Freud’s essay On Narcissism (1914). The American Psychiatric Association has listed the classification narcissistic personality disorder in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since 1968, drawing on the historical concept of megalomania.” – Wikipedia

Subscribe for Weekly Videos ▶

Extras & Vlogs ▶

Follow My Twitter ▶

Like the Facebook page! ▶

Creep on my snaps! ▶

Things i Use & Love ▶

I am a participant/influencer in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.

Some more very easy ways (and free perks for you!) to support me:

– Have you tried Airbnb? Sign up with my link and you’ll get $40 off your first trip ▶

– Book a Cameo! I’ll shoutout or say/answer anything you want ▶

– Free $5 Uber first time promotion code ▶ “UberLAHWF”

– Liking the videos!
– Turning notifications on with the bell by the subscribe button!
– obviously subscribing!
– commenting! I read them all (at least on the first day anyway)
– Buying the Merch or my favorite amazon products

Of course, I understand what’s most important for my livelihood is to consistently upload interesting content for you that doesn’t suck. It’s a blessing to make videos for a living and everything you’ve done for me thus far, even if this is the first video of mine you’ve ever clicked on, (and especially if you’ve scrolled down this far in the description!) is much appreciated. I will always be grateful for your viewership. For these reasons, you’re the goat.


Andrew Hales

Send Fan Mail (and anything else!) to:
5419 hollywood blvd. ste. C825
Hollywood CA, 90027

How to Speak to Professors: a Comprehensive Guide

Views:17493|Rating:4.39|View Time:5:34Minutes|Likes:145|Dislikes:20
How to Speak to Professors: a Comprehensive Guide

Professor Pulitzer (the professor professional) explains the ins and outs of having a conversation with your professor.

*NOTE* The producers will not be held responsible for anything that goes wrong if you choose to follow the procedure outlined in the guide.

Film Your Marxist Professors

Views:906317|Rating:4.89|View Time:25:17Minutes|Likes:42674|Dislikes:999
There’s no reason they should preach revolution in private using public money. Let them do it in public, so we can all hear what they have to say.

FYMP Facebook page:

Follow me on:


Credits and Sources

Intro by Undoomed:
Outro Music:


hey folks I'm recording this video like this because I'm in a hotel room in California and I had some time to kill before a gang at my flight and I discovered a Facebook page called film your Marxist professors and there are a lot of good videos on there so I thought we'd take a look at a few and I'll leave a link in the description because I really do recommend that you check this page out so the first video we're gonna check out is from Professor Alana of the harbor and she is going to tell us about race and gender and how their social constructs on a very foundational level that that what we understand about race and gender in terms of biological differences are completely false right that they're they're a social contract construct what kind of biological differences could she possibly be talking about I mean we're not suggesting that the color of our skin our eyes and our hair are social constructs are we so there are no biological differences but we have created we have given social meaning to biological conditions over time so how is it we end up with different appearances if there are no biological differences between the races and I noticed that she goes into entire races when talking about this it's not like there aren't biological differences between individuals what's the difference between me and you why do we have different tones of skin different kinds of hair different colors of hair different eye shades it must be our biological differences as individuals surely can there be average biological differences between the races inevitably so what on earth is she doing for various reasons primarily you know white white supremacy obviously and hetero patriarchy what else could it be but that being said that we might know objectively that there are no biological differences between the races or between the genders in terms of ability or intellect think things of that nature at least we've finally got to some specifics there are no biological differences between the races or genders now in ability or intellect so women just as strong as men and white people run just as fast as black people on average and so on and so on and so on completely contrary to the observable reality that we live in there are music there are these ideas of inferiority that absolutely come into play in our society and that have extraordinarily real and important consequences in our society and there we have it it's about inferiority well I hate to point this out but some people are more inferior in some respects than others and are superior and other respects this is just how nature has created us it's not a moral judgment it doesn't make them bad people it doesn't make them deserving of less rights or duties or privileges or anything of the sort but unfortunately for our Marxist professors we have to stare reality in the face not all people are the same which means not all people are equal but that doesn't mean that people should be treated differently with regards to rights end of story so just to say that while there's no biological differences there are the thoughts given and this is called in sociology symbolic interactionism and we're not gonna really have a lot of time to get into it but a symbolic interactionist lens helps you understand that we take meaning from the meanings that are given to things not necessarily the thing themselves we take meaning from the meanings that are given to things but not necessary from the things themselves who gives meaning to the things in the first place for us to extract this meaning if it isn't from the thing itself to begin with okay so while there is no truth that there are I mean while there's truth that there's no biological difference between the races and it's a I mean I bathe in melatonin things like that so there are biological differences between the races I'm glad was finally starting to model reality more accurately than we started but either way it's not moral concern we know what happens when you grade entire groups of people based on arbitrary characteristics without regard to their individual abilities we know that this is immoral we're not going to go back to a time where we did this that doesn't mean we have to start denying reality no DNA differences but not not ones that affect one's ability or intellect oh really so that our biological differences but that politically correct biological differences how convenient for you um things like that there are so because there's no biological differences or substantial biological differences oh so now there are biological differences but they're just not very substantial Wow that's even more convenient he has through osmosis in our culture historically and contemporarily are thought to that these aren't that these are substantial differences right that I don't really care whether they are are not substantial differences I don't care if we're talking about pygmies versus the Dutch the shortest and tallest people in the world it doesn't make them less human and it doesn't make one group deserving of more rights than another why would you even bring this up the category of human means they get human rights it's not very difficult to understand and it doesn't require very much discrimination on the part of the state in fact it's a distinct absence of this discrimination that makes it such a good system why are you even talking about this say crime is inherent in one community or another okay there are no substantial no objective truth to that no we can see the crime statistics love okay you can say oh well one community definitely doesn't have more crime than another but we know that they do I don't think that's because of their race either because I've seen the crime statistics over time it seems that when the breakup of the family occurred in the communities that will remain unnamed that you are talking about that crime rates went through the fucking roof it seems that young men need their fathers to provide them with a good MA all example to keep them in line but of course that would require some kind of biological essentialism regarding men and women and we can't have that now can we so instead no you have to start making up pseudo scientific theories about race it not just cover up for the fact that your ignorance of the biological reality of men and women is causing a deep problem in certain unnamed communities we have it in our heads and these because we have these ideas they are there are consequent real-life consequences to those ideas damn right they are and unfortunately they're really really negative for certain ethnic minority communities and people like you are not helping so I just wanted to establish that right from the beginning and if you want me to talk more about that or you want more information about that it would be really happy to do more into it with you to be fair we should probably thank this professor for letting us know that the fundamental premise of our entire teaching career is based on pseudo scientific lies so the next clip is Professor Leslie Patel de from Portland University explaining that they do have racial preferences in their hiring why would you need to do that if there's no biological difference in race right why wouldn't you have the office of diversity overseeing everything you do luck in Inquisition because there's no difference in race the next clip is journal Robinson from Syracuse University's Department of Geography talking about how maps are racist I'm not joking critical cartographers have studied maps for years and years and and they find they're socially extract constructed right rides why wouldn't maps be socially constructed what is the social construct of a map is it not meant to be an accurate representation of a geographical feature where's the racism in this and you know that this is definitely going to be racist expressions of power that historically maps have been used to colonize and conquer and are primarily created by white men the primary purpose of maps is not to colonize and conquer it is incidental that colonizers and conquerors used maps to navigate around the world surely by this logic almost any tool that a human being uses is a tool of colonization and conquest you absolute lunatic those who engage in critical cartography are interested to use maps for different purposes well I'm certainly glad you're not using your maps for colonization and conquest to show the alternative viewpoints what alternative viewpoints are Maps going to give you counter cartographers seek to use maps to tell these different stories of the oppressed focusing on topics such as social deprivation poverty and hunger community geography is influenced by radical geographers such as Bill Bunge and Bill bunkies one of my heroes maybe I'm not fully informed as to the purpose of a map but I thought it was to give you as objective information as possible of an area of the terrain I mean what is a map actually going to tell you about oppression he was a geographer who worked primarily in the 1960s and 70s in the Detroit area with members of the community mostly youth in the inner-city to produce maps that sought to expose social and racial and Justices your interpretation of what is on a map is what's important not what the map itself is saying the map itself surely has to be objective but of course we're dealing with postmodern critical theorists and there is no such thing as objectivity this is one of the maps that students working with Bill Bunge created in the 1970s and if you can't see the label it says where commuters run over black children on the pointes downtown track so there's not so much a map as it is a data set is what you mean and we could pull out data sets for almost anything and then represent them on a map for people to be able to see occurrences that have happened and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not saying that commuters are accidentally running down black children on purpose because of that bias are you so he used maps to shock and to tell different stories to tell the story of those who have been oppressed and marginalized in society you would think you would have maps for all of these kinds of things wouldn't you where's your maps for Chinese children or Native American children or Indian children or any other kinds of children you don't have them because you have a particular bias of your own and that's what you're expressing this isn't about being critical this is not objectivity this is about activism just come out and say it the next clip is of a land whale professor from Fresno who has tenure and because she has ten years you can say some pretty radical things a lot of agriculture a lot of the food you know that Americans eat is grown there and or around there and even though a lot of the farmers now our Trump supporters and just fucking stupid and I'm inspired by several things usually my hatred for the man I know what she means by a hatred for the man presumably she's not talking about the institution in which she works where they have tenured her and privileged her above other people who are not tenured and presumably she's not just told my men although I should have said it but that's the most charitable reading I can give of this times I just say that I can't fucking stand the white hetero patriarchy and then sometimes I'm sucking a white day what dicks are the tools of the white hetero patriarchy and sometimes she just can't help herself I'm buying guns like I am an American I'm buying guns you know the other side is like doing some stupid shit I'm gonna do some stupid shit I'm tired of like being the bigger person literally am usually but like I'm also just tired of the left being fucking stupid and being like no we have to be we have to like be gentle we have to know don't be fucking gentle okay that at least you can admit that she is the bigger person but you're being gentle for your own self-preservation love because I don't know whether you've noticed but when it comes down to the Civil War you're not gonna be storming any trenches getting popped don't okay that you know resistance fighters in the 60s and 70s didn't kill anyone but they scared the shit out of people you know they would hijack a plane and be like we're not gonna hurt anyone on this plane but we are gonna fucking hijack this plane you know doing a really great job of scaring the shit out of everyone if you're what the future looks like a tenured professor and you're teaching young minds then the future of the West looks absolutely terrifying in this next century is gonna be rough what neat like why is Spencer's house still standing I don't understand like it needs to be fucking broken into people need to fucking throw grenades into it I don't give a fuck why don't we throw grenades into Richard Spencer's house why wouldn't we know does he have a family do they matter does it matter that you don't have the right to destroy someone else's property just because you dislike their opinions and this has come from someone who is not a defender of Richard Spencer's ideas but on the plus side at least we can apply the same logic to the Marxists why are any of these Marxists houses still standing why haven't they had chewed grenades chug through them why not oh because you're right and he's wrong that's weird because that's exactly what he says about you Who am I to believe person hones their writers voice I don't give a fuck a person hones their writers voice is by telling people to shut the fuck up when they annoy them you know call them out for their inappropriate and spilling out masculinity what about your inappropriate make fun of them in public around a bunch of other people that were at an event hello Rhonda it's not known I got two questions Oh fine with that first of all I want to acknowledge the fact that you're weird no other no woman asks you questions look at this shit maybe he doesn't measure him stuff by the standards of women and maybe you shouldn't measure yourself by the standards of men so maybe you should shut up stop interrupting him because the man has two questions this dudes like I got two you're a vile creature and when the heart attack finally claims you very few people will weep type of recommendations come quick enough so president go back not with Coolidge doesn't have wack but as far as I'm concerned so yeah haha like we're here like we're gonna keep coming here Empire is basically I mean you know like it counts on brown and black bodies right to keep going and you know this is actually my shit the reason you have nice stuff is because you stole my stuff you stole my resources you stole my land you you know raped me you took that's at the same time absolutely vile and unbelievably entitled you never had any of these things you never earned any of these things nobody stole anything from you and nobody's going to rape you and so the final one is Professor Albert Ponce who is not happy about the Trump presidency or America in general and there were people young indigenous people who were pardoned paid to press the very heavy price for this project has been falling and what so we begin with the fact that we exist in a white supremacist patriarchal heteronormative capitalist system in which the previous president was a brown man Thomas Jefferson all men are created equal you know I hold 200 slaves and I bring many of them yes and 300 years later there is no slavery and you can have black presidents do you see how the people who may well have conceived of these principles and ideas may not have themselves been fully implementing them in practice but with the passage of time we have done so just because someone that you do not agree with from the inferior past was what we would consider to be now a bad person does not mean that the ideas themselves are bad in fact the end of slavery is the fulfillment of what Thomas Jefferson is saying there whether he lived up to those standards or fucking nots and that's the beauty of the law if you can write it you can convince all others to follow just like all of us do today when we show you you're a puncher and the law says that I shouldn't so should I ignore that law is that a law that you are okay with all of a sudden we're which laws exactly I mean I could name something from my country I agree that things like hate speech laws are definitely laws that are unjust it should be violated but what laws in the United States are actually utterly unjust and need to be violated are you going to give me examples from a hundred years ago we're time to get up and let allegiance to the flag every single day in that room actually it is maybe 200 years ago that wasn't but now it is everyone in the United States is an American and they do have the same rights and the flag does represent them all whether you hate the history of the US or not maybe that's the way it should be done all those with this flag represent stand up and all and maybe 50% in this room you stay sitting down this is not for you make it easy to discover who the traitors are when the Civil War comes and I'm not the one who wants a civil war anywhere but these people are definitely agitating for we do it through the Constitution which should we call it white man's Constitution and we still need a white man's Constitution that applies to non white people whether they like it or not because that's fair and fairness is white supremacy in white man's constitutions and we still get up before every ball game and we're supposed to these folks here are supposed to respect that flag when Colin Kaepernick stands up literally takes a knee but stands up for justice for what is right what happens villified homework yeah I agree with you that colin kaepernick should have the right to protest but the thing is but flag stands for a set of values and principles that was the direct cause of the end of slavery without the belief that all men are created equal there is no real intellectual justification to end slavery if you can enslave someone why wouldn't you which is why slavery was such a prolific institution in human affairs before the establishment of the set of principles that we call enlightenment values we call it the enlightenment for a reason it is quite a profound thing how what man can be so well regarded and yet be so wrong so consistently with such catastrophic results and still have professors saying that he's one of the most profound thinkers of all of human history so it is fitting that awaits the premises of old with white supremacist of today exists in sit there smiling in the white house abolition what is abolition me abolition means we must destroy it not reforming nobody's gonna help no right of your congressperson we need to smash white supremacy so I guess the revolutions all compilot that's white supremacy and we try to use legal meaning but our legal means enough in fact we'll have to when we do the polish this way democracy that it will have to be in conflict that it would have to be something where we have to bear arms so we're gonna smash the white democracy now I don't think anyone could object to the statement that these professors are communists who are radicalizing their students to become violent insurrectionists much in the same way that Isis does what is illegal well well of course it's illegal in the eyes of the state the state is the arbiter of the laws I thought that was gonna be the last one but I handed another quick video that I'm going to tack on the end come on max we have to clarify Marxism is also sexy oh yeah Marxism is just hot hey I'm a victim come and be a victim with me I'm being victimized by the capitalist because I'm a fucking loser wow that's dead sexy I can't get over how Marxist I'm getting laid no please didn't man yah there's some bitch in society perfect so in a lot of ways but Coonans ideas are resembled the ideas of utopian socialism he imagined this perfect society don't wear school or not visage a course of assembly No yeah but I still make not yes it's not the point if I be yay so yeah it I didn't it envisions a future perfect society but it doesn't look at society nowadays and it doesn't build a bridge between today and that perfect society wow that's really weird isn't it you sound they're imagining perfect societies it wouldn't just be amazing but you can't figure out how to get there it's almost like there is no road to utopia and every attempt always ends in catastrophic failure young people so do I continually a new leaf ideally stop yakkin functionally capitalism come on from sanity bourgeois and this is why we have to keep doing what we're doing by reading books studying history understand how capitalism works problems you come up comecome katma listen to see how we can concretely change the system that's a nice system you have there that's producing wealth and creating happy prosperous first world societies wouldn't it be a shame if someone came along and started whining about inequality all ritual overthrowing a system because that's what they're doing folks they are literally planning to overthrow the system this is what our universities are currently incubating and inculcating into the students that they are teaching this is not a sensible proposition for anyone who wants to continue existing in a liberal democracy Jordan pizza is absolutely right when he says it is insane for us to be funding revenue it is completely justified for anyone who cares about the liberal democracies in which we live to defund this Marxist nonsense taxpayers do not have to be subsidizing revolution these both white idiots can't do this on their own and there's no reason that we should help them but as I said there's a link to film your Marxist professors in the description and please do film your Marxist professors and send them anything that you've got it's very important that people become aware of what is happening in these classrooms

The Professor Insane 2018 Ankle Mix!

Views:5152186|Rating:4.91|View Time:6:32Minutes|Likes:60819|Dislikes:1120
Checkout My NEW Clothing Line:

Year end 2017 compilation. Happy New Year!
Plenty to come in 2018. Thank you for your continued viewership. God bless!

Subscribe To My Channel –

Music: ‘Sauce’ – Dribble2much
Album: Locker Room –
Subscribe to Dribble2Much’ Youtube:

Subscribe to my NEW VLOG Channel! –

Contact – [email protected]

▼ Follow Me! ▼
Twitter –

Jordan Peterson Talks Racism & Separation in America/Canada with Joe Rogan

Views:5866|Rating:4.42|View Time:15:38Minutes|Likes:68|Dislikes:9
Subscribe and never miss a clip!
Check out this full podcast which streamed live on Nov 28, 2016 here:

Follow us on Twitter and be notified every time we upload a video!

Follow our favorites:

We upload clips of content we love in hopes of making it easier to consume! Please contact us to have contact removed!
[email protected]

there has to be some sort of discussion one of the problems that I have with the so called social justice warriors and with this movement is that they're enforcing a certain type of thinking and behavior and they're incredibly aggressive about it hence the warrior term yeah well I think I think a fair bit of that is grounded again in temperament which is quite comical I mean one of the things that our research indicated research on political correctness indicated that this trait agreeableness is a good predictor of holding politically correct views and also that being female is a good predictor of holding politically correct views and I think part of the reason for that and and the warrior aspect to it too is that agreeableness is a maternal instinct trait roughly speaking and you know human beings have very powerful maternal instincts that's true for women and for men because men are very involved male human beings are very involved in the raising of their children which makes them quite different than in many large animals on the one hand if you're very maternal you're very compassionate and protective of those that are within your kin boundary and you can try to include more people in that if you want and and that's the that's the political goal but you're unbelievably hostile to anyone who's outside of that that you regard as a threat slash predator and so agreeable agreeableness makes you divide the world up into protected children and predator and predators and you see that on social justice warriors Twitter pages I mean I've followed bunch of them and I go to them and I watch this and incredibly supportive to ridiculously so of in terms of like mediocre expressions tweets oh my god it's so brilliant and there's like it's you're saying almost nothing you know and they're so incredibly supportive of the people that think along their lines and so incredibly hostile and this this idea of shaming people that don't agree with them not interacting with them but almost immediately insulting them almost immediately marginalizing them which is ironic this is what you see constantly is like super supportive and super aggressive against people that that have any sort of an opposing viewpoint yeah well they're all predators the ones that have an opposing viewpoint and that's what they define them it's one of the things that's very comical about this from my perspective is that it's such sex stereotypical behavior is that at the same time that the social justice warriors are denouncing the idea that psychology for example might have anything to do with sex differences they're acting out sex stereotype behavior like mad in terms of their persecution of predators and their protection of the of the Kin Kin / in-group so in your ura is social psychologists no no no I'm not I'm a clinical personality psychologist and what is the difference well one of the differences is that personality and so and clinical psychology isn't a corrupt Enterprise whereas social psychology fundamentally is it's been going through an absolute internal revolution over the last two years because of all because of its own discovery that many of its fundamental studies and propositions are flawed I would say social psychology is the most social justice / left-leaning part of psychology and its methods are generally appalling they're they're not well documented and they produce all sorts of categories that don't exist whereas personality I know it seems like it might seem like trivial distinction to people outside of the field but these these disciplines are quite separate from a historical perspective they developed quite separately personality psychologists are very very careful about defining what they measure and so for example I study the big five personality traits that's extraversion neuroticism agreeableness conscientiousness openness and under openness Falls intelligence these are very well documented we can really measure them we can't measure them as well as we would like to we've identified the biological basis for most of the traits and we understand a bit about how they make people different and and and personality psychologists have been very very careful about measurement whereas social psychologists are as a general rule very very cavalier about their about their concepts and that's led to a tremendous pollution I would say of the psychological literature the implicit association test is example of that that's the test that's being used to assess people's unconscious biases unconscious racial biases and so for example if if I showed you a bunch of pictures of black people and a bunch of photographs of white people and then I asked you to associate a good or a bad word with the black people or the white people to respond after you've seen the picture if you are white and you saw white photos you'd be faster at responding to the to the positive words and so they've used that as evidence of racism but part of the problem with that is that you can't distinguish it from a novelty response so I mean most people in a given racial group are far more familiar with members of their racial group and the fact that they're more likely to associate negative things with racial groups that are outside of their racial group isn't something that can be easily distinguished from just a novelty effect but they make wide-ranging claims about the inbuilt biases in people and also and that's lent and that's lent impetus to these movements that are racing through corporations across the United States and governmental agencies where people are being subjected to mandatory unconscious racial bias retraining and there's no evidence by the way that that works at all in fact the evidence that there is suggest quite the contrary I saw this on one of your videos you you were discussing how preposterous this is on one of your videos because one of the people that was opposing you was actually a part of something like this right yeah well the human resources and equity people at the University of Toronto have made mandatory unconscious racism training anti bias training and they made it mandatory for their staff and I found that absolutely appalling first of all it's political it's political re-education so when you say mandatory like this is something that you had no I didn't have to because I'm not a I'm not part of the human resources staff okay but the people that they're consulting with to implement these sorts of programs certainly have faculty and students in their sights I mean these are these are trial runs for much broader rolling out of exactly this sort of of exactly this sort of reeducation what methodology behind it and how has this been house has been vetted oh I don't think it's been vetted at all the like if you're going to let's say you want to put into practice an educational process what you need to do is you need to measure the initial state validly so that your measure so you need to use multiple measures and all those measures need to say the same thing so if you're going to accuse someone of racism you need several different measures of racism and then you have to show that across all the measures it's like using different meters all the meters should read the same thing then you have to implement your educational intervention carefully defined then you have to do you have to see afterwards if the consequence of the educational effort was a reduction in those initial indices those initial measures that sort of thing when it's been done at all has showed that educational interventions of that sort that are mandatory actually make racism and bias worse rather than better but why let a few facts stop you because we already know from the postmodernist that there's no such thing as facts anyways so there's in Canada here here's something it's been one of the things that really makes me proud of my country our government has now announced that the judiciary in Canada will be selected if you're going to be a candidate to be a judge you have to produce a dossier that specifies your your identities whatever they happen to be racial ethnic religious and then you the the committee that's going to appoint you to the judiciary has to have undergone mandatory anti racism and bias training before they're allowed to serve on the committee so basically we've set up a situation in Canada where are the people who select their judges have to go a kind of indoctrination that has no validity from a scientific perspective before they're allowed to select our judges now who's enforcing this weird administer but where justice minister where did this program come from there's all sorts of people who who are offering these programs now and so become a growth industry but what is their qualifications that's a good question right not all efficacious yeah well there's there's no way of having qualifications for doing this because it's not a valid procedure so how does that they claim to be qualified and so they claim to be qualified they come to the University and they say I have a solution the University says finally just run with it meant to because to question anything that would absolve racism is racist yes right yes and they did that in collaboration with the black liberation collective which is blame that one because that's that one's adorable the black liberation collective isn't that isn't that the group that somehow thinks that white people are inferior because they don't have enough melanin so it was started by a woman who said exactly that she's a black supremacist and she said that the reason that the reason that white people are inferior is because they don't have enough melanin in their skin and melanin apparently is this agent it's obviously it's a pigment but it's apparently this agent that transforms cosmic energy into wisdom I mean she's completely you can make up you can make up your own mind about her and then the other person who started the black liberation collective is a woman who used to work for the University of Toronto Students Union who is now being pursued by that Students Union for embezzling three hundred thousand dollars of from from from that organization with the help of a couple of her cronies well why let a few facts stand in the way of abolishing racism yeah well they also they also are perfectly willing to promote violent means of social transformation and the university claims that it's in favor of safety you know because they've gone after me because my refusal to use compelled pronouns has apparently made the campus unsafe but they're perfectly willing to take advice from the black liberation collective and not only are they willing to take advice from them and not disavow them despite their support for violent means of social revolution they're also pushing equality of outcome on their employees and and the people who taught their mandatory anti-racism and anti-bias training program set out right in their training material which i have copies of that any institution that doesn't have equality of outcome as part of its characteristic at every level of the power organization is corrupt and should be restructured but that pales in comparison to my refusal to use compelled pronouns seriously don't understand how this gets so far I just don't understand how no one has theirs there's no rational thinking involved in the administration and then the people that are implementing these ideas I just don't understand how it gets to the point where things get to terrible places one tiny step at a time you know if I encroach if I encroach on you and I'm sophisticated about it I'm gonna encroach to millimeters I'm gonna encroach right to the point where you start start to protest then I'm gonna stop then I'm gonna wait then you're gonna calm down then I'm gonna encroach again right to the point where you protest then I'm gonna stop then I'm gonna wait and I'm just gonna do that forever and before you know it you're gonna be back three miles from where you started and you'll have done it one step at a time and then you'll go oh how did I get here and the answer was well I pushed you a little farther than you should have gone and you agreed and so then I pushed you a little farther than you should have gone again and you agreed and if anybody is interested in this sort of process and this is a horrifying book if you want to read about how this process works you can read a book called ordinary men by Robert Browning an ordinary man is about browning was interested in how the Nazis trained they're there they're there they how they trained people to kill basically and so Robert Browning studied this police battalion it's very interesting book so these were middle-aged German men so they they were they were raised and educated really before Hitler came to power so they weren't indoctrinated Nazis they were policemen and when the no Nazis went through Poland and then and then needed to impose their brand of order on Poland they brought policemen in they brought this battalion of middle aged policemen in and their commandant their commander was by all accounts a pretty decent guy and he told them that because it was wartime they were probably gonna have to do some pretty terrible things but that they could go home if they didn't think they were up to it so there was no compulsion you know this wasn't a Milgram experiment or or an experiment where you had to obey orders the guy who was giving the order said look this is going to be awful but you can back off but the guys thought well I'm not going to leave my comrades here to do the dirty work you know which is kind of a virtue in a perverse way and then browning details how they went from ordinary policemen to guys who were taking naked pregnant women out into the middle of fields and shooting them in the back of the head and they were physically ill during most of the transformation process you know they started out by what rounding up the Jewish men between the ages of 16 and 65 well you know you can kind understand that cuz you're at war and then well then they put them in stadiums and then well then they had to shoot some of them then they had to load them on cattle cars it was like one step at a time these guys were having a dreadful time of it they didn't stop they didn't stop and so that's how things get to where they are now is that I mean and no they're not at that point and I'm not trying to make the case that they're at that point well you're one of the first people that's sounding an alarm that there's there's a real issue with controlling people there's a real issue with controlling dialogue controlling the way people communicate and that these ideologies although seemingly innocuous they can take you down very dangerous road yes well seemingly innocuous ideology those words innocuous ideology those words do not go together there are no innocuous ideologies and there there are forms of pathological oversimplification and there are also clubs I mean I mean the kind of clubs that you hit people with as well as the clubs that you belong to the advantage to me being an ideologue is that I can explain everything I can feel morally superior and I know who my enemies are and you know what you're supposed to do with enemies they're not your friends right you move against them and you know we're approaching a situation and this has already happened I think more in the United States than in Canada although our countries are competing to see who can cross the idiot line fastest you're you're in a situation in the US where 50% of your population won't talk to the other 50% that's not good and I would say it's more pronounced on the Left liberal side because they regard everybody who voted for Trump as essentially as an enemy it's like hey people that's 50% of your citizens you might think about talking with them you

2017 Maps of Meaning 05: Story and Metastory (Part 1)

Views:417431|Rating:4.84|View Time:2:22:29Minutes|Likes:5329|Dislikes:180
In this lecture, I make the case that we each inhabit a story, describing where we are, where we are going, and the actions we must undertake to get from the former to the latter. These inhabited stories are predicated on an underlying value system (as we must want to be where we are going more than we value where we are). In addition, they are frames of reference, allowing us to perceive (things that move us along; things that get in our way), make most of the world irrelevant (things that have no bearing on our current frame), and determine emotional significance (positive: things that move us along; negative: things that get in our way).


Direct Support:


12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos:
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief:


12 Rules for Life Tour:
Reading List:


Self Authoring Suite:
Understand Myself personality test:

Now that you've had an opportunity to walk through a narrative then, hopefully, some of the things that I'm going to say, that are more technical, will make more sense and so, what we're going to do today, at least in part, is to deal with… to start to deal with conceptualizing a solution to the fact that the world is too complex to properly perceive so what the problem fundamentally is is that there's a lot more of everything else than there is of you especially if you include in that everything else, all the parts of you that you also don't understand and so… I want to walk you through how I think we solve that, at least in part and we do that by, essentially by simplifying the world, but I think mostly that we simplify it as a place in which to act, rather than a place in which to perceive objects and I really believe that there's a critical distinction between those two things and I think that part of the reason that there's been continual tension say, between the claims of science and, let's say, the claims of religion is because the idea that the world as a place of objects and as a place to act have to be considered separately, isn't properly understood I don't know… so I'm gonna try to straighten that up to the degree that that's possible so, I'm gonna talk to you about stories and meta-stories and the story, I would say, is the simplest unit of useful information with regards to action and perception that you can be offered and then a meta-story is a story about how a story like that transforms and I would say… we'll concentrate on the structure of the story and then we'll get into the structure of the meta-story, and that'll constitute today's… today's class so the first thing I wanna show you… I know many of you have seen this, but I'm gonna show it anyways for the longest time it was presumed that… for the longest time, say, at least in the 20th century it was presumed that we make a pretty complete model of the world and then we act in the world, and we compare what happens to that model and as long as our model and the world are matching then, roughly speaking, we believe that everything is okay, and our emotions stay under control but if that model mismatches, then we know that something's up now, a lot of this work was done by Russians, especially in the early 60s by two Russian scientists, Vinogradova and Sokolov who were students of Alexander Luria, who was arguably the greatest neuropsychologist of the 20th century Luria spent a lot of time studying soldiers from WW2 that had received head injuries of various sorts, and because of that he could draw inferences about how the brain worked and some of what we're going to talk about over the upcoming weeks with regards to brain function much of it is predicated on Luria's work Sokolov and Vinogradova were his students, and they were interested in this phenomena… they were interested in psychophysiological measurement, right as a way of inferring brain function so psychophysiological measurement is measurement of those physiological parameters say, like pupil width, or skin conductance, or EEG that are in some ways directly reflective of how the brain works now, if you measure skin resistance, skin resistance changes with the amount that you sweat that can change very, very rapidly, and it changes in response to physiological demands placed on your body so, for example, if your body assumes that you're going to leap into action for some purpose and it's gonna open up your pores to prepare you to keep yourself cool and you can measure those transformations quite accurately by measuring the electrical resistance of the skin and so what you see, if you put someone in a lab chair and you expose themselves to different stimuli, you find that… for example you can expose them to something that's threatening say, like a picture of a snake, then their skin conductance will decrease, because they're… sorry, their skin conductance will increase, because they sweat a little bit more and it's quite a rapid response, it can be a very rapid response now, one of the things that Sokolov… yeah, that's right… noted was that if he… if I sat you down, for example, and I put some headphones on you and I played a tone to you that repeated, exactly the same tone that repeated at predictable intervals that the first time you heard the tone you'd produce quite a spike in skin conductance and the next time a slightly smaller spike, and then the next time a slightly smaller spike until after maybe you've heard it three or four times, you would not respond to it at all and that was often regarded as habituation and habituations is the same thing that you can see in snails, for example and I'm using snails as an example, because they have very, very simple nervous systems so if you take a snail and you poke it, then… like it comes out of its shell and you poke it, it'll go back into its shell and then it'll come out, and if you poke it again it'll go back into its shell and it'll come out; but if you keep doing that, sooner or later the snail will just stop going in and you might think of that… it has been conceptualized as the simplest form of learning habituation and the behaviorists tend to presume that if a human being manifested a response that could be modeled by a simple organism then the human being was using a response that was analogous to that of the simple organism and sometimes that's true, and sometimes it's not, so… for example, you have simple reflexes that, you know if you put your hand on a hot stove, you'll jerk back, and that's quite a simple circuit you'll move your hand back before the message gets to your brain because the spinal cord is smart enough to mediate a reflex like that all by itself so you know, your brains is actually quite distributed throughout your body, it's not just in your head like people tend to think and so, we have conserved fast-acting reflexes at various levels of our nervous system they aren't capable of sophisticated response, it's pretty much stimulus – response thinking about it from the behavioral perspective but they have as an advantage incredible speed, because they're just aren't that many neural connections between the stimulus and the response and so, we have layers of response at different time frames that help us match with the demands of the external environment so Charles Darwin, for example, used to go into the, I think it was a museum in England, I don't remember the name of it the snake in there, I believe it was a cobra, and he'd stick his face up at the glass, and the cobra would strike at him and he'd jerk back; and he tried many, many times to master that reflexive response to the snake, but there was no way every time that thing struck at him, he'd jump backwards well, you can imagine the survival utility in a reflex like that, but in reflexes in general okay, so back to Sokolov now, what he decided… if you took that tone, and you did anything to it that was perceptible right, because there's certain gradations of tone that you're not capable of perceiving but let's assume you took the tone, and you would adjust it enough so that it was perceptibly louder or it was perceptibly a different frequency, or something like that or even that the spaces between the tones 'cause I said they were predictably spaced even if the spaces between the tones were changed then, when the change occurred, the orienting reflex would be reinstated, you'd respond to it again and Sokolov tried to vary the tone on many, many parameters but no matter what parameter he varied it on, as long as you could detect it perceptibly you'd produce an orienting reflex; so Sokolov's idea was that you must be producing a complex internal model of the world that's in concordance with the world across pretty much every perceptible dimension because if you weren't doing that, how in the world would you know that the tone had changed from what you had already learned about it? and so, for the longest time, and this was also true for people who were investigating artificial intelligence we had this idea that what people did was make a complex model of the world, and hold it in their minds, so to speak and then they'd act in the world, and they compared what they expected to happen in the world with the model and as long as there was a match, then there was no orienting reflex now, the orienting reflex turns out to be quite a complex reflex, it's not merely an alteration in skin conductance what it is in essence is the manner in which you start to unfold your response to the unknown and the initial stages of that are very, very quick but it's hard to tell when the orienting reflex stops, and when more complex learning begins they sort of shade into one another so the initial stages of the orienting reflex are quite reflexive but the later stages can be extraordinarily complex, so for example… well, I always think the example of betrayal is the best one, because it's so complex so imagine that you know, you come home and you find evidence, lipstick or something like that evidence that the person that you're with is betraying you the first thing that's going to happen is that you're going to orient, there's going to be a real shock, and that's reflexive it's very much akin to the response that you would manifest if you saw a predator, or a snake, or something like that so that's very instantaneous, you know and then that'll prepare you for action, you'll get ready to do whatever it is that you need to do next a very unpleasant thing; but then it might take you even years to fully manifest the learning that would be necessary in a situation like that because there's so many things that you have to reconsider first of all, the person might now appear to you as a threat, that's pretty immediate so there's a biological, physiological response first, your body reacts first then you respond emotionally, that's gonna take a while, and you know, the emotional response might extend over days, or weeks, or months, or even years and then, as you're doing that as well, you're going to try to start to re-sort out your interpretive schema so that it can adjust to the transformation that this… this error on your part, say, or this catastrophe, or this betrayal it has to adjust to whatever information that event contains and so the orienting reflex can manifest itself over an extraordinarily long period of time it's best to think about it as the initial part of what can be a very complex learning process now, that was a standard idea in psychology for the longest period of time that we created a detailed internal model of the world and we watched how the world was unfolding, we compared the two and the physiology, the neurophysiology of this was even understood to some degree, even by the Russians in the early 1960s, because they basially localized… you could use complex EEG, electroencephalogram technology to localize where the orienting reflex was occurring in the brain, and basically it appeared to occur, roughly speaking, in the hippocampus and the theory arose that your brain, your cortex, let's say, produced a very complex model of the world an internal model; and your sense were producing a model of the external world and the hippocampus was watching those things to see if they matched and if they didn't match, there was a mismatch signal, and that would be the orienting reflex and then your body would start to prepare itself for whatever that mismatch meant and then you would engage in exploratory behavior to try to update your model that was the standard theory, it was a very well accepted theory it has elements of cybernetic theory in it but it was accepted enough so that when people first started to experiment with artificial intelligence that's how they tried to make artificially intelligent systems they tried to make ones that would model the world, and then act, and then compare the changes in the world to that model but that didn't go anywhere, it turned out, because it turned out that it's so difficult to see and model the world that people had no idea how complex that was it was impossibly complex, as it turned out, and so that's part of the reason we don't have robots wandering around, doing apparently simple things like walking walking in an environment like this now, when we look at the environment, we think: well, it's not that hard to look at, it's full of objects they're just self-evident, there they are, and we can just wander through it you know, and we don't even do that consciously to any great degree because so much of that perception is presented to our consciousness without effort in some sense; but the AI guys learned pretty quick that perceiving the world was waaay more difficult than anybody had guessed and then this experiment really in some sense put a phenomenological punch behind that observation because one of the presuppositions of the orienting reflex theory that I just laid out was that: you were very good at detecting changes that your nervous system would automatically detect change, anomaly right, any mismatch between your model and what you expected, and then well, the AI guys, I think, figured out first of all that was a big problem that the problem of perception was much more complicated than that you know, it's actually… it's out of that same set of observations in some sense that Postmodernism emerged in liternature… in literary criticism, because, well it turns out to be hard enough to see a normal object, like a chair and part of that is that if you just do that to the chair, it's really different than it was before you could imagine, how different it would be if you tried to paint the chair under both those conditions, right if you really got good at looking at it you'd find that even though, if I asked you what color this is, you'd say white if you were actually painting it, you'd find out that the colors of the chair when it's in that location and the colors in the chair when it's in that location, just because of the difference in lighting are substantially different I think it was Monet, I think who painted a very large series of haystacks in the French countryside in different seasons and under different conditions of illumination just because he was exploring how radically different the same object could be as it moved through contexts so it isn't even obvious why we think this is the same object when you move it and the answer is something like: well, you can sit on it in both positions which is not a description of an object, by the way right? that's a description of something that's useful, something that's a tool, something that exists in relationship to your body it's not an object; and so… if you think that just looking at something like a chair is almost impossibly difficult and subject to interpretation then imagine how difficult it is to perceive something like a text, you know, like a novel because a novel obviously is subject to multiple interpretations and the interpretations are gonna depend on, well, at least in principle on the intent, conscious and unconscious, of the author of the time, of the place, of the culture, of the language then that's just on the side of the production itself, but then there's the reader it's like, I've read books when I was sixteen, and then reread them, say, when I was forty and the book was almost completely different, as far as I was concerned partly 'cause I knew what was in it the second time, and I didn't know what was in it the first time and so, the meaning that manifests itself out of a book is a consequence of all the complexity of the book plus all the complexity of the reader, and so you know, if you're reading Russian literature, for example, and you've already read fifty Russian novels you're going to be in a much more different interpretive space than you are if, say, the Russian novel is the first novel you've ever read and the Postmodernists were grappling with this as well as with many other ideas that I think contaminated their thinking and their conclusion was: well, you can't extract out a canonical meaning from a text it's so dependent on the situation that to say the text has an interpretable meaning is actually an error, now just because it's difficult to do something doesn't mean it's impossible and there's massive holes in the postmodernist view I think it's an unbelievably pathological view, personally but the thing is is that there are reasons why it emerged and the reasons were analogous to the reasons that the AI project initially failed and analogous to the reasons that this experiment turned out the way it did so I'm gonna show you this, many of you have seen this already, but as I said, it doesn't matter your job here is to count the times… there's a team of three people here, dressed in white and there's a team of three people here dressed in black and your job is to count the number of times the white team throws the baskeball back and forth to the white team members ok, we'll just run that okay, well, so, obviously or perhaps not so obviously, the the number of times I believe that they threw it back and forth was sixteen, if I remember this correctly but of course that's not really the issue, because what happens in the middle of the scene is that a guy wearing a gorilla suit comes out into the middle of the screen, and pounds his chest three or four times he comes out quite slowly, as you saw; is there anybody in here who didn't see the gorilla? no, well, I presume all of you knew about this video anyways so, Dan Simon, who produced this video has got a couple of other ones where he shows that, you know, even if you're smart enough to see the gorilla, 'cause you've seen the video before you've heard about it if you make other changes in the background, you'll count properly and you'll catch the gorilla, but you'll miss the other changes in the background and they're not trivial either, it's really quite remarkable he's produced other short videos, for example, where you'll be looking at a… like a field and a road will grow in it, occupying about a third of the photograph's space and you'd think well, yeah, you're gonna see that, it's like: you don't, you don't so, okay, so this threw a big spanner into the works this sort of experiment, along with the AI failures, and we could even say, the postmodern dilemma it's like, well, hmm, everyone, virtually… every psychologist would've predicted before this series of experiments that there's no damn way you'd miss that gorilla because your nervous system was actually attuned to change in the environment and that's a big change, and it's also a gorilla it's something you would really think that you couldn't miss, you couldn't possibly miss especially when it's occupying the center of the visual field and so, well, this is part of a phenomena called change blindness and it helped psychologists who had been studying the visual system for a very long time to figure out, well mostly figure out exactly how blind human beings are because we're way blinder than we think, and and so we actually focus on much less of the world than we think, and we do that partly… it's not exactly obvious how we do it it's kinda like we hold a still picture in our imagination and then fill in the details by using our central foveal vision which is always dancing around like a pinpoint or a laser beam, moving back and forth and we're assembling those little snapshots from the fovea into a relatively coherent picture maybe what happens is that I look at you, and then I look at you [points to a different student] and I've still got the information from looking at you, so my brain can sort of infer that that's remained stable but like if I look at you, and I… I tried to learn how to do this, 'cause you can look at something, and then pay attention to the periphery, it's annoying but, so if I'm looking at you, I really can't make out your eyes [points to a different student] I can more or less make out the fact that you have a head especially if you move it, so your periphery is sory of like frog vision or dinosaur vision it's much better at picking up movement than it is at picking up something that's staying still and that makes sense, because, well, if it's staying still, and it hasn't already hurt you, then it's probably not going to hurt you; but if it's moving, then, you know, that's a good thing that you might pay attention to and so, if your periphery catches movement, then you'll focus your fovea on it it's like you go from really low resolution to really high resolution so the center of your vision is incredibly high resolution but then it fades into low resolution as you move towards the periphery, until it's out here which would be about 170 degrees if I concentrate on this hand I can tell it's a hand, mostly when it's moving I have no idea what color it is, this one I can't see at all and then, I can probably see my fingers – now and then I can clearly see them if I look at them with my fovea, and so your vision is a very, very strange thing, and it's focusing on something very specific and so you're pointing your eyes at something very specific, and that's what you seem to see so then that opens up a whole new universe of questions, it's like… how do you decide what to point your eyes at? that turns out to be an insanely complicated problem John Vervaeke talks about that all the time as the problem of relevance and the issue is: well, there's many, many things in the world, there's an infinite number of things, let's say and you're not gonna be able to see them, that's for sure, even if they happen to be changing, as it turns out and so, out of this mess, first of all, how do you pick what to look at? and second, even if you do pick it, how do you see it? 'cause it's so crazily complicated so that's the problem that we're going to try to unpack now, roughly speaking, what seems to have happened with the gorilla video is you have to take that first theory, that you make a complete model of the world which is the objects in the world, and how they're interacting and you compare that to the objects in the actual world and how they're interacting you have to modify that model, you say: well, no, you're certainly not making a complete model and people should have known better anyways; even subjects to the limits of your perception, because there's all sorts of things in the world that you can't directly perceive, but what you're doing instead is something like: you're making a partial model of the world but you're only making a partial model of the world that you're currently operating on with some goal in mind and you're also comparing that to a model of the world as it's currently unfolding 'cause the other thing that was implicit… this is really tricky, this is where you have to watch your implicit assumptions the other thing that was implicit in the original cybernetic theory was that you have a model of the world that's complete and then what you're watching is the actual world as it unfolds and that's not a model, that's just your perception of the object; but that also turns out to be wrong, because your perception of the world as it unfolds is also a model, and so what's happening is: you look at the world the world you see is a model, and a very partial model at that and then you compare it to the model that you expect or desire, more accurately, desire although the initial models were expectation because if you're in the lab, listening to tones it's not like you desire anything but mostly when you're acting in the world, you have desires so the experimental constraints skewed the data in some sense by making people assume that what people were doing when they walked through the world was expecting instead of desiring anyways, you have a model of the world that's generated as you look at it you have another model of the world that's something like the world that you desire then you compare both of them, and they can mismatch, and they can mismatch in a way that upsets your current pursuit that's the critical issue you don't see the anomaly unless it upsets your current pursuit and you kinda know that too, because when you're… like, while I'm lecturing to you guys you know, mostly you're sitting still, but people are moving their arms, and they're moving their glasses, and they're shifting their feet, and generally I don't see any of that, because what difference does it make? you know, it's not relevant to the ongoing… to the ongoing what? ongoing contract? the ongoig series of interactions? it's something like that so as long as you keep your movements bounded within a range that doesn't interfere with whatever it is we're doing then it's going to be as invisible to me as the gorilla was when you were counting the balls and the cool thing is about the gorilla experiment, or one of them, is that the reason you were blind to the gorilla was because you were counting the balls and so, that's so fascinating , because what it shows to a huge degree, to an unfathomable degree to an unfathomable degree is that the value structure that you inhabit determines what you perceive it doesn't just determine what you expect or want, it bloody well determines what you see and that makes the world a completely different place, no one really expected that and so, if you watch the basketball, you see the basketball if you stop watching the basketball, well then you see the gorilla, and so the first question that arises from an experiment like that is: just exactly what is it that you don't see in the world? and the answer is: all of it you see so little it's unbelievable; you see that tiny amount that's necessary for you to undertake the next sequence in your plotted movements…? it's something like that; but then that becomes very complicated, too, because it isn't obvious how you can conceptualize or how you can determine what your next movement is because it's not like you just add up movements and make up your life it's not that simple, and it's related to the novel problem, the problem of meaning in a literary work so imagine: you're trying to specify the meaning of a literary work, well there's meaning in the word, but the meaning of the word is dependent on the phrase within which it's embedded and then the meaning of the phrase is dependent on the sentence that it's embedded in and the sentence in the paragraph, and the paragraph in the chapter, and the chapter in the book and the book in the corpus of books of that sort and then within the culture, and then within whatever your peculiar personal experience is all of those things, nested, are operative to some degree when you're extracting out the meaning at any level of analysis they're all operating simultaneously, so you might say, well what are you doing in this classroom? well, the answer is: sitting in a chair but that's… obviously that's a very short-term and context-independent answer but you're also attending to what I'm saying, hypothetically and you're attending to some of it, and not to other parts, you're thinking about some parts and not other parts and you're also attending a class, and a class is a sequence of lectures and that's embedded within your desire to finish up the semester and then to finish up the year, and then to get your degree and then you nest that inside whatever it is, whatever the reason it is that you're getting your degree and then maybe that's nested inside your career goals, and that's nested inside your life goals and that's nested inside your ultimate values, which you may or may not even be aware of and so, I could say, well, you're sitting here because it serves your ultimate values well, that's true it seems a bit abstract to be useful, right, it's so vague out at the outermost levels, that it doesn't really have much specificity, right, so it seems to lack information, but by the same token if I said what you're doing is sitting there it has the same problem of too restricted meaning, because of overspecificity and so, there's some level in there that you would interpret as meaningful, God only knows why and that's the level… there's a natural level of perception for that sort of thing so for example, when children learn to name an animal, for example, they'll name "cat" they don't name the species of cat, or the subspecies of cat and they don't confuse cats with dogs, even though they're both in the category of "four-legged furry mammal" so, why not call the cat and the dog "furry mammals"? well, children don't do that, they go to "cat" and "dog" and people who've studied the acquisition of language have found that there are basic-level categories that children pick up first and they're often represented with short words, and the words are short, because they've been around a long time because they seem to reflect the natural level at which people perceive the world but none of that's obvious, you know I mean you could just lump all animals together, for that matter, and just call them "animals", which we do sometimes so… anyways, so it's very difficult to specify the meaning level, and it's not very easy at all to figure out how we do it and so that's partly what I'm trying to unpack, so… here's part of the issue, so let's say that you're… you have a computer yeah, I have a story for this, so one time, when I was in Montreal, I was using my computer I was in my apartment and I was typing out an essay, and it crashed, and so what happens when your computer crashes? well, you know, usually you utter some sort of curse and it's interesting that you do that, because the circuit that you use to curse with is the same circuit that monkeys use to detect eagles, or leopards, or snakes and so, when there's a bunch of monkeys together you know, they're not all preyed on by eagles and leopards and snakes, but you know, there's usually a predator in that category for every single monkey population and so, when the monkeys are watching, they have an emotional utterance that the most nervous monkey might utter first that basically says, you know, hide from the eagle; get out on the thin branch, so the cougar can't eat you; and look the hell out for the snake but there's a circuit that's linked to emotions that produces that instinctive utterance that represents that category and that's the same circuit that you use when you curse and it's not the same circuit that you use for normal language we know that, because that circuit is activated in people who have Tourette's syndrome because they preferentially swear you think, well, why in the world would you have a neurological condition that makes you preferentially curse? well, that's the reason: you don't just have one linguistic circuit you have one for: "oh my God, there's a predator!" and that's the one that will get activated when something happens like your computer crashing because, you know, you're an evolved creature, and so those old circuits that were there, say, 30 million years ago to deal with exceptions are the same circuits you're using now to deal with your computer; why else would you wanna hit it? right? 'cause that's what you want – give it a whack! it's like: it doesn't behave – whack! aggression right away, well, that's some clue as to the category system that you're automatically using to encapsulate the event ok, so fine, what do you do when your computer crashes? well, first you curse, and then you do the stupid things that idiot primates do when they're trying to deal with something that's way too complex maybe you turn it on and off, right? and that doesn't work it didn't work, and so then I thought, well, maybe the power bar went, so I checked the power bar and I turned it on and off, and nothing happened so I brought a light behind the computer, and the light wouldn't go on, so I thought, aha! I must have blown a fuse! so I went to the fuse box and took a look, but the fuses were fine and so I thought, well, the power's gone out, so then I went outside, and the power was out none of the street light were working, the power was out everywhere and it was seriously out, because this was the time that almost the entire northeast power grid in Quebec collapsed and the reason it collapsed was because there was a solar flare that happens reasonably often, a solar flare produced a huge electromagnetic pulse because it's basically, you know, like a million hydrogen bombs going off at the same time 93 million miles away produces this tremendous electromagnetic pulse passes through the Earth's atmosphere produces a spike in current in the main power lines, and blows the whole system and so, just so you know, an event like that happens about every 150 years and if we had one now, it would take out all of our electronics like one of the big ones, there was a big one in the late 1800's everything, satellites, computers, cars, everything – gone and so that's a big problem, and no one knows what to do about it one missed us by about nine minutes, I think two years ago so that's something else to worry about, if you're inclined to worry about those sorts of things um, ok, so what did I conclude from that? well, the… the function of my computer was dependent on the stability of the sun it's not the first thing you check out when your computer crashes, right? you don't run out and go, hey, well, yeah, the sun's still there 🙂 no problem, I can cross that off the list but to me it's an extraordinarily interesting example of the invisible interdependence of things you know, and our tendency to fragment the… what we seem to do is to look at things at the simplest level of analysis that actually functions so, for example, when you're interacting with your computer, you're not interacting with your computer at all, really you're interacting with the keyboard, sort of one key at a time and you're interacting with the symbols on the screen but as long as the computer is working, you don't care about it at all, you don't give it a second thought and you certainly don't care about the fact that it's dependent on… well, the electrical power, for example, and the electrical power is dependent on… you know, I don't know how many men are out there right now or were out there last night, when it was freezing rain fixing power lines and freezing to death while they're doing it, so that your stupid computer doesn't malfunction while you're watching cat videos you know, I mean there's this incredibly dynamic living system, that's social, and economic, and political that has to remain dead-stable in order for us to have access to functional and pure, non-fluctuating electricity 100% of the time 'cause you also don't think, well, the stability of your computer is dependent on the stability of the political system but of course it is, because if the political system mucks up, and the economic system goes, then people don't go out and work to fix things; and things are breaking all the time that's their normal state, is broken, not working; and so… and that's all in some sense folded up not only inside your computer but actually inside your tiny conceptions of the computer while you're using it and you only get a glimpse of what the computer is really like when it doesn't work then it's when it becomes a complex object, right as long as it's working, then your stupid perceptions are perfectly fine to get the job done and that's another indication of what you're using your perceptions for is to get the job done and how you specify exactly the level of resolution that you should be operating at I haven't sorted that out, but it's something like you default to the simplest level that moves you to the next step you know, so for example… and generally that is what you should do if you're having an argument with someone that you have a long-term relationship with you can start by arguing about what the little argument is about or you can immediately cascade into whether or not you should have a relationship with this person at all or even into whether or not you shoul even bother with relationships which is… you know, every time there's an argument, that question is a reasonable question to have emerge or at least it's in the realm of potential reasonable questions but it doesn't seem useful to jump to the most catastrophic possible explanation every time some minor thing goes wrong that's what happens to people who have an anxiety disorder that's what happens to people who are depressed, right? they can't bind the anomaly and so what happens is it tends to propagate up the entire system until it takes out their highest-order conceptualizations you know, so if you're seriously depressed, maybe you'll watch a news article about something stupid, and you'll think: Jesus, why should I even be alive you know, and I'm dead serious about that if you score like 60 on the Beck depression inventory, which puts you way the hell up in the "depressed" range anything that happens to you that's negative will trigger suicidal thoughts, roughly speaking and sometimes even positive things will do it, because there are very few positive things that happen, that don't carry with them some threat of change or transformation so, you know, one mystery, it's a big mystery why don't you fall into a catastrophic depression every time something little goes wrong? because the level of analysis is not self-evident you see this with people who are high in neuroticism too, you know their trivial fluctuations at their workplace or in their relationships or in their health will produce a very disproportionate negative emotional response it's part of the range of normal emotional responses some people are very, very high in neuroticism, so everything upsets them, some people are very low and the reason that whole range exists is because sometimes you should get upset when some little thing happens to you 'cause it's an indication that the whole damn environment has got dangerous on you and sometimes you should just brush it off, because it's net consequence is low but, how do you calculate that? very, very difficult question so you know, when your computer goes wrong well, you have to pick the proper level of analysis to fix it, and you could say, well there's something wrong with the circuit board, and maybe there's a crack in one of the… somewhere that it's soldered, and or you know, sometimes now that people are building microchips they've run into a crazy problem you know, microchips keep getting smaller and smaller, right so the little wires now are down to atomic width or you know, the width of maybe 20 atoms or something like that, but really, really… they're really getting thin and so, that produces another problem, which no one would have ever… you wouldn't expect, and that is that at the quantum level there's uncertainty about where electrons might be normally that doesn't matter The degree of uncertainty where your electrons are, is smaller than your size so that it's basically irrelevant But down at the sub-atomic level where these microchips are starting to be produced Sometimes the electron will be outside the wires and that means that they are getting so damn small that they'll get short-circuited by themselves because the electrons aren't stable enough to be where they're supposed to be in the wires so well, the reason I'm pointing that out is because a problem that exists in the system can exist at any of the multiple levels of that system and it isn't obvious where to start and lot of political arguments are like that, you know… it's like maybe a company goes bankrupt and its shareholders get, maybe a bank fails, so maybe people can't withdraw their money One response is, well that just show you how rotten the capitalist system is It's like, well, maybe that is what it shows, but it seems there is, it seems like that might not be the most appropriate level to start and so again, it's like Occam's Razor in the scientific world, right You want to use the simplest explanation that it's not that fits the facts because you don't organize your perception by facts it's kind of like you want to use simplest tool you can possibly manage to fix the problem so you don't… when your car has a flat tire, you don't buy a new car You fix the flat tire if you can figure out how to do it so you go for the thing that will put the tool back together with the minimum involvement of time and effort it's something like that And you care about that because you have limited time and you have limited resources And so it make sense for you to conserve them, and I'm telling you part for practical reasons too because this is a very useful thing to know if you're arguing with someone you want to argue about the smallest possible thing that you could argue about that might fix the problem you want to really specify what's going on at a micro level and what's the minimum that I would require to be satisfied with that outcome and if you're… This is especially true in intimate relationships. It's like… If someone is bugging you and you want them to change, you think, well, how can I be minimally bothered by this and what's the tiniest amount of change I could request that might satisfy me cuz otherwise, the argument will come unglued and every time you guys try to discuss a problem you'll talk about whether you should even be together and then you're done cuz you'll never solve a problem and then you won't be together, cuz you'll never solve a problem so ok so, here's the way to think about perception so, let's say this is the thing you're trying to look at I call that the thing in itself Now, that's schematic of a thing in itself so, the thing in itself, that's an old philosophical concept and I think it came from Kant But I'm not sure about that. That might be older than that And the thing in itself is, what you could see if you could see everything about something, but…you can't…so it's a hypothetical entity and maybe, who knows, if I were looking at you like the thing in itself maybe I could see every level of your being, from the sub-atomic level, up to this level of perception then beyond I could see your family relationships I could see how they were nested in the societal relationships, economic relationships, political relationships, the eco-system as a whole like, I would see all those levels at the same time of course, I don't, cuz I can't What I see instead is First of all, you are radically simplified by my senses because they are just not acute enough to see you at a microscopic level and they're not comprehensive enough to see your connections across time so, my senses filter a bunch of you from me right away and then, I'm also filtered from you, by your willingness to act like I want while we were together cuz that's … cuz you could be doing all sorts of strange things at the moment. But you're not and so, you're helping me simplify my perception of you, by agreeing to play the same game that I'm playing while we occupy the same space and that's basically politeness that's the mark of someone who's well socialized you walk in somewhere you get the game play the game and you don't scare the hell out of everybody and that's…that's partly how we keep our emotions stabilized because you know if you're like a Freudian, you think well, as long as your ego is well constituted, you can keep your emotions under control it's like, yes and no, mostly no I like the Piaget an idea better, which is if you're well socialized, you're awake enough to identify the game that's going on wherever you go and then you play that game immediately and so do all the other socialized primates and so then you can just understand the game you don't have to understand them, thank God you could just understand the game and as long as the game continues you don't have to be nervous, because you know you at least know what's going to happen and maybe you even know how to get what you want in that game and so… so that again that's really worth thinking about, because we talked about this before about why people want to maintain their culture it isn't just because their culture is a belief system that helps them orient themselves in the world it's because I believe system is a game that everyone who shares that belief system is playing and the fact that everybody's playing means nobody needs to get upset So it isn't like the belief system is directly inhibiting the emotions. That isn't how it works so… and it's not like the culture is just a belief system it's only secondarily a belief system, man mostly it's a game that people are actively engaging in that's way more important than the beliefs that go along with it you even need the damn beliefs you know that's why wolves can live with each other I don't know what the they'll have a belief system exactly mostly they have a set of they have a game, that is the wolf game, roughly speaking and all the wolves know how to play it, and, so, that's that that's how they keep themselves organized in their packs a lot of its externalized and so okay, so, anyway, so, the thing in itself, that's a very complicated thing. It got multiple dimensions, multiple levels and then it's worse than that because it doesn't only have multiple levels, but all those levels move across time and every one of those level shifts as it moves across time and so I like to think of the thing in itself like a symphony I think that's a good model. I think that's why we like music, in fact because music shows you a multi-level reality that unfolds and shifts across time, within some parameters, right? because it is not just chaos the music has an element of predictability and an element of unpredictability and it has these multiple levels and that's sort of what everything in the world is like. It's what the world is like so this is… a even that is just a conceptual model of the thing in itself first of all that's only got 2 dimensions instead of 3 cuz it could be a cube and then it has… even a cube has 3 dimensions instead of 4, because if that was a cube, adding the third dimension then it would also be a cube that would transform and shift as it moved across time and that's what the thing in itself is but that's too damn complicated so then the question is when you look at it, what you see? and the answer is to some degree, it depends on what you want to use it for and so I would say will hear look at the different ways you can look at this might say what is this somebody could say well it's a rectangle and would you say that's correct it's like, well it's not correct because there's not a one-to-one correspondence, but it might be a useful conceptualization if you think about that as a box it could contain that and if you are carrying the box to only have to be concerned about the box and so that would be fine it's a good functional simplification that one's a little higher resolution because it says well yeah it's actually four rectangles and that one says, well, wait, think about that is an orchard that someone's looking at from the top you want to figure out how to walk from South to North well, you got a little map there cuz you can think of those as bars instead of collections of dots Piaget showed the children will automatically do this. So for example if you take six dots and put them in a row and you take the same six dots and you stretch them out so the rows this much longer and then you asked the child where there are more dots, the child will say that there are more dots where it's longer because they're flipping in some sense between the perception of the individual dot, and the perception of the shape that the array of dots makes and so, the shape is longer, 'cause you could see it as a rectangle so they think, well, longer is bigger, bigger is more, there's gotta be more dots and then there's this one, which is sort of an amalgam of this one and this one, and then that one and that's the highest resolution model of that that's still a simplification and you know, what I like about this diagram is that, you know, people say, well… the facts are the facts, and what we're disagreeing about is our opinion about the facts it's like, no… yes… you have an opinion about the facts, but the world is so horribly complex that you can actually disagree about the facts themselves and I think and ideology does that to people very commonly so I saw this movie once that Naomi Klein made if I tell you the same story, tell me, 'cause I don't wanna tell you the same story, but I might so she went down to Argentina after a bunch of money had got out of Argentina beause of a financial collapse and she went to a factory that had been padlocked, and it was a heavy machinery factory and the workers had decided they were gonna undo the padlocks and go build machines, you know to hell with the owner who shut it down! and so, she went down and made this movie, and followed these workers around and showed how catastrophic their lives have been because they'd lost their livelihood in this big financial crash and so that was really interesting; but then she went and interviewed the guy who owned the factory, and she treated him like he was… like a cipher in some sense instead of asking him: how he got the factory? what he wanted to do with it? how it fit in with his life plans? why he shut it down instead of continuing it? she didn't get the back story on him, she just left him in the "evil capitalist" box and went on with the film and it was… it wasn't like what she did wasn't true but it was only half true, and it was half true because she could perceive the complexity of the workers, having sympathy for them but as far as she was concerned, the enemy, the owner had no complexity he was just "bad capitalist", and that how it was left in the movie I found it profoundly unsatisfying, because I wanted to know, okay, it's like you know that these workers are suffering, it's not self-evident that you want your damn factory closed you'd think you'd want it open so you could be building things, it's like… who are you? what are you doing? why is is this justifiable? have a question about it well, you can take this infinite set of facts and then you subject it to your filters, and you let some of the facts through, and they're facts but what about all the facts that you don't let through? that's the thing, and that's what the gorilla video shows, too it's like, yeah, yeah, you've got the basketball count right, but you missed the big primate and you might say, well, your priorities were a bit skewed in that circumstance, because you were rearranging the deck chairs as the Titanic sank, as the old joke goes and so it's very much useful to think always, well, you're… it isn't just your damn opinion that's biased, although it is it's your perceptions that are biased, so… [???] it's even more, so you say, well you can't see the thing in itself 'cause it's too complex, so you perceive it simpler than it is and some of that perceptual simplification is dependent on your aims so that's a vicious one, because it pulls the value structure that you're ensconced within into your perceptions it pulls it into the reals of facts itself and then you do another… I think about this as a compression you can compress a photograph by getting rid of redundant information that's sort of what you're here one of these squares, little black squares here, black rectangles, compresses all of those it's like we're going to treat those as if they're greyish black, same thing happens here so we're blurring across them, so we have a much less high-resolution image here so you take the thing in itself, you perceive it as a low-resolution representation and then you take that low-resolution representation and you replace that with a word and so the word is a twofold compression and then when someone tosses you the word, you unpack it into a low-resolution perception and then maybe into the world itself, if you can do that, but probably not so that's what we're doing, we're taking the complex world, we fold it into a simple perception we fold that into a word, we throw the word to someone else, and they unpack it and the only way you can unpack it, of course, is if you'd had enough similar experience so that you have the reference for the word already in your experience which is why you have to use simplified language with children, right, because there's no point tossing a child a concept that he or she can't unpack so we compress a very complex reality through a very, very small keyhole that's basically our cognitive process okay, so then here's the next kinda argument, this goes along with… the science-religion argument that I was making earlier, which I wanna unpack a little bit more I think that fundamentalists and atheistic scientists have the same problem the fundamentalists, so we can say the christian fundamentalists in the US make the proposition that biblical stories, we'll call them mythological stories are literal representations of the truth, but… and… that might be true depending on what you mean by "literal" 😉 but what they mean by "literal", or what they attempt to make "literal" mean, is that they're in the same category, as scientific facts because they don't have the idea that there are different ways of approaching truth and that truths can serve different purposes; they don't have the sense that your definition of "truth" is actually something like a tool rather than an ontological statement about the reality of the world and so the fundamentalists basically make the proposition that the idea that God created the world in six days, five thousand years ago is literally true and they get the five thousand year estimate, by the way by going through the genealogies on the Old Testament, and adding up the hypothetical ages, and figuring out how long before Moses Adam lived, and some bishop did that, I think it was in the mid-1800s I might be wrong about that, but it was somewhere back about that time and more or less that's been accepted as canonical fact ever since and then the scientists say: well yeah, those are empirical truths, they're just wrong see, and that's the only difference there is between the fundamentalists and the atheist scientists the fundamentalists say: those are fundamental scientific truths, and they're right and the scientists say: well, they're scientific truths, they just happen to be wrong I think that's a stupid argument, presonally for a bunch of reasons, one is that the people who wrote the ancient stories that we have access to were – in no way, shape or form – scientists you know, modern people tend to think that you think like a scientist, and people have always thought that way first of all, you do not think like a scientist even scientists hardly even think like scientists but if you're not scientifically trained, you don't think like a scientist at all so one of the things, for example, that characterizes your thinking is confirmation bias so if you have a theory, what you do is wander around in the world, looking for reasons why it's true and a scientist does exactly the opposite of that in the little tiny, narrow domain where he or she is actually capable of being a scientist and what they have is a theory, and look for a way to prove it wrong but, believe me, you don't run around doing that you can train yourself so now and then you can do that you can learn to listen to people, for example, on the off chance that you might be wrong but that is by no means a natural way of thinking and of course, the fundamental philosophical axioms of the scientific method weren't developed until Descartes and Bacon, and who else…? there's one more… anyways, the name escapes me at the moment, but you can argue when science emerged, but it's certainly emerged in its articulated form in the last thousand years I think you could say even more specifically that it emerged in the last five hudred years now, you might argue with that, and say: what about the Greeks and other people who were fairly technologically sophisticated? or who invented geometry or that kind of thing but yeah, yeah, bare precursors to the idea of empirical observation Aristotle, for example, when he was writing down his knowledge of the world it never occurred to him to actually go out in the world and look at it to see if what he assumed about it was true and it's certainly never occurred to Aristotle to get 20 people to go look at the same thing independently write down exactly how they went about doing it compare the records, and then extract out what was common and that's a… that seems self-evident to us to some degree, but, you know… it was by no means self-evident to anyone five hundred years ago, and people still don't do it so it's not plausible… if you know anything about the history of ideas, it's not plusible to posit that stories about the nature of reality that existed before 500 years ago were scientific in any but the most cursory of ways so why we have that argument continually is somewhat beyond me part of the reason is, though, that everyone, fundamentalists included, really believe in scientific facts even though they hate it; they'll use conputers, they'll fly; computer's wouldn't work unless quantum mechanics were correct the fact that you use a high-tech device indicates through your action that you actually accept the theories upon which it's predicated right, the same as flying, same as anything you do in a complex technological society you're stuck with it; you're reading by the lights; do they work? yeah, they work well, so it's really hard for people who are trying to hold onto a way of looking at the world that appears to contradict the scientific claims when everything they do is predicated on their acceptance of the validity of the scientific claims it's really problematic for people it's problematic in a real way, I think, because one of the problems with the scientific viewpoint is it doesn't tell you anything about what you should do with your life it doesn't solve the problem of value at all in fact, it might make it more difficult, because one of the fundamental scientific claims, roughly speaking, is that every fact is of equal utility at least from a scientific perspective; there's no hierarchy of facts that's not exactly true, because you can think of one theory as "more true" than another but that boils down to saying that it's more useful than another so I don't think that that's a really good exception okay, so fine you got the scientific atheists on one end and you got the religious fundamentalists on the other and what they both agree on, whether they like it or not, is that there's so much power in the scientific method that it's difficult to dispute the validity of scientific facts and they seem to exist in contradiction to the older, archaic stories if you also accept them as fact-based accounts so what do we do about that? well, if you're on the scientific atheist end of things you say: well, those old stories are just superstitious science second-rate, barbaric, archaic forms of science; you just dispense with them, they're nothing but trouble and if you're on the fundamentalist side, you say: well we'll try to shoehorn science into this framework and really that doesn't work very well; it doesn't work very well with the claims of evolution, for example in fact, it works very badly, and that's a problem, because evolutionary theory is like… it's a killer theory it's really, really hard… like it's not a complete theory, and there's lots of things we don't know about evolution, but… you know trying to handwave that away, that's not gonna work without dispensing with most of biology so that's a big problem; so here's another way of thinking about it you don't just need one way of looking at the world maybe you need two ways of looking at the world, and I'm not exactly sure how they should be related to one another like which should take precedence under which circumstance but one problem is: what's the world made of? you know, what's the world, conceptualized as an objective place, made of and the other is: how should you conduct yourself while you're alive? and there's no reason to assume that those questions can be answered using the same approach I mean, physics has its methods, chemistry has its methods, and biology has its methods so a method for obtaining the truth can be bound to a domain so why would we necessarily assume that you could use the same set of tools to represent the world as a place of objects, and to represent as a place in which a biological creature would act? I mean, anyways, I'm suggesting that we… that we don't view it that way, that we have two different viewpoints maybe they can be brought together, although it's not obvious how but that it's not a tenable solution to get rid of one in favor of the other and I think the reason for that is that… you need to know how to conduct yourself in the world you have to have a value system, you can't even look at the damn world with out a value system it's not possible; your emotional health is dependent on a value system, the way you interact with other people is dependent on a value system there's no getting away from it and you say, well, there's no justification for any value system from a scientific perspective you're gonna draw that conclusion that no value system is valid, where the hell does that leave you? there's no down, there's no up, there's no rationale for moving in any direction there's not even really any rationale for living and so people say things like: well, why the hell should I care what happens, in a million years who's gonna know the difference? it's like, yeah, yeah, true. stupid, but true and the reason I think it's stupid is because it's just a game, you know I can take anything of any sort and find a context in which it's irrelevant it's just a rational game, it's like who cares if a hundred children freeze to death in a blizzard? what difference is it gonna make in a billion years? well, what do you say to someone who says that? you say, well, seems like the wrong frame of reference, bucko that's what it looks like to me; you know, 'cause at some point you question the damn frame of reference, not what you derive from it and it certainly seems to me that situations like that don't allow you to use that kind of frame of reference, there's something inhumane about it and that trumps the logic, or at least it should and if it doesn't, then all hell breaks loose, and that doesn't seem to be a good thing okay, so I have this quote from Shakespeare here he says: all the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in time plays many parts well, it's the sort of thing that you'd expect a dramatist to pen, but that's how he looked at the world and we still watch Shakespeare's plays some hundreds of years later because there seems to be something essential captured in them something about how people do act, but more importantly, I think, how people should and shouldn't act because what fun is it going to a play that doesn't outline how someone should and shouldn't act? you want a good guy or a couple of them, maybe they can be complex interminglings of good and bad you know, that makes it more sophisticated and you want a bad guy or a bad… you always want to see that contract either within a character or between characters and it's because you want to know how to live properly, that's how to be a good person and you wanna know how to live improperly, how to be a bad person, so you can watch out for people like that or so you can figure out what that means for yourself; it's compelling and that's another thing that's worth thinking about: why is it compelling? and it's compelling to everyone, and that's the thing that's so cool, is that there aren't that many phenomena that you can point to that are compelling to everyone music is close, it's a very rare person who doesn't like at least some genre of music, no matter how narrow but the other one is stories, you're hard pressed to find someone, especially if they're younger, who doesn't like stories why? is it a waste of time? or is there something going on? well… i think it's not only not a waste of time, it's actually the most fundamentally important thing you can possibly do because there's no difference between understanding stories and figuring out how to get along in the world so, and there's a tight relationship between the story that you inhabit, that structures your behavior and the games that Piaget talked about, that organize people's behavior, to some degree the reason we can all sit in this room together like this is because a huge chunk of the value system that guides our behavior is shared so I'm lecturing and you're sitting in the classroom, and that distinguishes us to some degree but you know that that's partly merely a consequence of the difference in our age it's the same trajectory, we just happen to occupy different positions in a value hierarchy that we both accept and so, as long as you feel that that's fair and just, then you're not gonna object to it, but I'm here in the classroom for many of the same reasons that you're here in the classroom if you look at the higher-order parts of the value structure, and maybe right at the end of that… 'cause I've tried to figure out if you push why you're doing what you're doing right now to its ultimate limit so you can't get a story that's superordinate to that it's something like, well, you belive that the investigation of the world to acquire knowledge is worthwhile otherwise what the hell are you here for? and even if 80% of your motivation is to get a good, stable job, fair enough there's still something outside of that because the whole culture says, well, you're more likely to be able to function properly in a good, stable job if you're the sort of person who knows how to go out in the world and forage for information usefully and I think that's very much analogous to the hero story it's like, you go out and you search the unknown to find something of value and so fundamentally that's what we're doing in the classroom and the reason we can all organize our behavior is because we accept that framework consciously… consciously would be: we know how to articulate it unconsciously it's: well, it doesn't matter, we know how to act out the patterns whether we can say the rules or not, doesn't matter same as a wolf pack; we know the procedures, and you could describe them with an articulated value structure let's take a break okay, so let's go back to the complexity problem you see, I actually think in some sense that's the fundamental problem when you read about the terror management theorist types they think that death is the fundamental problem and that's a good argument, because it's definitely a fundamental problem, but I think it's a subset of the complexity problem and the reason I think that is because sometimes people's lives become so complex that they'd rather be dead and the reason they seek death through suicide is to make the complexity go away 'cause complexity causes suffering if it's uncontrolled you know, things just get beyond your control and that can happen, you know, if you're hit by three or four catastrophes at the same time you know, maybe you have… oh, the political system collapses, there's hyperinflation you lose your job, and you have someone that you love or two people die, and maybe you get cancer, something like that those things happen to people, and they just think, well, there's no getting out of this, it's just too much and you know, one of the interesting things about being a psychologist is that what you learn if you're gonna be a psychologist is that people come to you with mental illnesses – and that's almost never true people come to you, because their lives are so damn complicated, they cannot stay on top of them in any way that doesn't make it look like they're just gonna get more complicated and so then that causes symptoms, you know it's like… there's this old idea, a sort of a metaphor for genetic susceptibility take a balloon and blow it up until it's beyond its tolerance – it's going to blow out at the weakest point well that's sort of what a genetic susceptibility is if I just keep adding complexity on top of you, at some point you'll blow out at your weakest point you know, maybe you'll get physiologically ill, maybe you'll start drinking maybe you'll develop an anxiety disorder, maybe you'll get OCD, maybe you'll get depressed whatever, they'll be something about you that's the weakest point and if I just push, that's where you'll blow out, so that's a mental illness, but those things almost never just happen sometimes, but not very often, usually people have just been hammered like two or three different ways and then they collapse in the direction of their biological weakness, and then maybe you put them back together, but it's almost always a complexity-related phenomenon rather than a mental illness-related phenomenon not always, but almost always okay, so now you got this complexity problem, and you think: well, you deal with it conceptually and that's sort of akin to the idea that it's belief systems that protect you from death anxiety the ideas are roughly comparable, but again, that's wrong it's the sort of thing only a psychologist could think up because psychologists think that everything about you happens inside your head, so to speak, in your psyche, but that's not true there's a huge chunk of you that's outside of you completely and so, this is a really good example, like, we know the oldest cities, this is a medieval city in France a beautiful old city old cities were walled, and the reason for that was because they were places of wealth, and if you didn't put walls around them then other people would come in and steal everything and kill you so having some walls was a good idea the same as having walls in your house is a good idea walls between your rooms are a good idea, or borders between categories are a good idea and so, part of the way you simplify the world is by building walls around your space, because then a whole bunch of things can't come in and so, you don't even have to think about them; it's not conceptual, it's practical and so, and you know, one of the things I think I've figured out recently is the fundamental political difference between people and it looks to me like the fundamental political difference, is: how many walls should there be around your stuff? and the ultimate liberal answer is: zero and the ultimate conservative answer is: bring on those walls, man! and what's interesting about both those perspectives first of all is that there's temperamental contributions to them, and second that they're both valid so one of the mysteries, I believe, that permeates psychometric psychology right now is why the temperamental factors that influence politics are those particular temperamental factors so there's five, let's say, right, there's classic Big 5: extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness well, the biggest predictors of political allegiance, forget about the politically correct types for a minute but on the liberal to conservative axis is that the liberals are low in conscientiousness and high in openness and the conservatives are high in conscientiousness and low in openness and so then you think, well, why those two traits? that's the first question and the second question is: why those two traits together? given that they're not very highly correlated, right, they're really quite independent so why do they co-vary on the political axis? and I think this is the reason, I think it's exaclty that open people like to live on the periphery of boundaries and they like to break boundaries between things, 'cause interesting things happen when you… when you think a different way, when you think outside of the box, so to speak that's what open people do, they always think outside of the box, no matter what box you put them in you know, and sometimes you meet people that are so open that they're completely disorganized their thought process is almost completely associational, like a dreamer they just jump from one thing to another they're very interesting to talk to, it's very hard for those people to get their lives together 'cause they're interested in absolutely everything, and their attention just flits all over the place and so they're open, and that actually does go along with higher intelligence, generally speaking so, and then if they're low in conscientiousness, they don't see any utility in order and orderly people… 'cause that's part of conscientiousness, and the biggest determiner of political belief in the conscientious domain the orderly people like to have everything in its separate place and properly structured and so their world is box inside a box, inside a shelf of boxes and then that shelf of boxes is inside another box, and all those boxes are nice and neat and tight and nothing inside them is touching, and everything in every box is the same thing and you know, you can see that… you can see the utility in that that, as far as we've been able to tell is also associated with disgust sensitivity and people are disgusted, generally speaking, when things that shouldn't be touching, are touching like something horrible stuck to you, for example that produces a very visceral sense of disgust and it's a boundary violation, 'cause that's what disgust is, it indexes a boundary violation and you can… how separate people should be from one another as individuals or in groups is an entirely debatable issue because there's huge advantages when people mingle and mix and there's huge dangers when people mingle and mix, and so… at some point you say, well, the danger are overwhelming the positives and at another point you say, well the positives are overwhelming the dangers and you have a continual argument about that with your self, but more importantly with people who have different temperament than you and the terrible temptation is to assume that only those people who have your temperament are correct and that's just… those other temperaments wouldn't exist if that was true if you look at it from a strictly biological perspective so anyways, one of the things we do to simplify the world is to frame it physically – and so you look at this, you've got wall number 1, and then you have wall number 2 but then inside the walls you have walls around everything all these houses are walls, and inside the houses there are walls as well and so everything is… and what you do when you put walls around things is you make part of the worlds simpler, constantly the reason you have a house is so that everybody and his dog isn't in your house you just want those few people that you can barely tolerate in your house and not all those other strangers, God only knows what they're gonna do you'll still invite people in now and then, beause maybe you're sick and tired and bored of the people that are in your house and so you want a little bit of new information, but you want those barriers to be there so that you can voluntarily modulate the information flow okay, so that's the first thing you do then you set up rules with everybody else that says, well: I'm gonna have some walls, so you can't come in, but what I'm gonna do is pay you for that privilege by letting you have some walls where people can't come in and so, I think that's analogous… I was thinking about the issue of discrimination in relationship to sex because I've been thinking a lot about discrimination lately, because everybody thinks discrimination is a bad idea which is a very stupid proposition, because you're discruminating all the time and the most fundamental form of discrimination is choice of sexual partner and so you might say, well, why should that even be allowed? because it is the most fundamental form of so for example, almost everyone is racially prejudiced when it comes to sexual partners so you think, well… what about… are you… do you use age as an exclusionary criteria? probably do you use physical attractiveness? only insofar as you're able right? you'd use it completely if you could get away with it, roughly speaking but you can't, because the most attractive people aren't gonna be anywhere near you so you can't do it, but you'd like to health? yes, strenght? yes, wealth? yes, education? definitely so it's unbelievably discriminatory so you might say, well, why is that justifiable? and it seems to me that it's something like… well, you get to say "no" to me if I get to say "no" to you, it's something like that we've agreed that everybody gets to discriminate on that basis, and because everybody can do it, then it's fair it's something like that, it's very much worth thinking about you know, I don't know if you know this, but in Huxley's book, Brave New World where the family had been completely demolished, right, and children were conceived in bottles and produced in factories the whole idea of the relationship between sex and procreation had become a taboo one of the mantras, slogans of the society, was: "Everyone belongs to everyone else." and so, it was actually a social faux-pas to refuse to sleep with someone just as it was a social faux-pas to have any exclusionary relationship because another thing you might notice is that there's nothing more discriminatory than falling in love with someone it's like: you're special! and all the rest of you? haha no so it's the ultimate exclusionary act, right, and we presume that that's an acceptable… not only acceptable, we demand that as a right; and that's worth thinking about a lot anyways, okay, so what you're doing is by agreeing to this segregation and boxing, what you're doing is carving off little bits of the world that are simple enough so that someone like you can live for some amount of time there without too much danger and everyone agrees to do that, roughly speaking, because everybody needs to engage in that process of simplification and safety provision and so, so we have towns, and those towns are nothing but boxes inside boxes so there's a good schematic of a little house and you can see that even inside the same place we segregate off rooms for different purposes and then, what's interesting, too, is that we set up those rooms as little dramatic spaces; right, so you furnish them and you furnish them with things that tell you how to behave in that room so table and chairs tells you that's where you're going to eat, and that's where people are going to sit, and they're gonna sit facing each other, and that has certain implications, 'cause the chairs don't face the walls, they face each other and you have a living room where it's comfortable, and there's a fire, and you know, you're setting up little stages, basically, so that… just like kids do when they pretend, you know, they all assign each other roles and then they lay out a little drama; and that's what you do when you invite someone over well, let's sit in the living room, well, you'll probably get a drink if you sit in the living room and hypothetically you're gonna have some conversation so it's a bounded place, there are rules that apply and then you get to have a little exploration inside that set of bounded rules, and if you're open, you're gonna discuss all sorts of things, and if you're conservative and closed, then you're gonna discuss a very, very small subset of things and so, hopefully everyone will agree on that so that's one form of binding then another is: we put boxes around each other when it comes to groups I think this is a picture from the Democratic convention when Obama was elected, if I remember correctly but anyways, what happens is that people segregate themselves into little microgroups, like Democrats and Republicans and they basically do that on temperamental grounds, fundamentally and then they produce these games that everyone knows how to play and that's another form of simplification so when you bring all these people together at a political convention it's not like they all have the same ideas, they don't and it could degenerate into chaos, and sometimes that happens, you get big demonstrations at these places and sometimes people throw tear gas, and all of that but mostly speaking, it's pretty peaceful and the reason for that is that there's a set of procedures in place that have some historical justification that are embedded within a shared cultural and belief system and everybody goes there and agrees to play by the rules, roughly speaking and so then they can elect a candidate they can kind of flip it down to a binary choice for the election, right yes or no, something like that, and nobody gets killed, usually, so hooray for that that's a hell of a thing to pull off, to be able to generate out of 300 million people two people to run for the highest office then let everyone play a game to determine who they're going to be and then to have the bloody thing function stably through power transitions that never happens, right, that's a complete bloody miracle and hardly any societies have ever pulled it off the power transition being the really important thing 'cause a tyrant can be stable for a while, but usually what happens is: he dies and all hell breaks loose I think it was George Washington that said or had said about him 'the reason that he was a great leader wasn't because he was president, but because he stopped being president' and that's really worth thinking about so then the next thing that sort of simplifies the world is actually your physiological structure we talked about that a little bit you can only see things that are in front of you, not things that are to the side or behind you you can only see a very narrow… you can only see a very narrow chunk of the electromagnetic spectrum roughly that chunk that enables you to see by sunlight and to detect ripe fruit and that sort of thing so it's very evolutionarily determined, and… you see things of a certain size quite easily, because they're handy so objects manifest themselves to you as things- because they have some relationship to your capacity to use them as tools, and that's dependent on your size you have a certain strength and not a different strength you have a certain degree of articulation, there's some things you can represent in language, so you have limitations that screen out from your consideration all sorts of things and that's bad, because, for example, before people discovered germs, there was a lot of them zipping about, killing people and the fact that we couldn't see them wasn't such a good thing but by the same token we're also not as overwhelmed with complexity as we might be if we could detect everything and one of the problems with being connected so much is that it's easy to drown in information and that's rough for information foragers, you can't stay off your damn computer, because… it opens up your senses far beyond their normal limitations; and so where should you stop? well, you don't; you're on the damn thing like a pensioner on a slot machine and for many of the same reasons so your body also filters out the world for you and provides you acces to some information and not access to others and then the same thing is the case with your nervous system and I do… I put the first picture there of the central nervous system that controls voluntary movement, for example I put it there because people like to think that their brain is in their head but it's a stupid way of thinking about it, as far as I'm concerned, because you have an awful lot of neurological tissue distributed through your body, and like your autonomic nervous system, if I remember correctly, which is mostly distributed through your body has more neurons in it than your central nervous system, and so you aren't a brain in a body, your brain is really distributed through your whole body and I think the idea that you have a brain in a body is kind of a holdover from the idea that you have a soul in a body not that I'm necessarily criticizing that idea, but I think they kinda got graften onto one another, and so but the problem with that is that it… so it's the soul-body, brain-body, mind-body dichotomy, which I think is the same dichotomy and the problem with that is that it's easy to think of thought as something that's abstracted away from the body I think that was an enlightenment idea that just like the soul shouldn't be contaminated by the demands of the body, if you were going to be pure spiritually so your thought shouldn't be contaminated by your subjectivity, and your emotions and your motivations, and all of that it should… your abstractions should be independent of your subjectivity and rationality and emotion are construed in that manner as enemies the purpose of rationality is to dispense with the irrationality of emotion and motivation and that's… Freud's idea of the properly functioning ego is something like that, too because the Id is this place of compulsion and drive and the ego has to basically suppress that in the service of the superego there's no idea of integration, really, in Freud now, I don't wanna be rough on Freud and I think part of the reason that he thought that way is because the patients he had were precisely those who weren't very well integrated because of their pathological past and so they didn't know how to get those subsystems up into the overarching game and so their only alternative was something like suppression or repression because if you don't know how to be aggressive in a sophisticated way you're still gonna be aggressive, but you're gonna have to inhibit it, control yourself because you can't just be aggressive around people, it just won't go well for you so if you can't do it in a sophisticated way, you're gonna repress it or you're gonna get in trouble, those are the options, so… okay, but if you start thinking about the brain, the nervous system as part of the body as an inseparable part, well then the function of thinking seems to become something different it's not so much the objective, abstract representation of the world which is kinda what you're pursuing if you're a scientist, it's more like… it's more like conceptualization of and practice of the proper way of being in the world and I think that's what you're more interested in anyways, I don't see how you can't be, since you're a living thing, and you're overwhelmingly motivated to successfully manifest those actions that a living thing has to manifest in order to continue and it's complicated, you can boil it down to survival and reproduction, it's a good overarching simplification but there's nothing simple about survival and reproduction, I mean all sorts of complex monsters emerge even out of that simple conceptualization but it's not unreasonable to assume that one of the things that people generally want to do is to continue living in as pain-free manner as possible it's something like that, although that's a simplification so now the reason I'm making that case is because the fact that you have a body and the fact that you have a nervous system is another set of limitations on how it is that you're going to interact with the world so now we've got the nervous system, we can go to higher resolutions – you say you have a brain and the brain… that's the frontal cortex there and that's the temporal cortex there, and that's the parietal cortex there, and that's the sensory cortex there and these were, if I remember properly, these were divisions that I think were first thought through in the late XIX and early XX century they're slightly specialized so this cortex back here does a lot of the elaboration of vision and that one there helps you with your sense of embodiment and your knowledge about where your body actually happens to be localized and that one helps for example in some elements of language output, and then the frontal cortex, especially the prefrontal part, which is up here is concerned with the organization of motor action that's a good way of thinking about it, you've got part of your brain that deals with the sensory world and the integration of the sensory world, which seems to happen about there, where these places meet and the prefrontal cortex grew out of the motor cortex the motor cortex helps you plan out voluntary actions the prefrontal cortex grew out of that in the course of evolution so you might think, well, there's reflex actions and they happen when something happens to you, you resond and then that elaborates up into the motor system, and that enables you to act voluntarily in the world and then that elaborates up into the prefrontal motor system, which helps you plan how you might act in the world so it's the prefrontal cortex that's the home of, let's call it, complex, sophisticated, voluntary thought which you could think about as a way of representing the world but which is more accurately a way of generating avatars of yourself in hypothetical worlds to figure out how they would survive if you did implement them into action and so, I think that's why… one of the weird things that you discover psychometrically is that there's no correlation between conscientiousness and intelligence and that's a weird one, because people think about intelligence as planning and forward thinking and all of that but that's also how they think about conscientiousness as planful behavior and the consideration of future possibilities, but intelligence and conscientiousness have zero correlation so you think, well, why is that? I guess it has to be that way, because you couldn't think abstractly if you were prone to act out what you thought you'd just go and act it out I mentioned this to you before, when you dream, you're paralyzed and you can take that little part of the brain that produces that paralysis out of a cat or out of a person, but we haven't done it with people out of a cat, and then when the cat falls asleep, it hits REM sleep, it'll run around until it runs into something, and then it'll wake up so the dream thinking is so tightly allied with action that there's no separation between them, so there's no real abstraction there if you couldn't abstract, you wouldn't be able to think and the fact that you can abstract means that you can separate your thinking from your action so that's why, as far as I can tell, there's very little correlation between conscientiousness and intelligence it's like it has to be that way, because you have to be able to think about things that you wouldn't do, if you're going to think and generally we think of people who act as soon as they think as impulsive so… there's a huge part of the brain that's devoted to sensory processing and there's a huge part of the brain that's devoted to planning and the whole prefrontal part of the brain is devoted to planning and what that indicates is that in large part as far as your evolved body is concerned the reason that you think is so that you can act better and of course that makes sense and you can think about memory from that perspective, too, because if you think scientifically, you think that your memory of the world is something like an objective record of events, of objective events but it's really not very much like that at all and besides, who cares? you don't need an accurate representation of all the facts about this room in fact, all it would do is weigh you down who cares what color the walls are? or what color the ceiling is? or what color the paint is; all of that's not worth remembering partly 'cause it has no relationship whatsoever to what you need to do in order to continue to act and so what you're doing when you remember, as far as I can tell is that you're mining your experience for information that you can bring forward into the future it's purely pragmatic, and so… I treat people who have post-traumatic disorder or symptoms of post-traumatic disorder and so, let's say they got post-traumatic stress disorder because again, because a relationship collapsed on them suddenly, which is quite common you know, they get betrayed or someone leaves them suddenly, and then they don't know what to do, because especially if they're conscientious, because then they just tear themselves to pieces trying to figure out what they did wrong to bring about that event and the reason they're doing that is that they wanna retool their perceptions and their actions so that the probability that they'll have the same experience again is minimized and their mind won't leave them alone 'till they do it and no wonder, tight, because if you fall into a big pit and you get really hurt the first thing you should figure out is how to not fall into big pits anymore and your mind is set up exactly for that, and so… what you do with someone whose having problems like that so maybe they're waking up in the middle of the night, obsessing about what went wrong is you walk them through it you do a situational analysis first, because one of the oversimplifications that people make, and this is especially true for conscientious people, is: if something bad happened to me, I must have done something to deserve it now, that's actually a prestty functional idea, because it suggests that there are things about your behavior that you could change that would make the future better but the problem is that, say if it's the collapse of a relationship and you've been with that person for eight years or longer well, you did so many things with them that the idea that you did something wrong pretty much extends to every single thing you ever did with them and that's… how are you gonna fix that? and so that's part of the trauma, actually; the trauma is 80 million snakes, all at the same time; it's like, well, forget it you don't have time to go through all that material, and so partly what you do with people, and this is what you should do with yourself, too is you do a situational analysis don't be assuming necessarily that the thing that happened to you only happened to you because of what you did or didn't do there's all sorts of factors at play, so one of the things I sometimes do with clients is that if they were in a relationship and I can get some reasonable personality information about both of them I can point out where they were temperamentally incompatible you know, like if you're a highly conscientious person and your partner is very, very low in conscientiousness it's like: well good luck to you two! how in the hell are you ever gonna work that out? because you want everything to be exactly where it's supposed to be and you're working all the time and your partner could care less whether things were where they're supposed to be, and they're not gonna work and you can butt heads about that forever, but the probability that you're gonna shift it you know, except to some minor degree, is very, very low and so sometimes you end up with someone with whom you get along very well on one temperamental dimension and you're an absolute catastrophe on the other four and he probability that you're going to be able to mediate a huge temperamental difference is extremely low you wouldn't expect yourself to mediate a huge intellectual difference right? you're gonna make the other person smarter? or maybe you smarter, depending on who you're with; it's like, no, probably not, a bit, maybe so you do a situational analysis and so what you're trying to do is to extract out information from your past and your present that will enable you to conduct yourself properly into the future and so that's another example of the pragmatic element of thought well then, within the brain itself, apart from the major subdivisions which we just described, there are minor subdivisions, and here's a bunch of them listed the caudate nucleus, the cerebral cortex, a huge, newest part of the brain that's about a square meter if you unfold it, it's all folded up and most of the processing occurs right on the surface, that's the idea, anyways the thalamus, that's a place where a lot of the information in the brain appears to be integrated the cerebellum helps you with balance and the sequencing of complex motor activities the hippocampus, that's the one we talked about before one of the things that the hippocampus does, seems to do, is compare your model of the world as it's unfolding with the model that that you desire to be ocurring, and then keeps track of mismatches and if it detects a mismatch, then it disinhibits other emotional and motivational centers and that's the beginning of your response to the unknown, so… one of them is the hypothalamus, I'm gonna concentrate on it for a bit it's a little, tiny part of the brain that's pretty much at the top of the spinal cord, see it's really small compared to the rest of the brain now, imagine this is a cat brain for a minute and you take off the whole cat brain except for the hypothalamus which people do, you take off the whole cortex, for example and then the cat's still alive if you do it carefully but it doesn't have much of a brain, and so you might think, well that cat would just do nothing, but it… cat's actually pretty functional if it's reduced just to it's hypothalamus and that's because the hypothalamus is an incredibly important part of the brain and it provides what I would say constitute the major frames, the maojr psychological frames and so, a decorticate cat can stil eat and drink and regulate its body temperature, and engage in defensive aggression and if it's female, it can still mate, male can't, 'cause the male mating behavior is more complicated and as long as you keep it in a bounded environment, it can function reasonably well it's hypercurious, though which is very weird, because you wouldn't expect a cat with no brain to be curious about anything but a cat with no brain is curious about everything and that seems to be because… part of the reason that you aren't curious about something anymore is 'cause you've investigated it and you've built a representation of it that's functional and that functional representation then stands for the thing itself and then you can ignore it, and so you learn to ignore things they're interesting to begin with, and then you learn to ignore them and so, one of the things that I think artists do, if they're great artists is remind you that there's more to things than you see now that you've learned to ignore them so you get a kind of a halucinogenic painting of flower, like van Gogh might produce like his famous irises, which I think sold for like 220 milion dollars or something outrageous it's like what van Gogh is trying to show you is what those flowers looked like before you thought you could see them 'cause now: "flower", and you walk by, you don't see it at all 'cause you're off to get a peanut butter sandwich or something you don't have time to glory in the wonder of the world, you've got something practival to do alright, so we're gonna zoom in on the hypothalamus here and what you see, of course, when you zoom in on the hypothalamus, is that it's not a thing it's a whole bunch of things and then it's one of those horrible whole bunches of things that are made out of even more bunches of things, and then they're made out of more bunches of things, and what's really interesting about going down the body from an analytic perspective is that it doesn't seem to get less complex as you go farther down, you know some of the… I should actually show you that… I haven't shown you that little video of DNA fixing itself, eh? I better show you that, it's so cool, it's ridiculously cool, so you definitely need to see it >>untill I encountered the artworks of David Goodsell, I was a molecular biologist at the Scrips (?) Institute >>and these pictures are all… everything's accurate, it's all to scale >>and his work illuminated for me what the molecular world inside us is like >>so this is a trans-section through blood, in the top left hand corner you've got this yellow-green area >>the yellow-green area is the fluids of blood, which is mostly water, but it's also antibodies, sugars >>hormones, that kind of thing >>and the red region is a slice into a red blood cell, and those red molecules are hemoglobin >>they are actually red, that's what gives blood its color >>and hemoglobin acts as a molecular sponge to soak up the oxygen in your lungs and carry it to other parts in the body >>I was very much inspired by this image many years ago >>and I wondered whether we could use computer graphics to represent the molecular world, what would it look like? >>and that's how I really began, so let's begin >>this is DNA in its classic double helix for, and it's from x-ray crystallography, so it's an accurate model of DNA >>if we unwind the double helix and unzip the two strands, you see these things that look like teeth >>those are the letters of the genetic code, the 25 000 genes you've got written in your DNA >>this is what they typically talk about, the genetic code, this is what they're talking about >>but I wanna talk about a different aspect of DNA science, and that is the physical nature of DNA >>and it's these two strands that run in opposite directions for reasons I can't go into right now >>but they physically run in opposite directions, which creates a number of complications for your living cells >>as you're about to see; most particularly when DNA is being copied >>and so, what I'm about to show you is an accurate representation of the actual DNA replication machine >>that's occurring right now inside your body, at least 2002 biology >>DNA is entering the production line from the left-hand side >>and it hits this collection, this miniature biochemical machines that are >>pulling apart the DNA strand and making an exact copy >>so DNA comes in and hits this blue doughnut-shaped structure, and it's ripped apart into its two strands >>one strand can be copied directly, and you can see these things spooling off down to the bottom there >>but things aren't so simple for the other strands, because it must be copied backwards >>so it's thrown out repeatedly in these loops, and copied one section at a time >>creating two new DNA molecules >>now you have billions of this machine right now working inside you, copying your DNA with exquisite fidelity >>it's an accurate representation, and it's pretty much at the correct speed for at what is occurring inside you >>but I've left out error correction and a bunch of other things [applause] >>this was work from a number of years ago; thank you >>this is work from a number of years ago, but what I'll show you next is updated science, it's updated technology >>so again we begin with DNA, and it's jiggling and wiggling there because of the surrounding supermolecules, which are stripped away so you can see something >>DNA is about two nanometers across, which is really quite tiny >>but in each one of your cells, each strand of DNA is about 30 to 40 million nanometers long >>so to keep the DNA organized and regulate access to the genetic code it's wrapped around these purple proteins, I've labeled them purple here >>It's packaged up in bundles [?], all this field of view is a single strand of DNA >>this huge package od DNA is called a chromosome, and we'll come back to chromosomes in a minute >>we're pulling out, we're zooming out >>out through a nuclear pore, which is sort of the gateway to this compartment >>that holds all the DNA, called the nucleus >>all of this field of view is about a semester's worth of biology, and I've got 7 minutes, so we're not gonna be able to do that today >>no, I'm being told no >>this is the way a living cell looks down a live microscope >>and it's been filmed under time lapse, which is why you can see it moving >>the nuclear envelope breaks down; these sausage-shaped things are the chromosomes, and we'll focus on them >>they go through this very striking motion that is focused on these little red spots >>when the cell feels it's ready to go, it rips apart the chromosome >>one set of DNA goes to one side, the other side gets the other set of DNA >>identical copies of DNA; and then the cell splits down the middle >>and again, you have billions of cells undergoing this process right now inside of you >>now we're gonna rewind and just focus on the chromosomes >>and look at tis structure, and describe it >>so again, here we are at that equator moment >>the chromosomes line up, and if we isolate just one chromosome, we're gonna pull it out and have a look at its structure >>so this is one of the biggest molecular structures that you have, at least as we've discovered so far inside of us >>so this is a single chromosome, and you have two strands of DNA in each chromosome >>one is bundled up into one sausage, the other strand is bundled up into the other sausage >>these things that look like whiskers that are sticking out from either side are the dynamic scaffolding of the cell >>they're called microtubules, but the name's not important; but we're gonna focus on this red region, I've labaled it red here >>and it's the interface between the dynamic scaffolding and the chromosomes >>it is obviously central fo the movement of the chromosomes >>but we have no idea, really, as to how it's achieving that movement >>we've been studying this thing they call the kinetic core for over a hundred years with intense study >>and we're still just beginning to discover what it's all about >>it is made up of about two hundred different types of proteins, thousands of proteins in total >>it is a signal broadcasting system >>it broadcasts through chemical signals, telling the rest of the cell when it's ready >>when it feels that everything is aligned and ready to go for the separation of the chromosomes >>it is able to couple onto the growing and shrinking microtubules >>(?) it's involved in the growing of the microtubules, and it's able to transiently couple onto them >>it's also a tension-sensing system, it's able to feel when the cell is ready, when the chromosome is correctly positioned >>it's turning green here, because it feels that everything is just right >>and you'll see there's this one little last bit, that's still remaining red >>and it's walked away down the microtubules >>that is the signal broadcasting system sending out the stop signal, and it's walked away, it's that mechanical >>it's molecular clockwork, this is how you work at the molecular scale >>so with a little bit of molecular eye candy… >>we've got kinesines, which are tho orange ones, they're little molecular courier molecules walking one way >>and here are the dionine(?), they're carrying that red broadasting system, and they've got their long legs so they can step around obstacles and so on >>so again, this is all derived accurately from the science, the problem is we can't show it to you any other way >>exploring at the frontier of science, at the frontier of human understanding is mindblowing >>discovering this stuff is certainly a pleasurable incentive to work in science >>but most medical researchers… >>this is just… discovering this stuff is simply steps along the path to the big goals >>which are to eradicate disease, to eliminate the suffering and the misery that disease causes and to lift people out of poverty, thank you >>[applause] so like that's just so ridiculously mindblowing that it's amost unbearable to think about that as clockwork even is a pretty strange idea because those little things walk over obstacles, how the hell does that happen? they're just molecules so it's so cool, 'cause when you go down you think "simple", but you know and he said at the beginning, when the little machines were taking the DNA apart that he didn't show the error correcting there are these other little machines that go along and see if everything's okay, and if it isn't, they cut it out and put the right piece in yeah, things we don't understand, there's no shortage of them, that's for sure okay, so what I'm doing in some sense is walking you though a psychophysiological representation of Piaget's developmental process, I would say I wanted to zero in on the hypothalamus, becaue it seems to me the thing that sets the most basic frames and so, we'll go ahead with that so you see that it's made up of all these little parts so it's called the hypothalamus more for convenience than because it's a homogeneous set of structures 'cause it's not a homogeous set of structures this is something to consider very carefully when you're thinking about the terminology that psychologists use or that you might use to describe your own behavior 'cause you know, you can roughly… there is a psychology of motivation and there's a psychology of emotion and you might think, well, emotion and motivation are categorically different entities but they're not in fact, there's no such thing as a uniform set of motivations, and there's no such thing as a uniform set of emotions and the distinction between a motivation and an emotion is unclear, to say the least and that's partly because the physiological substructures that subsume what we call motivations and what we call emotions it's not like there's a motivation center that's homogeneous the closest is the hypothalamus, but it's made of structures that are qualitatively different and then the emotions… 'cause I have to use that descriptive terminology, 'cause we have to communicate about it somehow there's all sorts of different structures in the brain that contribute to emotional expression they're not even in the same place much less composed of identical structure or function so you know, we have shorthands that we use to divide up the world, but they're… they're awkward and untenable as the level of resolution increases but anyways, I'm still gonna go with motivation and emotion, becasue it's a useful simplification but you can see with the hypothalamus that there's all these complicated little subsystems in there and I showed you that video to show you just how complicated the subsystems are all the way down to the molecular level how those little machines manage what they do is completely beyond me they call it clockwork when those little things that walk can walk over obstacles it's like: clockwork does one thing only click, click, click, click, that's all it does, no exceptions this thing walks over obstacles to get where it's going; who knows what's going on down there? but it works well enough, so here we are, weirdly enough so motivation seems to be to be the initial framing process and you come in to the world with the motivational systems roughly ready to go babies are hungry, babies get cold, babies want something to drink so the world already comes… in some sense they come into the world with pre-packaged categories for existence and those are the categories that are going to aid their survival and you know, they're not simple, either; it's not so simple it's hunger, thirst, pleasure, pain, anxiety, and the classic emotions: sadness, joy, and so forth those systems are already there, but babies have more complicated systems, too like the system for exploration is already in place, and the system for play which is really complicated, it's already in place, so you come into the world with a human nature and the nature seems to be distributed across the subsystems, that's one way of thinking about it and it's also useful to think about the operation of those subsystems as something like… you can think abouth them as games with an aim you could think about them as stories, you could think about them as frames of reference, you can think about them as action patterns all of those, and you can think abouth them as subpersonalities, which I actually think is maybe the best way to think about them because if you're hungry, it's not a deterministic drive it's a subpersonality that has a goal and then it has a bunch of action patterns that are going to work in reference to that goal it has a bunch of perceptions that suit that goal and it organizes your emotional responses around that goal and so, to think about it as a personality is a much more intelligent way to look at it one of the things about Skinner's rats… you know, Skinner could get rats to do almost anything, and he would reward them with food and so he had a simple rat model, but his rats were starved down to 75% of their normal body weight so not only were they not social, gregarious ratts, like rats are, 'cause they were isolated they were genetically altered from wild rats but they also weren't as complex as a real rat, because they were starvind, and so but you know, a starving rat is a prety good model of a rat and a rat is a pretty good model of a person but a lot of our models of simple behavior learning were based on starving, isolated rats, so anyways how to think about motivation? we'll think about it from the hypothalamic perspective so we could say one thing that motivation does is set goals we could say that emotions track progress towards goals and I'm gonna use that schema, even though it's not exactly right so you say, well, motivation determines where you're gonna aim, so if you're hungry, you're gonna aim at something to eat and then that will organize your perceptions, so that you zero out everything that isn't relevant to that task which is almost everything you concentrate on those few things that are gonna facilitate your movement forward when you encounter those things, that produces positive emotion as you move throught the world towards your goal and you see that things are alying themselves out, that facilitate your movement forward those things cause positive emotion and if you encounter anything that gets in the way, then that produces negative emotion and it can be like threat, 'cause you're not supposed to encounter something that gets in the way it can be anger, so that you move it away, it can be frustration, disappointment, grief, those would… if you have a response that serious to an obstacle, it would probably punish the little motivated frame right out of existence so you walk downstairs and I don't know, the contracting company sent a wrecking ball through your kitchen that's gonna be disappointing you're not gonna keep eating your peanut butter sandwich in the rubble that little frame is going to get punished out of existence and some new goal is gonna pop up in its stead and one of the things we're gonna try to sort out is how do you decide when you've encountered an obstacle that's so big that you should just quit and go do something else 'cause that's not obvious you can get into counterproductive persistence pretty easily we don't know how people solve that problem, it's a really complicated one so anyways, we're gonna work on that scenario your hypothalamus pops up micro-goals that are directly relevant to biological survival that produces a frame of reference so it's not a goal, and it's not a drive, and it's not a collection of behaviors, it's a little personality and the little personality has a viewpoint, it has thoughts that go along with it it has perceptions, it has action tendencies, all of that you can see this in addiction, most particularly so one of the things that you find often with people who are alcoholic is they lie all the time and that's because when they built a little alcohol-dependent personality inside of themselves or a big one, maybe it's 90% of their personality and one of the things that consists of is all the rationalizations that they've used over the years to justify their addiction to themselves and to other people and so the addiction has a personality and so when the person is off… maybe they're addicted to meth or something like that, where we know the addiction is more… it's more short-term powerful than, I would say, an alcohol addiction they'll say anything, and the words are just tools to get towards the goal and if they happen to be deceptive, whatever, it doesn't matter, they're just practical tools to get towards the goal and then when you get towards a goal, you take a nice shot of meth or something like that you reinforce all those rationales that you used to get the drug, and the next time you're even a better deceiver and liar so we're gonna say, motivations, one way of thinking about it is they set goals, but it's not the right way of thinking about it they produce a whole framework of interpretation, and so we're gonna think about that framework of interpretation and then emotions emerge inside of that so the world is framed, motivation set goals, you could say the world has to be framed so motivation sets that frame: goals, emotions, perceptions and actions and then the actions (he means emotions) track progress, so positive emotion says: you're moving forward properly towards your goal and if you encounter something you don't expect, you stop, that's anxiety it's like: oh! we're not where we thought we were and so we don't know what to do, so we should stop, 'cause we don't know where we are and what we're doing; stop, frozen and then the more powerful negative emotions like pain, they might make you get out of theres, so… emotions: forward, stop, reverse; that's your emotions within that motivated frame and that's another example of how your mind is embedded in your body emotions are offshoots of action tendencies, that's the right way to think about it 'cause action is everything, fundamentally so what are some basic motivations? most of these are regulated by the hypothalamus, by the way, and that tells you just how important a control system it is the other that's useful to know about the hypothalamus is that it has projections going up from it that are like tree trunks and inhibitory projections coming down that are like grape vines so you can kinda control your hypothalamus as long as it's not on too much, but if it's on in any serious way, its like… it wins so partly what you do to stop yourself from falling under the dominion of your hypothalamus is to never, ever be anywhere where its action is necessary right? you don't wanna go into a biker bar because you might find yourself in a situation where panicked defensive aggression is immediately necessary you probably don't want that; you don't want the panic, you don't want the terror you don't want the frenzied fight, you don't want any of that, you don't wanna have to run away in absolute panic so you just don't go there and a huge part of how we regulate our emotions is just by never going anywhere where we have to experience them and so that has very little to do with internal inhibitory control, and everything to do with staying where you belong so… okay so, basic motivations: hunger, thirst, pain pain is not regulated by the hypothalamus, that's a different circuit anger / aggression, thermoregulation panic and escape affiliation and care, sexual desire, exploration, play and you can kinda break those into the classic darwinian categories, too, and say, well, there's a set of motivations that go along with self-maintenance that's be your survival, ingestive and defensive see, I've sort of coded them there so the self maintenance there's an ingestive set of basic motivations that go with self maintenance, that's hunger, thirst there's a set of defensive motivations: pain, anger, thermoregulation, panic and escape and then there's motivations that are associated with reproduction affiliation, care, and sexual desire and then I put exploration and play sort of outside of that I would say because those two things serve both of these approximately equally so what I tried to do is take the basic motivations, and then nest them inside a fundamental darwinian framework so that you can see how the biological process of evolution has manifested itself, an then sort of differentiated into these fundamental biological systems okay, so this is a rat brain flat map so it's basically what you would see of a rat's brain if you flattened it out, unrolled it, flattened it out, and then made it two-dimesional and you can see here… so this is the hypothalamus and you can see that it's made out of these different nuclei, that's what they're called and they sort of correspond to those shapes that I showed you in the human hypothalamus earlier and you see that there's different systems, there's the system for eating and drinking, it's outlined in green and the reproductive system, there's two of them, and they're outlined in I think it's red… is that right? yeah, reproductive is red, and the defensive ones are in magenta and so those are the… you could think about those as the three fundamental value systems of living creatures with complex nervous systems as far as the hypothalamus is concerned and then, given what I told you about the hypothalamus, which is… you hardly need the rest of your brain at all, as long as you have a hypothalamus it's worth thinking that those are very fundamental to value per se now, you might think, if you only need the damn hypothalamus, why bother with the rest of the brain at all? which is a very useful question especially because most creatures don't have much of a brain, so… but it seems to be something like: well, you've got your eating and drinking system, your reproductive system, and your defensive system, but the problem is that those things, first of all, can conflict, you know, are you too hungry to sleep or too sleepy to eat? that's a pretty simple kind of contradiction are you more angry at your partner or do you want sexual relations more? so they can conflict in the present but then they can conflict with other people doing the same thing and they can conflict across time and so partly the reason that you need the rest of your brain is to solve the problems from the solutions that the hypothalamus offers and so, because you don't wanna just eat and drink, and reproduce and defend yourself you wanna eat now, later, tomorrow, next week, and next month while you're able to engage in reproductive activity and defend yourself in multiple contexts, with a whole bunch of people, for as long as you can possibly manage it and so you need the rest of your brain to calculate that and so what the rest of your brain has to do, roughly speaking, is regulate these and also elaborate them up into… into something that's integrated inside you which might roughly be your personality, and then so that that personality is integrated with the personality of other people and so you can think about it as an emergent process this is one of the things I really like about Piaget he's so damn smart, because Piaget is the only thinker I know, really who really addressed the problem of the evolution of value systems like, he never nailed it down to the physiology, because there wasn't enough known about physiology when he did his work but it maps really nicely onto the physiology … but he got it right anyways, he said: you come into the world with a handful of preestablished reflexes okay, we're gonna complicate that up a bit: no, you come into the world with a handful of micropersonalities that are centered around these fundamental motivational axes, okay and then that gets you started and that has motor output as well as perceptions, and all of that, that's associated with it and then, as you interact initially, let's say, with your mother you start to learn how to integrate those things in some sort of social context because you form a relationship with your mother right off the bat and so, you're starting to figure out how to produce patterned and stable interactions between those motivational systems on a day to day, week to week, month to month basis and one of the things you do with kids, it's really important to do this with kids you wanna get them on to some sort of a routine 'cause what the routine is actually, is the beginnings of the system that integrates all of these underlying biological systems into some sort of unity 'cause they have to sleep and wake up, so you wanna get that nailed down, so it's predictable you know, they have to eat, they have to stay warm and they need to do that in a manner that's stable and so, it's to your great benefit as a parent that you get islands of stability planted in the life of your kid so that some of this gets simplified, so that the kid isn't constantly preoccupied with domination by these different motivational systems and so it's a useful thing to know, because you might think, well, you don't wanna impose any structure on your baby, it's like, no, wrong you don't wanna be a tyrant about it, but there's no difference between that structure, and the emergence of the child's adaptation to the world and to some degree what you're trying to do is free them up from arbitrary domination by these underlying motivational systems you know, 'cause if the baby gets too tired, it's a horrible little thing, it'll just scream at you non stop and it's not happy about it, it's like it's not good for anyone for that to happen and so the faster… you have to do it in relationship with the child some will sleep right away in a schedule almost immediately and other kids are harder to get their circadian rhythms regulated so you have to attend to the individual differences that characterize the child, but you're still trying to establish some stable harmony out of this mish-mash of initial systems alright, so that's sort of a physiological look, and this is a more of a conceptual look at it I said that each of these systems you can think about in a bunch of different ways you can think about it as something that sets a goal "I'm hungry, and I don't wanna be hungry – point A, point B so the hunger and the vision of the satiation of the hunger are all part of the same frame and so, if you're hungry, you go into the kitchen you know that already, that's part of your procedural knowledge about how the world works and then what you're gonna look for are only those things that are relevant to what you're trying to do in the kitchen everything else is zeroed out, you won't even really see it, and why would you? you want to see the things that are relevant to the task at hand and so that's the thing that's so cool, I think because what it means is that you see the things that are relevant to the task at hand and so, here's something to think about let's say that you see a whole bunch of things that you don't wanna see that make you constantly miserable and unhappy one thing that you might ask yourself is: are you sure that your goals are proper? because your goals determine what you see; now, not a 100 percent, obviously you could be thinking about the homework you're gonna do and step off a curb and be hit by a van, it's like you're gonna get hit by the van regardless of how you've oriented your perceptions, in all likelihood so I'm not trying to argue for pure solipsism but it is very interesting to consider that since you see in relationship to what you want that a very large amount of what you see is dependent on what you're aiming at and so one issue is: if your life is wretched and miserable one thing to think about is whether or not what you're aiming at is the right thing to be aiming at and "nothing" is exactly the wrong answer to that "I'm aiming at nothing" Okay, you're gonna experience a tremendous amount of misery and not very much joy so anyways, you've got this little frame: you're somewhere, and it's not good enough, and you're going somewhere else, that's going to be better and what "better" depends upon is the state of these underlying biological systems and then, more complexly, as those biological systems get integrated into a personality, and into the social world then the frame and the goal is going to be dependent on that more complex hierarchical organization so, you're not in here 'cause you're hungry you're in here, because if you get a degree, maybe you don't ever have to be hungry so the hunger is properly incorporated into your… you don't wanna be cold, you don't wanna freeze to death in the winter, you don't wanna be on the street you know, so your higher-order goals are long-term socially negotiated solutions to the problems that are implicit in your being, that might be one way of thinkig about it and the microelements of this… so you could say "I'm hungry", that's a physiological state and a conception "I have a vision about how I'm going to solve that" but then… and that's an abstraction but what you do to transform point A into point B is not an abstraction, you act you know, so if you're hungry, you actually move your body, say down from the second floor into the kitchen and you arrange things so that there's transformations in the world that's a good way of thinking about the relationship between the mind and the body your hypothetical solution to your problem, that's the mind but the manner in which you incarnate that solution that's no longer abstract you know, people are always trying to solve the mind-body problem and as far as I can tell, that's how you solve it, is: you have abstractions, but they're not abstractions that are representations of the world they're abstractions that are representations of action patterns and the way those are implemented in the world is that you act them and so, it's strange, 'cause you've got this weird level of control I can move my arm, and I seem to be able to do that voluntarily but Ireally have no idea how I'm doing it like I don't have conscious access exactly to the musculature, except technically and I certainly have no idea what I'm doing chemically to make those muscles transform so my abstractions ground out in this movement and I can observe the movement, and modify it, but I have no conscious access whatsoever to the micro processes that are making tha possible I've no idea why that is, probably because I'm not smart enough that would be my guess evolution is only going to allow your mind to control those elements of your being that you're smart enough to control and so you don't get voluntary control over your heartbeat, for example, because you'd just forget and then you'd be wandering around, and then you'd forget to beat your heart, bang, you'd be dead, so you don't get to do that … all these different… I classify these, again, as self-propagation and self-maintenance motivations if you're too hot, well, you wanna go somewhere cooler, and if you're too cool you wanna go somewhere hotter same if you're thirsty and hungry and for self-propagation, well, you get lonesome and maybe you have some sexual desire and each of those different systems competes for access to this central frame and that's something like the contents of your consciousness at any given time so up pops a desire… but it's a wrong way of thinking about it 'cause a desire sounds like something that's pushing you forward but the desire is goal, framework, emotion, perception, action pattern, all at the same time it's a little personality, or it's a little story actually, when you describe the operation of one of these things, that's when you're teling a story so I was somewhere, I needed something, I went and got it it's a boring little story, but that's the basic unit of a story 'cause I don't care to hear what you're doing unless you had a reason for doing it I just say: what's the point of the story? and the point of the story is the point it's directional, right? it says: "I went from here to there", that's the point, "here's how I did it", that's the point and you're interested in that, because maybe you want to know how to do it too and you won't have to struggle through it like I did, you could just listen and so we're always throwing these little units of information back and forth to each other and for good reason; I wanna know what your point is because better Iearn it from you than make all the mistakes that you had to make when you were learning it and human beings, we've got that figured out, that's for sure okay, I'm gonna just explain this and then we'll stop; alright, so we're in one of those frames now, and we're going from point A to point B and so, the question is: how does the world lay itself out? okay, so the first thing to understand, and this is partly the reason I showed you the gorilla video, is that the first thing a frame does for you is make almost everything irrelevant and that's so great, because that's what you want you want almost everything to be irrelevant, because otherwise you're gonna be so flooded with information, that you… that's what hallucinogens do, at least in their initial stages is they take away that filter, and make everything relevant you can read about that in Huxley's "Doors of Perception" he does a great job of describing the initial stages of a mescaline experience and what happens is that all of the memory, in some sense, that regulates his perceptions is stripped off and so he sees everything glowing, and alive, and magical like he'd never encountered it before which is exactly how you would see something if all your memory about it was gone and so he sees things as way more complex and interesting than he normally sees them well, that's fine, but, you know, if you're like that all the time, then, you know, you end up in a ditch, starving to death or something it's not commensurate with normal life, that's what it looks like and so your perceptions are just shrunken, restricted to the bare minimum necessary to keep you moving in the direction that you're moving alright, so the first thing you wanna do is you wanna make things irrelevant now, if you're with someone in a relationship partly what you want them to do is to help you continue making most of their possibility irrelevant it's polite so you say, well, "we have a friendship", let's say so that means you've agreed to act in a friendly manner towards me, and to support me there's all sorts of other ways you could act like a myriad of them and I' gonna do the same for you, so we're simpler to each other than we would normally be and then you go and so something that betrays me, it's like bang, that whole simplification is gone and all those parts of you that were supposed to be irrelevant, 'cause we were playing the same game they're dead relevant, and I don't know who the hell you are and so that's really rough, and people do not like that it's this emergent mismatch between their desires and the way the world is manifesting itself so one of the issues of complexity is that when you hit an obstacle, everything that you have agreed with other people to make irrelevant – is relevant and that's generally a disconcerting experience now you can, you know, you might wanna toy a little bit with that in a relationship maybe you encourage your partner to dress differently or you go do different things or something 'cause you don't wanna be stuck in exactly the same old rut and so what you'll agree is how you can both deviate an interesting amount but that's voluntary and controlled, it's not the same at all as having that little mess of eighty million snakes pop up right in front of you which is the last thing you wanna have happen, and so it's so weird, because one of the things that we're striving to do constatnly is to keep most of the world irrelevant and our cultural systems are designed precisely for that purpose, and par of what you do when you disrupt them is you force people to consider a far more range of relevance than they are even vaguely comfortable or vaguely comfortable to manage and it just burns them to a crisp because what your body does is: if all of a sudden everything around you is relevant… like I could say: "you're stripped naked, I take you in a helicopter, drop you right into the middle of the jungle at midnight" it's like, you're not bored standing there, frozen, paralyzed, everything is interesting well, too bad for you, 'cause too interesting is very little different from terrifying, and so you know, your heart rate's gonna be at 160 for like two days, and then something will eat you, and your problems will be over alright, so this diagram basically suggests this is this is how you break up the world when you're going from point A to point B it renders almost everything irelevant, hooray and then what happens is the rest of the world is broken up into obstacles that get in your way and tools that facilitate your movement forward and that's actually what you see when you come into a place like when you come into this room, these are obstacles insofar as you con't walk through them and those are tools insofar as you can sit on them and watch the class and this is a tool, and these are tools, and this is a tool and I'm a tool, although I'd never admit it but anyways, I'm a tool, because you need to take this class in order to advance towards your degree and so, basically what you see inthe world are entities of functional significance and those are not objects, they're not the same thing and that's very much worth considering, because we're trying to build up a case, at least in part, for analyzing the nature of the structure within which you organize your perceptions and we tend to think that those are predicated on object perception it's not true it's not true, they're predicated on relevance conception does it help you? does it get in your way? or is it irrelevant? that's what you wanna know; if it helps you, you're happy about it; if it gets in your way, you're negatively predisposed towards it; if it's irrelevant, it's invisible and so, if your little scheme is functional, your little frame is functional then most of the things that you encounter are mildly positive and that's how you know that you know what you're doing, that's how you validate the entire frame so okay, good

Why can't you go faster than light?

Views:2357114|Rating:4.70|View Time:8:37Minutes|Likes:44375|Dislikes:2810
One of the most counterintuitive facts of our universe is that you can’t go faster than the speed of light. From this single observation arise all of the mind-bending behaviors of special relativity. But why is this so? In this in-depth video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln explains the real reason that you can’t go faster than the speed of light. It will blow your mind.

over the past hundred years or so scientists have pushed our understanding of the universe into some extreme conditions for example the world of the very small the realm of very high speeds and under the frigid conditions of near absolute zero while each of us have developed an intuition about how the world works it's very important to remember that this intuition only applies to a very limited set of conditions for instance there's absolutely no reason to expect that matter will act the same in the center of the Sun as it does here on earth on a bright and sunny day however that last statement is hard for some people to accept and judging by my email INBOX the extreme realm that causes people the most difficulty is what happens when things are going super fast in 1905 Albert Einstein published his theory of special relativity it predicts all sorts of mind-blowing things for instance distance shorten and clocks slowed down I made another video about how clocks act at high speed it turns out that all of those seemingly crazy implications originate from a single cause or maybe two if we take it slow so first let me tell you what this video isn't it doesn't tell you about the postulates that Einstein used to build this intuition and it certainly doesn't derive as equations instead this video tries to tell you the key insights that make it easier to develop a relativistic intuition I hope to teach you why it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light if you're not a physics groupie hearing that there's a maximum speed in the universe might surprise you but it's true and if you are a groupie you've probably heard that the reason that you can't go faster than light is due to the fact that mass increases when you speed up it turns out that the explanation of mass changing as you go faster is a wrong one I know that statement is going to confuse some people including those with fairly sophisticated understandings of relativity but it's true however that then leaves an open question just why is it that you can't go faster than speed of light it turns out to be due to a combination of a deep and fundamental property of the universe and fairly simple geometry so let me explain how that all works the first two the two crucial insights is that Einstein taught us the space and time were not separate entities but rather they are two components of a bigger idea called space-time I'll give you a helpful visual way to think about this in a moment but for right now just trust me on this then we need to combine that insight with the observation that everybody sees the speed of light to be the same no matter how fast they're moving with respect to one another let's start with an analogy and then come back to relativity to understand the analogy you need to imagine a car driving on a huge flat surface further you need to imagine that the car can only move at one speed say 60 miles per hour or so the comments don't fill up with a metric snobbery hate-mail 100 kilometers per hour now let's put a couple of arrows on the screen to point out north and east well we know the overall speed the car is going we don't know how much of it is in the east direction and how much of it is in the north direction so let's take a closer look at that the car can move entirely in the eastward direction which means that it has no motion in the northward direction or the car can move entirely northward and not at all eastward or we can live dangerously and move towards the Northeast in this case we see that the car is moving in both the east and north directions with neither direction getting all of the motion so that's the core analogy and hopefully it's very clear now let's bring in relativity and relativity we don't have the east and north directions instead we have space-time let's imagine that the horizontal direction of space and the vertical direction is time so suppose that there is a single and fixed speed that we can travel through space-time this happens to be true so it's not a ridiculous supposition we can therefore mix these ideas with our earlier analogy an object can move vertically in that case there moving through space and they're moving entirely through time that's probably what you're doing right now you're sitting and watching this video so your position in space isn't changing however you are experiencing time you aren't moving through space but you're moving through time on the other hand what happens as you start moving through space that's a fancy way to say that you've gained some velocity well we see here that what starts to happen is that as you begin to move through space you move less through time and eventually when you move only through space you don't move through time at all and this is basically what relativity says as you move faster and faster your clocks slowed down and as you get very close to the speed of light your clocks very nearly stopped we've scientifically proven that this is what happens and I direct you to my video on time dilation so you can see one way that we've tested that so this brings us to our fundamental realization of relativity the reason that we can't move through space faster than the speed of light is because we're constantly moving through space time at a single speed the speed of light if we aren't moving through space we experience time in the fastest way and if we start moving through space we experience time slower and slower finally since we're moving through space time at a single speed that means when we're only moving through space there's no more speed to gain we move through space at the speed of light and that's it this observation wasn't made by Einstein it was made by his mentor Hermann Minkowski Minkowski was one of Einstein's mentors and he was a better mathematician two years after Einsteins a seminal 1905 paper Minkowski appreciated the geometrical underpinnings of special relativity and had determined this deep and fundamental explanation why we can't travel faster than light through space there are two final important points first while Minkowski showed why Lightspeed is the maximum speed through space what he didn't explain was why we move only at one speed through time to this day nobody really knows it seems to be a fundamental property of space-time maybe it will take another person as smart as Einstein to figure out that particular conundrum the second point is more technical and I mention it only for the real physics nerds in my analogy I connected space and time as being similar to east and north and there's a lot of merit in that morphing from motion through time to motion through space was like turning a car from moving north to moving east however this analogy is also technically inaccurate from a mathematical point of view it uses the geometry of circles well the proper geometry is that of hyperbolas I only bring this up because I want you to know my analogy is imperfect and you shouldn't push it too far otherwise you might come to a numerically incorrect conclusion and think that you've made a new discovery if you want to dig into this more deeply be sure to use the full and proper Minkowski mathematics still even with the limitations I mentioned the core point is valid the reason that you can't move faster through space than the speed of light is because every object moves through space-time at one and only one speed the speed of light once you've embraced that central idea and the fact that space and time are just like two directions of space-time then all of those seemingly weird observations of relativity just click into place and special relativity makes total sense so I don't know about you but I think this insight about relativity is just about the coolest thing ever if you liked this video be sure to LIKE subscribe and share let's get those numbers up and let me know what you think in the comments I'll see you next time and keep on physics

A Tip for Arguing Properly in a Relationship | Jordan B Peterson on the Jocko Podcast

Views:40041|Rating:4.95|View Time:1:57Minutes|Likes:1022|Dislikes:10
You may not always be right in an argument, but you may have the ability to out-argue your partner. However, in order to have a healthy relationship you sometimes need to help your partner articulate their argument.

The full video:

Want to support this channel?

Relevant Links: JB Peterson

Online Psychological Programs:
NEW: BFAS Personality Assessment:
Self Authoring:

12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos:
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief:

Jordan Peterson Website:


Reading List:


Peterson -También es algo muy bueno
que saber en cuanto al matrimonio, nunca puedes ganar una discusión con tu esposa. Podrías si solo vivieras con ella durante un día. Es como: "He ganado, hasta luego". Ella está ahí al día siguiente y entonces está derrotada. Willink -Y ella se acuerda de eso. P -Se acuerda de eso, sí, quizá incluso se acuerda mejor que tú. También podría ser que ella tenía razón y tú has ganado la discusión. Eso es algo que realmente
merece la pena saber también porque a veces tienes una
discusión con digamos, tu mujer y tiene algo que decir y no lo articula muy bien, lo mismo podría ser cierto en cuanto a ti, puedes ignorarlo simplemente. Pero no quieres ignorarlo porque quizá hay algo ahí y si no lo tratas no se va a marchar, va a crecer. Quizá tienes que ayudarla a formular su argumento, lo que es realmente molesto, porque quieres ganar y estás teniendo
esta disputa, es como: "Quiero ganar". No quieres ganar a ese juego, quieres ganar.. Yo pienso en ello como el juego de juegos, quieres ganar el conjunto de juegos
que se presentan a lo largo del tiempo. W -La guerra. P -Exactamente. W -La guerra, esa pequeña batalla no importa y de hecho, no deberías intentar tener la razón. Si tienes la razón todo el mundo sabe que está bien pero lo peor que puedes hacer es recrearte y decir: "Tengo la razón y tú no". P -Haces eso cien veces y tú eres
el ganador y ella es la perdedora y eso es genial porque ahora
estás casado con una perdedora. Si haces eso cien mil veces,
tu matrimonio se ha acabado y entonces habrá consecuencias, puedes estar seguro.

Learn Biology: Trophic Levels and Producer vs. Consumer

Views:117123|Rating:4.07|View Time:2:22Minutes|Likes:366|Dislikes:84
SALE TODAY: Learn Piano on iOS
Mahalo biology expert Mary Poffenroth talks about trophic structure, including the hierarchy of the system.

The trophic levels of living organisms shows their placement in a food chain, and the order of consumption and energy transfer throughout the
environment. Producers, mainly green plants and some types of bacteria, can be found at the bottom of the food chain; they convert solar energy into food consumable by living organisms. Consumers are living organisms that feed on producers and other consumers.
While plants principally make up the first trophic level, or the producers, organisms that eat plants and meat make up the higher trophic levels. Plant-eating organisms are called herbivores and meat-eating organisms are called carnivores. Herbivores primarily make up the second trophic level, and carnivores constitute the third and fourth trophic levels.
trophic structure continues to drive evolution, prey become better adapted at avoiding their predators and predators become better adapted at getting their prey.

Trophic Structure and Energy

The trophic structure encompasses the feeding relationships among the organisms of a community. These relationships are essential to the hierarchy in the community and how it works. At the bottom of the food chain are the producers, which are the only ones that can harness the sun’s energy to make glucose. Higher on the food chain, on the first trophic level, are the primary consumers that directly consume producers. Higher levels of consumers eat consumers of lower levels. Organisms nearer to the base of the food chain generally waste less energy. Approximately 90% of the energy originally harvested from the sun is lost with every climb to the next trophic level.

Producers and Consumers in Food Chains

The following are examples of food chains:
1. Sunflower grasshopper mouse snake hawk

2. Rose aphids beetle chameleon hawk

sunflower and rose are producers. The grasshopper and the aphids are primary consumers. The mouse and the beetle are secondary consumers. The snake and the chameleon are tertiary consumers. The hawk is a quarternary consumer, which is also known as an apex predator.

Read more by visiting our page at:

hi I'm Mary pop and rock and I'm an agile professor of biology today we're going to be talking about trophic structure trophic structure is essentially the feeding relationships among organisms in a community these feeding relationships are essential to the hierarchy of how this community works let's start at the bottom with our producers producers are going to be the only ones that are able to harness the power of the sun's energy to make into glucose these of course are going to be our autotrophs as you move up the food chain towards the apex predator you're seeing lots of different consumers pass those producers our first level consumer is our primary consumers these consumers are going to consume well the producers at the very bottom may give it kind of like a pyramid going from the very large at the bottom to the very pinnacle at the top we also have secondary tertiary and our cordon areare fourth level consumers as you go up the food chain you start to lose more and more energy in fact each trophic level that you've increased you lose 90% of the energy originally harnessed from the Sun so now let's use a real-world example to illustrate our concept here so we're gonna start at the bottom with our producers let's use a sunflower this sunflower is going to be eaten by a primary consumer for example we'll say a grasshopper this grasshopper is then going to be eaten by a secondary consumer let's say a field mouse that field mouse is then going to be eaten by a tertiary or third level consumer let's say a rattlesnake and that rattlesnake can then be eaten by a cordon Airi or apex predator in our example the red tail hawk will do just fine trophic structure continues to drive evolution as prey become better adapted at avoiding predators and those predators get better adapted to getting their prey thanks for watching and if you want to learn more about this subject click on the link below or if you want to learn more biology feel free to click on any links around me and please rate comment and subscribe to this channel or maybe if you have ideas for more videos send us an email a request at Mahalo com thanks for learning you

O que eu acho do Jordan Peterson? – Luiz Felipe Pondé

Views:131851|Rating:4.93|View Time:3:56Minutes|Likes:14982|Dislikes:225


{Twitter} @lf_ponde

{ Instagram} @lf_ponde

Contato Profissional: [email protected]

o que eu acho geórgia piterson olha é eu antes de tudo eu acho que é um intelectual que enfrentou uma situação no canadá que foi digamos se colocar sua posição a sua visão contrária a uma certa tendência politicamente correta dentro de sala de aula e ukra da gente conhece o canadá é um dos países mais politicamente correta do bumbo e o politicamente correto tem a algumas qualidades que a tentativa de estabelecer vínculos de educação doméstica já que esta desapareceu o contrário do politicamente correto não é na verdade vocês e incorreto vocês educado e não ser a digamos assim aliado de um sistema de censura de constrangimento e um lobby que chega a produzir um certo medo nas pessoas vejam o estado em que está o humor veja o estado em que está com o likud veja o estado que está educação todo mundo com medo de pensar e falar de dizer uma frase de ser processado de alguém dizer que está ofendido então acho que o dj peterson sendo ele o intelectual é do canadá portanto do universo da língua inglesa a ele tem um papel super importante nesse debate internacional que é a ele enfrentará justamente esse lobby politicamente correto enfrentá lo a partir de um ferramental né psicólogo a partir de um ferramental é a que ajuda também a relativizar uma certa a obsessão com a idéia de construção social então quando ele traz referências do bumbum da biologia né ou seja o que a gente tinha no chamado hard sciences pra dentro da psicologia quando ele traz o ferramental que fala que o ser humano não é só o objeto de construção social e por isso ele também é odiado por muita gente e me parece que também presta um serviço importante que é trazer à tona uma temática que que é característico desse povo politicamente correto e desse povo da função social que são extremamente agressivos extremamente autoritários eles perseguem qualquer pessoa que não pensa igual a eles eles são eles podem destruir a carreira eles podem criar todo o tipo de problema e o peter sohn ele tem justamente essa ele reúne tal digamos assim uma série de variáveis que o torna uma pessoa super importante debate internacional ele está no universo anglo saxão que faz com que a a tudo que ele faz tem uma repercussão gigantesca no mundo porque o inglês é a língua franca certo além disso ele tem a coragem e teve e tenha coragem suficiente para enfrentar a esse universo o politicamente correto e da condição social ele tem um repertório necessário e suficiente pra trazer para o debate da psicologia no comportamento contemporâneo referências que não são só do dessa dessa turma e da condição social e um a 4ª coisa que eu diria que eu acho que é bastante importante é justamente a capacidade que ele tem de discutir temas completamente contemporâneos por isso e ele vir avisou por isso ele se transformou numa espécie de ícone de quem pensa intelectualmente estuda mas não quer fazer parte a e não concorda com essa cartilha pela metade uma cartilha uma uma verdadeira seita que esse universo é politicamente correto

His Hand Doesn't Even Move

Views:42642370|Rating:4.65|View Time:1:54Minutes|Likes:419003|Dislikes:31573
A compilation of Professor Walter Lewins and some of his lectures at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He draws some of the best lines, especially dashed lines – so fast that his hand isn’t even moving up and down to produce the dashes.

See more videos of classroom lectures and pranks @
Or upload your own classroom lectures / pranks @

My First Choice – AAU

Views:4009|Rating:5.00|View Time:2:16Minutes|Likes:13|Dislikes:0
Our Webpage:
Our Facebook:
Our Twitter:
Anglo-American University (AAU) is the oldest private university in the Czech Republic. It was founded in 1990, shortly after the collapse of communism, as the Anglo-American College (AAC) by Jansen Raichl and Dr. Vlasta Raichlová. Their vision was to create an educational institution that would combine the best of American and British academic principles with Central European traditions.
AAU has consistently attracted strong credentials to its academic community. Today it prides itself with gifted undergraduate and graduate students from over 60 countries and a renowned multinational faculty trained at fine universities around the world, including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley and others. AAU alumni have excelled in their professional careers and enjoy work worldwide in top positions in business, academia, politics, diplomacy and media.

I chose a you because I wanted to study in Europe and when I found the school it was in Prague and I literally just fell in love with the city and the school and it's in the palace as you can see also on the carrier path I chose was perfect with the program that they offer at AAU in international relations and diplomacy and finally it really is just a big family being at a I chose an American University because I wanted to be part of something special I want to study in English but I didn't want to leave my own country so I applied here I fell in love with this place I was driven between all english-speaking universities skiing truck and a you impressed me more because of this affordable fusion seats and the club is just safe and beautiful sports I chose to study at AAU because I wanted to travel there the exchange programs that the school offers I got to see Australia and Indonesia and it was amazing I was looking for university that would provide the same level of education as I was provided with like in England the reason why I chose that you you is because it allowed us to create a networking environment as well as our own Club I'm studying within a diverse student body and small class sizes and for free because a you offers nerve a scholarship after this university because I wanted to study fashion and business together I wanted to get inspired and this university gave me a lot of opportunity to experience culture and getting actually inspired in fashion in my production Anglo American University has a great international relations program and it's in one of the safest most beautiful cities in the world heyyou is not only about high quality education it's also about student life and fun we organize a lot of events and activities for students as annual ball every ceremony parties movie night a lot of field trips around the Czech Republic and also the Europe sister one apart from cafe taxis groom a coffee and numerous healthy food options the cafe even serves as the university social and intellectual hub we host a number of discussions film screenings political events and the cafe even turns into a club over the summer you