Video

This makes no sense to me. Offcourse a human life is more valuable.

Psychology IS a fraud.

more than 80% of people using soc-med are im be cile, d u m b and ig no rant like those w i m p s from weak country specially in facebook, twitter and youtube

So how do you know the studies on academic fraud (especially the anonymous ones you cited) aren't also fraudulent?

Weak

Entertaining fabulists can get pretty far....for a while. He should have gone into a field where you do not need to be truthful.

It won't work. Without punishment cooperation decays. There is lots of data on this one. Reward and punishment, reputation, social pressure - that's how the fabric of society is actually organised, like it or not.

How much Fraud is there in EVERYTHING that has anything whatsoever to do with humans? A LOT ALWAYS

This is just as dumb as people who focus on solely on socialism real world examples have shown time and time again that mixed economies provide their people with the highest quality of life It's when you get idealogs pushing Purest ideology in the social and economic Areas you get Suffering famine and inequality Whether it's capitalism socialism communism totalitarianism if it's purly One system you're trying to apply a utopian.Ideal to a distopian world At this point idealism becomes evil

It is not that simple From what I understand effective altruism is about doing the maximal good and minimising suffering. The long term risk (like AGI of any kind) usually means extinction or worse. In theory, that will return much higher returns that standart charities. Unless you put into the equation the fact that poverty and lack of education are a source of conflicts (most of the world safest and most peaceful countries are also very rich, but the cycle works both ways). And possibility of global conflict create a wall of fear pushing goverments to fast and unsafe creation of more and more advanced AIs as they are weapons in theory far more dangerous than the nuclear ones once they can self-reproduce, which could lead to one of possible fates worse than extinction. But now, we have to look at the world from the perspective of each individual. From perspective of the less fortunate, investment into them is much more important than the investment done against big dangers like AI. It makes no sense for such people to fight against dangers of future if they are dying right know, especialy if these dangers could be also what will save their lives. After they are safe and secure, they will start to thing about more long-term problems like. So, saving people living now seems as the best action, but what if AGI will take over our world faster than eradicating extreme poverty will bring its rewards? Poverty could be eradicated 5 years from now just as easily as 50 years from now, but if we wont stop the AI race soon, there might not be any humans that could enjoy their lives outside extreme poverty in 50 years. In my perspective, problems should be measured also by how much acute they are. The risks of AI or bio-nuclear war are extremely actual (scale of years) and threten everyone, but eliminating 90% of todays extreme poverty would make the fight much easier and it could be done in a year or two (if goverments were willing to tax the big tech and use its money).

Problem is that psychology is not a science, it's a giant heap of garbage that is shaped to fit the dominant political regime.

If you had the right to create, you have the right to destroy the creation. You must be responsible for that creation as long as it exists and may destroy it at any time you see fit.

Transgenderism is fraud

The problem usually arises when sampling is a non-probability method

If someone tells you they are a psychologist...RUN!

100% of people who chose not to get the jab don't regret it. I can't say the same for the other side.

First of all, this is an awesome video, you are an awesome guy... my gut feeling tells me so

conformism to keep their job, like freud did.

lack of proximity counts - due to transparency and control. You hand your hard earned money to X, but how does X spend it and or who takes a cut ?

He was probably trying to show how things change, he often used the chess piece metaphor but in this case it seems he chose a poker. Basically a fire poker is only that when next to the fire in a proximity to poke it. In the same way a chess piece on a board has meaning but when removed from the board it loses it's meaning. This happens because meaning is context based and when you remove something from its context you inevitably remove its meaning. Then ask why Americans are often disconnected and lonely. We are strangers in the land

It’s not the proximity that’s the underlying issue with the initial proposal. It’s the uncertainty of the process and the results. If I jump into the pond to save the child, I’m doing the deed myself and I see the results. Presuming that all goes well, I immediately know my efforts were not in vain. The variables involved are limited to my response time, how long the child has been in the water, what injuries they may have suffered, if the child had started to drown, etc. Of course, I may not succeed. But if I did nothing, the child stands little to no chance. Despite the variables beyond my control, given that the child is still alive upon my arrival, it’s safe to assume that the outcome of the situation is most likely a direct result of my decisions and actions in the moment. To compare that scenario to me donating money to a cause such as cancer research or third world development, is beyond even apples to oranges. Take cancer research for this example. I donate my money to a cancer foundation. How much of that money goes towards administrative costs? Lobbying? What sort of research is specifically being done? What knowledge is to be gained of cancer itself? Is treatment the goal? A cure? What level of success is anticipated? And who exactly will benefit from the results of the research? Will treatment or cures be available to everyone? Will they be free, or costly? How costly? Who’s doing the research? Who profits IF successful? Will my money even fund research, or is someone pocketing the money for themselves? The variables are finite, but they’re vast, and aside from my decision to donate, they’re entirely out of my control.

If we live in a society that does not have virtue ethics as a norm we shouldn't be surprised that people aren't virtuous in random tests? It's a skill you have to train.

Great video thanks!

Hey PQ, video suggestion: I've been trying to read up on the philosophical foundations of vegetarianism and arguments for/against. I'd love to hear your take.

philosophy is really cool!! i like the concept of philosophical shorts 👍

I admit that Joel isn't a true hero, sure, as he has done many bad things to live in the new world. However, the problem that I have isn't with Joel being killed, whilst I might like it I can accept it to a point, no, the problem I have is the way he was killed. In the first game, it was shown that Joel trusted no body and would be on guard with every new person that he meets. But in the second game, he allow his guard down and trusted Abby. This is something he wouldn't do in the first game. He would be on guard all the time. In fact, he might leave her be, if he didn't need her help with the infected. So, with the way he dies, that's what I'm against. As Joel would be more on guard with fireflies out there gunning for him for what he did. If he died in a fight, or another way that doesn't make Joel seem weak and stupid like I feel he was in the second game, I wouldn't have minded too much about his death. I just can't see him dying in a pointless death like he did. I would have believed it more if he was betrayed by someone close to him. That would explain why his guard would be down more than normal, as he was with someone he trusted. But lowing his guard with someone he doesn't know, not fighting back and getting killed like that, hell no. So once again, I agree, Joel wasn't a hero, but I can't see him dying the way he did.

Psychology is mostly fraudulent. It can be described as a "pseudo science" at best and "outright lies" realistically.

Charity begins at home and you can't convince me otherwise.

Based and sigmapilled

Enough? What is “enough”? To most people, if “I have more than my neighbor does, then it is enough”. It is more a psychological standard than physical one. Therefore, there is hardly ever “enough”. Socialism promises you prosperity but delivers poverty.

Psychologists are liars. They love and make so much money off of all the deep suffering caused by capitalism, that they should be speaking out against.

There may be some value in some EA ideas, but longtermism is a joke. Wild guesses plugged into exponential formulas can justify doing or not doing literally anything. It's essentially "Life begins when someone makes an estimate of how many people will be born millions of years into the future. By typing this, I destroyed ten kajillion potential future babies, but seeing that at least five of them would have been hyperhitlers who would have destroyed humanity, I also saved at least fifty kajillion."

80,000 hours has profoundly unjustified biases towards certain technologies like nuclear power as opposed to renewables. their logic justifying their choices doesn’t stack up, in fact it doesn’t even pass initial examination. and they tell people not to work on climate change bc there’s already lots of people working on it. how ever manu people are “working on climate change” the prognosis remains terrible and the emissions curve is still rising globally not reducing. peaking at 1.5 °C is now a pipe dream (hello Michael M Mann, yes i know you disagree and vocally) and even peaking at or below 2.0 °C is looking increasingly unlikely. so who cares how many people are “working on climate change” (acknowledging a lot of these jobs or activities are not working towards systemic change which is required) if it’s a) not enough people and b) the work hasn’t been effective enough yet in bending the emissions curve south. yeah sure, go train as anjucl ar engineer when it will take 40 years to build a new generation NPPs at three times the cost of firmed renewables and in 40 years the dice may well have been rolled on multiple tipping points to climate systems and countless ecosystems. also agree with he idea that if i earn a lot of money in the tech world hooking people into consumer culture with newer stockier SM apps so i can donate $1m a year 🎉 my favorite charities is a flawed logic to reat on. MacKaskill is really problematic and i’m glad there are a few out tu were to critique this muppet. .

There is a lot of agenda bias in psychology to publish studies that push for... a certain type of narrative. And unfortunately this is all related to the "publish or perish" situation. Journals and magazines wish to push a certain narrative and will scrutinize more/less a study based on its conclusions. And if you scrutinize any study enough you can get it thrown out for the pettiest of reasons, or publish it with the most glaring flaws imaginable through explaining said errors as, for example, "error variables". Or you could also manipulate the data analysis portion. One of the first things you learn in the most basic of data analysis courses, whether in psychology or any other scientific studies, is how easy it is to manipulate the data analysis portion of any study. It's almost unnerving

I just do not know how "I feel about this" ... most BS

This applies to all empirical sciences.

You left out his response to Alexanders remark

Nature vs. nurture is obsolete. All nurture affects nature, and nature has it's limitations.

That Steven Pinker tweet is right where I'm at. Can we reclaim effective altruism back to the core philosophy?

I mean sure you can argue that putting your focus on AI is just the cause of rich tech entrepreneurs but the actual research into AI Safety is very underfunded compared to how much funding goes into improving AI technology. If AI has the potential to be the most impactful technology in the next century, then leaving things exclusively to tech bros in the industry seems ludicrous. We need more moral intelligent non tech-bros working on AI regulation and safety not less. Which is what Effective altruism is achieving. The fact that Effective Altruists are scared of the word socialism and don't think much about systemic change is a real flaw in the community though. I agree.

Writing a check to pay other people to do your dirty work in order to clear your conscience is despicable. Get off you ass, find someone less better off than you and just spend some time with them. That's true charity, person to person: 'For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ --Matthew 25:35-36

i feel proximity does matter in the sense that you have a duty to save the child and sacrifice your clothes and meeting, because you're the only one who can. If there's a lifeguard nearby then I don't see why you would need to stop what you're doing to save the kid, and in fact if you did try to help you might mess things up. This is exacerbated worldwide when there are billions of other people who can help others in need, and who could probably do a better job considering their proximity.

placing a higher value on potetntai llives over actual lives is definitevly evil.

we are weaker than our fathers, dupree we don't even look like them

learned the science on my own so I didn't have to appeal to authority, was still not listened to....

PSYCHOLOGY IS NOT A SCIENCE. IT IS FULL OF PEOPLE TOO LAZY TO DO THE RIGOR TO BECOME REAL SCIENTISTS. EVEN IF YOU DO NOT MAKE UP THE DATA, THE TEST POPULATION AND DESIGN IS SUCH AN UNCONTROLLABLE JOKE. TO ANY REAL SCIENTIST, ALL PSYCHOLOGY IS FRAUD.

Look up Magnus Hirschfeld if you want to know how far psychology has fallen.

How much Fraud is there in Psychology? Like asking if you will get wet swimming in the sea.

spontaneous combustion

Funny how Marketing understands (and manipulates/influences) human behaviour better than Psychology... smh