Video

Peer review is like wrestling with a loaded gun

Bro this is called the diferrence between you and him

Thank you for watching. Comments are welcomed and encouraged - what do you think? I heart comments I have seen, and reply to those CZcams notifies me off. FEEDBACK: KEY COMMENTS:

solid summary!

Not enough love for this video!! Fantastic website as well.

Motherfuckers wanna act like the labels don't matter after they just spent 200 years making sure the labels absolutely do lmao

Stumbled across this video and I saw the thumbnail... thank you for sharing this textbook by Dr. Blau and Dr. Wagman! I've had the privilege to work with Dr. Wagman at Illinois State University. Ecological Psychology is fascinating!

I am torn between: being kinda tired of people re-discovering dialectical materialism but also being hopeful for the turning away from positivism and mechanical thinking

TL;DW: The whole is greater than the sum. Especially when the sum really doesn't add up to the whole because of hidden variables, hence it is preferable to do the action one seeks to perfect than other more simpler tasks designed to facilitate the acquisition of that skill, furthermore adding variability/noise/dynamic-enviroment/handicaps tot he training dramamtically improves performance. Now how to activate glutes while walking? Let's get some useful practical infrmation here,rather than all this theory stuff. Not that it isn't useful in general, but just not very useful for knowing to move. Some Remarks: 14:00 this is darwinian pixy dust. This explanation is simply unacceptable, How exactly are flocks supposed to alter individual behavior, how is it that this individual now became a part of this hypothetical super-thing? This is magical thinking, a dead end. As for brain training, it is true, but only because of its quantization, if on the other hand it involves large complex tasks (e.g. multiplication without tricks) there is actual significant changes down tot he anatomical level, furthermore, we have actual cases of acquired savant syndrome that go against both explanations. To me it appears for the brain P = NP. That is it, how? Well, that's a different story. 33:00 the explicit instruction group is nonsenseical. They did not learn how to do the action following this 'explicit' method, especially that it's insufficient, omits most of what is actually happening. The only way to actually implement explicit instructions would be to have an animation with their body kinematics being displayed and what the correct movement ought to be. This kind of explicit instruction would result in a much greater improvement than anything implicit. 56:00 there needs to be more discretization regarding which hemisphere does what, it appears that the right is what maybe referred as functional while the left perceptual. For vision I happened across interesting stuff recently eyeport device, works of jacob liberman and more mainstream stuff, Frederick Brock's brock string.

danny 'the hater' hatcher

People are also really quick to snap at lables being absolute truths. Just because a word means something doesn't mean that that is how """I""" meant or used it or anyone else using any word really. Everything is contextual.

The statistically significant vs significant example is such an important point. This is even abused by researchers themself, when they characterize their findings as "significant", even when the actual effect size may not even be small.

i hope you feature people who have an african background because their perspectives are under represented

As an asian person with an american-educated dad, I used to hate the rote-repetition method to learning and training that's often used in asia. I was able to excel on many things, like football and studying the sciences, but I think i could have reached higher levels if I wasn't so averse to repetition. There are some things in life that's impossible to understand, at least for me. It helps to simply try it repeatedly until you "get" it, even if it's inexplicable. It's a shortcut and often the only way to keep progressing.

Thank you for watching. Comments are welcomed and encouraged - what do you think? I heart comments I have seen, and reply to those CZcams notifies me off. FEEDBACK: KEY COMMENTS:

i love it when YT algorithm recomends me randomlly a hour or more long video, on a topic that i'm mindlly interested in by a small channel that i never seen before.

Johnny Harris said humans make their own vitamin C in their body… need I say more?

somehow the youtube algorithm brought me here and im not even a bit disappointed

we need a new category for videos like this. "so you can follow this video as you read through the book if you want to" its not quite a summary, or review, more like an interpretation? idk. just a thought for the trend setters to think about.

This is fantastic! Can you also do "Learning to Optimize Movement" by Rob Gray?

I read the book already but this video is great as a refresher 😁

Many of us don't have time to watch lengthy videos. Could you please publish these in text format on a website?

Thank you for watching. Comments are welcomed and encouraged - what do you think? I heart comments I have seen, and reply to those CZcams notifies me off. FEEDBACK: 1:04:47 Citation numbers should be 55 not 4 KEY COMMENTS:

Once again, great video! "Peer-reviewed by whom?" -- "Science-backed for what?" -- "Evidence-based since when?" I don't disagree, necessarily, with everything he says. I just completely disagree with the way he presents it. It's 100% always "a science-based routine for concentration" or whatever. I don't think I have ever answered a scientific question without prefacing it with 100 caveats, even more so now that I have gotten to work with people who work with non-WEIRD communities and languages and now so much about how a lot of our "evidence-based" knowledge is based on studies conducted with US college students. Not discounting all of that but always trying to make people understand that we must understand the many variables that might play a role! He's also clearly always selling the idea of some how-tos and cures for a better existence and the scientific backing is never really questioned. Like, if a study found a tiny effect, close to chance, this is, of course something that should be mentioned. It is not something that can be presented as "this is THE science-backed solution!" Also, personally, I would feel so odd being like "get up, look at the sun for 15 minutes while drinking 20 ounces of water, coffee 90 minutes after getting up, 90 minutes of deep work, X minutes of exercise, ice bath, ..." when I'm talking to a group of people where some are currently experiencing something like a Swedish winter, some have night jobs or work better at night, some don't have the flexibility to just take that sort of time in the morning, etc. PS: bonus points for the mention of Walker and Why We Sleep!! It is crazy how these are two dudes with tenure at Stanford and Berkeley. I really don't want to always jump onto the "something rotten in academia" bandwagon but it's tough not to do that sometimes. Dan Ariely is still selling books, Walker is still employed and selling books. I once described a cognitive mechanism that seemed self-evident to me, without knowing that it's been described and a specific name needs to be cited. One reviewer called this essentially plagiarism and deceit and recommended a full-on rejection. The paper was accepted with minor revisions (and yes, I added the name they asked for) but this is still something that scared me. Meanwhile, some of our most famous public "scientists" literally lie and they get to merrily publish an rake in speaker fees.

It just started raining outside. I think a storm is coming

Hi, we cannot percieve are environment all at once. How do we know what is relevant to observe?

Johnny Harris was a Mormon missionary. Yeahh no thanks

Danny. Your integrity is extremely admirable. I have cooled on Huberman myself. I think you made a key point at the end. Those who present themselves as experts on many subjects are likely expert in none. Another great vid.

wow thank you for this.

One of the last people trying to make a real change in this was Aaron Schwartz, look up the internet's list boy for info on what happened. But in short, the CIA went after him and he 'died prematurely'

behavioural science fails once more

Link with sources seems broken

Using personal life as an argument is just unprofessional and should be avoided. Oversimplification is common critique to any educator. Also there must be some level of common sense in the audience. Huberman mentioned multiple times that study on animal models can't be extrapolated to human. We don't need disclaimers every second phrase. Confident style of presentation is common in academia. Again, do you want to hear "maybe, I'm not sure" every few sentences? You need to have some common ground with your audience. For example, in physics, when you discuss a problem, by default you ignore unessential effects, and assume that audience does. You can't list every ignored effect every time. So in the end I don't see meaningful critique except from mentioned experts, so thank for share, I will check them. PS: in everyday conversation people jump from their area of expertise to BS constantly. I don't understand why podcasts are expected be different.

10:36 “protocols”, like all recipe/step-by-step linear directions are a comforting fiction for coping with inherently complex, non-linear contexts 🤷🏼‍♀️. Also, protocols make it easy to blame the individual when it fails to “work”, as you obviously weren’t doing it right or, more often, “you just weren’t putting in the work.” It’s ridiculously easy to straw-man those of us following non-linear pedagogy principles as saying, “just do whatever the hell you want! Go explore!” 🤨 Protocols and recipes “sell”; principles take a different level of work and creativity. I think, as always, the answers live in recognizing and accepting when we are in an inherently complex dynamical system vs. a complicated linear one. One way I try to explain it to my students: “If the steps are known in advance AND - crucially - are virtually guaranteed to work if followed - then by all means follow the step-by-step rules/instructions.” Too often (thanks to survivorship bias especially), we mistake complex non-linear systems for merely complicated ones, continuing the myth that it’s mostly about “work ethic” and doing the steps “correctly.” I had high hopes for Huberman in part because his lab (when it was active) did some work that heavily supported my own bias, and I recommended him often. His credibility hits on science eroded long before that article - and I personally don’t care about his personal life - and it made me sad to realize I could not trust what he was saying.

Wow danny, came from your other channel and although I did not get through this entire video, your contributions to learning are amazing!

Thank you for watching. Comments are welcomed and encouraged - what do you think? I heart comments I have seen, and reply to those CZcams notifies me off. FEEDBACK: 16:48 Highlight animation offset. Should be covering the 5 hour column. KEY COMMENTS:

China is purposely skipped because of its extraordinary performance in all areas in the year 2018.

Haha, I can tell you had fun making the video animations with how it all flips and flops everywhere! 😊

...and design with affordances. Excellent, much has been made in various design forums on this, especially with the push/pull door access. For other 'road' based examples, see where cycling on and off roads 'meet' is a good place to look. And yes... still dipping. : ))))))

Monkey see monkey dooooo. IIRC a recent case of a first-time chimp mother, "didn't get" breastfeeding so her newborn was at risk. The 'zoo' asked for human volunteers to sit and breastfeed in sight of the chimp enclosure... the mum chimp, got the idea, the baby is doing well story resulted.

As an unrealised 'deaf in one ear'... via "you're not paying attention", never mind enough caused me to have to go see the educational psychologist at the age of six. And back then the school given hearing tests were not sufficiently sophisticated to 'catch' the ability to 'cheat', i.e. hear something to the left with my right ear... Although 'he cocking a deafen' was a common enough comment. Then I got slapped, which burst my right ear drum, at the age of 13... and school life went downhill... further. Glasses before the end of University and hearing aids by 30... Thanx for this. ()()()()()()()() Now back to the rest of the vid.

One more comment: in the US the "teaching to the test" issue is a big problem. Essentially, if kids are not performing adequately on tests, they are bad students. Having spent some time in Switzerland, I was initially surprised at how low the high school graduation percentages are. But then I realized that they have a much more varied system with many schools that replace high school for the less academically inclined, while high school diploma means this person is essentially certified as "university ready." This makes such a difference, since what you said about learning motivation and purpose comes into play. someone who doesn't care about academic reading needs a different reading skill than a person who wants to study philosophy and that should be ok. Having standardized tests and teaching to the test negates the possibility of any such differentiation.

I was a physics and math undergrad and had to sub for a professor who taught a class on some basic math for middle school teachers. it's scary how bad some people were at grasping mathematical concepts. and I've heard similar remarks from other lecturers about reading comprehension etc. I have a lot of respect for people who decide to become teachers, especially in the US where times are tough currently (I live in Europe now) but I do find claims like "gen alpha cannot read/are getting dumber" extremely problematic. Especially, when they are a) made by people who do not necessarily excel at studying, nor have the required cogsci information and b) shared so easily and thoughtlessly on platforms like tiktok. It's not just unprofessional, it's completely misguided. It's also seems to be related to this weird internet-specific "feud" between generation I read an article about recently. Gen Z and millennials are fighting (for whatever reason) so gen z teachers like to blame bad millennial parents for gen alpha getting dumber. Bizarre and very unnecessary.

some claims in that podcast are such annoyingly near-correct claims that it hurts. they say sounds of words and meaning are stored but we need to rewire the brain for reading. Do they want to put forth the claim that we do not need to rewire our brains to store the sounds and meaning associations?! we are not preprogrammed with words and that wouldn't work given how different "word-like" units are across languages. And given how long it takes us to speak in adult-like grammatical utterances, learning to read is a speed run. Obviously that's due to not having to develop the initial understanding what speech is for. And yes, while we are prone to language learning, it takes us a few months to even understand that language refers to something, that people have intentions, etc. Obviously reading engages different pathways that then have to be integrated with language pathways for understanding, but that doesn't mean that reading is inherently completely different from language learning. This also becomes apparent when looking at newer dyslexia work that seems to suggest that dyslexic people do not simply struggle with letters but can also have particular issues related to memory development (although, I'm not an expert and don't have a broad overview ready)

Is he an actual "journalist", though? I feel like he does semi-opinion piece like videos and never truly engaged in journalistic work, nor does he have training, unless I'm mistaken. (by that I don't just mean a degree in journalism but even smaller step things like, when I wanted to be a journalist, I signed on as a "reporter" with a local newspaper and then the school newspaper in college, which can be a form of training if you get a good team critiquing and guiding you)

That veritasium claim at the end... oof. The fact that so far negative results have been extremely hard to publish, non-replicating studies are the norm. So established results do *not* get questioned as he said. Hopefully, there's some change now that we have actual numbers out there on all the studies that have failed replication studies and more and more journals promise to accept negative results too. fingers crossed.

Posted this in an answer, but will repost for that bit of hope: There are some efforts to create new, independent journals. I am so happy this is finally happening, like when the editors of Neuroimage stepped down in protest and started a new journal. There are also more and more journals in other fields that have reasonably low or no fees. They have been started by established but not too old or prominent-enough-to-matter-but-up-and-coming figures in the respective fields. And I am so, so deeply grateful to every single one of them and will take on as much reviewing as I can afford to do for their journals because these efforts *matter*! They are people from the community and the papers being published have the same standards because it's the same people reviewing them. I am doing the same work as if I was reviewing a paper for an Elsevier journal for the same pay (nothing but a pat on the back) but I also know that the work I review, if good enough, will be published and accessible without any side having to fork out several thousands of dollars.

Johnny Harris is an idiot

Source link doesn't work?