CRITICAL THINKING – Cognitive Biases: The GI Joe Fallacy [HD]

35 thoughts on “CRITICAL THINKING – Cognitive Biases: The GI Joe Fallacy [HD]”

  1. This is that moment where the owl flies into your house with your letter of Admission into H***** school of witchcrafty and wizardry (except the spells shall be taught to you according to the ways of scientific inquiry, and logic).

    Do you accept? Or does the owl just fly out of your house,
    according to the Way
    that it Came In?

  2. One more thing about the glass bridge that sticks in my craw. I feel like the architect of that example rushed it a bit. We don't have to be smack dab in the middle of danger to have an appropriate fear of danger. Alarm bells are suppose to go off with nearness of danger. If you are a spectator of a pacing tiger in a cage, it is not irrational to have more than a touch of fear. Cages don't neutralize the character of the threat, they only promises to safeguard (to a reasonable extent) the accessibility it has to you. If we only fear open threats, we could never assemble a successful military. Part of what constitutes a healthy fear is the anticipation of atypical scenarios; The zoo keeper forgets to lock the gate.

    I also feel like the glass bridge example is too object oriented. What I mean by this is that the presumed "irrational" fear lies in an assessment of the bridge's safety. However most fear is egocentric. You don't trust yourself. It's not about the stability of structures, people, and equipment more than it is a lack of faith in your own ability. No one thinks they are going to fall THROUGH the glass bridge, you are scared you might fall OVER it, placing the fault on you. The translucent make up of the bridge just reminds you of the nearness of the threat, and once that is in your mind, then you begin to think about your potential MISSTEPS, not the bridge's structure. When you climb on a high ladder, are you afraid that the rungs will give out, or are you afraid you will slip on the rungs and fall down? The fear is inward not outward as is with much of life.

    Any person who is not disquieted by surprise visits of potentiality suffers from a lack of imagination. We are not penciled in equations on a notebook, we are forward thinking imaginative human beings.


    This is hard to quantify, but impulse control is totally predicated on conflict awareness. Action is one half of problem solving. Action contains a subset of two parts. One part is execution, and the other part is consistency. It is not enough to shoot a basketball with your elbows in to create a perfect arch, you must shoot a basketball with your elbows in EVERYTIME. Action is a two parter. I feel like you glossed over the role of cognition by A, making it responsible for solving the problem, and B failing to recognize it's second act. The first part of knowledge as it relates to problem solving is having the general awareness that something is wrong. The second part is the proper diagnosis. An alcoholic does not know what 12 steps are, but he knows he lost his wife, job, respect, and custody of his kids. There is this primer of really base knowledge of functionality. The second phase is searching out a solution.

    When G.I. Joe said know you know and knowing is half the battle, he was not asserting that this does anything in the affirmative. It gives you agency in an area that you were hitherto without. If I don't know that cigarettes cause cancer, I have no options. Knowledge is an option, not a force in curbing behavior.

  4. lol true but a DOWNER – no wonder Socrates contemporaries wanted him killed, just for depressing them constantly lol!

  5. In short: the animal, more often than not, trumps the intellect.

    Case in point: deep down, most people know religion is BS, yet they continue to practice it.

  6. 90% of the battle is recognizing the fallacies (other than this worthless fallacy) or the valid arguments that are the actual reasons for ones cognitive biases. Cognitive are "cognitive" and not necessarily wrong

  7. It¬īs a very logical proposition: that knowing about different biases, in and of itself, wont change much about how we¬īre affected by them. We have to make decisions everyday based on subconscious processes and subjective estimations about reality (which we continuously assimilate) and in every given domain there¬īs always more that we don¬īt know than what we do know.. which means one (no matter who you are or what you know) always have to fill in knowledge-gaps with "axioms", "beliefs", "inductive reasoning" and "instinct". If you want any kind of functional life, that is. This is a problem for a lot of people, who regard any kind of relativism as irrational (or even immoral)… which in itself is highly irrational. If knowing about biases made the average person significantly less biased, there would be evidence of this in the real world in the form of some opinion-conformity among those who have been made aware of same biases. If the problem with biases is that we divert from "the truth" as a result of psychological kinks, fixing those kinks would naturally get one closer to same truths… problem fixed, right?… not really… the point is that we very rarely use pure rationalism in our lives as we don¬īt really internalize the scientific method as a bases for decision-making or opinion-formation. It¬īs just not how we operate. If that were the case we would have almost no opinions about anything, as pure rationalism just gives you slices of certainties, which is not very operational or practical. Most of your opinions about the nature of the world is still perpetuated through culture, opinion-bubbles, biases, after-rationalizations and such phenomena, whether you accept it as true or not.

  8. I think knowing about you're biases helps you become less of a victim to them. Being aware of your biases gives you the opportunity to choose to not act on them, but just because you're aware of them does not mean that they're gone. We might evolve past our biases one day but that will probably take thousands of years, for now I think we'll have to live with and be aware of our biases.

    Laurie says that learning about your biases doesn't help in becoming less susceptible to them, even though that is not the point of learning biases and fallacies. Making that point made it seem like watching these videos was a waste of time. Lucky for us there are other intelligent people to show us what she should have said.

  9. This series was amazing. Knowing may be less than half the battle, but it's a big battle so this is still a big chunk, even if it's small proportionately. Thanks ever so much for making it.

  10. Perhaps the next part of the battle would be exploring what a nested virtue ethics can contribute to moral consequentialism. Like, we could pursue virtuous neural networks and integrate this knowledge as we live to reach Aristotle's Eudaimonia. Aristotle <3

  11. Yep… a person is as much their YouTube watch history, data mining, etc. as their mind. And their notes, and their furniture arrangement, and their friendship groups. I'm sure choosing a nick like 'Paradigm Arson' nudged me in the direction of deviantization, criticism and cynicism. I meant well… kind of.

  12. Also, there are places where fighting evil and irrationality gets you punished. Individualistic hero types can only work around the obstacles to truth and emancipation, not against them. So don't do what I did and go around bitterly and cynically criticizing everything that's irrational, kids! Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. G. I. Paradigm_Arson!

    (great, now I sound like one of those awful counterproductive prisoner talks to children videos/seminars where private prison companies get to manufacture more deviantisation, delinquency and crime)

  13. The slogan was "Knowing is the half the battle" because the implied other half was "Doing". How is this concept so hard for people, this was a show for children that had a tiny segment that attempted to simplify complicated problems to try and educate them (the viewers) on the right and wrong things to do in desperate situations. Knowing about a problem, Doing something to fix it. Not that hard…

  14. This particular bias feels like a tongue twister of sorts. Even just arranging the phenomenon in my mind is exhausting.

  15. If you have a problem, you have to 1. recognize you have a problem and then 2. fix the problem. So recognizing you have a problem is half the battle. No-one ever says it's 50.0% of the problem.

  16. Very true, knowing alone is not enough. Observing and learning how fallacies are reigning, will unravel Eudaimonia.

  17. "Not Enough"

    "Not Enough"

    "Not Enough"

    Lol! So true – you have to do it, make the decision that opposes your feelings, when it's logical to do so

  18. Well, I agree but knowing about certain cognitive biases can help to combat them. If you know about conformity bias, you can be on guard for it. Maybe it doesn't work when your instincts kick in, like with heights, but for purely logical things, knowing is half the battle so far as I can see.

  19. wow, there is no GI Joe fallacy. Knowing is half the battle is simply a catch phrase they used in an attempt to get little kids to learn and do well in school. I feel dumber for watching this.

  20. Ok so knowing that we now know that knowing that we know that simply knowing is not half the battle, how much closer are we to half the battle?

  21. I'm coincidentally–I swear I'm not kidding–wearing a G.I. Joe t-shirt with a pie chart labelled "The Battle" showing that knowledge is 50%, while red lasers and blue lasers are each 25%.

    Regarding the fallacy, referring to a personalized checklist before making an important decision can help you catch yourself falling for one of your own biases.

  22. A lot of people calling bs on this video because the speaker does not state under what conditions she is speaking to. How is it that someone can say that a person who knows about a fallacy would not be able to act in a way to counter the fallacy less than half the time?

    Statics are what back up what she's saying, which is something she should have provided for context. Using the statistical information hat is currently available, the GI JOE fallacy appears to be true.

  23. Except for one thing.

    Those "Knowing is half the battle" was aimed at kids and teaching them to have good sense about some situations they might encounter.

    Such as, what do you do if you find a firearm? Or how do you find your way if you get lsot?

    And those kinds of things.

    So really, the video is a flawed video, based upon, your own biases without really having to watch those cartoons and not knowing the full context of that message.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *