G102 Introduction NOS Week PDF

Introduction/NOS week Week Preview Videos Mr. K's path in science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xOuy1e1asA Transcript: (00:00) hey yo this is a video about my path in science and while I'm showing this video is because I think a lot of students think that scientists follow a very linear route...

Introduction/NOS week Week Preview Videos Mr. K's path in science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xOuy1e1asA Transcript: (00:00) hey yo this is a video about my path in science and while I'm showing this video is because I think a lot of students think that scientists follow a very linear route to get to where they want to go or your career has to follow a linear route or that scientists are become scientists because they like science class they like math but really what I think people's careers people's lives take non-linear trajectories and most scientists are actually would inspired by something about the natural world they had some experience growing up that (00:38) made them go whoa or wow how does that work so here's my story about that when I was growing up my first job in high school was I was on the national volunteer ski patrol and I love snowboarding I've been snowboarding since maybe fifth or sixth grade I was a skier before that and I live in Bend my whole mountain is Mount Bachelor and so Mal Bachelor felt like a second home when I was growing up I'd spend the weekends there and once I got on ski patrol I was there working I was there taking accidents it was a really (01:17) formative experience because I got to do everything the adults got to do I got to run sleds I got to go on accidents get to help injure people I called air life a few different times for for accidents I got to have all these adult responsibilities and I also got to ride a lot of powder early in the morning before the public got on the chair and later in high school I would you know drive myself up to the mountain and drive myself back and my parents live out in Tumalo outside of town and I'd get back about (01:51) five o'clock in the evening and I would see this image this is the three sisters at Sunset and I'd often get back around this time of night or often maybe a little later and the image of the mountains especially the silhouette of the mountains really stayed with me there's some of my I don't know some of my most Vivid memories from around this time is driving back home feeling the sense of accomplishment and just staring up at the mountains where I had just been and so after that after high school I went to Whitman College which is a small (02:31) little liberal arts college liberal arts college means you study a little bit of everything you don't specialize at first and it's in Walla Walla Washington kind of an Eastern Eastern Washington over here so not too far away I loved Whitman I love studying philosophy there I love studying I love most of my classes there even though I wasn't good at all my classes by any means I almost failed calculus and coming out of high school because I love taking accidents on ski patrol I wanted to be an emergency medical doctor (03:08) emergency medicine physician but At Whitman I kind of got a little bit intimidated by how long you would have to spend in school but I also fell in love with geology because my other love when I was in high school and college was being outside that's still something that's important to me and as a geology major you got to be outside a lot you got to go on these really cool field trips here we talked in an earlier video or some of my other videos in my other classes are about neuroscience and how experiences neural networks and really (03:44) experience it forms your learning well it's kind of like that way in life too one experience Builds on another experience with Builds on another experience so one cool thing about Whitman is they had a program called Keck the cat Consortium and they take undergraduate students in your sort of senior year of you know your Junior Summer of your junior year and they do Expeditions where you do a little scientific paper and a scientific research project and sometimes you get to go overseas so my senior year I got to go to Mongolia and I did some (04:26) research in the altai mountains here in Far Eastern Mongolia and I studied paleo climates and mass wasting events basically how the climate had changed in the last couple thousand years and specifically I was trying to figure out if over grazing had affected the streams and the how many landslides there were or if it was climate or if it was both so I we lived in a gear which is just another name for a yurt for about a month or so we did some research with Mongolian students so this here's a young me taking some samples in this this stream (05:11) bed that I I went ahead and mapped and did a stratigraphic column for oh some science words you'll learn if you go in an earth science class so after that experience I had some experience doing field research I had you know some experience doing landslides I also still love to ski and I didn't really know what I wanted to do in undergrad but I thought well if I go get a master's degree my parents will be off my back my parents will be happy and that how can I incorporate skiing and some of these other (05:50) experiences so after that I got a research assistantship and I got paid to go to do my masters at Utah State University and I did my masters in snow science which means I was studying kind of the physics of snow and avalanches and I got to do a lot of snow skiing at Snow Basin which is an awesome ski resort of great terrain and how it made my money this time I didn't make very much but I was a research assistant for another graduate student who was looking at fire Behavior so in the Summers I would go out and (06:33) basically do these fuel fuel loading research which just basically means counting sticks in the woods it's kind of boring work but you get to be outside and you get to be in the forest so I did that for two summers in a row and that's how I paid for my Master's Degree and basically paid my living expenses during that time then I came out with a masters in forestry but specializing in snow and Avalanche science because that time I wanted to be an avalanche forecaster so from there I figured out due to various reasons that I didn't really (07:08) want to be an avalanche forecaster and I actually took this detour to be a copywriter for a little bit and I worked in some outdoor shops and but about a year after that I was like I really really want to get back into science I want to go traveling again I had done an undergraduate abroad experience in New Zealand and so I said hey if I can do study in New Zealand and get paid for it that would be awesome so I did get accepted you don't remember how I said one experience Builds on another so being on ski patrol helped me get (07:44) into Whitman College and then my undergraduate thesis helped me get into the first master's degree and then those two research experiences helped me get accepted to a PhD program in New Zealand and what I did there is I studied a type of landslide called the Bree flows this is me and one of my really good buddies who's much taller than me and we're looking up at a a valley where I mapped some debris flows which is just the type of landslide that's near Mount Cook in New Zealand and here were my three research (08:21) areas New Zealand is one of the most beautiful places in the world I miss it all the time so what are these things called the brief laros well let me show you a video how do I play this video here we go wow apologies if that was super loud I'll try to cut that out that last bit out okay here we go here's the debris flow so as you can see from that video debris (09:32) flows are really dangerous events and they really change the landscape because if you imagine a mountain stream and that mountain stream is in flood but instead of water coming down the hill it is basically wet concrete full of Boulders and it can go you know as fast as 20 30 miles an hour really destructive pretty awe-inspiring events the other thing I did for my PhD was I created many debris Flows In A geotechnical centrifuge which is basically a a giant million dollar think of it like a spin dryer where (10:17) you mount a flume or a chute sideways and you create reflows in these higher gravity conditions so you spin the centrifuge around really really fast that makes something that's small act like something that was big in terms of the forces it's putting on the bed and everything else around it and you can study these big processes at this small scale and if you want to know more about that I can tell you a lot more because I did my PhD for about five years that it took me to get through it but again I got paid to do that I was living in (10:53) New Zealand I love the people that I was around the other scientists I got to work with so even though I was in school it was a good time sometimes when we think of school we think it's always going to be boring but the higher rep you get the more you get to choose and the more specific it gets so yeah grad school is more fun than it's cracked up to be a lot of times yeah and when I was in New Zealand I got to do a lot of being in the mountains and kayaking and hiking which I'm really grateful for that experience (11:29) so why science even if you know you're not going to take a science path well I think science gives us this deeper appreciation for the now natural world it's also key because it's going to help us understand and provide solutions to some of the world's most challenging problems I think science will save the world and if you do follow a path in science you can get School paid for stem jobs are usually fairly some of them are lucrative you could travel the world and have experiences you wouldn't otherwise had (12:11) that's definitely the case for me A lot of times in some scientists you can get paid to pursue a higher education and then if you're interested in this stuff you can make a living pursuing the things you're interested in and for me that was being in the mountains why I came back to teaching is a whole different story you can ask me sometime but that was my path in science but I always think it's always interesting when I talk to other scientists it always comes back to a moment of appreciation in the natural world usually when you're (12:47) growing up so for me the reason why I got into geomorphology geology in the first place is because I've just how much I loved being in the mountains and the shape of these mountains when I was coming back to from ski patrol when I was in high school so I hope this invites you to think about what could be my path in science and what are those moments that inspired me about the natural world that might motivate me to in my future science classes or even in a future stem field all right thanks for listening to this (13:27) bye The Scientific Process https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux8mpxQwqPE The Scientific Process Transcript: (00:03) By the time the current undergraduates send their children to college Earth's population will have increased to more than 8 billion people. One or more of the world's major cities will have experienced a devastating earthquake or volcanic eruption; sea level rise will be threatening low lying coastal cities and whole island nations; natural resources will be less available and more expensive; and our climate will be warmer and characterized by more frequent extreme weather events. (00:34) How we choose to plan for, and attempt to mitigate these challenges, will have consequences for individuals, nations, and our global economic and cultural systems. Science can help us figure out the steps we need to address these grand challenges. As we introduce you to the scientific process we have 3 objectives. (00:53) First, we want you to be able to explain the term science in your own words. Second, we want you to be able to tell the difference between data and interpretations. And, finally, we want you to be able to summarize the process by which science is practiced. Now, take a moment and think about what the term "science" means to you. (01:20) We can define science in many ways, but we think of it as having three basic characteristics. It is a process of discovery that helps us learn more about our world. Scientists find it tremendously exciting to discover novel ideas and to make new interpretations. Once that information is known, it becomes data to be shared with others. (01:38) Always keep in mind that there is still more information yet to be discovered. And, finally, science is a creative process. Discovery doesn't happen without people thinking up new questions and ways to investigate them. You might not realize it, but science is just as creative as art, music and other aspects of our culture. (01:54) The basic building blocks of scientific discoveries are data and interpretations. Here are some examples. We can use quantitative data to measure the characteristics of Earth such as the composition of our atmosphere. The air that we breathe is composed of mainly oxygen and nitrogen but has a small concentration of carbon dioxide. (02:14) Data collected over the last 50 years shows that the concentration of carbon dioxide is steadily rising. Some of these gases added to our atmosphere come from natural sources such as volcanoes. During volcanic eruptions, we end up with products that allow us to qualitative terms to describe them, such as dark or glassy or vesicular (that is, rocks that are filled with gas bubbles). (02:38) We can take these different types of data and make interpretations about what happened on Earth. For example, data from a study of submerged trees along the coast of Oregon and Washington was correlated with historical tsunami records from Japan to show that the trees died when a huge earthquake occurred in January 1700. (02:58) Scientists use this and other data to assess risk from future earthquake hazards. So lets think about a basic example of data and interpretations that you might be familiar with from a non-geology setting. What data is illustrated in this graph? The graph shows both attendance and course grade. Some students obviously did much better than others in this course. (03:21) On the basis of this data, why do you think that is? One simple interpretation would be that the better your attendance, the higher your grade. Now you try it with these geological examples. Compare and contrast these two images. What types of data could you collect to learn more about these features? We might consider quantitative data like the dimensions of the craters, or qualitative data such as the types of rocks that are present in each location. (03:54) So, that's the data, but what about the interpretations? How did these things form? It turns out that the crater above was formed by volcanic processes, and the crater below was formed by an asteroid impact. The process of doing science involves making observations, generating a testable hypothesis, and, on the basis of that hypothesis, making some predictions. (04:17) If all that works out, then you will probably have a pretty good understanding of some aspect of the earth system. Now you try it with this short video activity. Watch the video and think about the questions that appear. Now, what about those questions? But why did that happen? What are two potential hypotheses to explain these observations? First, we might assume that, while both cubes were the same size, the plastic that made (05:24) them up was made of different components. An alternative hypothesis could be that there was no difference between the cubes, and that the difference was in the liquid in the bottle. What experiment could you do to test which of these hypotheses was correct? What prediction would you make about what might happen during the experiment? One simple experiment would be to take a green cube and drop it into bottle A to see what would happen. (05:53) If the cube was more dense than the red cube, you would predict that it would sink again. But if there was no difference in the density of the cubes and the difference is in the liquids, the green cube would float. And that is indeed what happened as bottle A contains salt water and bottle B contains regular tap water. (06:10) The cubes are slightly more dense than regular water, but less dense than the salt water. So they float in bottle A and sink in bottle B. So there were some observations, a couple of hypotheses, and some predictions. All of these components come together in the scientific process. Today we had three principal learning objectives. (06:31) How confident are you that you could complete these tasks? You Don't Know How Toilets Work - The Illusion Of Explanatory Depth - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CodKUa4F2o https://docs.google.com/document/d/17DmemBktgFrcSSefeqKOvsCh4McM512EAWmvwfngrfU/ edit?usp=sharing Transcript: (00:00) >> ALEX: You don’t know how toilets work. This thing you use every single day, hopefully, you know almost nothing about even though you may think you do. I guarantee it. Well, actually, I don’t guarantee it, maybe a plumber is watching, or maybe you just really know how a toilet works, but chances are that you think you know how a toilet works, but you actually don’t. (00:18) Let’s talk to some people, and, I recommend you too answer my questions as we go. Hey guys, I’m here interviewing some people, let’s get technical. So, on a scale of 1-10, 1 being you have no knowledge whatsoever, 10 being you're an expert in this, rate how well you understand how a toilet works. >> PARTICIPANT: 3 >> ALEX: A 3? That's a good answer. (00:37) >> PARTICIPANT: A 9 or 8 I think That is a 3 for me 3, 4 maybe I'd go with maybe a 2 3.5 I give it a 4.5 out of 10 Maybe 3 3 5 >> ALEX: That's good, solid answer. So, can you explain to me, step by step, how a toilet works. >> PARTICIPANT: Well, so there's a handle, and you flush it, and it goes through some machinery, There's little lever inside the little box that's behind what you sit on, and then it... (01:13) I just know there's just kinda pipes, and I don't really know. The water washes down into the pipes, okay? There's like pipes going into the top thing, and then you press the flusher thing, and then the water goes all around and it flushes the gross stuff out. >> ALEX: How does it actually, like, *flush* it out? >> PARTICIPANT: It goes down a pipe? I don't know. (01:31) Water comes out into the bowl, and pushes the stuff down. >> ALEX: Can you elaborate on that? Like, the pushing? >> PARTICIPANT: Um, I'm not sure. >> ALEX: How does the water actually go down? >> PARTICIPANT: Um, can't wait for the next Technicality video for that one! >> ALEX: Cool! So, now after you explained it, can you reevaluate yourself? On a scale of 1-10, rate how well you know how toilets work. (01:55) >> PARTICIPANT: 2 A 6 or a 7. Like, 2 or 3. Like a 2. I think 2 was maybe pretty accurate, although I might want to decrease to a 1. I'd put myself on a 1.5. I don't know, I think I'm still a 3. Uhh, like an 7. I did better than I thought I would. I'm gonna say 2-3. Oh, like 1. *both laugh* This is known as the illusion of explanatory depth, the keyword there being explanatory, but we’ll get to that later. (02:23) The Illusion of Explanatory Depth is when people inaccurately overestimate their knowledge in a certain thing. You can see this illusion everywhere, because there’s so much stuff we use all the time and people know almost nothing about, but they think they do. You could just swap toilets from the previous example and replace them with refrigerators or zippers or locks or bikes or can openers or a lot of other things! THERE’S SO MANY THINGS! Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil, both Yale psychologists, coined the term back in 2002 (02:48) with this study: The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth. Hey, quick post-production note. You may notice I didn’t put in a picture of Mr. Rozenblit, and that’s because no picture of him comes up when you Google his name, but John Green’s there for some reason, soooo. (03:00) Among other things, like doing many, many, many tests to prove that this is actually a thing, they outline four factors that contribute to this illusion of explanatory depth. One! Change blindness. Or, more specifically, change blindness blindness. Let me explain. This is a bike. You probably know that, but, now, close your eyes, can you picture a bike? Maybe it looks something like this, or maybe this, or maybe even this. (03:23) Yea, none of those designs would actually work as a bike. This is Phil Fernbach. He has a doctorate in cognitive science and is the co-author of The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone. >> PHIL FERNBACH: A psychologist studied this question, he wanted to see if people know how a bike works. He brought people into the lab. He gave them a simple test, he said, "just draw in where the pedals go, draw in where the chain goes and draw in where the frame goes. (03:44) I'm gonna show you a couple examples of what people came up with. Here's one. Bikes haven't looked like this since the 1920s Here's another one. If you have teeny-tiny legs, this might be the bike for you. >> BABY LEGS: Baby legs, here we go!! TTTttttt (I don't know how to put that sound into words) >> ALEX: That was a clip from his TED talk on the subject. (04:00) Except for that Rick and Morty clip, I added that myself. >> PHIL FERNBACH: I didn't cherrypick these examples, these are good representations of the average level of knowledge of bicycles, despite the fact that we all ride them every single day. >> ALEX: We, as humans, rely very heavily on information that is right in front of us. (04:16) “When people succeed at solving problems with devices they may underestimate how much of their understanding lies in relations that are apparent in the object as opposed to being mentally represented.” When the bike is in front of me, of course it’s a bike, but when we change that, we become both blind to the makeup of the bike and blind to the fact that we are blind to the makeup of the bike. (04:33) Change blindness blindness Two! Confusion with layers of explanation. What is this? Ok, so let’s take my phone, for example. How would you explain my cell phone? Well, among other things, you might mention that there’s a touch screen, a battery, a speaker, emojis, and a camera. Ok, so if you’re then asked what’s a camera, you might mention, well, there’s a lens, a flash, an aperture, et cetera. (04:53) Did you just see what we did there? We just delved into 2 different layers of analysis when it comes to my phone. The first layer is the stuff that makes up my phone, the second layer is the stuff that makes up that stuff, and so on and so on if we were to continue. A problem arises when we gain a surface layer understanding of something, but then think we know all the layers, creating the illusion of explanatory depth. (05:11) Going back to our toilet example, yes, you know that when you press the flushy thing, the water in the tanky thing empties, and pours out into the bowly thing. But wait, how does the water actually get from the tank to the bowl? Where does all that water in the bowl go? How does the tank know when to stop refilling? And what other parts play a role? These are deeper level questions that you may not be able to answer, but because you know the first layer, your brain thinks “Yea, I know how that works. (05:32) ” And this contradiction is a big factor in the illusion of explanatory depth. Three! Murkiness of Knowledge. This one kinda builds on the previous point. Remember when I said that the key word in the illusion of explanatory depth is explanatory? That’s because this illusion really only works with explanatory knowledge, not with facts or processes or other kinds of knowledge. (05:49) It’s really easy to know if you know a fact or a process. Do you know how old I am? It’s a question in the comments that is very very very very very very very very very very very very very hey we done yet? No? Not even close? Cool cool. Very very very >> SPONGEBOB NARRATOR: 2,000 years later. >> ALEX: Very very very very very common. (06:12) It’s a fact, and it’s pretty easy to tell if you know it or not. A... A lot of people don’t, apparently. You just ask yourself, how old is Alex? And if your answer is I don’t know, then you don’t know, and if your answer is the 15, then you know it. Same reasoning for processes. For example, do you know how to turn on post notification for Technicality? *weird wink thing* If your answer is I don’t know, then you don’t know, and if your answer is, well, just click the little bell right beneath the video, check “Send me all notifications (06:40) for this channel,” and click save, then you know it. So do that--. However, with explanatory knowledge, that ease simply isn’t there because of those layers of explanation we talked about earlier. With processes, you have a clear beginning and end, and with facts, it’s clear if you either know them or if you don’t. (06:56) None of that is true when it comes to explanatory knowledge. Explanations usually, if not always, have no clear ending because there are so many layers of explanation you can go into, and, thus, it’s not clear if know it or not. And finally, four! The rarity of explanations. Think about the last time you said a fact or told someone about a process. (07:12) It probably wasn’t too long ago. However, explanations are much more rare. You don’t often explain how toilets or bikes or refrigerators work, and that’s because you don’t really need too. Thus, we have less familiarity with explanations, making us more susceptible to overestimating our knowledge. Quote from the Rozenblit and Keil study, “Although each of these four features may be present to some extent with other kinds of knowledge, such as facts or procedures, we claim they converge most strongly with explanations, producing a powerful illusion of knowing.” (07:38) One of the most important takeaways of the illusion of explanatory depth is that recognition does not equal understanding. You know THIS is a computer, but that doesn’t mean you know how it works. And that’s ok, if my computer ever breaks, well, I know a guy who can hook me up and fix it, right? *long, awkward pause* The Division of Cognitive Labour. (07:57) Many many years ago, when we switched from a hunting and gathering society to an agriculture society, we also switched to specialization. This means that people who are the most helpful to society are really good at one thing, because, if we’re all really good at one thing, we can all work together to combine those talents. (08:12) No one needs to know everything, but if they know a lot of other people, and, collectively, those other people know almost everything, then we’re all set. This is the Division of Cognitive Labour. That’s why we see kids start suffer from the illusion of explanatory depth at the same age they learn about which professionals know what, around 3-5 years old. (08:27) At those ages, kids learn stuff like how a doctor will know how to make you not sick and farmer will know how to make you not hungry. That’s why we can get away with the illusion of explanatory depth. Because we’ve evolved so that we can rely on others, it doesn’t hurt us to not be able to explain something. (08:41) Or does it? See, it’s not gonna hurt me to not know how zipper zips stuff, but can the illusion of explanatory depth actually have a pretty big impact? Turns out, yea. Remember Phil Fernbach from earlier? Well, in that TED Talk, he talks about a study he did where he brought in participants and polled them on certain topical political issues. (08:57) Stuff that’s fairly controversial, like a single-payer healthcare system, and emissions trading, and GMOs. Participants were asked to explain how each of those things work, and what Phil and his team found was that people, even if they have extreme, passionate views on a certain issue, don’t always know how that issue works. (09:11) >> PHIL FERNBACH: They think they know how these policies work, when, in fact, they don't. And the attempt to try to explain leads to drastic reduction in the feeling that they get these things. >> ALEX: Moreover, in another study, they brought in a bunch who people who had all different opinions on GMOs, ranging from they’re great and everyone should eat them to they’re terrible and no one should eat them, and asked participants to answer this question: true or false: a gene inserted into a food can migrate into the genetic code of humans who consume that (09:35) food. Now, if you’re curious, this is false, but what’s interesting is what Phil found. >> PHIL FERNBACH: The people who are most passionate, most vociferously opposed to this, are the ones who most strongly hold this false belief. Now, I'm not trying to imply that everyone opposed to GMOs hold this false belief. (09:51) What I implore you to do, though, is think about it. Do you know enough to hold the position that you do as strongly as you do? >> ALEX: Woah. So the next time you're advocating for a certain view, make sure you ask yourself to explain the topic before you vote or tell the world. You should, quite literally, check yourself before you wreck yourself. (10:12) Oh, and if you’re still curious about how the standard toilet works: the water level is usually low enough so it doesn’t go up and then down this pipe, called the trap, but when you press the handle, the piece covering the hole at the bottom of the tank is lifted, allowing the water to go into the main bowl, forcing the water currently in the toilet to go up, in, and down this pipe. (10:28) That’s why you can “flush” a toilet by just pouring water in it. *Maybe a clip of interviews* If you enjoyed this video, it’s really helpful if you leave a like, or share it on social media or Reddit. Thanks for watching, DFTBA, and explore on. I would like to give a huge thank you to this episode’s sponsor, PosterBurner. (10:42) PosterBurner prints phenomenal, high-quality posters for a simply great price. I've got 2 of their posters myself, and, let me tell you guys, these things look amazing. I took this picture of my dog on my phone, and it looks CRAZY good on this 11x17 poster. oooh, me me big boy. Here’s a beautiful poster of the Technicality logo. (10:59) Whether you want a big or small poster, whether it be for personal or business, PosterBurner has got you covered. You know what, I just realized you could print a picture of Pi on a poster that's 3.14 inches x 3.14 inches. Wow that’s so cool. Someone should totally do that and tweet a picture of it at me. (11:14) Go to PosterBurner.com/Technicality to get 10% off your order. You will not be disappointed. If you want to check out another mind-blowing psychology experiment, check out this video about how food presentation affects taste. I made vanilla cake taste like chocolate just by adding brown dye. Click the end card to check it out, if you’re new here, subscribe! Thanks for watching, that’s to all my patrons at patreon. (11:35) com/Technicality, more specifically, these on screen right now. Click the end card ok byeee. The Science of Thinking - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBVV8pch1dM Transcript: (00:00) For most of us, thinking is at least somewhat unpleasant. We try to avoid it, where possible. For example: I asked these guys how long does it take for the earth to go around the Sun. - What do you reckon, cuz? - Isn't it 24 hours ? - Obviously a day, yes. Or take this problem which has been given to thousands of college students. (00:18) You go into a toy store, and there's a toy bat and a toy ball. Together they cost 1.10$. And the bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost ? - Ten cents. - We're all wrong aren't we? - WHAT'S THE ANSWER ? If you think about it for just a second it's obvious that the ball can't cost ten cents, because if it did, then the bat would cost 1. (00:45) 10$ and the two items together would cost 1.20$. The correct answer is five cents. Now, the point of these questions is not that they're difficult. Any of these people could have quickly check their answer if they wanted to. The point is that they don't check because thinking is uncomfortable. It takes effort. - Hey, the Earth doesn't take one day to get around the Sun. (01:10) - Takes like a year! [LAUGHS] Now, I think it would be easy to put these mistakes down to stupidity, and believe that you, being much smarter, could never fall into such traps. But then I think you'd be fooling yourself. I think these examples reveal blind spots in all of our thinking due to the fundamental way that our brains work. (01:29) Now, one way of modeling how the brain operates is as though there are two systems at work psychologists call them system one and system two but maybe it's useful to think of them as characters so let's call system one Gun and system two Drew. You are Drew. he represents your conscious thought, the voice in your head. (01:47) "I am who you think you are" he's the one capable of following instructions. He can execute a series of steps. If you are asked to calculate 13 x 17 in your head, for example, he is the one who has to do it. "can just use my calculator?" no..."all right, um, seventeen times...." Drew is lazy it takes effort to get Drew to do anything and he is slow but he's the careful one, capable of catching and fixing mistakes... (02:13) "221". Now meet system one Gun. He is incredibly quick, which he needs to be since he's constantly processing copious amounts of information coming in through your senses. He picks out the relevant bits and discard the rest, which is most of it, and he works automatically without you, Drew, being consciously aware of what he is doing. (02:34) For example when you spot them text he reads it before you can even decide whether or not you want to read it Gun fills in the gaps. For example, what does this say? Did you notice that the "H" in 'the' 'A' in 'cat' are actually the same symbol but you had no trouble reading it because Gun made the correct, automatic, assumption, so although Drew is unaware of what Gun is doing, its Guns perceptions that become the basis for your conscious thoughts. (03:00) The way I like to think of it each of these characters is related to one of your main memory structures, Guns automatic responses are made possible by long-term memory, the library of experiences you've built up over your lifetime. In contrast, Drew exists entirely within working memory so he's only capable of holding four or five novel things in mind at a time. (03:20) This is perhaps one of the best-known findings from psychology. That our capacity to hold and manipulate novel information is incredibly limited like when trying to remember a string of random numbers. "6 7 5 5 3 1" (offscreen)Yes! But we are able to overcome these limitations if the information is familiar to us. (03:42) For example, let me give you four random digits "7102". Now these would normally take up most of your working memory capacity just to remember, but, if you reverse them, 2017, there now just one thing the present year the process of grouping things together according to your prior knowledge is called chunking and you can actually hold four or five chunks in working memory at once. (04:03) So the larger the chunks the more information you can actively manipulate at one time. Learning is then, the process of building more and bigger chunks by storing and further connecting information in long-term memory essentially passing off tasks from Drew to Gun. But in order for this to happen, Drew first has to engage with the information actively and effort-fully, often multiple times. (04:24) For example, when you were first learning to tie your shoelaces, you probably recited a rhyme to help you remember what to do next using up all your working memory in the process. But after doing it over and over and over again, it gradually became automatic, that is, Drew doesn't have to think about it anymore because Guns got it. (04:40) Musicians and sports stars refer to this as muscle memory, though of course, the memory is not the muscles it's still in the brain just controlled by Gun. "You can practice everything exactly as it is, and exactly as it's written but at just such a speed that you have to think about and know exactly where you are and what your fingers are doing and what it feels like. (05:03) " Slow deliberate conscious practice repeated often enough, leads to this: I bet 99% of the time what appears to be superhuman ability, comes down to the incredible automation skills of Gun, developed through the painstaking deliberate practice of Drew. What's interesting is, its actually possible to see how hard Drew is working, just by looking at someone. (05:35) Try this task: I'm going to show you four digits, I want you to read them out loud and then after two beats, I want you to say each number back on the beat, but adding one to each digit. So, as an example, 7 2 9 1 (beats in background) should be... 8 3 0 2 This is called the Add One task and it forces Drew to hold these digits and memory while making manipulations to them. (05:57) Now it's important to say the numbers back on the beat. Try this one: (beats in background at regular interval) To make it harder, you can try adding 3 instead of 1. Ready? (beats in background at regular interval) Now what you're unaware of, is that, as you're completing this task, your pupils are dilating. When Drew is hard at work, as he is in this task, you have a physiological response: including increased heart rate, sweat production, and pupil dilation. (06:31) Watch how the pupils of these participants enlarge as they perform the Add One and Add Three tasks. 4...3...9...7...2 (beats in backrgound) 5...4...0...8...3 (offscreen) Excellent! nicely done. (offscreen conversation)..."this requires a lot of thinking" "I know, that's the point 6 9 1 6 7 0 2 7 When this research was originally carried out the researchers made a surprising observation: when the participants were not engaged with the tasks that were just chatting with the (07:09) experimenters their pupils didn't really dilate at all.. this indicates that the Add One and Add Three tasks are particularly strenuous for system two, and that most of our day-to-day life is a stroll for Drew with most tasks handled automatically by Gun. Just as we spend a lot of our lives lounging around, our brains spend most of their time doing the mental equivalent. (07:30) And I don't mean to make that sound like a bad thing, this is how our brains evolved to make the best use of resources. For repetitive tasks we developed automatic ways of doing things, reserving Drew's limited capacity for things that really need our attention, but in some circumstances there can be mix-ups. (07:45) For example, I moved to Australia in 2004 and one of the first things I learned was that turn the lights on you flick the switch down. My whole life growing up in Canada Gun had automated that 'up' means 'on', so no matter how well I, Drew, knew that 'down' was 'on' in Australia I would for years, continually switch the lights off when entering a room and on when leaving. (08:07) When Destin learn to ride the backwards bicycle with its steering reverse it took months to overcome his automated habitat and once he had done that he couldn't easily go back to writing a normal bike. Understanding Gun and Drew also explains errors in the "Bat and Ball" question. Its Gun who first perceived the key pieces of information that, together the bat and ball cost a dollar ten, The bat costs more than the ball so the ball costs... (08:27) Gun: "Ten cents" Drew: "Ten cents" Gun imediately had a answer that he blurted out automatically. Meanwhile Drew, without being consciously aware that the answer came from Gun endorsed the idea without checking it, after all the answers sounded reasonable and drew is lazy so how do you get Drew to do more work? Well researchers have found at least one way. (08:47) When they gave out a clearly printed test including the "Bat and Ball"question to incoming college students 85% got at least one wrong but when they printed the test in a hard-to-read font with poor contrast the error rate dropped to thirty-five percent harder to read test resulted in more correct answers and the explanation for this is simple. (09:04) Since Gun can't quickly jump to an answer he hands off the task to Drew who then invest the required mental effort to reason his way to the correct answer. When something is confusing, Drew worked harder and when Drew work harder you're more likely to reach the right answer and remember the experience. This is something i think the advertising industry knows about and is using to its advantage. (09:24) A few years ago, again in Australia, I saw a giant billboard that had just two letters on it "Un". There was no logo, no indication of what it was for and this seems to go against all the basic principles of advertising: to show what the product does, how it's better than the competition, and use clear branding and maybe a jingle to make it memorable. (09:42) The goal is usually to make the message as easy to understand as possible so Drew doesn't have to work very hard, but if you look at a lot of effective advertising today, it's changed to be more confusing. as the "Un" campaign rolled out across Sydney, I saw ads like this one in bus shelters. "Un" explained. (10:00) With 'Un' there is no stress, just unstress no hassle, just unhastle with 'Un' you can undo what you did, you can undrive through the car wash with the window down or unbreak dance in front of your teenage son. And his mates. 'Un' makes life relaxing and unreal. 'Un' your life. Be happy and live for now. Don't worry. Unworry. Can you guess what the ads were for? They're actually for insurance. (10:20) Now that advertising is everywhere, Gun is skilled at filtering it out. Its automatic, if I just saw another insurance ad that I never would have given it a second thought, but something that doesn't make sense, thats something Gun can't deal with, so he hands it off to Drew This same realization has been happening in education: lectures which have long been the dominant teaching method, are now on the decline. (10:40) Like the old form of advertising, they're too easy to tune out and often, especially in science lectures, too many new pieces of information are presented, and that exceeds Drew's capacity because he doesn't have big enough chunks to break the material into. In place of lectures, universities are introducing workshops, peer instruction and formats where students are forced to answer more questions, do more work than just listen and take notes, and this will undoubtedly make Drew work harder, which is good because that's how learning happens, but a lot of students (11:06) don't like it because it requires more effort. Just as it's hard to motivate someone to get off the couch and exercise, it's hard to get Drew to give his full effort. There's an appeal to doing things you already know, for the musician to play the same familiar songs that Gun has already automated, that feel and sound good. (11:25) To watch videos that give you the sensation of understanding without actually learning anything. To always drive with the GPS on so you never get lost, but you also never learn the way. If you really want to learn and get better at anything, have any chance of becoming an expert, you have to be willing to be uncomfortable. Because thinking takes effort, it involves fighting through confusion, and for most of us that's at least somewhat unpleasant. Activities Your Path in Science discussion Objectives Learn about your instructor's journey in science Identify some interesting/cool/fascinating thing about the natural world you've encountered in your own life. Think about your future path in science Watch this Watch this video where I describe my academic journey with science. This will help me you to get to know me, my expertise, and how I view science. I'm a super slow talker. Sorry. Feel free to watch at 1.5x speed :) Now do this (Discussion) This discussion will help us get to know each other. Please answer the following questions in a post. -What's something you've experienced in nature or in art or tech or engineering that's inspired you? Something that made you go "Wow! Or Whoah! Or that's #$%^ crazy" -Do you think this experience has shaped you in any way? Has it influenced you or what you want to do or who you want to be in any way? -As I mentioned in the video, lots of scientists and people in STEAM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, Math) are propelled into their careers by an inspiring experience. Here we are going to use an AI Tutor to help you brain-storm how your experience might connect to a STEAM field. This doesn't mean you have to go into the field or agree with the AI. It's just an interesting exercise meant to get you thinking. Click here and tell the AI Tutor your experience, use code SAAD if you need it. Links to an external site. Remember to use the AI as a tool rather than a toy and that I can see your chat with it. -Finally, post a brief reflection on your chat with the AI Tutor. What careers did it recommend? Were you interested in any of them? -Feel free to comment on other people's posts. Find commonalities, differences, etc. Remember to keep your comments kind and appropriate for school. We want to keep the vibe inspired and positive. -To help you - here is a pretty good example of a student post with the length and detail I'm looking for: Introductory Narrative by Gemini Our brains are constantly building mental models of the world around us, simplifying the complexity of reality into understandable chunks. But how accurate are these mental models? And how willing are we to update them when confronted with new information? This exploration delves into the fascinating interplay between our internal models, the scientific process, and the very nature of thought itself. Challenging Our Mental Models Through Scientific Inquiry Science provides a powerful framework for testing our mental models, pushing us beyond simple observation and into the realm of rigorous experimentation. It encourages us to formulate hypotheses, gather evidence, and revise our understanding based on the results. Let's dive deeper into this dynamic process with the following video: The Scientific Process Unmasking the Illusion of Explanatory Depth We often overestimate our understanding of everyday objects and phenomena. This "illusion of explanatory depth" highlights the discrepancy between our perceived knowledge and our actual ability to explain how things work. The following video challenges us to confront this illusion and recognize the limitations of our mental models: You Don't Know How Toilets Work - The Illusion Of Explanatory Depth The Science of Thinking: Why We Resist Updating Our Models Our brains are wired for efficiency, often relying on ingrained patterns of thought rather than engaging in effortful analysis. This inherent tendency can make us resistant to updating our mental models, even when presented with contradictory evidence. Let's explore the science of thinking and understand why we sometimes cling to outdated beliefs: The Science of Thinking These videos underscore the importance of scientific thinking as a tool for refining our understanding of the world. By actively engaging in the process of questioning, testing, and revising our mental models, we can overcome our cognitive biases and cultivate a more accurate and nuanced view of reality.