The Myth of Common Sense: Why Everything that Seems Obvious Isn't

Why??? That's a good, interesting question ;)

Watts has overlooked some subtlety here. Common sense can be seen as analogous to clustering at low similarity thresholds, i.e. applying the 50,000 foot view to the learning process, much as clustering is analogous to lossy compression. The fallacy is that applying inadequate complexity in a solution to problems that necessitate more is a fools errand, much like trying to simulate a system with resources known to be inadequate in advance. That said, this presentation is wonderful :)

Tasty!

this was very painful video to watch. I don't know why.

If you find this topic interesting check out Nassim Taleb's book "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable" published in 2007.

The Mona Lisa is famous because it's famous, just like viral videos. Box office hits are hits because they are hits and early reviews causes more and more people to see the Mono Lisa, or a viral video or a box office. What drives the original positive views are the mystery. A lot of this comes down to the conformist nature of the human experience. Few people want to be individuals, few people want to stand in a room where everyone is saying how great or funny or whatever that something is and say 'I don't see what the big deal is, it's no better/funny/captivating than X, Y or Z'. Social conformity at it's best/worst.

Common sense = top down, executive control, all-as-one central planning from the most narrow self / state / organisation centric perspective
Intuition = the spontaneous order of a conscious phenome,

The mona lisa is famous because it was stolen and vandalized in 1911. That news I'm sure went around the world just like other sensationalists headlines. The common sense reasoning behind it being famous is "of course, it made the news so people know about it" versus the other paintings that never were stolen.

In the realm of human interactions... common sense is less common than thought.

The last question is one that I think needs to be answered in the first day of science class in every school. "Couldn't this knowledge be dangerous?" The answer to this question in all of its forms is very simple: the universe is such that sticking your head in the ground and remaining ignorant is no way to protect yourself.

i was witcha till trump... obviously 😅

great explanation for why we need the scientific method.

Interesting presentation with some interesting points that I will won't look into further.

The "sense" in common is data acquisition, and if what is acquired is processed by comparison with stored data, then it's the manner and applications of patterns to achieve a reactive result that is what this question is about. Sociology and culture determine most of human behaviour and the range of expectations regarding AI is a good illustration of the topic in the video.

Perhaps much of the early examples might be better thought of as behavioral norms, which of course are fluid over time and in different circumstances.

Does this guy ever mention Heidegger or Wittgenstein? This is straight out of their insights such as background practices, Das Man, the Private Language Argument and so on. Some of their work was published 90 years ago.

So many gems. Altered my understanding of different fields. Phenomenal